Project XR Rolling Repair

[Lucy]

Sounds about right. I'm a coder, not an artist.

 

[Urwumpe]

Sounds about right. I'm a coder, not an artist.

Same here. I'm a coder, not a mesher, Jim.

But orbiter looks a bit disappointing without meshes...

 

[Lucy]

I disagree:

 

[Urwumpe]

:blink:

That is... too much for my psychological profile today. Need more input.

 

[Pyromaniac605]

YAY!
Just one more argument against people still using 2006. :lol:

Darren

 

[Lucy]

YAY!
Just one more argument against people still using 2006. :lol:

Darren

Well, I would make a legacy version, but it's completely impossible. The XRs only implemented their new API after they were expanded to VESSEL3 vessels, and it's all version checked, so even providing a version for 2010 (100606) would be a headache all in itself. In addition, the only official XR fleet downloads are for 2010-P1, so it keeps things more happily in-line with current affairs.

2010-P1 is the footoore, people.

 

[theflyingfish]

Very nice. Can't wait to try it. Maybe by the time it's finished I will have actually made it to the moon! One quick question, though; in the second video, the space in the backround appears red. Is it the quality of the video?

 

[Izack]

One quick question, though; in the second video, the space in the backround appears red. Is it the quality of the video?

Nope. That's Orbiter's IRAS Far IR background. You can set the background under "Celestial Sphere" in the Visual Effects tab of the Launchpad. :thumbup:

 

[Lucy]

:hesaid:

I have to say, I forgot I had that enabled, though. I only realised that when watching the video back after recording.

 

[Travis Reed]

YAY!
Just one more argument against people still using 2006. :lol:

Darren

2006!?! They released a new version? *goes back to playing around with Orbiter 2003...*

 

[Lucy]

2006!?! They released a new version? *goes back to playing around with Orbiter 2003...*

You bumped this thread for that? Tch.

Let's see if I can't add something worth bumping for... well, no. Minecraft and work have both nicked most of my free time this past fortnight so not much has changed, though I did kill a memory leak last night (Thank you debuggler ) which would have killed off peoples' XR vessels. Must remember not to stamp on dbeachy1's pointers. ><

A lot of this is still in-the-air, and I'm not adverse to adding new things which wouldn't cause a major rewrite. The F4 menu option for addon settings will be the next thing I'll implement, and then I'm carrying on with fine-tuning this damage and failure system. There are also a few niggles with the placement of action areas and the labelling of them - most likely while I'm trying to juggle them about to fit them within the arbitrary limit of 30 per vessel - which I need to stamp out too. Lastly, if it won't prove too time consuming, I'll add some visual flair, like particle effects and explosions, but if it's going to take an extra month to do that after everything else has been done then I'll probably release and patch it after the fact.

Useless topic bump turned status update, hurrah.

 

[Lucy]

More status updating - I've completely rewritten most of the backend logic behind the scenes to allow for better scalability and hopefully more efficiency and better performance, especially on lower-end machines. I've also added in the custom menu entry Urwumpe suggested, so you can change settings in-flight now as well as from the launchpad.

I'm hoping to get some mass-testing results, so here's an open beta:
Edit: See below for updated link

Let me know how it goes. Documentation is included, please read it. I'd prefer you to test on a clean install, but data about how it plays with other addons, and if there are any it especially doesn't play nicely with, is useful to know.

There is a bug (still) which crops up after a system is repaired and there should be another one waiting to have its action areas defined - I'm working on fixing that.

Please make all bug reports and feedback in this thread so I know where to look for it.

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 ----------

Ulp. I forgot to make it so that the settings are updated when you change them in-flight. File is updated to fix that oversight. >.<

Link is no longer current - see the first post for the link to the current download.

 

[Wishbone]

You can avoid the necessity to read/write/tune the "Per" value by switching to the MTBF number (mean time between failures).

 

[jedimaster1214]

WOW!!! This adds fresh breath to the already amazing XR-2!! :thumbup::thumbup:


First, the pros:

Everything is amazing!!! Now i have a reason to EVA!

Cons:

I've noticed action areas are a bit small, make them bigger maybe?
The GO, NOGO, NOGO IMO would look cooler as a percentage.

 

[Lucy]

You can avoid the necessity to read/write/tune the "Per" value by switching to the MTBF number (mean time between failures).

Not sure what you mean, sorry.

WOW!!! This adds fresh breath to the already amazing XR-2!! :thumbup::thumbup:


First, the pros:

Everything is amazing!!! Now i have a reason to EVA!

Cons:

I've noticed action areas are a bit small, make them bigger maybe?
The GO, NOGO, NOGO IMO would look cooler as a percentage.

About the action areas, they're currently defined at 1m (because that is apparently as small as I can make them) - some of them can be a PITA to get to, I realise this, but too big and they start overlapping, and... well, I'm not entirely sure what happens when they overlap.

There's no reason for them to be a uniform size, or at least no good one that I can think of, so I'll look at making the area size proportional to the physical (visible) size of the system, but such things are done by eye and are somewhat subjective.

As for the GO, NOGO and NOGO (yeah, doesn't work without colours ), there's a percentage (ish) backend to most of it, so it wouldn't be so hard to implement a percentage display. I have tomorrow afternoon off, so this may well be what I wind up spending it doing.

Thanks to you both for testing! :thumbup:

 

[Wishbone]

Currently you have to define two parameters - probability of failure and time during which it can appear. MTBF combines these into one. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution"]Poisson distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] is what you're looking for.

 

[Izack]

Currently you have to define two parameters - probability of failure and time during which it can appear. MTBF combines these into one. Poisson distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is what you're looking for.

Totally unrelated, but 'Poisson distribution?' We shouldn't be seeing any of that in outer space! :lol:

([ame="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson"]Poisson - Wikipédia[/ame])

 

[Lucy]

A lamp de poisson? You've got to have a mind like Detritus to figure that one out.

In any case, looking at that Wikipedia article made me go "Waa maths" quite literally, and it's not often I do that. I've only had a brief look, though. Probability science is quite new to me, and while I vaguely understand what you meant now I'm still not quite at a level of understanding where I could implement that as a backend logic system, but I'll keep reading and looking into it - seems like a more complex and yet simpler system all at once.

 

[Wishbone]

Probability theory and theory of random processes are really sweet for dozens of applications, including computing and aerospace and your own personal finance. Heartily recommend diving into them, the payoff expectation 's gonna be very large.

 

[Lucy]

Well, given that it's a whole new area for me to study and understand, and the amount of time it will probably take me to do this, it probably won't make it into the first version - I'll look at it as a feature for version two, though.