Space Shuttle Ultra 1.25 Revision B development

[DaveS]

Here's a screenshot from AC3D showing the now completely overhauled SRMS. Just a few more items left on the orbiter and the OBSS and things should be ready for check in.

---------- Post added at 01:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

Everything is now done and checked in. They should be solid enough for the necessary code updates.

---------- Post added at 03:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 AM ----------

Checked in an updated StbdMPMSystem.h as it was forgotten. The new data places the starboard MPMs in their correct locations as well as the OBSS.

 

[SiameseCat]

The shuttle is untextured in a lot of the scenarios (e.g. STS-120/Final Countdown). Is there a texture missing?

 

[DaveS]

The shuttle is untextured in a lot of the scenarios (e.g. STS-120/Final Countdown). Is there a texture missing?

Weird. I checked in the new blank orbiter texture I forgot to check in. Try it now.

 

[SiameseCat]

Fixed.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

Checked in the updated RMS code and the new OBSS config file.

 

[DaveS]

Checked in the updated RMS code and the new OBSS config file.

I noticed that the positions for the RMS/starboard MPMs are off a bit. I have managed to correct the starboard MPMs but I can't find any mesh offset parameter for the RMS. Is there any?

 

[SiameseCat]

No (at the moment, there isn't any offset). I can add an offset parameter if you want. Do you know what the required offset is?

 

[DaveS]

No (at the moment, there isn't any offset). I can add an offset parameter if you want. Do you know what the required offset is?

0.05m in X and 0.015m in Y for the starboard MPMs, looks like it should be the same for the RMS.

 

[SiameseCat]

Checked in changes.

 

[DaveS]

I have checked in the fixes for the mesh offsets as well as corrections to the MPM bases. Someone needs to fix the positions of the EE camera and the elbow camera as they're still based on the positions of the old EE/elbow camera locations.

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 AM ----------

Checked updated sources that fixes the elbow camera pan/tilt animations.

 

[DaveS]

As I continue to work with the orbiter mesh/textures, I have found that the orbiter is too big. I could fix that so we wold be able to use the actual NASA shuttle coordinate system but it would probably end up breaking the VC animations which I can't fix as AC3D CTDs as the VC mesh is loaded.

I would like this decision to be unanimous, so I won't do anything with the scale until we have reached a decision everyone is behind.

 

[Urwumpe]

As I continue to work with the orbiter mesh/textures, I have found that the orbiter is too big. I could fix that so we wold be able to use the actual NASA shuttle coordinate system but it would probably end up breaking the VC animations which I can't fix as AC3D CTDs as the VC mesh is loaded.

I would like this decision to be unanimous, so I won't do anything with the scale until we have reached a decision everyone is behind.

How big is the error this time, and where is the orbiter model wrong?

 

[SiameseCat]

Didn't we fix the size issue a couple of years ago? I remember having to redo a lot of VC animations a while back.

When you talk about breaking the VC animations, does that mean that you can't resize the VC, or just that you won't be able to calculate the animation positions for the new mesh.

 

[Urwumpe]

Didn't we fix the size issue a couple of years ago? I remember having to redo a lot of VC animations a while back.

When you talk about breaking the VC animations, does that mean that you can't resize the VC, or just that you won't be able to calculate the animation positions for the new mesh.

I remember the same, and that we had agreed back then to already use the proper dimensions for Shuttle and payload bay, thus my question after the magnitude of the error. For anything smaller than one foot, I would not recommend corrections.

 

[DaveS]

How big is the error this time, and where is the orbiter model wrong?

Well, here's a midbody comparison:

Real midbody: 5.1x5.82x18.27 (m)
SSU midbody: 5.6x5.29x19.90 (m)

So as you can see, the midbody is too wide, too low in height and too long in length.

Didn't we fix the size issue a couple of years ago? I remember having to redo a lot of VC animations a while back.

Yes we did but we didn't resize to the correct dimensions.

When you talk about breaking the VC animations, does that mean that you can't resize the VC, or just that you won't be able to calculate the animation positions for the new mesh.

Both. As I can't import the VC mesh, I can't resize it and provide the new animation numbers.

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 AM ----------

Here's the comparison numbers for the overall Orbiter Vehicle:

Real OV: 23.42x14.30x37.28 (m)
SSU OV: 23.42x14.30x32.31 (m)

So there you have it. The wingspan and height are correct but the length is off.

 

[SiameseCat]

There's absolutely no way we can do this unless the VC mesh can be fixed. Donamy, can you resize the mesh? Otherwise, maybe we should split the mesh up (into forward and aft sections, or something).

If we're going to redo the Orbiter mesh, we should probably split all this work into a separate branch, so we don't break everything while we're fixing the animations. We can merge everything back into the main branch when we're done.

 

[DaveS]

There's absolutely no way we can do this unless the VC mesh can be fixed. Donamy, can you resize the mesh? Otherwise, maybe we should split the mesh up (into forward and aft sections, or something).

If we're going to redo the Orbiter mesh, we should probably split all this work into a separate branch, so we don't break everything while we're fixing the animations. We can merge everything back into the main branch when we're done.

Just checked the FWD fuselage and it is just about correct. No major mods there.

---------- Post added at 01:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------

Just checked the aft engine compartment and it needs corrections as well. So to summarize:

FWD fuselage: OK
Midbody: Needs corrections
Aft engine compartment: Needs corrections.
Wings: OK
Vertical stabilizer: Needs corrections

---------- Post added at 02:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 AM ----------

Checked in a very detailed document from 1980 detailing the entire Space Shuttle System. It was issued by Rockwell International's Space Systems Group in May 1980.

 

[SiameseCat]

Does that mean we can leave the VC mesh unchanged? If it's just a case of fixing a few of the Orbiter animations (PLBDs, aerosurfaces, etc.) I think we should fix the meshes.

 

[DaveS]

Does that mean we can leave the VC mesh unchanged? If it's just a case of fixing a few of the Orbiter animations (PLBDs, aerosurfaces, etc.) I think we should fix the meshes.

Based on the checks that indicate that the FWD fuselage is OK, I think we could leave the VC alone.

 

[Donamy]

It's not just re-sizing, it's also re-texturing. Nothing I have time or will to do right now. However, DaveS can have at it, if he wishes.

 

[DaveS]

It's not just re-sizing, it's also re-texturing. Nothing I have time or will to do right now. However, DaveS can have at it, if he wishes.

Already on it. Working on the new aft engine compartment right now.

---------- Post added at 05:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 AM ----------

Just to post my opinion on the priority of this: It can wait a while. It's not that urgent given the determination that the VC isn't affected.