OHM Galaxy C5

[OrbitHangar]

Author: hutchison66

Happy Christmas  everyone,

The worlds Non one off Military transport, one of my favourite aircraft.

Two scenarios, one at KSC the other at Area 51   you may wish to download an addon for that.

Keys  easy

K  =  Flaps

G = Undercarriage

Left Shift Numpad = 1 Open Nose Cargo Door

Left Shift Numpad = 2 Open Rear Doors

Happy Flying  more to come   An-225 and STS-51

Enjoy

David

 



DOWNLOAD

 

[Marg]

Impressive model. There is a need for B-747 of high quality (shuttle carriers). It would be good to have some SCA. Because the old ones have horrible quality.

 

[hutchison66]

Boeing 747 SCA

yeah that's the next upload it uses Kev's Shuttle the gear was the hardest part as with the Galaxy the 747 has complex gear retractions and I need to get the config sorted for Enterprise but you can do drop tests with the Atlantis at the moment.
I've an update for the Galaxy as there is a slight problem with the textures and one flap.
expect the 747 SCA in the next few days and the AN-225 as well
David

 

[Marg]

I just tested flying, very high quality addon...
I even added VC camera - looks pretty good.
CAMERA=(-0.97,0.96,32.15)
In Orbiter BETA 2015 it could not accelerate, rotated, then "sank" into the ground (upside down), although old SCA-747 did not (spacecraft3 usually works pretty well in new Orbiter BETA). I tried a lot of things, and at last realized that it can be cured moving Landing points 2 and 3 a few meters backwards.

 

[Lisias]

Impressive model. There is a need for B-747 of high quality (shuttle carriers). It would be good to have some SCA. Because the old ones have horrible quality.

The old ones have quality enough for that time. It is our computers that became more powerful, not the meshes that were bad at that time!

 

[gertz]

I always wondered how precise the flight model for aircrafts in general for orbiter is.

BTW, why An-225 instead of An-124?

 

[Lisias]

BTW, why An-225 instead of An-124?

The An-225 was created to fly the former Buran Air Space Ship (how the Russians called their space shuttle), in the same way NASA used the SCA.

I don't know if that was the author's intention, but it makes more sense to have an An-225 in Orbiter than the An-124.

 

[Michael_Chr]

I always wondered how precise the flight model for aircrafts in general for orbiter is.

In Orbiter for small fighter type Aircraft.. its...so so(IMHO). For large aircraft like the Galaxy and so... Terrible. This is not meant in any way negative towards the author of this particular aircraft or other authors of aircraft for orbiter in general. I guess its just a fact that the atmospheric simulation engine and associated tools in orbiter is not that sophisticated as other simulations (I'm referring to MS Flightsim up until FS9-FSX).
But hey...thats not the aim of orbiter...With orbiter you can go from the surface of the earth to anywhere in the solar system to include surfaces of other bodies.
So the fact that you can have Aircraft like Galaxy and soon to come Mriya (and yes...AN-225 does make more sense in orbiter...looking forward to that)in the Orbiter Arsenal and fly them off with some kind of cargo atop is a very nice addition to said arsenal.

p.s. Like in FS9 and FSX the rendition of fighter type aircraft was terrible whereas the flight fidelity of some complex addons where quite good.

 

[gertz]

Well, 225 is indeed unique in its freighting capabilities... But it was made for unique tasks in mind.
124 makes more sense as a general-use freighter, a rival to C-5.

