Orbiter Shuttle Sim

[tblaxland]

For the dome projection I suggest looking at Paul Bouke's website:

Cool site that. Bouncing around links from there brought me to this cool project (a little off-topic, but I figured you guys would be interested):

Make Your Own RepRap
http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/MakeYourOwnRepRap

 

[Hielor]

Either way, it cant be as bad the shuttle Sim @ Space Camp. Last time I went I think they used low-res monitors, that where very unrealistic in relation to the actual windows in the cockpit.

To be fair, though, the actual motion-base simulator used by the astronauts really didn't have the best graphics either. If you ever played Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, that's really what it reminded me of. Frankly, Orbiter's version of KSC looks about 5x better, and FSX looks about 20x better.

 

[BHawthorne]

The 3-Panel projection had never crossed my mind, even though I knew it existed. I don't know why this would not work. Not only would it be a much simpler build, but also more cost effective.

In fact, if the shuttle windows are designed right, the meeting points of the screens could be (mostly) masked from view inside the shuttle.

:speakcool: Idea Brad!

Either way, it cant be as bad the shuttle Sim @ Space Camp. Last time I went I think they used low-res monitors, that where very unrealistic in relation to the actual windows in the cockpit.

http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5036

This will work in the OVP OpenGL version of Orbiter. It's dependant upon getting away from DirectX 7 to push that pixel width. 3840x720. It would work with a DirectX 9 version also.

 

[landon2006]

To be fair, though, the actual motion-base simulator used by the astronauts really didn't have the best graphics either.

With a motion base simulator it makes it hard to integrate the graphics because direct projection really wont work. your only real options in that case are to use monitors of some kind.

For Astronauts though, they are using the Sim purely as a training tool. These Campers will not only train in it, but simulate an actual mission. To me, seeing as how its so easy to make things look more realistic, I don't see a reason not too.

It can only ad to the effect.

If you ever played Chuck Yeager's Air Combat

Guilty... Are the graphics really THAT bad? To me, that would seem just to unbelievable to even image I was in space...

 

[Hielor]

Guilty... Are the graphics really THAT bad? To me, that would seem just to unbelievable to even image I was in space...

I may be exaggerating slightly, but it had a similar feel to it, in that the terrain was pretty much untextured, just colored patches.

I don't know how it looked from orbit, since I only got to fly a landing, and I couldn't see out the windows from the back seat on the launch sim.

 

[BHawthorne]

Simulated outside visuals 3840x720 (3 720p projectors):

This is using the OGLAClient build. My only nitpick is it needs FOV over 90, otherwise it's great for the outside visuals. ~35fps in windowed mode. It'll bump up a lot higher fps in full screen. I'll try it in full screen mode later to get some fps figures.

 

[landon2006]

I may be exaggerating slightly, but it had a similar feel to it, in that the terrain was pretty much untextured, just colored patches.

I don't know how it looked from orbit, since I only got to fly a landing, and I couldn't see out the windows from the back seat on the launch sim.

Myself, I don't really remember. I just remember the entire simulation not being very realistic...

This is using the OGLAClient build. My only nitpick is it needs FOV over 90, otherwise it's great for the outside visuals. ~35fps in windowed mode. It'll bump up a lot higher fps in full screen. I'll try it in full screen mode later to get some fps figures.

Brad, what is causing that disformed earth?

 

[BHawthorne]

Myself, I don't really remember. I just remember the entire simulation not being very realistic...

Brad, what is causing that disformed earth?

The lack of ability to have greater than 90 degrees field of view. It would probably be a very quick fix in the OGLAClient code to change to the max FOV to 180 instead of 90.

 

[tblaxland]

The lack of ability to have greater than 90 degrees field of view. It would probably be a very quick fix in the OGLAClient code to change to the max FOV to 180 instead of 90.

I'm not so sure on this. According to the SDK docs, Orbiter measures the field of view vertically, not horizontally. For example, two screens setup side by side at 2048 x 768 should have the same FOV as one screen at 1024 x 768. Also, FOV >90° is available, but only through the API. You could write a small plugin to force FOV up to the maximum allowable of 160°.

 

[yagni01]

I'm not so sure on this. According to the SDK docs, Orbiter measures the field of view vertically, not horizontally. For example, two screens setup side by side at 2048 x 768 should have the same FOV as one screen at 1024 x 768. Also, FOV >90° is available, but only through the API. You could write a small plugin to force FOV up to the maximum allowable of 160°.

