SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[GLS]

GLS: Could you post a working scenario that has the MPS GOX vents off? I can't for the life of me figure that one out. I know you added GOXVENTSOFF, but how should I add it to a scenario? An example would be nice.

Just add "GOXVENTSOFF" to the scenario block of the shuttle, like this:

...
  MET 0.000
  GEAR 0 0.0000
  OPS 101
  PLBD_CAM 0 -90.00000 -0.0 90.0000 0.0000 -90.0000 0.000 90.0000
[COLOR="Red"][B]  GOXVENTSOFF[/B][/COLOR]
@SUBSYSTEM HeEng_C
  PRESS 4100
  VALVES 1 1 0 0
@ENDSUBSYSTEM		;HeEng_C
@SUBSYSTEM HeEng_L
...

Just tested again and it works.

 

[DaveS]

Just add "GOXVENTSOFF" to the scenario block of the shuttle, like this:

...
  MET 0.000
  GEAR 0 0.0000
  OPS 101
  PLBD_CAM 0 -90.00000 -0.0 90.0000 0.0000 -90.0000 0.000 90.0000
[COLOR=Red][B]  GOXVENTSOFF[/B][/COLOR]
@SUBSYSTEM HeEng_C
  PRESS 4100
  VALVES 1 1 0 0
@ENDSUBSYSTEM        ;HeEng_C
@SUBSYSTEM HeEng_L
...

Just tested again and it works.

Thanks and it works great. I must have placed it in the wrong place as I did try it like that and it had no effect.

On another note: I have checked in a full set of meshes+textures for the post-51L RSRMs. It would be nice if someone could make them available for use. The offsets should be same as the OFT versions.

 

[GLS]

Thanks and it works great. I must have placed it in the wrong place as I did try it like that and it had no effect.

On another note: I have checked in a full set of meshes+textures for the post-51L RSRMs. It would be nice if someone could make them available for use. The offsets should be same as the OFT versions.

OK, I have a couple of "light" days ahead so I can probably put that into service.

While you're here DaveS, can you check the left ARCS texture? There's something wrong with that texture and/or reflection because during launch it gets a green/yellow tint (mostly on the botton side), and the one on the right looks good. This happens on both the default and the D3D9 graphics clients.

 

[DaveS]

OK, I have a couple of "light" days ahead so I can probably put that into service.

While you're here DaveS, can you check the left ARCS texture? There's something wrong with that texture and/or reflection because during launch it gets a green/yellow tint (mostly on the botton side), and the one on the right looks good. This happens on both the default and the D3D9 graphics clients.

Yes, I just noticed this as well. I'll investigate it and see what the problem is.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

After some investigating into the LARCS texture issue reported by GLS, I have found that it only occurs when the vehicle is in pre-launch config. As soon as lift-off happens, the issue clears itself and never re-appears. This is why it doesn't show up on orbit.

I have no idea why this happens.

 

[GLS]

Yes, I just noticed this as well. I'll investigate it and see what the problem is.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

After some investigating into the LARCS texture issue reported by GLS, I have found that it only occurs when the vehicle is in pre-launch config. As soon as lift-off happens, the issue clears itself and never re-appears. This is why it doesn't show up on orbit.

I have no idea why this happens.

Actually I noticed this during the launch.

 

[DaveS]

Actually I noticed this during the launch.

For me it goes away at lift-off. I'm not sure what's going on but it isn't a mesh or texture issue so I can't do anything about it.

 

[GLS]

In a night launch (STS-126) using the default graphics there's a green tint until SRB SEP and then it just looks black/dark. Using D3D9 it looks OK during first stage, but then it also goes black.

 

[DaveS]

For me it goes away at lift-off. I'm not sure what's going on but it isn't a mesh or texture issue so I can't do anything about it.

I have to retract this statement. Turns out that this issue with the left aft RCS pod was a simple material ID assignment mistake. This has now been corrected and the updated orbiter mesh has been checked in.

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------

In a night launch (STS-126) using the default graphics there's a green tint until SRB SEP and then it just looks black/dark. Using D3D9 it looks OK during first stage, but then it also goes black.

Could you post a screenshot of this? I can't see anything wrong.

 

[GLS]

I have to retract this statement. Turns out that this issue with the left aft RCS pod was a simple material ID assignment mistake. This has now been corrected and the updated orbiter mesh has been checked in.

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------


Could you post a screenshot of this? I can't see anything wrong.

Looks to be fixed here, both sides look equal and "normal".
One thing I noticed when I was looking at the OMS pods from all angles is that the radiators intersect with the RMS and OBSS... I don't think it's super urgent to fix it for this release, but still it should be looked at in the future.

 

[DaveS]

Looks to be fixed here, both sides look equal and "normal".
One thing I noticed when I was looking at the OMS pods from all angles is that the radiators intersect with the RMS and OBSS... I don't think it's super urgent to fix it for this release, but still it should be looked at in the future.

This has now been fixed. The problem was they were located too far outboard. I modified the offsets and now there's no issues.

 

[GLS]

So I managed to get the RSRMs working now, but even though it looks strangely cool...

... that's just not right.:lol:
BTW: we have a chance now to have separate empty masses, max propellant and thrust definitions for the SRM and RSRM... so if anyone has them it would help.

