SSU Development thread (4.0 to 5.0) [DEVELOPMENT HALTED DUE TIME REQUIREMENTS!]

[GLS]

I think, what mostly disturbs people about the progress (or the perceived lack of it), is that there is no true Roadmap.

Although I didn't work 100% towards it, I've been focused on the changes needed to make SSU run in Orbiter 2016 since the Spring of 2016, so that has been my roadmap.
IMO, one big issue for future releases is the launch and orbit phases, so rendezvous can be done (indy91's excellent FDO MFD really highlighted the limitations of our current logic). There is also SSU Workbench, which is also important for launch/rendezvous, for which I was very close to "hiring" someone to work in it this past Spring... but failed. :facepalm:


One more thing I'd like to say: I'm one of newest members of SSU, and a lot of exists today was done before my time, and even with the tons of limitations in several places, I still feel like I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[Wolf]

I still can't code for a while, so consider this as an outsiders comment, please. I am no longer an active contributor.

1. I think, what mostly disturbs people about the progress (or the perceived lack of it), is that there is no true Roadmap. Not, that you are too few hands for too much work. Who doesn't respect the work done in the past 12 years doesn't deserve to be heard.
2. Especially the mesh work simply just happened, usually without anybody complaining that unknown work is done or complaints about unknown requirements on the meshes. Except those times when release urges again and people test the current state of the project.
3. I would recommend some better transparency there, tell what needs to be done and what you are fixing next. Maybe make a shortlist of five "most annoying flaws" you are intending to fix in the next iteration of each mesh. Just the big list of issues on SF isn't a good indicator of direction.
4. The DPS is a very complicated topic and requires time to focus and plan things. Its better to "drill thinner boards" there, if there are too few development resources. Its current architecture gets the job done, but its sure not in a state that makes it easy to develop further.
5. Also, there seems to be a lack of agreement, what the next major project milestone should be. Again, I can't contribute code, so I won't tell you what this milestone should be, but you should find an agreement there.

Please, Could you be more specific on point 2. I am not quite sure I understood it well

 

[GLS]

Just exactly will a new VC give us that we already don't have?

The biggest thing would be having it match the exterior mesh, so there would be no artefacts when looking out of a window. It would also allow to fix some mapping issues panels, and with some thinking done beforehand it could even allow for interior lighting.

It will still run into the DPS Roadblock no matter how good looking and accurate it is.

True, but only for the new vc allowing the implementation of a MCDS vc. That would require new a different display driving logic, but IMO that is down the road and in the meantime the DPS being slowly pushed along so I don't think it would be a "roadblock".

 

[Wolf]

I still can't code for a while, so consider this as an outsiders comment, please. I am no longer an active contributor.

1. I think, what mostly disturbs people about the progress (or the perceived lack of it), is that there is no true Roadmap. Not, that you are too few hands for too much work. Who doesn't respect the work done in the past 12 years doesn't deserve to be heard.

About this one, since it's clearly referred to me, I'd like to say that no one here has disrespect for anyone or anything. I was just expressing my point of view (as you were with your "shopping list" above) as an external observer and maybe I didn't make myself clear: I was just noting that 1 person involved in such an endeavour has lmited time and resources compared to 5-10 people working on the same project in the same timeframe. This is in no way a crticism.

 

[Gingin]

Work done in the past 12 years is indeed amazing.

If I may react on a point

one big issue for future releases is the launch and orbit phases, so rendezvous can be done (indy91's excellent FDO MFD really highlighted the limitations of our current logic)

Expect for the LAN targeting, everything in my opinion is already working well on that matter.
I don't count the number of rendez vous I did, from simple one to complex one with re capture, with a very close to real timeline thanks to Indy's work and accurate coding of Spec 34

Rendez Vous can completely be done already.

 

[Donamy]

I'm just an observer.

 

[GLS]

Expect for the LAN targeting, everything in my opinion is already working well on that matter.
I don't count the number of rendez vous I did, from simple one to complex one with re capture, with a very close to real timeline thanks to Indy's work and accurate coding of Spec 34

Rendez Vous can completely be done already.

We currently have instability in pitch near MECO (something not strange to the real vehicle), which degrades our FPA targeting, which messes up the apogee.

 

[Wolf]

I'm just an observer.