And on behalf of the flight models - I think that there are not that many parameters that are vital for one. Generally, it is air pressure and, possibly, a wind speed (which could be rather easily simulated, because it is just a vector component after all).
The main complications come with aircraft and engine behavior on different flight modes, but even implementing flight curves and balance curves could bring in some point of realism already (I have little idea though on how it is done code-wise, unless it is matlab's code). Basically all the aerodynamic data is stored in curves Cy(alpha), Cy(Cx), P(H) and balance curves... But again, you have to have the datum on specific aircraft. Failure models and damage models are rather easy to implement though.

edit: I wonder how miserable did I sound with the idea I brought up above as I am studying in aviation university and going to work on Antonov in next year. Do I have to feel ashamed for my knowledge or no? XD

 

[hutchison66]

AN-225

I'm finishing off the AN-225 because for orbiter it carries the Buran, I have the nose opening and Ramp extending I have Attached the Buran 4.8 by David 413 this is the only thing that is holding me back as I know he gets upset if someone fiddles with his work, as I have changed the mesh to give a better nose and more accurate profile on the wings and just a little tweaking I will have people download the Buran 4.8 for the basic setup but then would have the mesh replaced
X-planes is the most accurate for flight models as the program works the aerodynamics as it goes along, Orbiter Aerodynamics is a secondary consideration,
The hardest thing about the 747 SCA is the rear gear it is so complex I've just run through the animation again and getting all those doors to close correctly is really difficult.
I would like to have the wheels move with the vehicle but don't know if there is any way to use the throttle to make them move

 

[Lisias]

Well, 225 is indeed unique in its freighting capabilities... But it was made for unique tasks in mind.
124 makes more sense as a general-use freighter, a rival to C-5.

From my point of view, 225 makes more sense because it's a aircraft used by the Space Industry - NASA operates two modified C-5, by the way.

(did you know that originally, the C-5 was considered for the SCA? NASA gone to 747 due the low-wing design).

Of course, once the 225 if bought to life in Orbiter, one can pesk the author for a 124. O

And on behalf of the flight models - I think that there are not that many parameters that are vital for one. Generally, it is air pressure and, possibly, a wind speed (which could be rather easily simulated, because it is just a vector component after all).
The main complications come with aircraft and engine behavior on different flight modes, but even implementing flight curves and balance curves could bring in some point of realism already (I have little idea though on how it is done code-wise, unless it is matlab's code). Basically all the aerodynamic data is stored in curves Cy(alpha), Cy(Cx), P(H) and balance curves... But again, you have to have the datum on specific aircraft. Failure models and damage models are rather easy to implement though.

It's all modeled on the vessel's DLL, if you choose to go away from the pasteurized flight model from the config-only vessels.

The Orbiter API gives you the static and dynamic atmospheric pressure (variable in function of altitude and speed), temperature and some other environment parameters - and you do what you want with them. It's up to you to define the hull strength to simulate a structural collapse or to ignore this little details.

The bottom line is: you are allowed to use such parameters if you want.

Perhaps you would like to see this thread.

edit: I wonder how miserable did I sound with the idea I brought up above as I am studying in aviation university and going to work on Antonov in next year.

Do I have to feel ashamed for my knowledge or no? XD

No.

 

[gertz]

Well, it is obvious that we are allowed to, but for me it is more a question of "how to"...
My C++ experience is miserable, and I never seen Orbiter SDK or whatever is used for making all those .dll-related things. Most of my Orbiter experience goes for star system creation and custom planetary textures drawing. While I have already considered taking a look into the vessel creation, because I am a convenient 3D modeller, the lack of programming knowledge is what really makes me hesitate.

Just a little off-topic, sorry for this, hutchison66.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, it is obvious that we are allowed to, but for me it is more a question of "how to"...
My C++ experience is miserable, and I never seen Orbiter SDK or whatever is used for making all those .dll-related things. Most of my Orbiter experience goes for star system creation and custom planetary textures drawing. While I have already considered taking a look into the vessel creation, because I am a convenient 3D modeller, the lack of programming knowledge is what really makes me hesitate.

Just a little off-topic, sorry for this, hutchison66.

Well, I remember that somebody at least investigated how to wrap JSBSim into a Orbiter DLL.

http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net

 

[Lisias]

Well, it is obvious that we are allowed to, but for me it is more a question of "how to"...

Not *THAT* hard, but far from being simple. The atmosphere is modelled by the Planet (solar bodies can have its own module, aka DLL). I didn't touched this thing yet, can't help. But [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=6819"]this[/ame] and also this can be of interest for you as starting point.

