Project G42-200 StarLiner

I'm assuming that large parts of this, eg. the HUD supports and the ex-EICAS panels on either side, are going to be semi-transparent (If thats even possible in orbiter...) to increase visibility.

BTW, what does FCS and EICAS stand for?

Also: YAY, we have cup holders now!:cheers::thumbup:
 
What do the SAS switches underneath the flight control stick do?
 
I'm assuming that large parts of this, eg. the HUD supports and the ex-EICAS panels on either side, are going to be semi-transparent (If thats even possible in orbiter...) to increase visibility.

BTW, what does FCS and EICAS stand for?

the hud is transparent, as usual :lol:
those utility screens are not, and they don't have to be - because that's where the thick part of the windshild side columns meet the panel frame, so it's already blocked to some extent, hence, the placement of those panels

FCS = Flight Computer System
EICAS = Engine Instrument and Crew Alert System


What do the SAS switches underneath the flight control stick do?


SAS = Stability Augmentation System, it's the thing that makes the G42 fly like it more airworhty than it actually is :lol:
it's pretty much the fly-by-wire system... i wouldn't turn that off, unless there's an emergency that requires doing so :thumbup:

and yes, we have cupholders! :cheers:
 
once again, i offer my input:

on the small readout on the top of the forward panel (the main one) you can change altitude between feet and FL, i say forget the FL, and set that to Km, because FL is similar to feet and Km is easier to get from the orbiter engine and easier for some of us to glance at

arent there enough controls? it looks like its going to become a little complicated to fly this thing

engine controls paticularly are a little complex, theyre all over the pit for one, and there are also too many switches, is it to give full flexibility? bue who would really want to run turborockets AND RAMCASTERs at the same time?
 
(...) who would really want to run turborockets AND RAMCASTERs at the same time?


i expect everyone would... for a few seconds worth, that is :huh: :banana:

to smooth out the transition between engines, and mostly for safety reasons, the turbojets are not to be disengaged until full ramcaster operation is secured

so if something is out of whack and the ramcaster cough and puffs out, you're not becoming a glider, and can still turn around and land less embarassingly than it'd be in the middle of the ocean :lol:


there are a lot of switches, indeed... it's a highly advanced multi-engined spacecraft, lots of switches is to be expected, one would think, no?

and actually, it's not that many... the blueprint line drawings make everything cobble up and look a lot more messy than it should :thumbup:

but they're not all over the pit - they are strategically positioned around the flight-operator's seat on the knee-pad and on the center console, butthat's all of them....

most of the other switches are related to additional non-engine systems, like electics, autopilots, RCS and stuff


and good thinking on that little measuring panel - i'll add a switch to toggle imperial and metric units (why not have both?) :cheers:
 
there are a lot of switches, indeed... it's a highly advanced multi-engined spacecraft, lots of switches is to be expected, one would think, no?

No. My impression is, the more advanced something is, the less switches it has. :lol:
 
well, since the standard orbinaut will probably stick to the commander seat, those other engine controls are a long way out of reach, moving seat is one more thing you need to think about in a flight sage which has enough going on already (where are my wings at, did i remember to shift the CoG, where's my throttle, did i set the trim, how's the DnP, is it actualy the right time to switch engines?)

its not too bad, they're only boost pumps, and supply lines wouldnt need to be toggled at such a stage (unless you're having a really bad day)

also, i like the little drogue chute lever youve put in there, good for landing, since you can afford to bleed off a bit of speed above the runway because you can always hit some serious brake power there. and the Parking brake is a nice addition

one last question: whats the reheat for? dont we already have some beasty afterburners attached to the main engnies? the only other thing i can think of is that its for the RAMCASTERs, but do they really need a reheat?

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

No. My impression is, the more advanced something is, the less switches it has. :lol:

seconded: if its mroe advanced, it can do more by itself.

but in case of computer failure, its nice to be able to do everything yourself (supposing the computer failure still leaves other systems like hydraulics intact and operable)
 
(...)whats the reheat for? dont we already have some beasty afterburners attached to the main engnies? the only other thing i can think of is that its for the RAMCASTERs, but do they really need a reheat?


the reheat IS the afterburner :lol: - that's why we need it there :thumbup:


also, looking closer up, you'll see that a lot of those switches have an "auto" option in the middle - that means if you leave it there, it'll work itself out - unless, like you put it: one's having a really bad day :P

the switches need to be there in case something doesn't go as planned - if all is fine, you don't have to (really even shouldn't) touch most of them :cheers:
 
Hang up, there's a dart jetteson position for the switch under DARTS on the centre, but right below that there's a pull and turn leaver marked jettison, So what does that one do?
 
isnt there already an "Afterburner on/off" switch somewhere? and wasnt it going to be on anyway, just not at low throttles on turbojet setup?

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

one disconnects the fuel flow (the switch) and the handle jetissons them
 
ahh.
Theres a button (or a light, you cant tell) on the center of the middle panel, right at the top, marked "Fire" any ideas about that one?
 
ahh.
Theres a button (or a light, you cant tell) on the center of the middle panel, right at the top, marked "Fire" any ideas about that one?