I had forgotten that. So when set to 90°, you get 120° horizontal on a 4:3 monitor and 144° on a 16:10 widescreen. So my 22" widescreen (11" vert), say 30" away should be. . . right triangle at 5.5 and 30 is ~10 doubled so about 20° is what I should set FOV to. Yet I have to use 70° to get a proper looking HUD.

Side issue. . . Anyone know if the next version of Orbiter will allow the HUD to be scaled separately?

 

[Hielor]

I had forgotten that. So when set to 90°, you get 120° horizontal on a 4:3 monitor and 144° on a 16:10 widescreen. So my 22" widescreen (11" vert), say 30" away should be. . . right triangle at 5.5 and 30 is ~10 doubled so about 20° is what I should set FOV to. Yet I have to use 70° to get a proper looking HUD.

The reason you need to set it higher is because if you have it set to an accurate value (20° in your case), it's basically like a window. Unless you're flying an SR-71, you're going to have a lot more window space available than a single 22" diagonal. As a gamer, you've gotten used to playing with a somewhat "fisheye" window, so that feels a lot more comfortable and natural. If you had enough windows, though, the realistic perspective would feel more natural.

What do you mean, a proper looking HUD? Like, with enough "rungs" on the ladder? I know the F-16 HUD only shows +- 5°, since 10° is about the height of the HUD in the pilot's view.

 

[yagni01]

As a gamer, you've gotten used to playing with a somewhat "fisheye" window, so that feels a lot more comfortable and natural. If you had enough windows, though, the realistic perspective would feel more natural.

Ya, I'm trying to go for more realism. So when I figure out the actual FOV out my future forward window I can create the appropriate size image rather than backing into the FOV based on what I have.

What do you mean, a proper looking HUD? Like, with enough "rungs" on the ladder? I know the F-16 HUD only shows +- 5°, since 10° is about the height of the HUD in the pilot's view.

Shuttle HUD is 10°, as well. "Proper" as in personal preference. Bad word choice, I apologize. I like more rungs on the ladder even though its a distorted perspective; something I should get over if I'm going for realism, huh. As the Orbiter HUD doesn't have 5° increments (unless there is a setting I missed), smaller FOV (like 20°) show no ladder. Having that better resolution would probably help.

 

[BHawthorne]

It's been sort of quiet in here. I assume holidays have caught up with us all and are buisy. I gave the SSU guys a bunch of reference material for the mid-deck and they're buisy finishing that up. It's looking pretty cool so far.

 

[yagni01]

It's been sort of quiet in here. I assume holidays have caught up with us all and are buisy. I gave the SSU guys a bunch of reference material for the mid-deck and they're buisy finishing that up. It's looking pretty cool so far.

That's sorta true for me. Yea, those guys are going to a lot of effort to get that thing right. I love it. Hopefully after the next release Urwumpe will get back to me about some kind of interface I can hook Orb:Connect up to.

Right now, I'm working on my HUD controls and rewriting the hardware interface software to something a little more maintainable.

 

[landon2006]

Hey guys

I know its been a while, I have been very busy with Holiday affairs and such. After the first of the year, I'll be back in full force again.

Happy Holidays,
Landon

 

[-Pv-]

"Yes, I have looked into community sponsorship. In fact, that's where a majority of the money for the Museum will come from. I just didn't see how sponsorship would work for this program, as it will have very little enrollment (under 400 kids per year), therefore offer very little exposure to the sponsor. Not to mention the fact that all of the programs will be for ages 15 and under, they wont shop at Lowes anyway..."

Their parents do and so do the parent's friends. NASA also promotes space camps in their NASAtv and publications. NASA employees are encouraged to volunteer for educational space activities. I bet you could get an actual astronaught to come out once a year or so. The opportunities for getting local TV, Radio, and print publications involved are extensive. This will give the sponsor added exposure especially if you inform them you have an active public relations program. I suspect a lot of your enrollment will come from the museum. Another exposure for the sponsor(s). Locally here in Seattle we have the Museum of Flight run by an ex Shuttle astronaught. It has a mission control center for training kids in a space camp environment. They also have a full time flight-focused school. You might benefit from learning how the MOF funds and promotes its programs. It's one of the museums which will get one of the retired Shuttles. They are building a whole complex totally dedicated to it.
-Pv-

 

[landon2006]

Hey everyone.
Sorry for the delay in getting back on topic. I have been very, very busy with the museum, and have not had much time to get space academy going.

Anyway, I we now have property... The Space Academy will be located on the same tract of land as the museum, which is only around 6 acres.

Just thought I would update...
Landon