 

[DaveS]

So I managed to get the RSRMs working now, but even though it looks strangely cool...
View attachment 13631
... that's just not right.:lol:
BTW: we have a chance now to have separate empty masses, max propellant and thrust definitions for the SRM and RSRM... so if anyone has them it would help.

Just use ShipEdit or a similar tool to rotate the meshes 90°s around the X axis. I forgot to disable the rotate mesh -90° around X option before I exported them.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------

Correctly rotated meshes have now been checked in.

 

[GLS]

Just use ShipEdit or a similar tool to rotate the meshes 90°s around the X axis. I forgot to disable the rotate mesh -90° around X option before I exported them.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------

Correctly rotated meshes have now been checked in.

So why did you tell me to do it? I even added the texture paths at the bottom of all those mesh files as they where deleted by shipedit... 30mins down the drain :facepalm:

 

[DaveS]

So why did you tell me to do it? I even added the texture paths at the bottom of all those mesh files as they where deleted by shipedit... 30mins down the drain :facepalm:

I did not know if you needed the rotated meshes immediately or could wait a bit.

Do what I did, get the latest Orbiter beta and use its ShipEdit. It has that particular bug fixed.

 

[Urwumpe]

Just found the time for some first glances at the Centaur stuff... :blush:

There are quite many ground tiles inside the branch, will have to review what we really need on merge.

About the structure... wouldn't it be smarter to integrate the CISS into the Shuttle as some sort of component? After all, it is not an detachable payload, I would view it like airlock or spacelab/spacehab.

Also we get rid of a lot of inter-vessel communication.

 

[DaveS]

There are quite many ground tiles inside the branch, will have to review what we really need on merge.

Everything except the Centaur stuff can be deleted as they're just older versions of what we currently have in the trunk.

About the structure... wouldn't it be smarter to integrate the CISS into the Shuttle as some sort of component? After all, it is not an detachable payload, I would view it like airlock or spacelab/spacehab.

Also we get rid of a lot of inter-vessel communication.

I agree. We still have to find a way to make the CISS actually do something (mainly rotation and deployment). The CISS was pretty much integrated with the orbiter thanks to the additional plumbing added to 99 and 104. They had even scheduled a Integrated Tanking Test for mid-March 1986 at 39A with the Centaur in the payload bay using 104. I believe it would gone as far as T-31 seconds (GLS Autosequence start) and hold before proceeding into drain and securing.

 

[GLS]

Just found the time for some first glances at the Centaur stuff... :blush:

There are quite many ground tiles inside the branch, will have to review what we really need on merge.

About the structure... wouldn't it be smarter to integrate the CISS into the Shuttle as some sort of component? After all, it is not an detachable payload, I would view it like airlock or spacelab/spacehab.

Also we get rid of a lot of inter-vessel communication.

The only things needed from that branch are just the CISS/Centaur related stuff (meshes, textures, code, config files and scenarios). Can't be harder than the mps merge.:lol:
About the shuttle swallowing the CISS, it's a good idea. This also applies to the ASE for the IUS... and other cradles as well? :S Anyway, that would simplify the mass management on the orbiter. But I think we should do the config upgrades first, and then get the panel done to operate it.

One other thing: the air data probes are not in the correct place when stowed.

 

[Urwumpe]

I agree. We still have to find a way to make the CISS actually do something (mainly rotation and deployment). The CISS was pretty much integrated with the orbiter thanks to the additional plumbing added to 99 and 104. They had even scheduled a Integrated Tanking Test for mid-March 1986 at 39A with the Centaur in the payload bay using 104. I believe it would gone as far as T-31 seconds (GLS Autosequence start) and hold before proceeding into drain and securing.

I'll plan something... first of all, I think about extending the mission file then, to include a "RequiresCISS" flag.

Then, I will simply put it as component into the Shuttle and look how good it works. Since we need an new attachment on loading the scenario, I think I will add three new attachments with fixed numbers to it, that can be also used for other large rocket stages, like PAM-D or IUS, without breaking scenarios quickly. Or had more than three satellites been ever deployed? (except the smaller GAS payloads)

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

Do we really need two similar meshes for the CISS? I think just using a static Prime extension mesh would also do it and we conform to DRY.

 

[DaveS]

I'll plan something... first of all, I think about extending the mission file then, to include a "RequiresCISS" flag.

Then, I will simply put it as component into the Shuttle and look how good it works. Since we need an new attachment on loading the scenario, I think I will add three new attachments with fixed numbers to it, that can be also used for other large rocket stages, like PAM-D or IUS, without breaking scenarios quickly. Or had more than three satellites been ever deployed? (except the smaller GAS payloads)

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

Do we really need two similar meshes for the CISS? I think just using a static Prime extension mesh would also do it and we conform to DRY.

Well, there's no extension. Both needs to be their own meshes due to their forward dissimilarities. As far as I have been able to research, there was no special reconfiguration possible with the CISS. There were going to be two separate versions, one version for the G Prime and one version for the G.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, there's no extension. Both needs to be their own meshes due to their forward dissimilarities. As far as I have been able to research, there was no special reconfiguration possible with the CISS. There were going to be two separate versions, one version for the G Prime and one version for the G.

OK, then I will make two separate systems which will just have annoyingly much code in common.