Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 07, 2020, 03:09:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Project Apollo - NASSP 6.4.3 released!
http://nassp.sf.net
25068 Posts in 2094 Topics by 2266 Members
Latest Member: twa517
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Meadville Space Center
|-+  Project Apollo - NASSP
| |-+  Project Apollo - NASSP Development
| | |-+  Planning (Moderators: movieman, Swatch, lassombra)
| | | |-+  Steps before Apollo 7
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Print
Author Topic: Steps before Apollo 7  (Read 41063 times)
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: May 05, 2010, 09:51:28 PM »

Now that the Command Module instrument panel graphics are finished, I would like to ask if it's okay for everybody that I update the Wiki tutorial screenshots which are related to the Command Module instrument panels?
Logged
Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 06, 2010, 05:56:28 AM »

Go ahead!  Thumbs Up Happy

PS: Got your PM, but still extremly busy in real life...  Gloomy
Logged

NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: May 06, 2010, 06:42:56 AM »

PS: Got your PM, but still extremly busy in real life...  Gloomy

Don't worry Wink What should I say? I was that much busy that it took almost 6 month to get back to NASSP Embarassed

I have to do another exam by the way (again...), next weak: book-keeping (Rechnungswesen). But it should be fine this time, although numbers are not my world.

But I'm fully back on NASSP. I won't say what's exactly comming next right after the Lunar Module panels will be complete very soon as well. All I say is: visuals, lot's of... But this will go into a "Steps before Apollo X) thread Wink
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 06:45:00 AM by Moonwalker » Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: April 27, 2016, 09:46:08 AM »

For a while now we are basically "feature complete" for the Apollo 7 mission. The current goal is to work on a Release 7.0 that includes both Apollo 7 and 8. Nevertheless I think that we should make an effort to get Apollo 7 on a release level sooner than later. In my mind the two things that need the most work are:

-MCC major maneuver assistance: I have learned a lot from implementing this for Apollo 8 so I might go back to Apollo 7 and improve it. There are still some things to be done, like streamlining the saving/loading of parameters and making sure uplinks don't occur when the computer is busy or repeat an uplink if that was the case. So the maneuver assistance does work from launch to splashdown, but still some work has to be done to make this a mature feature, so to speak. And even then, should this be the default setting that the maneuver assistance is used? I would probably say yes, but always leave the option to deactivate it. With the MCC feature basically everything has to be done by the book. If people want more flexibility then they can use the RTCC MFD or other MFDs. And for any training scenario we might provide the MCC feature won't be active, too.

-Documentation: While some aspects of the MCC UI might still be changed, I think at least Apollo 7 is far along enough to work on documentation again. What we want to provide are the word checklists pattersoncr is working on, which replace the original checklists we don't have and the old Excel checklists. So those should be as close to the original as possible. I can work on updating the manual for the RTCC MFD. I don't think we need additiona,l extensive manuals explaining how NASSP works. Expand the Project Apollo Checklist MFD so that it works step by step as far as possible and everything else can be treated as the real spacecraft for which we have real procedures and real handbooks (like the AOH). A bunch of training scenarios would be nice, too, but let's wait creating those, or else with changes we have to do a lot of scenario maintenance.

And what even is the status of the quickstart scenario? Does that even work anymore? Do we even want to support that?
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #94 on: April 27, 2016, 11:10:23 PM »

I feel like we should give Quickstart a miss. Most everyone who's going to be using NASSP knows that it's rather a steep learning curve to start with (hell, Orbiter is almost nothing BUT steep learning curves), and trying to balance the QS scenarios with the ones using the AGC and LVDC may end up being counterproductive. No one's gonna (or should) start using space sims with Project Apollo, IMO. haha
Logged
kneecaps
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 217


36711000 kneecaps@shockpulse.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #95 on: April 28, 2016, 04:27:12 AM »

I feel like we should give Quickstart a miss. Most everyone who's going to be using NASSP knows that it's rather a steep learning curve to start with (hell, Orbiter is almost nothing BUT steep learning curves), and trying to balance the QS scenarios with the ones using the AGC and LVDC may end up being counterproductive. No one's gonna (or should) start using space sims with Project Apollo, IMO. haha

My two cents, I agree. There is little point in creating a sim with such realism if a quickstart mode abstracts that all away. There are better ways to give the casual simmer (gamer? layman?) a fun Apollo experience.

I love the idea of training scenarios.
Logged

"Okay. As soon as we find the Earth, we will do it."
- Frank Borman, Apollo 8

Current Work: ?? What next??