That there is a fire?
 
Assuming a traditional throttle where forward=full shouldn't the reheat switches be above the throttle lever?
 
Assuming a traditional throttle where forward=full shouldn't the reheat switches be above the throttle lever?

Well on Concorde they're below the throttles...not sure if this is what Moach is thinking of, though.

Also, about those MFDs/EFBs - are they going to be fully functional? I'm not sure if this is possible in Orbiter, but something along the lines of what there is in Flightgear would be very nice (however I assume those would require massive amounts of work...).
 
Moach is thinking of having every panel operational in the final release, but like he said before, one bit at a time; he still has meshwork to do before he can get onto modeling the VC or even coding it
 
Moach is thinking of having every panel operational in the final release, but like he said before, one bit at a time; he still has meshwork to do before he can get onto modeling the VC or even coding it


Also, from my personal experience, it isn't really wise to develop the cockpit before you know the subsystems. of course there is the urge. But it is bad.

The Black Dart VC is for example currently not what I could really love with my full heart. I can like it, sure. But it doesn't really provide the best interface to the spacecraft behind it, and that makes it feel wrong. The problem was, the VC was getting developed already before I really had a clue about the subsystems, and now that the subsystems get slowly sketched out in a logical way, the initial VC is no longer fitting, but I also still have not done any good research how a VC would be really good.

One idea I had was making a special software for simulating cockpits, but I realized that Orbiter is already that software. A better mesh editor just for this task and a better framework for creating VCs would be all that is needed for it being perfect.
 
Also, from my personal experience, it isn't really wise to develop the cockpit before you know the subsystems. of course there is the urge. But it is bad.

The Black Dart VC is for example currently not what I could really love with my full heart. I can like it, sure. But it doesn't really provide the best interface to the spacecraft behind it, and that makes it feel wrong. The problem was, the VC was getting developed already before I really had a clue about the subsystems, and now that the subsystems get slowly sketched out in a logical way, the initial VC is no longer fitting, but I also still have not done any good research how a VC would be really good.

One idea I had was making a special software for simulating cockpits, but I realized that Orbiter is already that software. A better mesh editor just for this task and a better framework for creating VCs would be all that is needed for it being perfect.

which is why i devised my little flash map of the pit layout...

i found, when modelling the '100 pit, that it was very hard to decide where everything would go at modeling time... turns out, 3dsmax ain't what you would call a proper "brainstorming tool" :facepalm:


i have already a good idea of what systems should be operable on the G42 now... mostly in my head... the cockpit map is a good way to visualize it... i had drawn it on paper first, but there was neither enough room for it, nor the possiblility to make changes without drawing the whole thing again...

so flash came about quite handy, i must say :thumbup:


when i find that i got a good enough layout (and there'll be some more editing before that) - i'll break up that blueprint in image that i'll use as textures, that i plan to model AROUND

-i've done that before, and yes, i'm aware of the model-texture-animate workflow paradigm, but i found that texture-model-animate-textureAgain-modelSomeMore-animateMore-aLittleMoreTexturing can be lots more efficient if done right :rofl:


so while i draw up the buttons and switches, i'm also running the checklists in my head and figuring what needs to be where and what can go :cheers:




Q-n-A:

that FIRE button in the middle is the fire warning light - it's as big as fire is a big problem in spacecraft :thumbup:

the reheat switches are behind the throttle for an ergonomics reason - the FADEC handle would be uncomfortably retreated if those were up in front

and as per Grover's suggestion, the afterburners (aka: reheaters) are not needed to be on at all times - allowing powered taxi and flight in situations that are not too fuel-critical

whenever the reheat switch is set to "AFB" (afterburner mode) - the FADEC range between 75-100% controls the actual burner throttle, like a regular military jet...

in "FULL" mode, the engines are locked for rocket operations - do mind that "FULL" is not a "next-step" setting from afterburner, it's a completely different configuration, which is why that position is opposite of the central "SPR" (suppress mode), that disables the post-combustors altogether :hmm:


the switch above the tank jettison lever connects the external tanks to the fuel supply (perhaps you wish to save it for later, dunno...)

the DARTS are not ejected with the same lever as the tanks - they're a completely separated system, and to eject one just needs to pull the fire switch back (assuming darts are armed)

i do plan to implement most features you see on that VC - one at a time, and only just as thoroughly as it makes sense to have in Orbiter... still i wanna have them all drawn up so i can properly decide what's sim-worthy and what can just be ignored


later, folks! :salute:
 
so flash came about quite handy, i must say :thumbup:

I prefer Inkscape for this concept work, but I guess it is in this context just the same in different colors. :lol:
 
I prefer Inkscape for this concept work, but I guess it is in this context just the same in different colors. :lol:

yeah, i like flash, it's got very nice tools for line drawings :cheers:
 
yeah, i like flash, it's got very nice tools for line drawings :cheers:

I maybe use 5% of what Inkscape has... which is still a lot for the task. :lol:
 
Back
Top