New Release Interplanetary Modular Spacecraft RC9

[Dantassii]

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...

I've found the XR series to be perfect compliments for the air-to-ground component of my missions.

That's no addon...

Nope, it's not a moon either....

Has anyone opened up my SSTV scenario and taken a peek at the ship? I'd love to get feedback on it, even if it's just "OMG!!!!" :lol:

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Has anyone opened up my SSTV scenario and taken a peek at the ship? I'd love to get feedback on it, even if it's just "OMG!!!!" :lol:

Fraid I would prefer my computer not as a pile of melted plastic & metal. My computer wont have a chance dealing with that gigornormeous thing. :lol:

 

[Dantassii]

Fraid I would prefer my computer not as a pile of melted plastic & metal. My computer wont have a chance dealing with that gigornormeous thing. :lol:

If you don't have F9 turned on, you can probably look it over if you pause it.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

If you don't have F9 turned on, you can probably look it over if you pause it.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

Maybe I will then. Is there an updated version of your super-station out there too?

 

[Dantassii]

Maybe I will then. Is there an updated version of your super-station out there too?

The Lunar Station is still under construction but it's only around 650 modules vs the 1600+ of the SSTV. I'm still building the Lunar Station 1 XR5 flight at a time, so it may be a while before it's as big as the SSTV in terms of number of modules. I estimate the Lunar Station will top out around 4,500-5,000 modules when it's completed.. at something like 500 XR5 missions from now..

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder.

 

[jedidia]

Has anyone opened up my SSTV scenario and taken a peek at the ship? I'd love to get feedback on it, even if it's just "OMG!!!!"

Will do next week. It doesn't make much sense on my laptop...

EDIT:

RC3 is comming along, now we finally have full EPP support... meaning, thermodynamics will now take the solar luminosity in other systems into account, if the system provides EPP support. Watch it when using orbiter galaxy, you might get grilled...

Everything else also seems to be pretty much working, except for that uggly integration problem in D3D9 client. The addon is otherwise working fine in the client, though.

 

[goaowonk]

Everything else also seems to be pretty much working, except for that uggly integration problem in D3D9 client. The addon is otherwise working fine in the client, though.

So you recommend to integrate with vanilla client first if using D3D9?

 

[PeterRoss]

Do you guys remember Episode 6 of Star Wars? The scene where they fly Millenium Falcon through unfinished Death Star II internal structures? Well, try to spawn an UMMU and fly through Dantassii's SSTV, you'll get similair experience. Well, maybe it will be little slower than it was in the movie, but it will allow you to enjoy the view.

The cargo deck looks kinda scary with cargo holders' arms sticking around like some kind of spikes, reminding of some videogame. And the engines' stack... it's something to see.

 

[jedidia]

So you recommend to integrate with vanilla client first if using D3D9?

That will probably be the official recommendation, yes. The trouble is that it seems to be scenario dependant... I have scenarios where I don't have trouble, and scenarios where I always have it. Larger scenarios are generally more prone to producing the behavior. I'm still sticking with my theory of AddAnimationComponent() writing out of bounds in D3D9 client when used on simtime, although I still can't quite imagine what kind of bug could cause that. But I seem unable to fix it from my end...

Well, maybe it will be little slower than it was in the movie, but it will allow you to enjoy the view.

ShuttlePB race, anyone?

 

[Dantassii]

SSTV....

Do you guys remember Episode 6 of Star Wars? The scene where they fly Millenium Falcon through unfinished Death Star II internal structures? Well, try to spawn an UMMU and fly through Dantassii's SSTV, you'll get similair experience. Well, maybe it will be little slower than it was in the movie, but it will allow you to enjoy the view.

The cargo deck looks kinda scary with cargo holders' arms sticking around like some kind of spikes, reminding of some videogame. And the engines' stack... it's something to see.

Hadn't thought about spawning a UMMU to view it. I usually just goto external view and rotate around the ship.

Loading all those cargo holders is going to be a real task.. almost as bad as integrating it 1 module at a time.

What's really comes to mind about that engine stack is that I'll probably put a BIGGER ENGINE on my list of first modules built for IMS 2.0 when it gets done. I mean, the only reason I used hyper engines on the SSTV was because I would have needed over 300 NTE's to get the same thrust and delta V as 5 hyper engines. BTW, there are 60 NTEs racked together on that engine stack.. with 17 hyper engines shoehorned between them.

During construction at the Lunar Station, there would be a total of about 15-25 UMMU's floating about doing construction duties outside of the station at any given time, along with another 10-15 inside doing shirt sleave construction.

