SSU Development thread (4.0 to 5.0) [DEVELOPMENT HALTED DUE TIME REQUIREMENTS!]
- Thread starter DaveS
- Start date
- Status
Gingin
Member
GLS
Well-known member
Instead of spending the day deleting things that aren't visible, today I added 2 things that are visible and were missing:
- the MLP rainbirds, actually the ones from the previous MLP mesh... could use a few corrections, but they will work for now;
- a simple inside to the white room, so it's no longer a "box" but a "passageway".
Well, back to the cleaning business.
- the MLP rainbirds, actually the ones from the previous MLP mesh... could use a few corrections, but they will work for now;
- a simple inside to the white room, so it's no longer a "box" but a "passageway".
Well, back to the cleaning business.
While I'm out on "sick-leave", I was wondering if ILOADs could be implemented for OPS1? We already have ILOAD capability for MM201 UNIV PTG, so it should be possible to implement it for MM104 and MM105. At least by default the TRIM values should be already filled in as P +0.5, LY -5.7 and RY +5.7. This is per the GNC Console Handbook.
GLS
Well-known member
Cleaned RSS and pad hardstand meshes, and fixed some issues already, but there are several more to go. The flame trench is currently too deep (not super important), and the position of flame deflector, MLP and FSS are not correct.
Starting with the first one, so a mesh base can be defined, I found a 5ft discrepancy between some schematics: some say the pad surface is at elevation 48ft others 53ft (all AMSL), and both make some sense. Going from the ground up, a 42ft deep flame trench + 6ft elevation at its bottom, gives 48ft... and coming from above, from the bottom FSS level (level 75 at 80ft) down to the pad surface is 27ft, so it gives 53ft.... :uhh: global warming and sea level rising?
Anyway, worst case we can keep things as they are below the pad surface and just correct things above it, which is the important bit.
---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------
As for the rest, the OrbitDAP needs work, so adding things today and then changing them tomorrow probably isn't the best use of time. :shrug:
Starting with the first one, so a mesh base can be defined, I found a 5ft discrepancy between some schematics: some say the pad surface is at elevation 48ft others 53ft (all AMSL), and both make some sense. Going from the ground up, a 42ft deep flame trench + 6ft elevation at its bottom, gives 48ft... and coming from above, from the bottom FSS level (level 75 at 80ft) down to the pad surface is 27ft, so it gives 53ft.... :uhh: global warming and sea level rising?
Anyway, worst case we can keep things as they are below the pad surface and just correct things above it, which is the important bit.
---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------
Maybe the trims could be done (more like hacked), but I'd like to look at that is the situation of the OMS engines during ascent.
As for the rest, the OrbitDAP needs work, so adding things today and then changing them tomorrow probably isn't the best use of time. :shrug:
The reason why I'm asking is that as things currently stand, Standard Insertion missions are damn near impossible to get right. You have less than 120 seconds from MECO until OMS-1 TIG to punch in all the numbers and perform all the relevant switch throws. I've done STS-1 so many times now that I know the PEG 4 targets by heart and yet I nearly miss the TIG.
GLS
Well-known member
Wanted to get in bed early and watch a movie, but decided to continue the corrective work....
I don't recall the last time I saw the MLP sit correctly on the pad, so I had to share this.
Had to go to back to the 60s for LUT diagrams to locate the flame deflector, thus define the pad "center" in the north/south direction, and then it was just positioning the pedestals according to available diagrams, and the MLP mesh cooperated by having it's pins in the right place and it all fits together!
Still have to align the SSWS pipes, for which I have no data, so I'll just assume the MLP is correct and line then up from there.
The flame trench now has the correct length and width, and only the depth needs to be corrected, once the 48 vs 53ft issue is solved.
The next big one is the FSS (with the RSS in tow), which should be lined up with the SRB/ET centerline.
The FSS levels are all wrong, but I think that doesn't cause enough trouble to need correction ASAP.
I don't recall the last time I saw the MLP sit correctly on the pad, so I had to share this.
Had to go to back to the 60s for LUT diagrams to locate the flame deflector, thus define the pad "center" in the north/south direction, and then it was just positioning the pedestals according to available diagrams, and the MLP mesh cooperated by having it's pins in the right place and it all fits together!
Still have to align the SSWS pipes, for which I have no data, so I'll just assume the MLP is correct and line then up from there.
The flame trench now has the correct length and width, and only the depth needs to be corrected, once the 48 vs 53ft issue is solved.
