Space Shuttle Ultra 1.25 Revision B development

[Donamy]

:lol:

 

[SiameseCat]

How is the new mesh coming along? I think that's the main thing that's still holding up the release.

 

[DaveS]

How is the new mesh coming along? I think that's the main thing that's still holding up the release.

It's coming along, the only hold ups on it is the OMS pod texture and that I don't have any photos or images of the PLBD structure under the two deployable radiator panels. Then it is updating the various individual orbiter textures.

 

[Urwumpe]

How is the new mesh coming along? I think that's the main thing that's still holding up the release.

Do we really want to include the new meshes in the release? Or can we release without them?

 

[DaveS]

Do we really want to include the new meshes in the release? Or can we release without them?

I don't see any reason to hold up the release it for the new meshes/textures, but I'll leave it up to you to make that decision, as I'm fine either way.

 

[SiameseCat]

I'm fine with releasing without the new meshes.

Looking at the open tickets, I think we can do Tickets #26, #27 and #32. I think Ticket #20 is already fixed. DaveS, do you have time to look at Ticket #14? I think this is only a texture issue now, and the code is working.

 

[DaveS]

I'm fine with releasing without the new meshes.

Looking at the open tickets, I think we can do Tickets #26, #27 and #32. I think Ticket #20 is already fixed. DaveS, do you have time to look at Ticket #14? I think this is only a texture issue now, and the code is working.

I'll check it(#14).

---------- Post added at 03:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 AM ----------

Alright, so I checked ticket #14("Show ET burnt texture after ET sep") and it's not working. It's supposed to activate at SRB sep right?

 

[SiameseCat]

I thought I had checked the fixed code in, but I hadn't. The burnt ET code should be working now, but the burnt texture needs to be fixed to work with the newest meshes.

---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ----------

One other thing I noticed about the ET textures is that the STS-1 scenario has an orange tank instead of the correct white tank. Also, if we do use the white tank colour at launch, it will become brown at SRB sep when the burnt texture is used. I can add either a scenario line or a config file setting to indicate the name of the burnt texture to be used. I think the config file setting is better.

 

[DaveS]

I thought I had checked the fixed code in, but I hadn't. The burnt ET code should be working now, but the burnt texture needs to be fixed to work with the newest meshes.

---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ----------

One other thing I noticed about the ET textures is that the STS-1 scenario has an orange tank instead of the correct white tank. Also, if we do use the white tank colour at launch, it will become brown at SRB sep when the burnt texture is used. I can add either a scenario line or a config file setting to indicate the name of the burnt texture to be used. I think the config file setting is better.

The orange texture for STS-1/2 is to simulate the unpainted SWTs used on STS-3/4/5/7. Doesn't the lines BURNT_TEX and ET_TEX_NAME work?

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

I have checked in updated ET meshes(SWT, LWT and SLWT) that fixes a few issues that weren't apparent until the burnt tex code was working again.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 PM ----------

Question: Should I go ahead and add the deployment mechanisms for the forward radiator panels? Or is that unnecessary detail?

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

One option I'd like to see implemented is the option to fly the SILTS pod. The mesh has already been checked for a good long while now, I'm not sure why it has slipped through the cracks and been forgotten about for so long. It looks a bit weird flying Columbia and not having the SILTS pod on top of the vertical stabilizer.

 

[Urwumpe]

Question: Should I go ahead and add the deployment mechanisms for the forward radiator panels? Or is that unnecessary detail?

I am not sure if we see them change or move or if this can be done by a normal map already.

I believe that the number of polygons added by this could be minor (< 1000 triangles), thus it would not speak much against having it in SSU at all. But I think it should not be done in this release or the next version of the meshes. Maybe you can finish the meshes without them and add such details in a feature branch. And if the feature is really minor, we can maybe leave it to the player to use it.

 

[SiameseCat]

The orange texture for STS-1/2 is to simulate the unpainted SWTs used on STS-3/4/5/7. Doesn't the lines BURNT_TEX and ET_TEX_NAME work?

The ET_TEX_NAME line should work, but it's not used in the STS-1 launch scenario. The BURNT_TEX line just indicates that the burnt ET texture is being used, and doesn't specify the file to use.

 

[DaveS]

The ET_TEX_NAME line should work, but it's not used in the STS-1 launch scenario. The BURNT_TEX line just indicates that the burnt ET texture is being used, and doesn't specify the file to use.

Could the BURNT_TEX line be converted to take a file name instead? That would solve our problems with the SWT.

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

PLBDs done, have not yet added the starboard radiator panels.

 

[SiameseCat]

We would still need a line indicating if the burnt texture or the normal texture should be used. I can add another scenario line to specify the burnt ET texture, although I'd prefer to specify the textures in the config file instead of the scenario file. The downside of using the config file to specify textures is that we'd need additional config files when different textures are required - how many different texture combinations are there?

 

[Donamy]

Who's going to know the difference ?

 

[SiameseCat]

Anyone who writes scenarios for SSU.

 

[Donamy]

I meant the differences in the tanks themselves.

 

[Urwumpe]

I meant the differences in the tanks themselves.

The STS-1 tank is quite different to the STS-135 tank.

But you are right, the post-STS-107 tanks are a detail that likely only DaveS would be able to tell apart from the STS-10 tank.

 

[DaveS]

I highly recommend taking a look at Alfonso Moreno's Shuttle Orbiter/ET/SRB stack reference page: http://www.axmpaperspacescalemodels.com/REFERENCE.html

He has compiled a very complete set of drawings that illustrates the differences between each stack/mission so you can clearly see what changed and when it changed.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

Nearly done with the PLB:

 

[Donamy]

So you need a way to set up each tank with the correct flight. God forbid you fly the wrong ET with a certain mission. Really ?

 

[DaveS]

So you need a way to set up each tank with the correct flight. God forbid you fly the wrong ET with a certain mission. Really ?

I don't see any problems with this. What is your reason for not wanting this or better yet, being so against the implementation of it?