[Closed] [BETA10] of DeltaGliderIV

[willy88]

I guess I'm in the "crappy graphics card club" as well. I get 17 FPS on the worst case scenario.

[DanSteph]

Wow ...

Do you want a nice desktop background ? homemade

800:   http://orbiter.dansteph.com/screenshot/dansteph/apollo800.jpg
1024: http://orbiter.dansteph.com/screenshot/dansteph/apollo1024moon.jpg
1280: http://orbiter.dansteph.com/screenshot/dansteph/apollo1280960.jpg



Dan



Message modifié ( 07-05-2007 08:25 )

[willy88]

That was kind of random...

Anyways nice wallpaper Dan! Looks professional.

[sunshine135]

Sorry Dan.

I run 1024X768. I am a crappy graphics card fan club person too.
Like everyone else has mentioned, I too am on a bit of a budget here lately. I maxed out the RAM and added this video card
for about $150. What can I say- I'm cheap!

Besides, everything runs smooth enough most of the time anyway.

BTW nice wall paper!!!

Cheers,

[sunshine135]

DELTAGLIDERIV BUG

Short description:

Atmospheric Autpilot PRO110SPEC0 has mispelling in warning message


Severity

typo


Complete  description

In the system message panel, if you are traveling much faster than what the atmospheric autopilot is set for, you receive the
message that the hold speed auto retrobrake "hinibited" due to high temp.  "hinibited" should read "inhibited"


Reproduce bug

Bug can be reproduced by following the suggestion above.


Miscallenous

(If you have comments or something to add)

[DanSteph]

sunshine135 a écrit:
Atmospheric Autpilot PRO110SPEC0 has mispelling in warning message

Solved at two place: nullspeed and atmospheric. Much thanks !


About graphic card, no it's me that is sorry, my intention was not to make fun,
but I was very suprised that about 100% of active testers have the same
material. If computer was not my main work with absolute need of a good
material maybe I would be also member of the club

Cheers,

Dan

[DanSteph]

On a side note: can you test ascent Autopilots under various condition/weight

PRO903: is able now to take off alone, it even raise gear.
PRO904: Do a nice hover take-off from earth and raise gear
PRO905: Hover take-off from moon & raise gear
PRO906: Hover take-off from Mars & raise gear

Take care I forget to remove the debug display on some autopilot
you can disable them yourself by going to "Sound/DeltaGliderIV/PROG"
and editing the program text.

Code: [Select]

// -----------------------------------------------
// ASCENT PROGRAM PRO903 FROM EARTH
// ENGAGE FROM GROUND OR IN FLIGHT (<1000m)
// -----------------------------------------------
PROGNAME: EARTH 250Km Start flight
TYPE:     ASCENT
START:    INFLIGHT
DISPLAYDEBUG: 1 ;put this flag at 0 instead of 1
ALT: 0      ENG: 1.0 ;Engine full
ALT: 15     SNMSG: #RaiseLandingGear
ALT: 20     PITCH: 20   ;Take-off pitch

Much thanks

Dan

[Pagir]

About graphic card, no it's me that is sorry, my intention was not to make fun,
but I was very suprised that about 100% of active testers have the same
material. If computer was not my main work with absolute need of a good
material maybe I would be also member of the club

Maybe you've optimized the settings better than us?

Pagir

[sunshine135]

DanSteph wrote:
On a side note: can you test ascent Autopilots under various condition/weight

Autopilot tests from Earth happened from KSC using the medical DGIV and the ascent autopilot scenario. The DGIV in all cases
had a full crew of 5 and utilized the Mark IV engine. The following are the results from the PRO903 autopilot:


NO LOAD (Control for this experiment)
Ending altitude: 235.8 k
ECC= 0.0001
41.5% of fuel remained

2234kg Load (DGIV Fuel Container)
Ending altitude: 214.5 k
ECC= 0.0001
35.3% of fuel remained

1820kg Load (DGIV Medical)
Ending altitude: 217.1 k
ECC= 0.0001
36.5% of fuel remained

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The autopilot performance was good. No expected bugs unless someone switches off of Orbiter to another application (which is
a typical Orbiter NO-NO). I expected to reach an altitude of 250k and was at least almost 15k off the mark (judging by the
fact the DGIV stated it was going to put me in a zero ecc orbit at 250k). Eccentricity was off by only 0.0001 which is
fantastic by anyone's standards.