ShuttlePB race, anyone?

:rofl: It ain't THAT big... is it?

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[jedidia]

What's really comes to mind about that engine stack is that I'll probably put a BIGGER ENGINE on my list of first modules built for IMS 2.0 when it gets done.

It wouldn't have been hard to do for this version either, just make a mesh or scale one up and edit the config...

 

[Dantassii]

It wouldn't have been hard to do for this version either, just make a mesh or scale one up and edit the config...

What I meant is by the time I get around to building my own modules for IMS, IMS 2.0 will be the standard version.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[jedidia]

Dantassii, I've got a small request for you. Please load your unintegrated SSTV scenario into D3D9 client and see if it loads... I get the impression that the thing's too much for the client, for whatever reason. I can load it in Vanilla, but not in the client.

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

Confirmed at least on my machine with pretty good GPU: D3D9 client crashes even if the command module is taken out of the scenario, so there's no refernce to IMS whatsoever in there. I'm afraid SSTV is just too awesome for D3D9 client...

 

[PeterRoss]

Is it about the amount of vessels, meshes or surfaces?

 

[jedidia]

cam't say. there's no difference in the ammount of data in this case (we don't have bump maps). it needs further testing.
I also have good news. i've been integrating away at the sstv, and I didn't have a single ctd for some 250 modules. then i lost patience... THIS TAKES FOR FRIKKIN EVER!!!

Dantassii, i feel your plight. And i have some ideas how to counteract it. While a full integrate all function a la ims2 isn't possible, changing the function that does the attaching to attach all vessels docked to the core vessel is a piece of cake.

integrating all currently attached vessels is somewhat trickier, but in the range of the possible.

 

[Dantassii]

Dantassii, I've got a small request for you. Please load your unintegrated SSTV scenario into D3D9 client and see if it loads... I get the impression that the thing's too much for the client, for whatever reason. I can load it in Vanilla, but not in the client.

Ok, I'll see if I can even get the SSTV to load on the copy of Orbiter that has the D3D9 client installed on it. I've been doing all my IMS 1.0 work in a completely different copy of Orbiter (that has never seen D3D9) ever since I was informed that IMS 1.0 just don't work with D3D9. If you recall, I had random rotation problems with some (but not all) of the SSBB 4.1 modules. Remember though that it needs the Release 2 of the SSBB 4.1 modules that someone else uploaded a few months ago for the NTEs. See if you can get the SSTV to load on your D3D9 environment after you remove the NTEs from the scenario file.

Update: I got a D3D9 crash during the load up. So D3D9 just don't like HUMONGOUS ships I suppose. I remember reading somewhere that Orbiter itself seems to have problems with large numbers of 'ships' floating around in a scenario.

Confirmed at least on my machine with pretty good GPU: D3D9 client crashes even if the command module is taken out of the scenario, so there's no refernce to IMS whatsoever in there. I'm afraid SSTV is just too awesome for D3D9 client...

Well, I have discovered that if you have more than 600 IMS modules in a scenario quite a few of the MFDs don't let you pick one from the list... and the SSTV is well over 1800. You might say it's so far beyond the red line that it's out in the deep infrared.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[jedidia]

Mass integration of all attached modules in the list is, surprisingly enough, working after not too many changes. Will need a bit more testing, and I'll have to add a new button, but it looks good.
Attachment of docked modules is now also automatic, so there will be a LOT less clicks in the future.

Only thing remaining is chasing down Bruce's crash in Upsilon, and RC3 is good to go. :thumbup:

 

[Dantassii]

Best news I've heard all week!

Only thing remaining is chasing down Bruce's crash in Upsilon, and RC3 is good to go. :thumbup:

Woo hoo!!! :thumbup:

So have you taken a wander around the SSTV yet Jedidia? What sort of FPS are you getting?

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[Michael_Chr]

Jededia..Did you kill the TD feature? I mean the one that causes the RCS to jump around (as mentioned previously in this thread).
The other day I discovered that using the Pursuit MFD with IMS finished vessel (from a restatred scenario) I can guarentee a CTD. Further investigations showed that I indeed clould start pursuit but it was when I activated the RCS in the engineer screen that the CTD occured. Tested both ways.. i.e.:

• Startsituation with Pursuit active > GO RCS > CTD.
• Startsituation with RCS active > GO Pursuite > CTD.

By the way...Pursuit MFD is one the the "trickier" MFDs when it comes to CTD so I dont think that IMS perhaps is entirely to blame. But just to let you know...especially with the RCS take on it.