The next big one is the FSS (with the RSS in tow), which should be lined up with the SRB/ET centerline.
The FSS levels are all wrong, but I think that doesn't cause enough trouble to need correction ASAP.
Attachments
GLS
Well-known member
Well, I found the missing 5ft:
So it should be:
> bottom FSS level (level 75), 75ft AMSL pad A, 80ft at pad B
27ft gap
> pad surface 48ft AMSL pad A, 53ft at pad B
42ft deep flame trench
> bottom of flame trench at 6ft AMSL pad A, 11ft at pad B
---------- Post added 10-21-19 at 02:34 AM ---------- Previous post was 10-20-19 at 02:13 PM ----------
Turns out the MLP pedestal pins, and probably the north end, aren't exactly correct: to visually align the water pipes I loaded both the pad and MLP meshes into blender, and decided to check that the actual error was between the pins and pedestals, and there is a 2 inch error on the 4 north pins. Re-checked things and the pad is OK, but the MLP has the distance between the center and south pins 2 inches too short, and I think I know where it comes from. The MLP was probably sized using the dimensions of the side panels, and in the area in question they are almost all 8 feet wide, except for the 3 center ones which are 8 feet 8 inches. Thus our MLP has 8 * 12 = 96 feet between the pins instead of the correct (9 * 8) + (3 * 8.6666) = 98 feet indicated in several diagrams.
For now things should remain as is, as it is a small error and nothing depends on it. The MLP/pad were aligned analyticaly using the south pedestals as reference, so those match, and the others will match as well by "just" shifting the north end of the MLP. So it is good task for SSU 5.1.
In other news, after finding the missing 5ft in the morning, the flame trench is now fully corrected, as well as the flame deflector and water pipes. The only missing part on the hardstand mesh is cleaning, and correcting the position and animation of the side flame deflectors.
Source (warning, the author has a colorful language)
So it should be:
> bottom FSS level (level 75), 75ft AMSL pad A, 80ft at pad B
27ft gap
> pad surface 48ft AMSL pad A, 53ft at pad B
42ft deep flame trench
> bottom of flame trench at 6ft AMSL pad A, 11ft at pad B
---------- Post added 10-21-19 at 02:34 AM ---------- Previous post was 10-20-19 at 02:13 PM ----------
Turns out the MLP pedestal pins, and probably the north end, aren't exactly correct: to visually align the water pipes I loaded both the pad and MLP meshes into blender, and decided to check that the actual error was between the pins and pedestals, and there is a 2 inch error on the 4 north pins. Re-checked things and the pad is OK, but the MLP has the distance between the center and south pins 2 inches too short, and I think I know where it comes from. The MLP was probably sized using the dimensions of the side panels, and in the area in question they are almost all 8 feet wide, except for the 3 center ones which are 8 feet 8 inches. Thus our MLP has 8 * 12 = 96 feet between the pins instead of the correct (9 * 8) + (3 * 8.6666) = 98 feet indicated in several diagrams.
For now things should remain as is, as it is a small error and nothing depends on it. The MLP/pad were aligned analyticaly using the south pedestals as reference, so those match, and the others will match as well by "just" shifting the north end of the MLP. So it is good task for SSU 5.1.
In other news, after finding the missing 5ft in the morning, the flame trench is now fully corrected, as well as the flame deflector and water pipes. The only missing part on the hardstand mesh is cleaning, and correcting the position and animation of the side flame deflectors.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,617
- Reaction score
- 2,337
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
I think we have come a long way since that:
https://archive.org/details/msdos_Shuttle_The_Space_Flight_Simulator_1992
https://archive.org/details/msdos_Shuttle_The_Space_Flight_Simulator_1992
amalahama
Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 8
I think we have come a long way since that:
https://archive.org/details/msdos_Shuttle_The_Space_Flight_Simulator_1992
Call me crazy but I find the classic SST avionics kind of appealing
GLS
Well-known member
So, another round of corrections to the pad is up! The FSS has not only the height of the levels wrong, but also their width, so I had to align it (in the East/West direction) using the East face, otherwise the GVA and OAA wouldn't reach the vehicle. In the North/South direction, it is aligned at it's center with the MLP HDPs, which aren't really aligned between themselves... :facepalm:
The RSS now had the PCR aligned with the pad centerline (easy), but the it sits a bit too South of the vehicle. Didn't even bother much with that as the rotation axis depends on the FSS, and that is known to not be correct, so there's another good item for SSU 5.1.
