Here's the link again, just in case: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fa5077hmqq6426z/New_Orbiter.zip?dl=0
I have checked it and the correct Orbiter.ac file is present.
SSU Development thread (4.0 to 5.0) [DEVELOPMENT HALTED DUE TIME REQUIREMENTS!]
- Thread starter DaveS
- Start date
- Status
I have checked it and the correct Orbiter.ac file is present.
Thanks. Could you look into making the forward fuselage mapping equal that of the default Atlantis? That will make the mapping line up perfectly:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzdo095htu35vkz/SSU_FF_mapping.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2blm64w3edij05/Atlantis_FF_mapping.jpg?dl=0
GLS
Well-known member
On and off, I've been looking at the Crawler's touchdown points and... I give up. :facepalm:
I got it to "behave" at normal time acceleration, but once I go to 10x, it either sinks and/or it shoots into another galaxy. When it sinks, returning to 1x makes it start to emerge slowly.
I didn't even got to the point of it dealing with a few thousands of tons on top of it, or get it to drive. :shrug:
Any news on the vc?
I got it to "behave" at normal time acceleration, but once I go to 10x, it either sinks and/or it shoots into another galaxy. When it sinks, returning to 1x makes it start to emerge slowly.
I didn't even got to the point of it dealing with a few thousands of tons on top of it, or get it to drive. :shrug:
Any news on the vc?
Is this with our propulsion system or fred18's? I think we determined in the Crawler thread that our system was a NO-GO and needed to be replaced. The agreed to solution was to replace it with fred18's Crawler system that he has implemented in MS2015 which do work very nicely in Orbiter 2016.
No, not really. Been busy with LC39 and the corrected orbiter. With the amount of bugs that we have seen with the VC system, I have decided to not prioritize it and a new VC won't really fix them.
GLS
Well-known member
As I can't really do anything else, I'm working on ticket 161 and found a somewhat big discrepancy in the mass of the ODS (alone).
Currently we have the following "According to a SSP PRCB presentation on the STS-125 pros/cons of Single Pad vs Dual Pad ops for LON, ODS mass is 925 lbs, this is for the ODS alone, not including the airlock hardware", and in the ticket "the mass of the ODS is 632 lbs". Which is correct? Another question whether or not our current dry mass already includes the internal airlock?
I tried to keep things as unchanged as I could, so the new setup for the airlock parameters will be as follows:
>> UseODS=TRUE and UseExtAL=TRUE: external airlock with ODS
>> UseODS=FALSE and UseExtAL=TRUE: external airlock alone
>> UseODS=FALSE and UseExtAL=FALSE: internal airlock (default)
>> UseODS=TRUE and UseExtAL=FALSE: internal airlock and external airlock with ODS
Currently we have the following "According to a SSP PRCB presentation on the STS-125 pros/cons of Single Pad vs Dual Pad ops for LON, ODS mass is 925 lbs, this is for the ODS alone, not including the airlock hardware", and in the ticket "the mass of the ODS is 632 lbs". Which is correct? Another question whether or not our current dry mass already includes the internal airlock?
I tried to keep things as unchanged as I could, so the new setup for the airlock parameters will be as follows:
>> UseODS=TRUE and UseExtAL=TRUE: external airlock with ODS
>> UseODS=FALSE and UseExtAL=TRUE: external airlock alone
>> UseODS=FALSE and UseExtAL=FALSE: internal airlock (default)
>> UseODS=TRUE and UseExtAL=FALSE: internal airlock and external airlock with ODS
GLS
Well-known member
This ticket should now be "fixed". I kept the ODS mass as it was.
A request to the graphics department: could the frame be added to the TAA?
If it works, it could be placed in the existing mesh and then those groups would be hidden (via code) when not needed (when the TAA is used forward of the airlock).
GLS
Well-known member
I'd say the TAA is part of the shuttle, and whatever comes after it is payload.
I am sorry to bump this, I never received a yes or no on it. This and the OMS pods are really the only things remaining mesh-wise. Then I just need to work on adapting the textures.
OK. In the default Atlantis screenshot, the mapping is such that the tiles remain unbroken between the sides and the top. In the SSU screenshot, you can see that this is not the case.
I have updated the screenshots with circles around the areas in question:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2blm64w3edij05/Atlantis_FF_mapping.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzdo095htu35vkz/SSU_FF_mapping.jpg?dl=0
Donamy
Addon Developer
First of all you have too many tiles. If you look at the real Columbia, there are about 14 white tiles above the side RCS area. And you don't have them angled correctly. They need to match the angle of the black tiles.
From where are you counting? The angle could be improved, I agree with you there.
Gingin
Active member
Hey guys, a quick question about Universal Pointing OPS
Is it possible to change the track target, or is it stuck in track target 2 ( Earth).
I tried to change it, but illegal entry came out.
I would like to track ISS with BPV.
Thanks for your help.
Is it possible to change the track target, or is it stuck in track target 2 ( Earth).
I tried to change it, but illegal entry came out.
I would like to track ISS with BPV.
Thanks for your help.
GLS
Well-known member
Currently UNIV PTG can only point to the center of the Earth. I'm not sure, but I don't think you can track an orbiting object, only points in relation to the Earth or to the stars.
Donamy
Addon Developer
this shows it best.
Attachments
- Status
Similar threads