In summary:

BAD: Altitude. I expected to reach 250k with no load.

GOOD: Everything else... This autopilot get a big thumbs up. Noobs will like it and learn a lot from it.


Off to test 904, 905, and 906!!!


Cheers,

[DanSteph]

sunshine135 a écrit:
The autopilot performance was good. No expected bugs unless someone switches off of Orbiter to another
application (which is a typical Orbiter NO-NO). I expected to reach an altitude of 250k and was at least almost 15k off
the mark (judging by the fact the DGIV stated it was going to put me in a zero ecc orbit at 250k).

I reach almost all the time 0.0000,the difference in altitude is mainly due by weight but I think that
framerate during ascent have also some responsabilities, anyway it work as expected.

I renamed all prog to say "EARTH ~230Km Start flight" which "~" state "about"

Thanks for testing

Dan

[sunshine135]

Autopilot tests from MARS happened from  OLYMPUS using the Spacetech DGIV and the ascent autopilot on the Mars in Safe Mode
scenario. The DGIV in all cases had a full crew of 5 and utilized the Mark IV engine. The following are the results from the
PRO906 autopilot:

NO LOAD
152.7 k
Ecc 0.0002
75% Fuel Remaining

Dan- I think we agree that the slight deviations in the autopilot may be being caused by the framerates. I was consistant at
20FPS which of course, is low end.  The altitude was almost on target this time. Hover works a little rough with the
on/off/on/off at the beginning, but overall, a very nice autopilot again.

Cheers,

[sunshine135]

Autopilot tests from MARS happened from OLYMPUS using the Spacetech DGIV and the ascent autopilot on the Mars in Safe Mode
scenario. The DGIV in all cases had a full crew of 5 and utilized the Mark IV engine. The following are the results from the
PRO906 autopilot:

DGIV FUEL LOAD 2234kg
131.4 k
Ecc 0.0001
72.7% Fuel Remaining

Here we have the Martian ranges for the autopilot. All other cargo configs would fit between these two ranges.

[Pagir]

I have to say that all those AP are really good... if everyone is using the same amount of fuel and the same engine
type (from the config).

With a weak engine and enough fuel to go to Jupiter, I got a 0.000 ecc. orbit à 202km... (the DG remain heavy during
all the ascent, and the engine isn't pushing that much)

With the strongest engine and with the fuel set for ISS, I got a 0.00 ecc. orbit at... 300km... (the DG's becoming
lighter and the engine is pushing it a lot more!)

Sooooo... well... the most important thing is not the computer framerate: it's the setting of the ship itself!

Maybe you'll have to just forget the altitude info?

Pagir

EDIT: forgot to use the form

DELTAGLIDERIV BUG


Short description:

Big variation of the final altitude with the new ascent autopilot


Severity

Depends: if you really want to get to 250km high, you'll feel not well. If you want to have a 0.000 Ecc, you won't care.


Complete  description

The final altitude of the autopilot will varie in relation to two settings of the ship:
1) The fuel setting ("trip to Jupiter" will induce a lower final altitude, "trip to ISS a higher one)
2) The engine setting ("Mark V" will induce a higher final altitude, "Mark IV will induce a lower one)


Reproduce bug

Easy task: just play with the config!!!


