Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 26, 2020, 03:03:18 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Project Apollo Beta 7.0 released!
http://nassp.sf.net/wiki/Installation
25068 Posts in 2094 Topics by 2266 Members
Latest Member: twa517
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Meadville Space Center
|-+  Meadville Space Center
| |-+  Orbiter
| | |-+  NASSP and AMSO
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: NASSP and AMSO  (Read 16484 times)
startrekmaniac
Full Member
***
Posts: 83


View Profile
« on: February 27, 2008, 04:12:19 PM »

I was just thinking that they should merge. With AMSO graphics and NASSP cockpits it would be the best add on in orbiters history.
Logged
Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2008, 08:23:50 AM »

Technically that's a good idea (at least in my opinion), but since NASSP is open source and GPL licensed (not only but also because this is necessary in order to use the GPL licensed Virtual AGC), AMSO would need to go open source and use the GPL, too, not only for the code, but also for the meshes/textures and it doesn't look like that will ever happen...

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

Christophe
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1072


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2008, 04:06:49 PM »

I was just thinking that they should merge. With AMSO graphics and NASSP cockpits it would be the best add on in orbiters history.

I even think it would be the greatest simulator ever done...  Rolling Eyes
Logged
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2008, 04:51:03 PM »

I also have to admit that AMSO is a phantastic Apollo addon and at the moment the best addon "available" for Orbiter. But that's a matter of taste.

AMSO is a real pleasure and adventure. The only thing which I really miss is the systems and panels. So, combining AMSO with our panels and systems, and just improving the 3D interiors of AMSO, indeed would make it the greatest simulator ever done.

But on the other hand, we have the possibility to create/change our meshes and animations the same way... Wink An accurate and historic landing is a real pleasure and adventure with AMSO. I really want to see all the nice eyecandy stuff for our Project too...

By the way, yesterday I managed to land the LEM fully manually the first time (and another two times just perfectly) by just using the surface and VOR/VTL MFD's Very Happy The braking phase is rather easy, BUT the approach and landing is a nightmare and requires some minutes of 300% mindfulness. It's hard to imagine how Armstrong and the other pilots landed on the lunar surface manually with all the "real" riscs around. Must have been just terrible but breathtaking at the same time...
Logged
ACSoft
Project Admin
Full Member
*****
Posts: 33



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2008, 11:36:09 PM »

Technically that's a good idea (at least in my opinion), but since NASSP is open source and GPL licensed (not only but also because this is necessary in order to use the GPL licensed Virtual AGC), AMSO would need to go open source and use the GPL, too, not only for the code, but also for the meshes/textures and it doesn't look like that will ever happen...

Cheers
Tschachim

Yes Tschachim, In theory, I think also it would be a good idea. NASSP & AMSO have come almost to a perfect complementary point now. Where AMSO is weak, NASSP is strong and the contrary. But pratically, this can be an other story. Moreover, you are right, AMSO will NEVER go to open source.

I have the feeling that for you, going open source mean probably more AMSO melting into NASSP than really merging both !!! The contrary can also be imagined to a certain point, which, in this case, don't cause any problems.

The future of AMSO is the following:

In a short delay, version 1.17 will be published. The main purpose of this version is to introduce a new ATC sound system, of course, also customizable per mission as before. This new ATC sounds customization model allow any number of ATC to be played at any times. In the same time, I will also publish a reference "custom sound pack expension". It will be for Apollo 11 and will also demonstrate the new pre-launch sound feature. The other purpose of this version is the stabilization of the code.

Then, after this, should come the stage version 2.00 (maybe in several steps), with all graphic work still to be done (actually Luis is working on a beautiful new Hadley rille). But the code will remain the same, except maybe some more code stabilization. There is no date schreduled for this stage key version. It depend 100% on Luis, the graphist artist.

After this, are we going to step in the path to 3.00 ?

This is the BIG QUESTION, because this path is obviously to start making the VC's cockpits alive, by implementing, step by step, all vessels systems. The actual design of VC's is already partially done in this perpective and should be totally ready for that at 2.00 stage.

What is already sure, I am not going to go forward in this next stage alone with Luis. The disparition of Dennis was a big lost for AMSO project, but even if Dennis would be still with us, a very skilled "Apollo systems specialist", as "technical advisor" is required to continue. I am not going now to spend months, reading ton's of NASA pdf, to become myself an "Apollo systems specialist". I need somebody which can first, conceptualize with me the functionalities and then, participate to the development.

My intention was to publish a "call to Apollo specialists" in the Orbiter forum, when we would have being close from 2.00 publication. But, my main worry is also that starting this new step of AMSO evolution will obviously make it entering into a direct clash with Project Apollo/NASSP.

This is why I make first this call here.

As far as I know, nothing forbid to anybody of the "Project Apollo/NASSP" to become also a technical advisor in the AMSO project ? I said in the beginning that the merging idea can be another story when it come to be done pratically. I have some experience of that kind of problems and most of the time, I was wondering after, if it wouldn't have been more efficient and quicker to rewrote all the code. When looking at the complexity of both projects, I fear that a pure merging attempt would just lead to this result. On the other side, it is maybe the occasion to restart with an improved concept, based on the first experience made.

Let me know, what you think about this proposition.