Future Work:
I know the AGC pretty well so anything need doing there?

On Hold/Completed:
SPS TVC in P40 issues.
P11 FDAI Error Needles (98%) complete. Comitted. Working A7 scenario.
P06 AGC Standby. Concluded. It's done by the AGC PSU.
Got us a complete AOH Volume II
jalexb88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 328


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: April 28, 2016, 01:19:15 PM »

After testing the Apollo 8 mission, MCC looks to be in very good shape and I think that keeping the MCC maneuver assistance for "by-the-book" maneuvers is all we need right now. No need for more flexibility like full abort support yet beyond the normal abort pads generated throughout the mission. I would also vote to have it on by default, with an option to deactivate it, then use RTCC mfd, or trying your skills at a full no-comm P23/37 return to earth.  Shocked

As for the quickstart scenarios, I also think that they are rather irrelevant now. There are others addons out there that offer a more casual Apollo experience. Nassp should have only one mode: realism. I do however think good documentation and the checklist MFD will be invaluable to help new users in their learning curve and not be intimated by the shear complexity.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: April 28, 2016, 04:34:58 PM »

After testing the Apollo 8 mission, MCC looks to be in very good shape and I think that keeping the MCC maneuver assistance for "by-the-book" maneuvers is all we need right now. No need for more flexibility like full abort support yet beyond the normal abort pads generated throughout the mission. I would also vote to have it on by default, with an option to deactivate it, then use RTCC mfd, or trying your skills at a full no-comm P23/37 return to earth.  Shocked

I wanted to attempt a complete no-comm return before I started trying to fix the rare P23 CTDs. I'm still planning to do it, just have to qucksave more often. I'd say it is definitely possible with NASSP right now.

Good to hear the MCC stuff worked so well for you. It will become very valuable for later missions, especially the time shortly before lunar landing. There are a bunch of uplinks and important PADs in a short time before DOI; if you want to do this by the book then "manual" calculations with the RTCC MFD make the timeline very difficult. Right now Apollo 7 and 8 are in a pretty good state when it comes to the MCC mission tracking, just a little bit more reliability is needed.

Quote
As for the quickstart scenarios, I also think that they are rather irrelevant now. There are others addons out there that offer a more casual Apollo experience. Nassp should have only one mode: realism. I do however think good documentation and the checklist MFD will be invaluable to help new users in their learning curve and not be intimated by the shear complexity.

I agree about the quickstart scenarios. If I understand the NASSP history correctly, then quickstart scenarios were created when a bunch of changes had to be made to integrate the Virtual AGC, including e.g. offset engine etc. The most complete and nice to look at Apollo experience in Orbiter is AMSO. AMSO is great and there really is no reason to have a mode in NASSP which is basically like AMSO, but not so pretty. Very Happy

What I meant by "we don't need much additional documentation" is that not much more documentation about NASSP specifically will be needed. For features like the MCC and manuals for the RTCC MFD, yes, but for the most part it will be "how to use the CSM and LM" and not "how to use NASSP". Most of the original documentation will (and is) possible to use and no extensive tutorials about the use of specific tools in Orbiter should be necessary. It's a simulation from the astronauts perspective, for the most part at least.

But a bunch of training scenarios for each mission would indeed be nice. Rendezvous and reentry come to my mind first, those are challenging even in the nominal case. And lots of off-nominal scenarios are also easy to set up, even right now without extensive failure support. It's just that maintaining a lot of scenarios is diffcult while there are still changes being done to the actual simulation. Some time last year I began creating some rendezvous procedures for the Checklist MFD, I can work on that a little bit more. I have been asked to make a video about that, but I think I'll instead release a scenario with updated Apollo 7 procedures for the Checklist MFD that has the rendezvous step by step from just after NSR to station keeping. I think I'll do that and update the manual for the RTCC MFD, that should be lots of work which is useful for Apollo 7.
Logged
jalexb88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 328


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: April 28, 2016, 05:06:31 PM »

I'm in the middle of a no-comm return as well. Im at work until Saturday though before I'll be able to complete it and report here. I competly agree about using the MCC for all of the normal timeline. As for the RTCC mfd I meant using it after flying an abort pad for which after there is no MCC support, but I think I rather like the P23/37 way  Cool  Whenever I find some time I could lend a hand with documentation as I have flown these procedures so many times over and over  ROTFL
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: October 10, 2016, 12:01:39 PM »

Another revival for this thread. Currently I am working on the Apollo 7 Checklist MFD file. When that is complete in about a week, we have reached another big step towards the 7.0 release. We should then think about what still needs to be done. A few things come to my mind:

-Major features (https://github.com/dseagrav/NASSP/milestone/1). "MCC state save/load support" is probably finished, although the PADs aren't saved. Should that be done? "MCC major maneuver assistance for Apollo 7/8 major maneuvers" is mostly done, all I could find missing so far were a few state vector uplinks for Apollo 7. "Checklists & Documentation for flying Apollo 7/8" is what we are currently finishing. I can do a bit more "Cleanup "Legacy" Compilation Warnings".

