Space Shuttle Ultra 1.25 Revision B development

[SiameseCat]

Mission File Entries

For the latch code, an entry needs to be added to the mission file indicating how many latches are in each group controlled from Panel A6. I'm wondering if the best way to do this is to just add another entry for the number of latches associated with each payload (we already have a PayloadZPos entry, which sets the position of the attachment point), or to create a separate ACTIVE_LATCH block, which will have all the parameters associated with that latch (# of individual latches, as well as attach point position and anything else we might need).

For the ODS/Airlock configuration, I'm planning to add HasODS and HasExtAL entries to the mission file; adding the ODS will automatically add the External Airlock as well.

 

[Donamy]

Sounds great ! Will we also be able to move it's position and still have the ODS animation ?

Another question for you SC. Is there a way that the grapple code could include, grappling things already attached to another object, by having them release when the RMS is hard grappled ? It works great for things attached in the bay.

 

[SiameseCat]

Sounds great ! Will we also be able to move it's position and still have the ODS animation ?

Another question for you SC. Is there a way that the grapple code could include, grappling things already attached to another object, by having them release when the RMS is hard grappled ? It works great for things attached in the bay.

Changing the ODS position shouldn't affect the animations.

At the moment, when the RMS grapples something attached to another vessel, it waits until the other vessel releases the object before attaching it to the shuttle. You can't move the arm while whatever it is holding is double-grappled. I think this works better than forcing the other vessel to release whatever the RMS is grappling.

 

[Donamy]

Oh, it does that already ? I didn't realize that, I'll have to try that ASAP. It just keeps getting better. Thanks !!

 

[DaveS]

The VAB in its current state of construction:

 

[SiameseCat]

Checked in the code to set the ODS/Airlock position.

To add the ODS, 'UseODS=true' needs to be added to the mission file. To add the External airlock, 'UseExtAL=true' needs to be added. The horizontal position in the payload bay is defined by the ODSZPos parameter.

 

[Donamy]

Sweet !! Thankyou very much, will try it ASAP.

Question: Have the modules been updated ?

 

[DaveS]

Now that the External Airlock and ODS are optional, could we begin work on supporting the orbiters like OV-102 and OV-099? And other variants of OVs 103 through 105?

 

[Donamy]

Still need the SSME to stow.

 

[Urwumpe]

And the computer displays working...and ... so much to do and so little time. Also I want to get some scenario editor bindings working... not yet sure when...

The next addition that I can commit will likely be a small MFC tool for editing the computer displays and write them into files of Display Format Tables. It is pretty progressed during the research and should be a useful addition for future development.

Maybe I will become notebook owner soon, would mean I have more development time...

 

[SiameseCat]

Now that the External Airlock and ODS are optional, could we begin work on supporting the orbiters like OV-102 and OV-099? And other variants of OVs 103 through 105?

What would need to be changed to support the different variants? Most of the changes could probably be implemented as mission file parameters.

 

[DaveS]

Checked in some fixes to the CT:

• New CT engine sound
• Fixed drive truck Z-offset
• Fixed CT maximum jacking height, which is 6 ft(1.8 m)

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

What would need to be changed to support the different variants? Most of the changes could probably be implemented as mission file parameters.

Well, for example:

Drag-chute:

• Was a production feature on OV-105
• OV-102 was drag-chute modified during her OMDP after OV-102 flight 11.
• OV-103 was drag-chute modified during her OMDP after OV-103 flight 14.
• OV-104 was drag-chute modified during her OMDP after OV-104 flight 12.
• OV-099 was never equipped with drag-chute prior to her loss during her 10th flight.

OV-102 Shuttle Infrared Lee-side Temperature Sensor(SILTS) Orbiter Experiment(OEX) was installed during the OMDP after OV-102 flight 6.

Those were the two major Outer Mold Line(OML) modifications done to the orbiters during their early years of service.

Then we for example have the paint job mods, compare OV-103 flights 24(STS-91) and 25(STS-95). Thanks to then NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin all the NASA worm-logos had to go, including the ones on the orbiters. THey were replaced with the current NASA meatball logo.

There was some discussion on whether or not to do this modification to OV-102 during her flight 26 OMDP. In the end, they decided to carry out the modification.

 

[SiameseCat]

There are a couple of ways I can think of to deal with the differences.

1. Have mission file entries to specify the mesh/textures used.
2. Check the shuttle name (specified in mission file) and date to determine which meshes to use.
3. A combination of 1 and 2, with the mission file entries overriding the default selection.

 

[Urwumpe]

The internal/external airlock would also be a variation, just as well as the VC before STS-101 (which currently does not matter that much since we don't have one VC complete yet, but which I would more like to see than anything).

Also, there are many internal differences over time, like the addition of GPS, new computers, software upgrades, new IMUs, crew escape gear, etc.

 

[SiameseCat]

The internal/external airlock would also be a variation, just as well as the VC before STS-101 (which currently does not matter that much since we don't have one VC complete yet, but which I would more like to see than anything).

Also, there are many internal differences over time, like the addition of GPS, new computers, software upgrades, new IMUs, crew escape gear, etc.

Most of this stuff hasn't been simulated at all yet, so we should probably simulate the latest version first and then add older versions when we have the chance.

One problem I've noticed is that the panels have also changed over time, and some of the versions we have are outdated. The R2 Panel in SSU has only 1 APU AUTO SHUTDOWN switch, whereas the real shuttle currently has 3 (one for each APU).

 

[Donamy]

My head hurts !!

 

[Urwumpe]

One problem I've noticed is that the panels have also changed over time, and some of the versions we have are outdated. The R2 Panel in SSU has only 1 APU AUTO SHUTDOWN switch, whereas the real shuttle currently has 3 (one for each APU).

Yes, also the DPS displays changed a bit already since 2004.

That is why I try to get as much version options into the software as possible in the short time. Like moving the display data into external files, just like the real Shuttle does.

 

[Donamy]

I have added the ODS and ExtAL parimeters to the scenario, but I don't have them visible.


USEODS=TRUE
USEEXTAL=TRUE

 

[DaveS]

I have added the ODS and ExtAL parimeters to the scenario, but I don't have them visible.


USEODS=TRUE
USEEXTAL=TRUE

Donamy: You're supposed to put those in the mission file which can be found in the <Orbiter root>\Missions\SSU\ directory. For now there's only one official mission file, for STS-120.

 

[Urwumpe]

Donamy: You're supposed to put those in the mission file which can be found in the <Orbiter root>\Missions\SSU\ directory. For now there's only one official mission file, for STS-120.

And you need to have a parameter "MISSION STS-120" in the scenario.