New Release Interplanetary Modular Spacecraft RC9

[PeterRoss]

Actually, there is an economic model that supports construction of stuff like my Lunar Station and SSTV. The only thing that doesn't exist right now that would be required for it to work is this.

There has to be a manned colony somewhere off of the Earth that requires NO imports from Earth.

It doesn't have to be self sustaining, it just has to be able to support its inhabitants with material that does NOT come from the surface of the Earth. Once that happens, then the economy that my AIAA design team came up with in the AIAA graduate spacecraft design contest of 1994-95 will naturally happen. BTW, our economic model and what would be possible under it won the contest for that year.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

Can I have some more info about this economic model?

 

[Michael_Chr]

Reminder to one self

Reminder to one self...
If one plans use an finished IMS Vessel as an active docking Vessel (as opposed to a docking tgt)... Then one must remember to orient the docking port the same way as the command module - so up means up on the docking port as well as the entire finished IMS Vessel it self.
:rofl:

I have uploaded some pics here on the forum. Enjoy...
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=674

Docking fairly large IMS vessels is a tough job. Pursuit MFD for some reason will not Work with IMS vessels (CTD when you activate the RCS in the Engineering panel-RCS Windows - Or when opening the MFD (if RCS was previously activated)). Fortunatly we have the good old Attitude MFD which still soldiers on in my hangar :thumbup:

The FPS weren't to bad as you can see in one of the images - but I do hope that Jedidia gets this animation stuff sorted out so we can get to play with the Dx9 client.

But playing around with these IMS vessels are very rewarding... One of the best moments in my 21 years of flight- (and now Space)simming

Thank you...Guys :tiphat:

Best regards
Michael

 

[jedidia]

Currently it looks like integrating in D3D9 will remain a precarious affair...

Flying shouldn't be a problem once I'm through with the rest here, though. I'm currently on vacation, which gives me time for development, but my laptop isn't strong enough to do the tough tests... For that I need my home machine, where stuff like Dantassiis lunar station runs without noticable FPS drop.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Currently it looks like integrating in D3D9 will remain a precarious affair...

Flying shouldn't be a problem once I'm through with the rest here, though. I'm currently on vacation, which gives me time for development, but my laptop isn't strong enough to do the tough tests... For that I need my home machine, where stuff like Dantassiis lunar station runs without noticable FPS drop.

Sounds good enough to me. I wouldn't give up on it just yet though, Jarmonik can probably help ease the issue once hes free to take a look at it.

On the topic of docking big IMS beasties, it is tough, but still doable for a decently experienced pilot. I docked the Intrepid to Horizon Station with only a thousand kilos or so left at visual contact, but it was very slow going. Perhaps a future update might contain some sort of thruster management code that optimizes thruster output levels to properly balance it around the CG?

Pics of the Intrepid/Horizon Docking at the top of this

http://imgur.com/a/G17Nm

 

[Michael_Chr]

On the topic of docking big IMS beasties, it is tough, but still doable for a decently experienced pilot.

Very cool pics, BruceJ... Was it from the Andromeda Addon? Looks like I will have to pay that system at visit some day. :thumbup:

Currently it looks like integrating in D3D9 will remain a precarious affair...

We all hope for the best, Jedidia...And I do hope you enjoy your vacation

Perhaps a future update might contain some sort of thruster management code that optimizes thruster output levels to properly balance it around the CG?

Maybe this is not the right moment for wishes since the D3D9 animation problem seems so diffiicult to get around. However here are my 2cs...A quick button to re-add all the RCS thrusters on scenarios startup (It takes time to add 32 RCS on each scenario startup - I use the Scenedit for rotation of the big station these days). Also some kind of configurable group management of panels etc. could come in handy.

 

[Dantassii]

... For that I need my home machine, where stuff like Dantassii's lunar station runs without noticable FPS drop.

Want to try my SSTV? :lol:

It's nearly 3x as many pieces parts as the Lunar Station even though it's not as big volume wise. :facepalm:

'course the Lunar Station isn't even half way finished so it may end up with even more pieces than the SSTV.

On another comment, I've found that if you put your RCS thrusters out on booms at the maximum width of your ship, you can get enough leverage for the smaller IMS ships. I've put a BT102 small node at the end of each boom on my SSTV and then slapped 5 BRCS2's around it and now the SSTV can spin around like an XR5... well.. almost.

