Question XR2 proposal

[Erupter]

I am just getting a grip on this craft, but i find that shuttling back and fort between attitude hold autopilot page and temps page is quite stressing.
Why not making the above MFD, the one showing engine data, so that on reentry it shows the temps data?
This way it would be possibile to continually check the temps without losing autopilot control.

Ok ok you may tell me that my need to check temps is because i am a noob... but safety first, don't they say? :lol:

 

[dbeachy1]

During reentry you should not need to switch between the attitude hold and hull temps screens: you can just leave the hull temp MDA screen up and use shortcut keys to control attitude hold. In fact, the only time I ever use the Attitude Hold MDA screen is to set the initial attitude parameters (i.e., before I first engage the autopilot): during flight I just use the numpad cursor keys to alter attitude hold settings. For a complete list of attitude hold shortcut keys, take a look at page 25 of the XR Flight Operations Manual in the section titled XR Attitude Hold Shortcut Keys.

 

[Linguofreak]

On a similar note (similar in that it has to due with XR series attitude control, at least), a feature I'd like to see is "pitch only" and "bank only" modes, so that one axis can be controlled by the autopilot while leaving the other axis under joystick control. Specifically, I would really like to be able to forget about pitch control and focus entirely on flying bank by hand during reentry. I generally find that a good reentry requires steadier pitch control than I'm generally able to provide by hand, but more flexibility of bank control than the autopilot offers.

 

[Tommy]

AerobrakeMFD can hold pitch, or bank, or both. The downside is that it's not as efficient as the XR's AP since AerobrakeMFD doesn't shift the COG.

 

[Usquanigo]

A fully active VC is the only thing the XR2 needs. It's nigh on perfect otherwise.

For re-entry, and scram climb, I will engage the AP, then watch the temp and use the numpad keys as dbeachy suggested, however sometimes I will switch back to either hit "zero bank" or to use the .5 increments. Once I get high enough, I pretty much go hands off the stick and use the key/click command driven AP to fly the ship. It's the perfect mix of automation and involvment.

Switching back and forth, if you really have to, is as easy as hitting 2 (or 1) and 3 on the number strip above the letters.

Oh, I guess showing the passengers would be cool too.

 

[Tommy]

You can get the .5 degree increments with the keypad, by using the Alt key (I think, might be the Ctrl key) and the numpad.

 

[dbeachy1]

On a similar note (similar in that it has to due with XR series attitude control, at least), a feature I'd like to see is "pitch only" and "bank only" modes, so that one axis can be controlled by the autopilot while leaving the other axis under joystick control.

That should be straightforward to implement; I'll plan to add that to the next XR versions.

You can get the .5 degree increments with the keypad, by using the Alt key (I think, might be the Ctrl key) and the numpad.

Tommy is exactly right (ALT-NUMPAD2/NUMPAD8 is correct). You can zero pitch, zero bank or zero both, as well as adjust by pitch by 2.5- and 0.5-degree increments via shortcut keys. In fact, pretty much every autopilot function (i.e., every button on every autopilot screen) has a corresponding shortcut key -- check out pages 25-26 in the manual for details. You can also click and hold the Data HUD button on the main panel or hold ALT-SPACEBAR to show all the custom XR shortcut keys (including AP shortcuts) on the HUD in-sim.

 

[Linguofreak]

That should be straightforward to implement; I'll plan to add that to the next XR versions.

Yay!

 

[Calsir]

That should be straightforward to implement; I'll plan to add that to the next XR versions.

And what about a DynP holder, much like an altitude holder? It would make the scram ascent profiles you indicated in the XR flight manuals much easier to perform. By the way, thanks for the work you and your teams did with the XR series, as I did resume playing orbiter to fiddle with the new XR2.

Would a complete flight state control autopilot be that far from your design philosophy of heavy pilot workload?

 

[C3PO]

On a similar note (similar in that it has to due with XR series attitude control, at least), a feature I'd like to see is "pitch only" and "bank only" modes, so that one axis can be controlled by the autopilot while leaving the other axis under joystick control. Specifically, I would really like to be able to forget about pitch control and focus entirely on flying bank by hand during reentry.

In the STS I use AutoFCS to manage pitch and yaw. That works brilliantly.
:speakcool:
My suggestion would be to have selectable pitch, bank and yaw modes. In the real world the yaw channel is the most important, because any side slip would compromise the craft in seconds. In the old STS panels the slip indicator only went up to 4° either side. And you should NEVER let it go beyond 2°.

The craft in Orbiter are more resilient.:lol: But it kinda spoils the excitement of reentry.

 

[Arrowstar]

And you should NEVER let it go beyond 2°.

Well, based on that, my "Crews Killed Counter" just went up by a factor of two or three, I think. Funny, I'm pretty sure part of my re-entry procedure is based on side-slipping.... At least, I never keep that gauge at zero during some portions.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

This way it would be possibile to continually check the temps without losing autopilot control.

Although the answer is already given, still good question... I screwed up many reentries before I discovered the AP numpad shortcut functionality :lol:
Anyhow I do also like the idea of partly user/AP control over different axes.

 

[Usquanigo]

Since we're giving suggestions here..... My suggestion would be to implement a fully functional/active VC and maybe a bell like from the DGIV and leave everything else alone. Often not good to mess with perfection.

 

[TSPenguin]

Since day one it was planned for the mkII to have a fully functional VC and that is comming for sure. Just wait a little longer

 

[C3PO]

Well, based on that, my "Crews Killed Counter" just went up by a factor of two or three, I think. Funny, I'm pretty sure part of my re-entry procedure is based on side-slipping.... At least, I never keep that gauge at zero during some portions.

It's specially a problem during roll-reversals. On STS-1 the slip needle 'pegged' on the first reversal, and the commander took over the yaw control. Exciting, huh?:lol:

IIRC Dan's DGIV does model an increase in temp if you slip it. (asymmetric heating) But the problem IRL would be exposure of lesser protected surfaces.

 

[Usquanigo]

It's specially a problem during roll-reversals. On STS-1 the slip needle 'pegged' on the first reversal, and the commander took over the yaw control. Exciting, huh?:lol:

IIRC Dan's DGIV does model an increase in temp if you slip it. (asymmetric heating) But the problem IRL would be exposure of lesser protected surfaces.

Possibly force/pressure on surfaces in directions it wasn't meant to be too, I would think.

And all else being ignored, who wants to end up in a spin at Mach 20? :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Possibly force/pressure on surfaces in directions it wasn't meant to be too, I would think.

Actually, much more complex. The yaw was caused by interaction of RCS exhaust with the airflow, something that was not expected at that time and not included in any simulation or wind tunnel test. Remember the Shuttle was the first real US space plane. I think the Russians also did not have such problems on their first space planes, because the lifting bodies used a different position of the aft RCS. And on Buran, they already knew the problem.

 

[Usquanigo]

Actually, much more complex. The yaw was caused by interaction of RCS exhaust with the airflow, something that was not expected at that time and not included in any simulation or wind tunnel test. Remember the Shuttle was the first real US space plane. I think the Russians also did not have such problems on their first space planes, because the lifting bodies used a different position of the aft RCS. And on Buran, they already knew the problem.

'cept I wasn't talking about the shuttle or buran.

 

[doggie015]

And all else being ignored, who wants to end up in a spin at Mach 20? :lol:

That would be bad... for the people in the craft (if any; maybe a USP (Unmanned Space Plane) could test this) but it would be a spectacular show for people on the ground (NOT at the impact site for obvious reasons)