On a positive note: after all this, both the GVA and OAA seem to have the correct sizes as they are (visually) in the correct position (the ETVAS isn't).
There are still a few small issues I'd like to check, but next comes the cleaning of the ET meshes.
The RSS now had the PCR aligned with the pad centerline (easy), but the it sits a bit too South of the vehicle. Didn't even bother much with that as the rotation axis depends on the FSS, and that is known to not be correct, so there's another good item for SSU 5.1.
On a positive note: after all this, both the GVA and OAA seem to have the correct sizes as they are (visually) in the correct position (the ETVAS isn't).
There are still a few small issues I'd like to check, but next comes the cleaning of the ET meshes.
GLS
Well-known member
More progress.... backwards! :facepalm:
I'm working the ETs and tried to fix a gap on one side of the SRB aft attachments (the attachments aren't in symmetrical positions in the ET meshes), but after correcting that it still didn't look right sometimes. Loaded the aft segments of the 3 types of SRB and this is what I saw:
(color added to tell them apart)
I'm working the ETs and tried to fix a gap on one side of the SRB aft attachments (the attachments aren't in symmetrical positions in the ET meshes), but after correcting that it still didn't look right sometimes. Loaded the aft segments of the 3 types of SRB and this is what I saw:
(color added to tell them apart)
Attachments
GLS
Well-known member
I'm considering switching the base SLC-6 mesh loading from the Vandenberg base to the SLC-6 vessel. This would ease positioning of things much more, and also only load that mesh only when SLC-6 is used.
---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------
Cleaned ETs are up (~10% reduction), along with some corrections to the HDP attachments, so that the attachment is at the HDP, and also some names for some pad elements.
---------- Post added at 11:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------
Just like the real SLC-6, this one is a PITA... :facepalm:
Having the pad surface mesh loaded in a vessel, as opposed to a base mesh, is that it won't conform to the terrain, so we get a plane on a side of a hill, which doesn't really work. :shrug:
Throwing away the "ground" mesh group and sitting the buildings and tanks on the terrain, and adding a new high resolution surface tile isn't an option, as the flame ducts are underground, so they have to be under something (even if a small "ground" mesh could be added, it still would have to be modeled to connect to the Orbiter terrain, so why not do it for the current one?).
So I don't see any good options here, let alone quick ones, other than horizontally aligning the vessel-loaded mesh with the base-loaded mesh, so debug aligning can be done with the vessel-loaded mesh when needed, while keeping the current base-loaded mesh option.
---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------
Cleaned ETs are up (~10% reduction), along with some corrections to the HDP attachments, so that the attachment is at the HDP, and also some names for some pad elements.
I think I'll do this now, along with some scenario updates to correct attached vessels showing up dark in MOGE.
---------- Post added at 11:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------
Just like the real SLC-6, this one is a PITA... :facepalm:
Having the pad surface mesh loaded in a vessel, as opposed to a base mesh, is that it won't conform to the terrain, so we get a plane on a side of a hill, which doesn't really work. :shrug:
Throwing away the "ground" mesh group and sitting the buildings and tanks on the terrain, and adding a new high resolution surface tile isn't an option, as the flame ducts are underground, so they have to be under something (even if a small "ground" mesh could be added, it still would have to be modeled to connect to the Orbiter terrain, so why not do it for the current one?).
So I don't see any good options here, let alone quick ones, other than horizontally aligning the vessel-loaded mesh with the base-loaded mesh, so debug aligning can be done with the vessel-loaded mesh when needed, while keeping the current base-loaded mesh option.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,617
- Reaction score
- 2,337
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Can't you make a foundation mesh for nearly the whole construction site like this:
This way, you could level a wide enough polygon in the terrain to allow fitting the launch complex foundation mesh over it. A perfect solution would be hard, but then, there are enough objects around the launch complex to allow hiding the seams.
This way, you could level a wide enough polygon in the terrain to allow fitting the launch complex foundation mesh over it. A perfect solution would be hard, but then, there are enough objects around the launch complex to allow hiding the seams.
GLS
Well-known member
Can't you make a foundation mesh for nearly the whole construction site like this:
This way, you could level a wide enough polygon in the terrain to allow fitting the launch complex foundation mesh over it. A perfect solution would be hard, but then, there are enough objects around the launch complex to allow hiding the seams.