Miscallenous

Well... nothing more to say

Pagir



Message modifié ( 08-05-2007 03:42 )

[n122vu]

DanSteph wrote:
if it run at 20 FPS during reentry I wonder how much you get in other situation
(for example "test worse situation" or take-off with all the smoke)

Basically when I run the "worse situation", my computer looks at me and says "You want me to do what?!? "  
(and then displays the scene at 7FPS)

DanSteph wrote:
You mean you had a baby that was born too early ? in this case, first let me congrat you for her birth.
I really wish that all will be well for her !

Thanks!

  Yes, she was delivered at 28 weeks into pregnancy.  One week and one day old today.  It has been kind of scary,
but she is doing well.  Just got back from visiting her (hospital is an hour from our home).  The doctor told us this
evening she will be coming off the ventilator very soon which is encouraging news.   (proud papa smile)

[DanSteph]

n122vu a écrit:
Yes, she was delivered at 28 weeks into pregnancy.  One week and one day old today.  It has been kind of scary,
but she is doing well.  Just got back from visiting her (hospital is an hour from our home).  The doctor told us this
evening she will be coming off the ventilator very soon which is encouraging news.   (proud papa smile)

I had a friend who's kid went also before time, all is going well for him now.
Glad that she's going well. What's her name ?

I have two kids, Laureline 5 old and Julien 7 old, I must say I'm fond of them

Dan

[DanSteph]

Pagir a écrit:
1) The fuel setting ("trip to Jupiter" will induce a lower final altitude, "trip to ISS a higher one)
Pagir

I hesitate, putting a notice in the doc or removing altitude indication. Removing mean you have no idea before
running the AP at witch altitude it will put you, 50km or 500km...

I hesitate...

I will do a final effort tomorrow to finish the bloody damn doc (I hate writting docs)
After that some more small work to get things fixed than public release, at this time
one may start correction of doc, if all is well final release of Ummu, DGIV OrbiterSound 3.5.

Dan

[Pagir]

DanSteph a écrit:

Pagir a écrit:
1) The fuel setting ("trip to Jupiter" will induce a lower final altitude, "trip to ISS a
higher one)
Pagir

I hesitate, putting a notice in the doc or removing altitude indication. Removing mean you have no idea before
running the AP at witch altitude it will put you, 50km or 500km...

I hesitate...

I will do a final effort tomorrow to finish the bloody damn doc (I hate writting docs)
After that some more small work to get things fixed than public release, at this time
one may start correction of doc, if all is well final release of Ummu, DGIV OrbiterSound 3.5.

Dan

Well... You can keep it simple: "autopilot to low orbit"... then make the nuances in the docs!

Pagir

[sunshine135]

Autopilot tests from MOON happened from Brighton Beach using the Spacetech DGIV and the ascent autopilot on the Moon in
Turbopack training scenario. The DGIV in all cases had a crew of 4 and utilized the Mark IV engine. The following are the
results from the PRO905 autopilot:

DGIV  EMPTY
55.3k
Ecc 0.0003
88.5% Fuel Remaining

Pagir wrote:
With a weak engine and enough fuel to go to Jupiter, I got a 0.000 ecc. orbit à 202km... (the DG remain heavy during
all the ascent, and the engine isn't pushing that much)

With the strongest engine and with the fuel set for ISS, I got a 0.00 ecc. orbit at... 300km... (the DG's becoming
lighter and the engine is pushing it a lot more!)

Sooooo... well... the most important thing is not the computer framerate: it's the setting of the ship itself!

Maybe you'll have to just forget the altitude info?

Pagir

I don't disagree with that assessment either. I think the autopilot will give you its respective altitude + or- 20km, but
much is based on the engine and cargo configuration. With so many variables, it would be difficult to get the reading on
target.  You would literaly have to make an ascent autopilot that let you choose the altitude. The closest I have seen any
add-on come to that is the Energia Project, and even then, it isn't exact.

I figure, as long as the autopilot is getting you into a near perfect orbit, you can either burn prograde or retrograde and
raise or drop your orbit. Chances are, you will do so anyhow even if you hit a perfect orbit. In other words- leave it as is.
It works very well.

