See site in english Voir le site en francais
Website skin:
home  download  forum  link  contact

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: DGIII alpha release available part 2 (closed)  (Read 16696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
23 January 2004, 09:19:55
"It make no sense to hold so much time an add-on that have already much more
feature than the previous DGII."

So here is the alpha version of the DGIII

download here:
http://orbiter.dansteph.com/index.php?disp=dgIII


Second thread about alpha version because the part 1 become too long ;)

Dan


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #1 - 23 January 2004, 09:28:11
heeelp heeeelp


working on feet/miles hud.....

I often see in plane that feet goes well over 40'000 fts
does it fit Us/english people if I switch from feets to miles
after 65'000 feets ?

Does it make senses to you ?

in fact I switch at 20'000 meter so you will have:

feet from 1 to 65'616 feets miles then it switch to miles from 12.42 to ???

what will be the most comfortable for you ? ([edit] almost coded like this now I hope it's right)

Btw: the text after the number is Fts fts feet or Feet ?
same for miles : Mls Miles miles ?
and knots :  Kts kts ?


Dan


Offline canadave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 0
Reply #2 - 23 January 2004, 15:19:52
Well, Dan, I'm not sure about the switch from feet to miles; I know for sure the switch wouldn't be
for at least 100,000 feet, maybe 150,000.

Abbreviations:
for feet (plural of "foot", i.e. "10,000 feet"): "ft"
for miles: "mi"

Not "mis" or "fts".

Sure, go ahead, you can switch my thread ;)

--Dave



Post Edited (01-23-04 15:52)


icebrain

  • Guest
Reply #3 - 23 January 2004, 15:26:45
Yeah, 100,000ft to 150,000ft sounds good.  Above that you kind of lose your sense of how high
you really are.


Offline canadave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 0
Reply #4 - 23 January 2004, 15:39:24
Sorry, forgot to add:

Abbreviation for knots: "kts", unless it's one knot, which would be "1 kt".  All these abbreviations
are always lowercase.

Also forgot to add:

The reason why the switchover from feet to miles isn't made at low altitudes like 60,000 feet is because military aircraft can go quite high, above 100,000 feet, and they still measure their altitude in feet on the altimeter.

Dave



Post Edited (01-23-04 15:41)


Offline canadave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 0
Reply #5 - 23 January 2004, 15:48:19
For what it's worth, I just did some quick research on altitude measurement.  It might interest you
to know that "flight above 265,000 feet qualifies an Air Force pilot as an astronaut"; so maybe, as
an arbitrary thing, you might want to make that your switchover point? :)

Dave


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #6 - 23 January 2004, 16:23:22
Ok job done...

I'm now in orbit at about 212 km wich make 131.90 miles
at a speed of 27'029 Km/h or 14'786 kts or 16'799 mph

For the feets/miles switch it will change at 99999 feets
The reason is that I keep all the value with 5 digit so the HUD
don't change its look at any second.  (ie display is: 0.9999 or 9.9999 or 99999)

I'v added also Dynamic Pressure, Mach value and .. wait ... vessel's Mass

For the ApdT and PedT (matt suggested this ?) I'll need the formulae
if you want it, Orbiter doesn't give us the value :sad:
I searched a bit but did not found and don't have time for more research.

Dan


Christopher Tarana

  • Guest
Reply #7 - 23 January 2004, 16:53:10

 Awesome job on the new HUD, Dan! :applause:  Now we have to convince Martin that it would be
good to support Metric and Standard units in Orbiter.  I can handle knots fine, it's meters/second
that always drove me nuts when using Orbiter. Especially during atmospheric flight.  :)

  Thanks, Dan!  

         Christopher


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #8 - 23 January 2004, 17:25:04
Even I use standard metric I had pain also with the m/s
until I realised that my "fair" landing at 170m/s was
in fact 612kmh (335 kts).
I'll do some more stuff working late at night then, new release.


Dan


icebrain

  • Guest
Reply #9 - 23 January 2004, 17:41:23
Do you have the dynamic pressure in pounds per square foot (psf)?  


As a non-DG idea, could someone possibly make English-unit MFD's?  Or maybe a switch for the
HUD to go English/metric.  The calculations and such could still be in metrics, then just apply a
conversion before displaying.


Offline canadave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 0
Reply #10 - 23 January 2004, 20:49:49
By the way...for the future purposes of determining whether a landing is good or not, I'd say a
vertical speed of -2 m/s is merely "acceptable".  Think about it--that's dropping a ship onto the
ground from a height of 6 feet, in ONE SECOND.  I think -1 m/s is ideal.