I do think that the 1k and 4k RCS thusters in IMS need a 'big brother' with around 20k thrust for the really HUMONGOUS IMS ships.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[PeterRoss]

On another comment, I've found that if you put your RCS thrusters out on booms at the maximum width of your ship, you can get enough leverage for the smaller IMS ships. I've put a BT102 small node at the end of each boom on my SSTV and then slapped 5 BRCS2's around it and now the SSTV can spin around like an XR5... well.. almost.

You mean booms like these?

 

[Dantassii]

Yup, thems some booms!

You mean booms like these?

Yup, that's what I mean. I usually put BR200 radiators on my left/right booms and storage on my up down booms. If the booms aren't near your CG though, you'll probably need booms in the fore and aft sections of your ship to get an even spin rate. When maneuvering my ETV in Earth Orbit, I discovered there was a significant translational component involved with all rotations because of this. By putting additional thrusters around the back of the craft (closer to the CG) I got it to the point where I could pretty much point and shoot in any direction I wanted too and it would hold that position pretty good. I also discovered that having main engines pointing in the reverse direction makes it much easier to correct the 'overshoot' on main engine burns, but that's a different topic.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Very cool pics, BruceJ... Was it from the Andromeda Addon? Looks like I will have to pay that system at visit some day. :thumbup:

We all hope for the best, Jedidia...And I do hope you enjoy your vacation

Maybe this is not the right moment for wishes since the D3D9 animation problem seems so diffiicult to get around. However here are my 2cs...A quick button to re-add all the RCS thrusters on scenarios startup (It takes time to add 32 RCS on each scenario startup - I use the Scenedit for rotation of the big station these days). Also some kind of configurable group management of panels etc. could come in handy.

Check out this link

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=32131

It is Upsilon Andromedae system BTW.

Not really meaning the RCS thing as a task for anywhere in the near future, but I think its still good to collect ideas for new features. Perhaps we could set up a small thread in the social group for internal discussion on that.

 

[jedidia]

A quick button to re-add all the RCS thrusters on scenarios startup

Wait... you're saying that RCS configuration isn't stored and you have to assign them every time you load a scenario? That's not as intended...

Also some kind of configurable group management of panels etc. could come in handy.

Not sure what you're refering to... instrument panels? Solar panels? whatever panels?

Want to try my SSTV?

Actually, yes. With all the stuff that's changed since the latest release candidate, I'd be happy to have some really big stuff to test the new integration to the limits. Also, I yet have to find something not-spaceway related that prevents my GPU from starting to play tetris because it's too bored with what I throw at it... :lol: (most parts in that machine are almost a decade old. The only thing that is anywhere near current day mid-end is the GPU, and it turns out that's about all that counts...).

I've found that if you put your RCS thrusters out on booms at the maximum width of your ship, you can get enough leverage for the smaller IMS ships.

You guys better hope that I never get around to implement force-vectoring in IMS2, or you'll have to make these trusses out of concrete... :lol:

Perhaps a future update might contain some sort of thruster management code that optimizes thruster output levels to properly balance it around the CG?

Not gonna happen before IMS2. The current architecture would need some more extending to allow for something like this, and I really don't want to put anything more in there. I'm currently trying to get the last known bugs out and adding epp support (since that was actually planned from the beginning it's more or less just loading, really), and if a miracle happens I might even figure out how to fix animation creation in D3D9 client. I'll be glad if the current restructurings don't already produce an entire swath of new bugs...

 

[Dantassii]

Your wish is my command.. eventually.

Actually, yes. With all the stuff that's changed since the latest release candidate, I'd be happy to have some really big stuff to test the new integration to the limits. Also, I yet have to find something not-spaceway related that prevents my GPU from starting to play tetris because it's too bored with what I throw at it... :lol: (most parts in that machine are almost a decade old. The only thing that is anywhere near current day mid-end is the GPU, and it turns out that's about all that counts...).

Ok Jedidia, I'll see if I can figure out a way to post the SSTV's scenario file here. It's too big to post unzipped.. and may be too big to post zipped. All I have at the moment is the pre-integration scenario file as I haven't done the integration of the ship since I finished it. Might be a day or 2 before I get it up and linked here, but then you're on vacation right now, so you won't have anything to run it on till you get back.

