SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[GLS]

The old r2159 changes are now up! Please test if it all updates well.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

Question: what should I do with the new talkback stuff? After finishing commiting the changes from the last week, I was planning to switch to the IUS branch to finish the IUS/ASE/Panel L10. We could use that branch to also test for the new talkbacks, right?

 

[DaveS]

The old r2159 changes are now up! Please test if it all updates well.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

Question: what should I do with the new talkback stuff? After finishing commiting the changes from the last week, I was planning to switch to the IUS branch to finish the IUS/ASE/Panel L10. We could use that branch to also test for the new talkbacks, right?

I see no reason why not we couldn't use it for trialing the TB stuff.

 

[GLS]

I see no reason why not we couldn't use it for trialing the TB stuff.

I don't either. So the plan is: update the "ius-1.0" branch to the lastest revision, add the IUS project stuff, put both R13L and L10 (once Donamy finishes it) on the new talkbacks, test it to death, and merge everything with the trunk.

So, have you done the update to r2160? Did it work, so I can continue?

 

[DaveS]

I had to perform a clean check-out as well as updating to the "new revision 2159" (revision 2160) produced the checksum errors. But got it fresh and healthy from the repository. No issues building the sources.

Edit:
I think that now that the files are back in the repository and we all have performed a new checkout, this is behind us. I don't think we need to spend anymore time on this.

 

[GLS]

I had to perform a clean check-out as well as updating to the "new revision 2159" (revision 2160) produced the checksum errors. But got it fresh and healthy from the repository. No issues building the sources.

Edit:
I think that now that the files are back in the repository and we all have performed a new checkout, this is behind us. I don't think we need to spend anymore time on this.

Agreed. I'll begin "dumping" the changes from last week in a few minutes, I'm just finishing (re)testing them.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't either. So the plan is: update the "ius-1.0" branch to the lastest revision, add the IUS project stuff, put both R13L and L10 (once Donamy finishes it) on the new talkbacks, test it to death, and merge everything with the trunk.

I think I will then pick up the work on the Centaur again and use the new talkback code there as well for its panel, so both is based on the same code-base.

On a parallel track, I think I have the research together to create a second prototype for a Java FX 8 based mission editor, after the quick&dirty GUI prototype there. If consensus goes against Java FX (I count the vote as 1/1/1 right now), I would just keep it general and without too many SSU relations.

 

[DaveS]

I think I will then pick up the work on the Centaur again and use the new talkback code there as well for its panel, so both is based on the same code-base.

On a parallel track, I think I have the research together to create a second prototype for a Java FX 8 based mission editor, after the quick&dirty GUI prototype there. If consensus goes against Java FX (I count the vote as 1/1/1 right now), I would just keep it general and without too many SSU relations.

I'm holding my vote until a working prototype can tested by the entire team. And to get extended opinions, I think it should be in the release. That way we get the true idea if it is working or not.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm holding my vote until a working prototype can tested by the entire team. And to get extended opinions, I think it should be in the release. That way we get the true idea if it is working or not.

What kind of minimum functionality would you need to a decision? Maybe somebody else can do a C#/WPF prototype in parallel on the same functionality so there is a fair comparison possible.

 

[DaveS]

What kind of minimum functionality would you need to a decision? Maybe somebody else can do a C#/WPF prototype in parallel on the same functionality so there is a fair comparison possible.

Well, here's my short-list of minimum functionality:

• Complete replacement of MECOCalc
• Mission file configuration

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, here's my short-list of minimum functionality:

• Complete replacement of MECOCalc
• Mission file configuration

Ok, that's no deal.

 

[GLS]

I think I will then pick up the work on the Centaur again and use the new talkback code there as well for its panel, so both is based on the same code-base.

I guess once it is up and running on the ius-1.0 branch you can copy it to the ShuttleCentaur and use it there, thus allowing more testing to be done. I posted on the IUS thread how the talkback groups should be for all to work.
BTW: how did you update the ShuttleCentaur branch with the current trunk stuff? I want to do that with the ius-1.0 branch, as that is older than the pyramids.

On a parallel track, I think I have the research together to create a second prototype for a Java FX 8 based mission editor, after the quick&dirty GUI prototype there. If consensus goes against Java FX (I count the vote as 1/1/1 right now), I would just keep it general and without too many SSU relations.

If the language it isn't going to be c/c++, vb6 or assembly, then it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as I'll have to learn it. What language should be used? I don't know many languages to make an informed decision, so I can only say "NOT assembly". :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

I guess once it is up and running on the ius-1.0 branch you can copy it to the ShuttleCentaur and use it there, thus allowing more testing to be done. I posted on the IUS thread how the talkback groups should be for all to work.

Exactly - but mostly I want to avoid two code-bases for the same problem. DRY, after all.

BTW: how did you update the ShuttleCentaur branch with the current trunk stuff? I want to do that with the ius-1.0 branch, as that is older than the pyramids.

Simply merge trunk into your working copy, instead of reintegrating your branch into trunk.

If the language it isn't going to be c/c++, vb6 or assembly, then it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as I'll have to learn it. What language should be used? I don't know many languages to make an informed decision, so I can only say "NOT assembly". :lol:

Well, C# and Java are syntactically very similar, so the big difference is just the API. WPF and Java FX are similar from light-years distance, but WPF follows old Microsoft traditions, Java FX is still closely related to Swing.

 

[Donamy]

I don't either. So the plan is: update the "ius-1.0" branch to the lastest revision, add the IUS project stuff, put both R13L and L10 (once Donamy finishes it) on the new talkbacks, test it to death, and merge everything with the trunk.

So, have you done the update to r2160? Did it work, so I can continue?

What a finally decided on what was needed to finish it ?

 

[GLS]

What a finally decided on what was needed to finish it ?

Nobody complained, so I guess there's the "manual":
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=509446&postcount=180
and
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=509458&postcount=182

 

[Donamy]

Try this :

 

[DaveS]

Donamy, if you want to upgrade the Centaur/CISS panel, you should use this one: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24122088/Orbiter stuff/Centaur_SSP_L12U.zip

 

[GLS]

I'm gotten all the talkback (in R13L, will to L10 now) and IUS stuff working in the ius-1.0 branch... with only 2 problems so far:
1) there's some animation issue with the tilt table that I'm begining to investigate;
2) the ghost panel issue strikes back! If I add the panel to pgAftPort it doesn't work, but there's no problems in pgAft. Both groups should work in the port workstation.

 

[Donamy]

Donamy, if you want to upgrade the Centaur/CISS panel, you should use this one: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24122088/Orbiter stuff/Centaur_SSP_L12U.zip

I would need the .psd to do that ?

 

[DaveS]

I would need the .psd to do that ?

To do what? That texture is just what you see there, single layer.

 

[Donamy]

To do what? That texture is just what you see there, single layer.

Shading doesn't look right. It looks more like a 2D panel, not a 3D one.