Dave


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #11 - 23 January 2004, 21:25:10
Gear collapse if vertical speed more than -12m/s (43km/h)
I don't want to be too demanding, think about the guy that
just returning from a billion km trip :)
(-1 m/s make 3km/h every plane can resist that actually, It think it must be something
like -8/-6 for real plane)


Anyway I'm currently adding more damage things, you'd better watch your
speed now before extending : gear, radiator, airbrake

They will all collapse if the DynPressure is too high for them.

I'll add also a chart "max speed... this or that" in the check-list

Or would it be better to have this chart "handy" on the 5th display of the HUD ?
(It eat one hud slot but I would preffer this... searching the check-list on the lower panel during a reentry/landing isn't very practicall)


Dan
"he he.... collaaaaapse aaaall, damage that and this also ,
 explode this one !!!! gneeerk gneeerk !!!  noooo more fuuuuuun
 with the DGIII !"

Dan <--  :fool: :doubt:


Offline canadave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 0
Reply #12 - 23 January 2004, 21:54:39
Definitely better to have the chart on HUD 5.  As you point out...consulting the kneeboard while
landing isn't a safe way to drive :)

Dude...vertical speed of 43 km/h is a safe landing!?  What are those landing struts made of, sponge? ;)

Think of it this way...if the "guy" made a billion mile trip, and is accurate enough to get close to a landing pad or runway, he's probably good enough to set the ship down with a reasonable degree of skill.  At least make it -5 m/s!  Which, IMO, is WAY too generous :)
Dave



Post Edited (01-23-04 21:57)


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #13 - 23 January 2004, 22:29:42

mhhhh, you have the point here,

Let's go for realism,
anyway  I hesitate on the number , I just reviewed some video of a 747 landing at kai tak
the old airport of hong-kong, it's more a "*controlled* crash" than anything else
the vertical speed seam greater to me than 20kmh (-5.2 m/s) and the gear didn't collapsed
(but I think they changed the whole tire set just after)

I will make a call about the real value on the pilot list newsgroup, there is airbus
and 747 pilot there I bet they know the subject.

Dan


Offline MattNW

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
  • Karma: 0
Reply #14 - 24 January 2004, 00:29:54
DanSteph wrote:

>For the ApdT and PedT (matt suggested this ?) I'll need the formulae
>if you want it, Orbiter doesn't give us the value
>I searched a bit but did not found and don't have time for more research.


I was talking about the ApT and PeT that's displayed in the Orbit MFD. Your time to perihelion and
aphelion. I was just thinking that since you give the custom HUD the field for distance you could
also let it display the time. It's gotta be there somewhere. :)


http://www.savepic.com/freepicturehosting/is.php?i=62587&img=ApT_PeT.jpg   


99,999 ft. sounds OK. That's the limit for flight in MS Flight Sim. Since Orbiter is a space sim it only seems fitting for it to start where MSFS leaves off. ;)



Post Edited (01-24-04 00:42)


Christopher Tarana

  • Guest
Reply #15 - 24 January 2004, 00:37:41

 If you're going to touch the HUD, at least keep it editable so those of us that do know how
to fly can still costumize the data! :) I'm already finding uses for the HUD and I'd really rather
not loose a slot to something that should be a POH item. Aircraft decend at between 0 and
1500 feet per minute for a Cessna 182.  At touchdown, a Cessna 182 with a ramp weight of
3100 pounds is still decending at 250 feet per minute or less.  You can convert that to meters
per second or I can check it out on this end. :applause:

    Christopher


Offline MattNW

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
  • Karma: 0
Reply #16 - 24 January 2004, 00:48:50
Christopher Tarana wrote:

>
>  If you're going to touch the HUD, at least keep it editable so
> those of us that do know how
> to fly can still costumize the data! :) I'm already finding
> uses for the HUD and I'd really rather
> not loose a slot to something that should be a POH item.
> Aircraft decend at between 0 and
> 1500 feet per minute for a Cessna 182.  At touchdown, a Cessna
> 182 with a ramp weight of
> 3100 pounds is still decending at 250 feet per minute or less.
> You can convert that to meters
> per second or I can check it out on this end. :applause:
>
>     Christopher


I'm pretty sure Dan's going to keep the HUD editable. That's one of the biggest, and most useful
additions in this version (next to the hover AP). I use a different HUD mode for each stage of flight.
Mode 1 is "Surface Flight", Mode 2 is "Orbital" and I haven't found a use for Modes 3-5 yet but I
probably will in time.


