SiameseCat
Addon Developer
Has anyone confirmed that SSU works with Orbiter 2010? From a programming standpoint, I don't think there's much of a difference (until we start using the Sketchpad class).
Space Shuttle Ultra 1.25 Revision B development
- Thread starter Urwumpe
- Start date
Works nicely here, no CTDs. Seems the only major change from transition perspective is KSC.
SiameseCat
Addon Developer
I'm planning to make the SubsystemDirector/Subsystem classes use templates, instead of being tied to the Atlantis class. This will make the Crawler development a lot easier, and it might be useful for some of the other vessels too.
And this shouldn't be a problem, from a scenario perspective. The coordinates is pretty much the same, so all we need to do is adapt the new default Canaveral.cfg.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Can sure be done. Maybe we can already permit some bigger tests by having either a Orbiter 2010 fork of SSU being developed in parallel to the 2006 development,or simpler: By having a special SSU2010 context for the scenarios that are based on the Orbiter 2010 Canaveral.
SiameseCat
Addon Developer
I'm in the process of updating the Subsystem/SubsytemDirector classes to use templates. My plan is to modify the files in the libUltra folder, and include these in the Crawler project. For the moment, I'll leave the files used by the Atlantis project alone.
I can't find suitable SDK to compile MFC. I heard that it isn't available for VCExpress...Checked in updated Earth.cfg and SSU\Canaveral.cfg files, now adapted for Orbiter2010. No need to update the scenarios, they're still good.
Urwumpe: I guess now it's time to start working on the VAB while SC finishes up the C/T?
Urwumpe: I guess now it's time to start working on the VAB while SC finishes up the C/T?
How much work have been done so far? Any sigificant?
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Nothing of use, since my PC was constantly overwhelmed by your meshes. Didn't even get to the animation test so far, only had some switches for testing which mesh kills the game.
OK. Just to do some checking: How are we going to simulate the transfer of the various elements from their storage places(SRM segments from either Surge 1 or Surge 2, the SRB FWD Skirt Assys from the low bay, the ET from the barge over to one of the vertical cells in H/B 2 or 4 and the orbiter from one of the OPFs)?
For the first 14 flights, the SRM segments were processed in either H/B 2 or 4 as the RPSF and Surges 1 and 2 weren't built until 1984.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
I would say, by the right vehicles and cranes. Having the barge would be a must have then, if you want to simulate this.
For the start, we could just spawn the elements inside the VAB and transport them by cranes.
No idea how this would affect us. I fear sometimes we put currently so much work into the ground handling, that the orbital world gets lost behind the cloud of dust that this kicks up. The Crawler is almost feeling as complex as the orbiter itself here, despite it sure being no rocket science.
SiameseCat
Addon Developer
Any idea when we'll have a semi-working GPC simulation?
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Depends on which simulation model you mean. The AP-101S emulation is currently mostly for the fun of it, the SimpleGPC stuff can be made working in a rather short time, maybe three weeks.
The SimpleGPC stuff is purely C++ and native code, the AP-101S emulation would need also a large set of tools and source codes to be working. But I can already see the SimpleGPC concept getting to its limits soon, since we also need to structure the code for fitting into Orbiters timesteps, what would be no longer needed for the AP-101S emulation. And the emulation could also simpler be moved to multicore processors.
Coding also for different software versions and software distributions would also be simpler for the emulation.
So, the SimpleGPC should be primary as long as the emulation has no complete tool chain ready. Once it is possible to actually write complete software for the emulation, or convince NASA to give us the original software, the SimpleGPC could be made option and the emulation primary, since the emulation offers a lot of improvements for getting the exact behavior of the GPCs right.
Since both models would share the same I/O implementation (= connection of subsystems to the GPCs), this is currently my focus there... Poscik had stated interest to help there.
Poscik
Addon Developer
I'm working on 3d telemetry representation for SSU. I finally can get data to another application via TCP, like this:
Data order is: altitude in meters, pitch, yaw, roll, all three axes in degrees... No I only have to write simple DX9 application which can represent current shuttle state
It is little modified CRT MFD ;P And it sends data every 3 seconds. At the moment everything is hard-coded... but it's in test phase right now.
Data order is: altitude in meters, pitch, yaw, roll, all three axes in degrees... No I only have to write simple DX9 application which can represent current shuttle state
It is little modified CRT MFD ;P And it sends data every 3 seconds. At the moment everything is hard-coded... but it's in test phase right now.