Still you are entitled to have your say without the risk of being banned I hope :thumbup:

 

[Gingin]

We currently have instability in pitch near MECO (something not strange to the real vehicle), which degrades our FPA targeting, which messes up the apogee.

Ah ok I see.
I had the feeling that is was really accurate ( might by config and fps dependant though)

 

[DaveS]

Advisory: I'm currently working on the orbiter, right now the items in work are the PLBDs, both interior and exterior. The interior part is being a bit difficult right now but latest analysis indicates that the beams that the C/L latches are attached to are located too inboard so this needs to be fixed. The reason for this discrepancy lies in that I now realize that I had misinterpreted the attached schematic. The Y-axis coordinates listed on that schematic is not for the inboard edges of the beams, but rather the the ribs that give the doors their structural strength.

 

[GLS]

Advisory: I'm currently working on the orbiter, right now the items in work are the PLBDs, both interior and exterior. The interior part is being a bit difficult right now but latest analysis indicates that the beams that the C/L latches are attached to are located too inboard so this needs to be fixed. The reason for this discrepancy lies in that I now realize that I had misinterpreted the attached schematic. The Y-axis coordinates listed on that schematic is not for the inboard edges of the beams, but rather the the ribs that give the doors their structural strength.

No problem, as I'm currently hanging on the Access Tower at SLC-6...

 

[GLS]

Now working the MLP... probably until the next year, judging by the amount of work... :facepalm:

 

[Urwumpe]

Please, Could you be more specific on point 2. I am not quite sure I understood it well

Well, most of the time, when something was improved on meshes or textures, there had been no big planning about what to change, how to change it or how to prioritize it. Somebody decided to do it, contributed the work and as long as it looked good nobody else ever had to complain. A lot of work went into meshes only needed for 1% of the mission? No deal, as long as it looked good.

But when something was not looking good, the module code was good enough for a release, but the meshes had been buggy, this way of operation was very much open for criticism.

Consider it the classic project management question of "when to work creative" and "when to work methodically". You can't have it both without conflicts.

There had been a time, when it almost looked like SSU was going to become a better Crawler simulator than a Space Shuttle simulator.

---------- Post added 4th Oct 2019 at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was 3rd Oct 2019 at 23:56 ----------

About this one, since it's clearly referred to me, I'd like to say that no one here has disrespect for anyone or anything. I was just expressing my point of view (as you were with your "shopping list" above) as an external observer and maybe I didn't make myself clear: I was just noting that 1 person involved in such an endeavour has lmited time and resources compared to 5-10 people working on the same project in the same timeframe. This is in no way a crticism.

No, not at all, there are also others and you are not a true outsider for the project as well. So, please, don't take this personal, it wasn't directed at you. Maybe you had been standing in the coarse direction of fire there, but I sure didn't mean to aim at you. :tiphat:

Yes, one person is enough to keep things alive, but not to make true progress. But we can't get more than one right now. And most of the time, we used to be lucky to have just two. I estimated SSU at one early point at about 35000 manhours just for the coding end (about after 1 year of development). And we have maybe done just 15% of this now, after 12 years.

And that didn't even include the lessons learned during those years. We initially wanted to keep many things simpler than they are now. And less flexible. Or the graphics.

 

[GLS]

I estimated SSU at one early point at about 35000 manhours just for the coding end (about after 1 year of development). And we have maybe done just 15% of this now, after 12 years.

A quick calculation tells me I did more than half of those 15%, just in the last 2 years... that estimate is below the actual value, or I'm getting) addicted to this... probably both.

 

[DaveS]

Due to some personal reasons, I've had to suspend all work on my side. Not sure when I'll be back.

 

[JMW]

So sorry to hear that DaveS.

Hope that things resolve well for you.

 

[Urwumpe]

Due to some personal reasons, I've had to suspend all work on my side. Not sure when I'll be back.

OK, such things happen. I am sure it will still be there when you come back.



Good luck!

 

[Donamy]

Hope it's nothing serious.



Take care of priorities first. Orbiter is just an obsession.

 

[DaveS]

It's an old medical issue of mine that has flared up again. I'm slowly getting better so hopefully I'll return soon as I was close to finishing work on the left payload bay door.

 

[Wolf]

It's an old medical issue of mine that has flared up again. I'm slowly getting better so hopefully I'll return soon as I was close to finishing work on the left payload bay door.

Get well soon Dave!