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #17 - 24 January 2004, 00:52:22
Got the reply : JAR FCL 25.473 say  3,05 m/s at max weight for a safe landing
(for an heavy)

Taken the security margin in aviation I would say the gear would really collapse
at about 6/8... or even more, I don't think they have the envy to joke with this
kind of things... (a 747 full of passenger)  The JAR spec are always "frozen nose" style

I'll see, mhhhh :wonder:  8 ? :)   (Orbiter does not give good sensation of speed
near the ground 8 is not so uncommon even if you take care and we do not speak about good or bad landing but Collapsing gear)

Of course I always land at -1m/s but I got several landing training ;)


(Chris, no worry mode 5 will still be editable and the spec will be in the check list
as well as in the printable doc)

Dan


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #18 - 24 January 2004, 01:04:59
Matt:

First I'm affraid I just broken your hud config, you'll have to make it again
(using old hud.cfg will give you garbage) But I think I'm done now with HUD
file format so with any luck this will not happen anymore.
(I added text lenght from 25 max to 45 max, this is enough to push data and broke the file)

About Apt and PeT I said that martin don't give us the value "ready to use"
so we must compute it taken the Ped APd and perhaps various other value, I must
confess I do not have any idea how we compute this, so if you badly need it
you will have to make some research about the formulae that give those value....
(I'm badly toooo busy yet to loose time on this)


Just had a wonderful cup of wine... this will enhance my abilities to program :drunk:


Dan
"still working"


Offline MattNW

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
  • Karma: 0
Reply #19 - 24 January 2004, 01:56:01
DanSteph wrote:

> Matt:
>
> First I'm affraid I just broken your hud config, you'll have to
> make it again
> (using old hud.cfg will give you garbage) But I think I'm done
> now with HUD
> file format so with any luck this will not happen anymore.
> (I added text lenght from 25 max to 45 max, this is enough to
> push data and broke the file)
>
> About Apt and PeT I said that martin don't give us the value
> "ready to use"
> so we must compute it taken the Ped APd and perhaps various
> other value, I must
> confess I do not have any idea how we compute this, so if you
> badly need it
> you will have to make some research about the formulae that
> give those value....
> (I'm badly toooo busy yet to loose time on this)
>
>
> Just had a wonderful cup of wine... this will enhance my
> abilities to program :drunk:
>
>
> Dan
> "still working"



The way the HUD comes is close to what I use. I just change a couple things and the title at the
top. That's why I haven't come up with a configuration for anything but the first two modes. I
figured that each change will require me to redo my configuration. Plus the HUD config. program
makes changes easy.

If it isn't readily available then don't worry about it. I just assumed that you could get it from the
same source that you get PeD and ApD. That it was a value that Orbiter used and was easy to
get. My guess, just out of curiosity, is that you would have to take the aphelion distance and your
position in the orbit. That will give you a triangle. Figure what percentage of 360 degrees to give
you the percent of the orbital circle and then calculate the distance along an arc you would follow
at your present speed to reach that point. You wouldn't want to rely on my formula anyway. Math
isn't one of my strong subjects. I'm lucky if I can balance my checkbook. :)

If anyone else wants to chime in and give a real formula then feel free, otherwise it isn't of dire
importance. The values are on the Orbit MFD. I just thought it would be nice to have it on the HUD.

That reminds me. Got some grape juice canned up from last summer. Gonna have to break it out
and start myself a new batch of home made wine. My neighbor tried making his own wine. Spent
over $200 on all the fancy equipment and it turned sour on him. I use a Mason Jar, cheese cloth
and yeast. Stuff turns out perfect every time. :)


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #20 - 24 January 2004, 02:23:52

Matt wrote:
That reminds me. Got some grape juice canned up from last summer. Gonna have to break it out
and start myself a new batch of home made wine. My neighbor tried making his own wine. Spent
over $200 on all the fancy equipment and it turned sour on him. I use a Mason Jar, cheese cloth
and yeast. Stuff turns out perfect every time.


"Sainte Croix du Mont 97 " Not home made but delicious.... :)

release available.... I go to bed now :drunk:

Cya Chap,

Dan


Wilko

  • Guest
Reply #21 - 24 January 2004, 06:57:19
I just noticed that when you have a totally unpowered ship, the system messages display is still
lit. How is it being powered, another battery or something? If not.. then maybe it should shut off
too when the ship is 'dead'.

Now for a few wild ideas, ahem... please read all of ideas as there is a lot of information included.

At major airports, they have an EPU (external power unit) for aircraft that don't want to
continuously use the APU or don't have the battery life. Seeing as you can already use the
external power in the DGIII to start the APU, why not also add another option alongside the
emergency, Gen 1, Gen 2 on the circular switch as 'EPU'? It would only be operable on the landing
pads (not the ground in general) and you could finally give the APU a rest. It also might be used
when docked to a space station, but I don't know if that is really realistic, using the power form a
space station for your own ship.