And...me like the Scripted (auto) integration feature.

---------- Post added at 04:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 AM ----------

OK...Gentlemen...brace yourself a little bit because this D3D9 might be a little more tricky than that
Based on Jededias and Dantassii findings that there might be a finite limit on the number of modules that D3D9 could handle I decided to investigate a little. To cut a long story short its indicated that D3D9 client might be sensitive to vessel names. I.e a two cfg files with the same contents but with different filenames > one causes a CTD the other doesnt.
To replicate try this:
Start a clean scenario (in D3D9 enviroment) (I used this one):

BEGIN_DESC

END_DESC

BEGIN_ENVIRONMENT
  System Sol
  Date MJD 53125.4721088296
END_ENVIRONMENT

BEGIN_FOCUS
  Ship DG
END_FOCUS

BEGIN_CAMERA
  TARGET DG
  MODE Extern
  POS 2.99 -118.47 -20.51
  TRACKMODE TargetRelative
  FOV 60.00
END_CAMERA

BEGIN_HUD
  TYPE Surface
END_HUD

BEGIN_SHIPS
DG:Deltaglider
  STATUS Orbiting Earth
  RPOS 7006285.40 0.00 159952.22
  RVEL -172.130 -0.000 7539.721
  AROT 0.00 0.00 0.00
  AFCMODE 7
  PRPLEVEL 0:1.000000 1:1.000000
  NAVFREQ 0 0 0 0
  XPDR 0
  AAP 0:0 0:0 0:0
END
END_SHIPS

BEGIN_ExtMFD
END

END

Start Scenedit and start to add a vessel and give it a name.
Using the STD IMS path layeout for SBB41rev2 go to connectionparts (my path is orbiterpart\Config\Vessels\IMS\SBB41BRev2\Connection_Parts) and add this module "BT302_LargeTrussToSmallTruss_Short". I get a CTD at this point. If I add it manually via txt edit I also get a CTD.
Then I changed the filename of the cfg file to:"D3-test-BT302" so the scenario now looks like this:

BEGIN_DESC
Contains the latest simulation state.
END_DESC

BEGIN_ENVIRONMENT
  System Sol
  Date MJD 53125.4735081022
END_ENVIRONMENT

BEGIN_FOCUS
  Ship DG
END_FOCUS

BEGIN_CAMERA
  TARGET 45
  MODE Extern
  POS 2.99 -82.09 -16.07
  TRACKMODE TargetRelative
  FOV 60.00
END_CAMERA

BEGIN_HUD
  TYPE Surface
END_HUD

BEGIN_SHIPS
DG:Deltaglider
  STATUS Orbiting Earth
  RPOS 6926321.84 -0.00 1067561.73
  RVEL -1148.841 -0.000 7453.670
  AROT 0.00 0.00 0.00
  AFCMODE 7
  PRPLEVEL 0:1.000000 1:1.000000
  NAVFREQ 0 0 0 0
  XPDR 0
  AAP 0:0 0:0 0:0
END
test:IMS\SBB41BRev2\Connection_Parts\D3-test-BT302
  STATUS Orbiting Earth
  RPOS 6985476.49 -0.00 562794.89
  RVEL -605.645 -0.000 7517.327
  AROT 0.00 -0.00 0.00
  AFCMODE 7
  NAVFREQ 0 0
END
END_SHIPS

BEGIN_ExtMFD
END

END

No CTD occurs now.

This CTD is also is also path sensitive because adding the same cfg file from sbb41(rev1) where the relative filepath is one step shorter also does not cause a CTD. Have checked...my symbolic links works i.e. the files are updated in modules\server path.

The goos news is that there is a work around...apparently changing to shorter
paths and file names does have an effect on the D3D9 client. Maybe Dantasii can get the humoungous ship up and running in D3D9 with some carefull editing.

ps. the reason why this came along is that I have scenarios with +600 docked modules that run OK in D3D9 so it might not be the number of files but more name and/or path related

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Mass integration of all attached modules in the list is, surprisingly enough, working after not too many changes. Will need a bit more testing, and I'll have to add a new button, but it looks good.
Attachment of docked modules is now also automatic, so there will be a LOT less clicks in the future.

Only thing remaining is chasing down Bruce's crash in Upsilon, and RC3 is good to go. :thumbup:

Good to go as go can get, eh?

Are you talking about IMS 1 or 2? While we're on the topic, how hard do you expect IMS2s simulation code to be? Can we simply "replug'n'play" the relevant thermodynamics, CG Shifting, etc. from IMS RC 2.3, or will it have to be written from scratch?