An earlier version of the SSTV was able to make the plane change from the Scenario Builder's default 600 km orbit to the ISS's plane but it couldn't hold attitude well enough to do much more than that. I have about 100 of the 4kN RCS2 thusters on it now so I hope that it can hold attitude. I'm not sure where I'd put more thrusters if I need more.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[jedidia]

Say, PeterRoss, was it one of your changes that the CG gets set in loadState instead of in the first prestep? Because that's responsible for finalised vessels having their thrusters displaced when they are created from scenario editor. I assume that it would not be advisable to move setting the CoG back to PreStep because of the touchdown points?

 

[Dantassii]

By request: The SSTV pre-integration scenario

I've zipped up the scenario file for the SSTV version 1.0 pre-integration format and have attached it here so that those that want to experiment with HUGE spacecraft in the IMS 1.0 RC2.3 system can do so. The file is zipped using WinZip 17.0 and should expand to a scenario file just under a half of a megabyte in size.

Personally, I'm going to wait until RC3 comes out before I try to integrate this monster again as it took nearly 90 minutes to integrate it when it had only 816 modules. The final tally is nearly twice that.

The SSTV in this scenario is in the 'standard' 600km circular Earth orbit that is the default for the Scenario Editor. As I've not integrated it yet, I can't guarentee that it will hold an attitude while under main engine thrust, but it should since it was nearly stable with only 45 RCS thrusters and now it has over 100. Officially this is just a 'simulation' of the SSTV as the Lunar Station that will construct the SSTV hasn't been finished yet. Gotta love it, a simulation of a ship in a simulation program. :lol:

The first mission for the SSTV starts with its construction at the Lunar Station. It will perform a shake down cruise from there to the ISS once all testing and fitting out is complete at the Lunar Station. Once docked with the ISS, 18 XR5 flights will occur from Kennedy to bring up all the BG cargo modules needed at Europa for the construction of a new space station there. After the cargo is secured, 2 more fully loaded XR5s will take off from Kennedy and dock with the ISS to refuel, then dock with the SSTV for transport to Europa. The SSTV will then top off its tanks either from the ISS directly or by undocking from the ISS and being refueled by another XR5 from Kennedy. It will then perform a main engine burn for a trans-Jupiter-injection (TJI). With the massive DeltaV capabilities (around 18 Mm/s), the SSTV can make a TJI for a direct mission to Jupiter from just about any combination of Earth/Jupiter alignment. Upon arrival at Jupiter, the SSTV will do a main engine burn for capture and then match orbits with Europa. Construction of the station will begin once the SSTV is in a stable orbit around the equator of Europa. The NTEs are designed as a backup for the Experimental HyperEngines. If they should all 5 fail, the NTEs should be enough to get the SSTV into some sort of stable orbit around Jupiter. Then the 2 docked XR5s would be used to mine Hydrogen from Europa to refuel the SSTV enough to make Europa Orbit. It is assumed that an Emergency Transport Vehicle (ETV) carrying the necessary components to repair the Hyper Engines would be made during station construction so that the SSTV can return under Hyper Engine power once the space station at Europa is complete. After the station at Europa is complete, the SSTV will top off its tanks, and then head back to the Lunar Station for repair, refueling, and crew exchange for the next flight. The 2nd Station for the SSTV will be around Titan with a third Station around Mars. I haven't decided if the 4th station will be at Ceres in the asteroid belt, or out at Pluto.

The SSTV can handle up to 40 humans, 4 are considered crew for the SSTV, and the other 36 are passengers represented by the 18 Crew members on each XR5.

Besides IMS 1.0 RC2.3, the Release 2.0 of the SSBB 4.1 modules for IMS 1.0 RC2.3 is also needed for the NTEs that I used.

I knew I had forgotten something, there are no comm system modules on the SSTV. Guess I'll have to find someplace to put those...

I highly recommend that you turn off OrbiterSound prior to integrating and of course, it will not integrate properly with DxD9 turned on.

A word of warning if you try to integrate this using RC2.3. When you get to the aft engine section, carefully check the layout of the BN301 modules after each integration. They have been known to randomly rotate if you don't watch them constantly. If you watch them constantly however, they rarely rotate. Like a pot of water that you're trying to boil.. it won't while you watch it.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[Michael_Chr]

Wait... you're saying that RCS configuration isn't stored and you have to assign them every time you load a scenario? That's not as intended...

Affirm...my statement stands. I thought that was a feature and not a bug Anyhew..This is apparent in all (4) of my IMS models. But what is more worrying is if its only me that has that problem...???