-Colossus237 implementation. If jalexb88, who is testing Apollo 8 with C237, doesn't have any additional problems with this AGC version and when I have successfully flown Apollo 7 until splashdown, then I'll commit the change of the AGC version for Apollo 7+8. This will break all old scenarios and it's hopefully the last big change to break scenarios before release.

-LVDC integration into the IU class. This can probably postponed until after the release. Currently the LVDC is fairly standalone and a lot of functions are hacked in, e.g. interaction with the CSM. The old IU has an elaborate system for connections between CSM/S-IVB, S-VB/LM and so on. This should be used by the LVDC. Another reason to move the LVDC out of the basic Saturn V and Saturn IB classes is to run it after separation from the S-IVB. Currently the LVDC gets deleted upon separation, so it can't do attitude hold for TD&E, maneuvering to LOX Dump attitude etc. But all this isn't really a big problem.

-Bugs. At least we should take a look at the optics bug (https://github.com/dseagrav/NASSP/issues/20) that happens in P23 sometimes. Once we are not changing too much anymore we can of course search for more bugs. Please post these as issues on Github.

-Documentation. Do we still want to create a word flight plan for Apollo 8? The actual flight plan is mostly usable. Are we allowed to distribute the actual flight plan with NASSP? If not, we really should list the actual flown documentation somewhere that can be used with NASSP. The word checklists still needs a few tweaks, and so does the Apollo 7 rendezvous checklist. Also, the wiki situation still needs to be solved. I have no idea what the best solution for this is. It would be great if we could continue using the main URL that links to NASSP (http://nassp.sourceforge.net/), because everyone who is searching for NASSP will be going there.

-Scenarios. Once we are sure nothing will be changed anymore that will break scenarios, we can think about creating a bunch of scenario for Apollo 7+8. I am thinking about various states during the missions, like Earth and Lunar entry, rendezvous training, just before launch etc. We have a very advanced simulation, so we could even create scenarios for some backup modes like reentry with the EMS. I am sure there are a lot more ideas for useful scenarios.
Logged
indy91
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1316


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: October 26, 2016, 01:24:39 PM »

Colossus 237 is now implemented and the Checklist MFD files for Apollo 7 and 8 are ready, although they could use some testing I guess. What do we still need to do now? @dseagrav, what do you consider mandatory before the release? From my point of view it is mostly documentation and bug fixes now. And I can begin to create some scenarios, I am sure a few people here can come up with some ideas for that, too.
Logged
dseagrav
Project Admin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1118


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: October 26, 2016, 03:27:01 PM »

All I'd consider mandatory for release is that we get a few people who are sufficiently interested in Apollo but have not seen recent versions of NASSP before to run through a few scenarios to make sure we aren't missing anything. Ideally, between MCC and the checklist MFD the average Orbiter user should not HAVE to refer to a wiki or forums or anything to successfully complete a scenario. If we are sufficiently close to that goal then we should be good to go.
Logged
rcflyinghokie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 580


View Profile Email
« Reply #102 on: October 26, 2016, 08:37:44 PM »

I mean I am up to speed on the current state of the project but I have not touched Apollo 7 at all, I could take a break from the LM and run through that scenario and see if anything stands out.
Logged
dseagrav
Project Admin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1118


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: October 27, 2016, 04:20:19 AM »

The reason for getting someone unfamiliar with the present state of things is to get a fresh perspective from someone who doesn't have our idea of how things "should" go. Are they going to have problems with the MCC interaction or lack of the usual Orbiter autopilots? Maybe they'll do things we don't do and trigger issues we don't see. It also can't hurt to put it on a few machines it hasn't been on yet and see if there's any issues with low performance or antivirus interference.
Logged
eddievhfan1984
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 737



View Profile
« Reply #104 on: October 27, 2016, 05:29:11 AM »

Wish we could get Scott Manley to help test the RC. That would also bring quite a bit of attention to the project...
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 06:07:36 AM by eddievhfan1984 » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!