My C++ experience is miserable, and I never seen Orbiter SDK or whatever is used for making all those .dll-related things. Most of my Orbiter experience goes for star system creation and custom planetary textures drawing. While I have already considered taking a look into the vessel creation, because I am a convenient 3D modeller, the lack of programming knowledge is what really makes me hesitate.

Give a peek on this and on this.

C++ is a friendly programing language. Unfortunately, it's also extremely picky about who it calls a friend. :rofl:

But you can try to recruit mates to help you on the task. There're a lot of guys here developing, and I'm pretty sure they can make good use of your advising on their vessels in exchange to helping you on your projects.

Thoughts for food code can work for you. Sometimes, it works for me.

Just a little off-topic, sorry for this, hutchison66.

Good point. Start a thread and invite us if you want to pursue this matter.

 

[boogabooga]

I always wondered how precise the flight model for aircrafts in general for orbiter is.

As mentioned, it depends on the specific module and not Orbiter itself, per se.

That said, this particular aircraft seems to be implemented as spacecraft3, and thus has some limitations. In particular, spacecraft3 aircraft are known to act as SSTO spaceplanes, since structural speed limits and engine failures due to exceeding the design envelope are not modeled.

But this will make great eyecandy to liven up KSC. Sometimes C-5s ferry satellites and probes from their manufacturer to the Cape, so a very appropriate aircraft to have. :thumbup:

It would be great to have a UMMU/UCGO capable C-5, though.

 

[Marg]

Sometimes C-5s ferry satellites and probes from their manufacturer to the Cape, so a very appropriate aircraft to have. :thumbup:

That's exactly what I thought I even began to search the web, where from C-5 flew with these payloads (to KSC), to create scenarios. I read that even Chandra-X was delivered this way.

 

[Michael_Chr]

It would be great to have a UMMU/UCGO capable C-5, though.

Speaking UMMU capability.
Tried to have this run with Genericvessel(GV) but it seems there is an incompatibility with these aircraft type of vessels and GV since an immediate CTD occurs when you open the throttle (when substituting GV with SC3). Off course they run fine under SC3.

Strange...

 

[BEEP]

Dear Hutch,

Three things:

1.My admiration for the wonderful job on these big beauties.

2. Please resist the temptation ( and the requests) to look advanced and set your planes to compiled proprietary closed version dependent code. See what happened when Kevin Shanow did it. See all the nice work we have lost for avoidable obsolescence. Your planes are beautiful and work properly and should be this way for long. What is needed is to address the spacecraft descriptor format with a Lua script code ( the "scriptcraft") which will certainly happen in the future. If nobody more capable does it I will try. Spacecraft .INI forever!

3. Doing a Vinka's spacecraft X vessel does not prevent you from using Dan Steph's _CustomVesselsSounds path and configuration resources to get gears, doors and ramps sounds. I've done it privately and maybe I can help. I think these wonderful planes deserve it.


Thanks again for the dream flying machines.

Beep

 

[boogabooga]

It would be great to have a UMMU/UCGO capable C-5, though.

Well that was fast!

With spacecraft4 this should be fairly easy now.

 

[BEEP]

A fourth commentary:

You sould always make a .cfg for the vessel that calls the spacecraftX.dll.
One of the reasons is to make scenario edition working easier. Also having the <vessel class>.cfg is the only way you can make a specific vessel configuration sound file to apply to animations such as gear as spacecraft4 does not do this yet ( and do not really needed to as Dan's configuration is already simple, user level, enough).

For example I did:

;Galaxy-C5

ClassName = Galaxy-C5
Module = Spacecraft4
EditorModule = Galaxy-C5
ImageBmp =
Help=


; === Attachment specs ===
BEGIN_ATTACHMENT
C 0 -0.515 -28.15  0 -1 0  0 0 1  A2RCC
C 0 -6.946915 -38.61057  0 0 -1  0 1 0  A2RBC
END_ATTACHMENT

The added attachments are for my Air to Air refuel MFD boom ( the C5's own receptacle is still missing)