Quote:
Also some kind of configurable group management of panels etc. could come in handy.
Not sure what you're refering to... instrument panels? Solar panels? whatever panels?

Something along the lines of what is already in place with engines where they are assigned to a group albeit with a different flavour. But something like this:
1. Define as "Action" group
2. Define "actions" to this group (Action "1", Action "open" or whatever)
3. Assign "action" modules to "action" group
4. Assign Module actions to be performed when invoking said group action.

If possible groups and group actions should be user definable. If some of the functions are of to toggle type i.e. IMS code is not aware of the status of the module (i.e. deployed or retracted as example) then sending a toggle to a module might lead to an module being out of "sync" with the desired group status - however this can be managed by the user since he still retain the possibilty of interacting with individual module.
Hope this makes sense... and I havnt confused anybody.
But...(ahh the big proverbial but)...this is not on the agenda right now... by virtue of pure logic it will have to wait until an IMS2

(perhaps the idea of setting up a wish list for IMS 2 is not that bad )

 

[PeterRoss]

Say, PeterRoss, was it one of your changes that the CG gets set in loadState instead of in the first prestep? Because that's responsible for finalised vessels having their thrusters displaced when they are created from scenario editor. I assume that it would not be advisable to move setting the CoG back to PreStep because of the touchdown points?

I knew my meddling with the code will produce some headache after all :lol: Yes, I suppose you're right. Then again, it seems that touchdown points feature isn't in a high demand (I suppose almost noone knows about it at the first place), so if there's no easy way to fix the thruster displacement bug you could get rid of it. Still, it can produce another problems since it's not the only place in the code modified to fit the touchdown points feature... I'm not sure what the way is best to fix it. :uhh:

 

[Michael_Chr]

In defence of Peter I will say I tried to play with the landing legs, TD points etc. and I did construct a lander...however there were some problems with the hoverstrusters. No matter what... the thrust (hover) was offset hence the whole contraption would start to rotate wildly as soon as the hover eng. was lit.
I remember I did try to edit thruster entries in the the cfg file for the finished Vessel. It did not yeild any results though.

So I gave up after a few trys and thought...maybe another time... Theres enough going on as it is already :-D

So...better keep things as simple as possible and say IMS for now is strictly for "non surface" vehicles...lol (but I did enjoy the landing legs ;-)

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

I knew my meddling with the code will produce some headache after all :lol: Yes, I suppose you're right. Then again, it seems that touchdown points feature isn't in a high demand (I suppose almost noone knows about it at the first place), so if there's no easy way to fix the thruster displacement bug you could get rid of it. Still, it can produce another problems since it's not the only place in the code modified to fit the touchdown points feature... I'm not sure what the way is best to fix it. :uhh:

The touchdown points were a good idea, just a little out of place at the moment. None of the usual IMS parts lend themselves to producing vessels that should go anywhere near the ground. :lol:

Offhand, I wonder what sort of damage would be done by deorbiting one of Dantassi's monsters into the ground...

 

[Athena]

And the total number of models is.... :rum roll::

1681 modules

That's no addon...

 

[jedidia]

Something along the lines of what is already in place with engines where they are assigned to a group albeit with a different flavour. But something like this:

Right... a bit much to ask for IMS, I'm afraid. Appart from all the GUI updates neccessary, it could get a bit problematic, and it would require additions all through the code... that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm trying to avoid now.

Affirm...my statement stands.

The devil is, I can't reproduce it. RCS thrusters are definitaley intended to stay in group, and they do for me. Or is this also something that only happens on finalised vessels?

I'm not sure what the way is best to fix it.

Oh, it's not a problem to fix it. It's just that I'll have to rename some variables because now the CoG doesn't have to be reinitialised in every first frame, so CoGInit is becomming a rather misleadingly named variable.

The problem is also not too devastating even now: The only time it happens is when creating a finalised vessel from scenario editor. You can save that scenario and reload it, and the problem is fixed. It's simply that the CoG doesn't get set correctly if there is no LoadState executed.

(perhaps the idea of setting up a wish list for IMS 2 is not that bad )

One step at a time, please :lol:

 

[Furet]

it seems that touchdown points feature isn't in a high demand (I suppose almost noone knows about it at the first place)

I'm just trying to design my own heavy cargo lander. I'm not certain to be successfull, but I'm grateful to you for this possibility.

:tiphat: