Project Space Shuttle Photoreal

[Wolf]

Since I have been asked about fps performance, I launched a scenario using the inline GC (since I always use D3D9 and had no idea about inline client fps) and I was surprised to see that the textures are not visible at all (I only see the plain white shuttle mesh)... :shrug:

it is clear I am missing something here...

 

[DaveS]

Since I have been asked about fps performance, I launched a scenario using the inline GC (since I always use D3D9 and had no idea about inline client fps) and I was surprised to see that the textures are not visible at all (I only see the plain white shuttle mesh)... :shrug:

it is clear I am missing something here...

Most likely the resolution of the texture(s) exceed what the inline client is capable of handling. This is most likely due to the age of the DirectX API that it uses (DX7, released in 2000).

 

[Wolf]

Most likely the resolution of the texture(s) exceed what the inline client is capable of handling. This is most likely due to the age of the DirectX API that it uses (DX7, released in 2000).

So maybe a mid/low resolution version of the textures could work with the inline client..:hmm:

 

[4throck]

Or simply disregard the inline client :lol: !
It doesn't support normal maps, reflections, it's slower, etc...

 

[DaveS]

Or simply disregard the inline client :lol: !
It doesn't support normal maps, reflections, it's slower, etc...

I fully agree. If it wasn't hardcoded into the regular Orbiter.exe, I don't know if anyone would actually use it. The only OS that still gives reasonable frame-rates in the inline client is Windows XP. And I don't think there's too many here that use that anymore.

 

[Urwumpe]

I fully agree. If it wasn't hardcoded into the regular Orbiter.exe, I don't know if anyone would actually use it. The only OS that still gives reasonable frame-rates in the inline client is Windows XP. And I don't think there's too many here that use that anymore.

I agree there. Also the differences seem to extend to the beta version as well.

 

[Cras]

IMO, dont worry about making a version for the in-line client. Nobody should be using it anyway. Stick with the intended goal of a hi-res texture, and if the D3D9 or D3D11 clients are the only way to get that, then so be it.

 

[Wolf]

Or simply disregard the inline client :lol: !
It doesn't support normal maps, reflections, it's slower, etc...

:thumbup:

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

Ok guys, seems reasonable.
As you said the inline client is probably not that "popular" anymore

 

[Wolf]

@Donamy
Little problem with the new belly. Looks like the contour at the sides doesn't match with the default one and it generates a gap (unpainted area) between the belly and the side fusolage Tiles...

View attachment 13977

View attachment 13978

 

[Wolf]

Nose section is pretty much done, just need some fine tuning.

Here are some screenshots of Discovery.

View attachment 13983

View attachment 13984

View attachment 13985

 

[Wolf]

xxx

 

[DaveS]

I am pretty much done with Atlantis, Discovery and Endeavour. It's been quite a massive work but now we are almost ready for release.

Here are some closeups of the latest tuning:


View attachment 14019 View attachment 14020 View attachment 14021

View attachment 14022 View attachment 14023 View attachment 14024

View attachment 14025

View attachment 14026

View attachment 14027

Could you repost the attachments? All except for two are NO-GOs.

 

[Wolf]

I messed up with them a bit...
will repost them later

 

[Wolf]

Here are some closeups

View attachment 14028

 

[DaveS]

I noticed that you have a row of large HRSI tiles in front of the elevons on the underbody. This is not how it is arranged on the real orbiters as you can see in the mosaic image below.

 

[Wolf]

Good catch Dave :thumbup:

The HRSI Tiles were enlarged on purpose to cover what I believe is a mesh related issue which affects that specific area in front of the outer elevons (the belly tiles textures look deformed and blurry). The thicker HRSI is kind of evening the odd deformation better then the tiles.



I'll check again with a "normal" HRSI and see if the outcome is acceptable.

 

[Wolf]

News:
Donamy was so kind and patient to provide me with new meshes that fix the Side Hatch problem and greatly improve the SSME's and the nosecone.

Will post soon some related pics

 

[DaveS]

Good catch Dave :thumbup:

The HRSI Tiles were enlarged on purpose to cover what I believe is a mesh related issue which affects that specific area in front of the outer elevons (the belly tiles textures look deformed and blurry). The thicker HRSI is kind of evening the odd deformation better then the tiles.

View attachment 14036

I'll check again with a "normal" HRSI and see if the outcome is acceptable.

That is a good reason. Will you be making a SSU version? SSU should not have these issues and if it does, they'll be fixed.

 

[Wolf]

Similar textures for SSU are in my wishlist. Time permitting...

 

[Wolf]

These are pics of the last tweaks done:
new RCS exhaust scortching on nose section, new Star trackers, new SSME mounts. Also labels and names are now semi-transparent to match the real ones (fuselage structure is now visible in the background.

Unfortunaltely I could not use the new mesh by Donamy which fixed the side hatch problem and had better SSME and Nose cone. Thanks Don anyway for your help,

Atlantis, Discovery and Endeavour Photoreal textures will be released soon on OH.