The problem is that the mesh would need to fit the terrain at the edges, and the terrain isn't exactly predictable with its smoothing curvatures.
The pad surface mesh we have pretty covers that area, but it is flat, and when it is loaded as surface base it will be laid on the terrain. It just makes it hard to align things, but it works.
The (hopefully) rare event of aligning things will now be easier with a new #DEFINE to load the mesh in the vessel.
It would be much easier if this was Minecraft: I'd just dig the tunnels for the flame ducts. :rofl:
---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------
I didn't notice it before, but the surface mesh currently isn't laid on the terrain... :uhh: it was missing the WRAPTOSURFACE. Turned it on and the result isn't that great: it doesn't close down to the surface completely, plus it has the buildings all tilted, so maybe mapping the surface mesh ourselves isn't a bad idea. One thing gained with this exercise is that the surface mesh isn't properly sized, but a bit too small, plus I didn't dig the terrain enough on the East side. :shifty:
I've now positioned the center of the pad properly (the edges now don't match the terrain) and will level a bit more of terrain so the MST is on flat ground.
Going forward, I now think that the vessel-loaded surface mesh is better, and making it match the ground around the edges is probably worth the effort.
GLS
Well-known member
Current state of SLC-6:
That is the vessel-loaded mesh and IMO it doesn't look bad at all (except the water tower being buried in the mountain). There is about 15m below it to work with (the current flame duct depth), but the main changes would be to raise the East side to have the initial portion of the montain terrain under the mesh.
For now I'll probably raise the water tower a bit and be done with this, as IMO it is in a "releasable state".
That is the vessel-loaded mesh and IMO it doesn't look bad at all (except the water tower being buried in the mountain). There is about 15m below it to work with (the current flame duct depth), but the main changes would be to raise the East side to have the initial portion of the montain terrain under the mesh.
For now I'll probably raise the water tower a bit and be done with this, as IMO it is in a "releasable state".
Attachments
GLS
Well-known member
Lost my mind and learned a new skill: landscape artist... :uhh:
The mesh doesn't connect fully to the mountain side around the edges, but from the pad it looks very decent IMO. I even included the ditch around the South side of the pad.
On the "man-made" side of things, I aligned things as much as possible, but some things need work as they are not symmetrical or there are collisions, etc...
Too tired to commit the work now... :zzz:
The mesh doesn't connect fully to the mountain side around the edges, but from the pad it looks very decent IMO. I even included the ditch around the South side of the pad.
On the "man-made" side of things, I aligned things as much as possible, but some things need work as they are not symmetrical or there are collisions, etc...
Too tired to commit the work now... :zzz:
Attachments
GLS
Well-known member
I'm (finally) done with the Crawler! Not that there aren't many things to fix and add, but it does the basic: up the ramp with correct animations up/down animations, and drops and gets the MLP as advertised.
The truck arms are pretty much as before... I started to work on them, but the mesh is a mess, so I quitted early. Same reason made me not even start with the cabins: they are symmetrical, but the structure isn't... :facepalm:
Added a few more jack heights to choose from, but it seems the mesh isn't correct and we aren't measuring things well and/or the "Crawler guy" at the NSF forum was wrong about some numbers. :shrug:
Anyway, the up/down the pad ramp function is not much improved with both ends moving to share the required correction to keep it leveled, unless one of the end hits the stops. In that case the other does all the work.
---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ----------
I don't know if you are working the OV DaveS, but here's an heads up anyway: I'm merging the TAA meshes, fixing the truss and repositioning the TAA in the PLB, and very likely I'll need to correct the position of the ExtAL (*prays to the Probe to be just that*), and the PLB hatch.
The truck arms are pretty much as before... I started to work on them, but the mesh is a mess, so I quitted early. Same reason made me not even start with the cabins: they are symmetrical, but the structure isn't... :facepalm:
Added a few more jack heights to choose from, but it seems the mesh isn't correct and we aren't measuring things well and/or the "Crawler guy" at the NSF forum was wrong about some numbers. :shrug:
Anyway, the up/down the pad ramp function is not much improved with both ends moving to share the required correction to keep it leveled, unless one of the end hits the stops. In that case the other does all the work.
---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ----------
I don't know if you are working the OV DaveS, but here's an heads up anyway: I'm merging the TAA meshes, fixing the truss and repositioning the TAA in the PLB, and very likely I'll need to correct the position of the ExtAL (*prays to the Probe to be just that*), and the PLB hatch.
- Status
Similar threads