Too many ascents today. I'm going to bed  

[DanSteph]

I think I would be able to build one new autopilot that let you choose the altitude and do all the work.
but this would be to time consuming near final release, as they are now ascent work well.

sunshine135 a écrit:
Too many ascents today. I'm going to bed  

I made about 50+ ascent when I was rewritting part of the pilot... my wife
heard me rant all the day

Thanks for testing

Dan

[DanSteph]

Pagir a écrit:
Well... You can keep it simple: "autopilot to low orbit"... then make the nuances in the docs!

What about the "~" I think it mean "more or less" in any language so
it can do the job.

"EARTH ~230km Start flight"

Dan

[MattNW]

DELTAGLIDERIV BUG

Short description:

CTD when radio is tuned to a non-existant frequency


Severity

CTD


Complete  description

When the radio is tuned to a frequency that doesn't exist or when the Apollo or Baikonour files are removed this causes a CTD
in DGIV when switching from Rotation and Linear thrusters.


Reproduce bug

Have DGIV powered up and set radio (ATC) frequency to 123-456 or any other frequency that does not exist or remove the .wav
files from the Apollo or Baikonour folders before starting scenario. Switch from Rotation to Linear thrusters and Orbiter
will CTD.


Miscallenous

I was trying to get rid of the radio chatter when using the Ummu. Since there is no control of the radio in the Ummu suits
and it was getting a little monotonous hearing Apollo chatter when flying the DGIV from Mars in the year 2102 I decided to
just remove the .wav files.

[DanSteph]

MattNW a écrit:
I was trying to get rid of the radio chatter when using the Ummu. Since there is no control of the radio in the Ummu
suits and it was getting a little monotonous hearing Apollo chatter when flying the DGIV from Mars in the year 2102 I
decided to just remove the .wav files.

This is a very bad idea that can cause CTD with other addon as well, it's more a
OrbiterSound problem.

Did you forget you simply need to uncheck "allow radio ATC" on soundconfig.exe (located next Orbiter.exe)
Don't worry, it seem many peoples ignore this fact...
In DGIV you simply need to put OFF the radio button on top panel, same effect.
I wonder if I'll not disable radio ATC by default in OrbiterSound 3.5

I mark this bug as solved but I note it for OrbiterSound.

Dan



Message modifié ( 08-05-2007 12:52 )

[sunshine135]

DanSteph wrote:
I think I would be able to build one new autopilot that let you choose the altitude and do all the work.
but this would be to time consuming near final release, as they are now ascent work well.

Absolutely. Leave something for DG-V. These ascent autopilots as they are now are more than adequate, and without a doubt
some of the best I've seen.

DanSteph wrote:
I made about 50+ ascent when I was rewritting part of the pilot... my wife
heard me rant all the day

Thanks for testing

Dan

Sometimes we forget that the developer is certainly the Alpha Tester, and has to put up with so many more frustrating issues.
For every one bug 20 people find, there are probably 20 bugs that you have already worked out. This also just goes to show
that just because you beta test, it isn't always fun!

Most of the time it is though  I like getting to be one of the first to check out all of the cool, new features.

[Voyager]

Mini bug, not even sure its worth the bug report :P

DELTAGLIDERIV BUG #1
Short description:

Base01 has no skin on the "[easy short] Beautiful Landing on Phobos" scenario

Severity

Very Minor

Complete  description

Well the short discriptio says it all, in the mission scenary folder the  scenario the "[easy short] Beautiful Landing on
Phobos" the SKINNAME is set to "none"

Reproduce bug

Just run the scenario

[DanSteph]

Voyager a écrit:
Base01 has no skin on the "[easy short] Beautiful Landing on Phobos" scenario
Mini bug, not even sure its worth the bug report :P

Sure, the skin was reverted to low-res texture, not top for a presentation
Scenario.

Solved, Thanks !

Dan