Now for another 'disaster' scenario. This disaster is unique, as there is a way to fix it, but theres a
possibility that it could be fatal. I don't pretend to know anything about the solar flares or
electromagnetic fields around earth, but it would be interesting on the off chance that you are
travelling above the earth or elsewhere, and theres a solar flare or you fly over a magnetic belt.
As it stuffs up satellites etc, would it also stuff up the DG? The computer and MFD's could
temporarily go offline, pitch black, or they could become scrambled displays, with all sorts of
computer garble over the screen. The APU might clonk out and you would have to switch to
emergency power. Other systems like radio, lifepack, autopilot, etc might or might not go offline
depending on the severity of the magnetic field. Perhaps some systems would go 'haywire', like
the O2 in the cabin going down because of a system fault, or engines cutting in and out by
themselves, or the autopilot going nuts.

Unlike other disasters however, there IS a way to fix this. Simply fly (or drift, if the engines have
cut out from the magnetic storm) out of the magnetic belts or wait until the solar flare has died
down, then shut down power, start APU, and everything should work fine. The computers would
reboot and shouldn't be garbled anymore either. I don't know how realistic the disaster is, but it
could be an interesting challenge and one that is actually solveable. However, there is a slight
chance it could severely cripple your ship if you can't move away from it. Say the autopilot and
engines automatically kicked in by themselves and went retrograde, sending you out of orbit by
pure coincidence. Or if the oxygen started to run out and you couldn't control it (very slim chance
of that happening). The only option you would have is to shut off the power and turn it back on,
hoping the systems have sorted them out. If not (very likely) then you would have to leave the
power off, until you moved out of that particular area.

On some freak incidents though, it might permanently damage some systems, causing hardware
problems which cannot be fixed. The autopilot, computer, MFD's etc could go offline and never
come back until you make it back to base for repairs.

Good, or not? I think this is the best way to implement random failures, as the failures can easily
be solved by moving out of the area or waiting for the magnetic field to dissipitate.


Offline canadave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 531
  • Country: Canada ca
  • Karma: 0
Reply #22 - 24 January 2004, 07:58:16
Wilko:

Interesting ideas.  

Regarding the EPU--let me preface my response by saying that I am the FIRST guy lining up to
want realistic stuff like that.  And major kudos to you for coming up with the idea :)  However, with
all due respect to the idea, I think that in this case, it's a bit "too" detailed.  Like, if Dan does that,
he might as well program the paint to scrape off the mesh if the DG3 brushes up against the
space station :)  In other words, it's a neat idea but I don't think the effort to program it in would
be worth the benefit users would get out of being able to play with an EPU.  I could be wrong
though, we'll see what Dan thinks.

I really like your MFD malfunction idea.  Have a random MFD go out on you.  Tough luck if you
happen to be ready to de-orbit, and the Orbit MFD craps out.  Oh well...guess you'll have to fly by
the seat of your pants and "eyeball" it in! :)  I love it!

Dave


Wilko

  • Guest
Reply #23 - 24 January 2004, 09:49:41
Thanks for the kind words :)

I don't see how an EPU would be any different from the emergency battery, coding wise. All it is is
another way to power the systems while on the ground. We already have that with fuel transfer,
air refilling and powering up the APU, so I don't see how it could be that hard to implement. I'm
probably wrong though :P

And not just MFD's, an entire system failure would basically cripple the poor DG. Sure, an MFD
going out on you is pretty tough to deal with, but imagine that, combined with a flight computer
malfunction, along with an autopilot going absolutely crazy and a possible problem with the
lifepack, all because of some damn magnetism!!! :P

Here's a scenario for you, imagine that you are in LEO, and the airlock system fails to respond.. at
all. You cannot 'repair' at a station, and you cannot enter earth's atmosphere because the
nosecone is open! Your only choice would be to dock with the ISS, make up for any lost fuel, and
then power ahead to the moon to get repairs at Brighton Beach :D


Offline DanSteph

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15407
  • Karma: 256
  • Hein, quoi !?
    • FsPassengers
Reply #24 - 24 January 2004, 11:51:07
Wilko:

For the APU I'll leave this as it is now (too much work and no "natural" place on the panel
for one more button)

the solar flar idea might be a cool reason for a failure  I'll add this in the possible failure, what
would be nice is a display of the actual solar flare level and if it's dangerous or not... anyway
this might not happen often we don't want to make space a so dangerous place would we ?
Placed and "possible todo list" (no promise anyway and not anytime soon, the "random" failure
system isn't started now)

About display always on, there is some light also that are always powered by a separated
battery that never fly off... this is made to ALWAYS give feedback to the player about what is
happening... in theory a complete black cockpit would be cool in practice I'm afraid it will only
be really frustrating for the player to not know what is happening so I keep two rules for failure:

1-Always make the player aware of what is happening
2-always give him a chance to recover if he do RIGHT things

The doc will have a section of almost all the possible failure and how to recover.
knowledge will increase chance of surviving a problem. I like that idea.

Currently working again, he he I have fun with those failure stuff, the DGIII will be the most
challenging vessel to fly in mean of flight limitation.

Dan