Best Regards,

ACS
Logged

Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2008, 08:06:57 AM »

I have the feeling that for you, going open source mean probably more AMSO melting into NASSP than really merging both !!! The contrary can also be imagined to a certain point, which, in this case, don't cause any problems.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but for me personally and in order to achieve something that I'm interested in (again personally), "merging" would mean that however it's done or called, the Virtual AGC is still used (which is the reason I'm here after all), which presupposes the GPL. No open source, no Virtual AGC.

As far as I know, nothing forbid to anybody of the "Project Apollo/NASSP" to become also a technical advisor in the AMSO project ?

You're correct, nothing forbids that.  Happy

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2008, 09:03:03 AM »

Well, from the viewpoint of a panel graphics designer I can't really say a lot related to a real merge of the coding stuff. But as many might have thought, I also thought that AMSO combined with our systems would be much more than amazing, at least in fiction. At the moment we have two beautiful projects/addons, but one of each has something the other hasn't (systems including an almost original AGC versus rather good graphics/meshes, sceneries and animations). Within the last month I often thought what would happen if AMSO would become something like Project Apollo already is, a systems simulator? Then it would even be hard for some people to decide which one to use Very Happy It's not a secret anymore that I really like both addons Yes A real merge inlcuding all stuff we have would be sensational, but on the other hand we also have to go ahead with our projects either way, even if it's going to be almost two identical things in future. We shouldn't stop what we have done until it isn't almost finished only because there is another one trying to represent almost the same things... 

Anyhow, in my point of view it would be no problem if somebody of the Project Apollo team would also become a technical advisor for AMSO in future. I'm really looking forward two both projects either way...
Logged
ACSoft
Project Admin
Full Member
*****
Posts: 33



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2008, 09:28:44 AM »

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but for me personally and in order to achieve something that I'm interested in (again personally), "merging" would mean that however it's done or called, the Virtual AGC is still used (which is the reason I'm here after all), which presupposes the GPL. No open source, no Virtual AGC.

This has the merit to be perfectly clear and I will be either.

You probably know that Dennis became a great friend for me. So AMSO vessels will NEVER be guided by something else than Dennis code. For me, going to virtual AGC would be like a kind of treason.

Before he die, he was working on all missing parts of guidance and he succeeded doing the most difficult part. I have here his work embedded into a prototype instrument, which allow me to fire perfect TLI for all missions. The new parameters defined in AMSO scenario, that Jarmo use in IMFD 5.1, were defined for this purpose. Normally, I should receive soon the sources of these new guidance programs.

I perfectly understand your passion for virtual AGC. But to my view, this is not mandatory to make a very good Apollo simulator, as far as you can emulate these guidance program in an other way.



As far as I know, nothing forbid to anybody of the "Project Apollo/NASSP" to become also a technical advisor in the AMSO project ?

You're correct, nothing forbids that.  Happy

So, if nothing forbid that, this is maybe the way to put a bit of NASSP spirit into AMSO.

 Wink

ACS
Logged

Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2008, 09:46:44 AM »

You probably know that Dennis became a great friend for me. So AMSO vessels will NEVER be guided by something else than Dennis code. For me, going to virtual AGC would be like a kind of treason.

I also have worked with Dennis and was deeply shocked when I heard about his sudden death, so I understand and respect that, of course.

But to my view, this is not mandatory to make a very good Apollo simulator, as far as you can emulate these guidance program in an other way.

Just as a clarification: The Virtual AGC doesn't emulate the guidance programs, it emulates the AGC hardware. This emulator then runs the original Apollo software, byte per byte the same software which was running on the real hardware during the real missions, there's no way to get it "more real".  Happy

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

ACSoft
Project Admin
Full Member
*****
Posts: 33



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2008, 11:48:10 AM »

Just as a clarification: The Virtual AGC doesn't emulate the guidance programs, it emulates the AGC hardware. This emulator then runs the original Apollo software, byte per byte the same software which was running on the real hardware during the real missions, there's no way to get it "more real".  Happy

I know this, don't you remember we had a discussion about that earlier, where you told me all your fascination and enthusiasm about this solution ?

Yes, intellectually, it cannot be more real than that, except to return into a real Apollo vessel. But pratically, I maintain that it is absolutely not mandatory. You can do without it and even you, if the emulation of guidance program is well done, like it is the case with Dennis work, you won't probably be able to see a difference.

ACS
Logged

Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3700


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2008, 12:02:51 PM »

Sorry, I didn't mean the Virtual AGC is mandatory, I just wanted to clarify that it's a hardware emulation, mainly for people, which are reading this thread and don't know the Virtual AGC.

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

Christophe
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1072


View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2008, 04:07:23 PM »

Would like to tell you, both Tschachim and Alain capt, and all other devloppers how I enjoy the fact that this discuss has begun!  Happy

It's just the start.
The start of the huge project I'm sure to be achieved one day.
For me, no matter the way or the time it would take. I know that this will be done.

Thanks to you.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 04:13:02 PM by Christophe » Logged
Swatch
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1003


jasonims
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2008, 11:06:25 PM »

I too have often wondered about the proposition of merging these ventures.  The result of which has made me come to a few conclusions.

1)  NASSP is in need of a rewrite in the future.  This doesn't mean we have to drop EVERYTHING we've done up to this point, just that we need to re-evaluate the structure of the code to produce a more open framework.  Doing this with a set of standards would allow us to produce much more efficient code.  I'm talking about things such as docking, LEM and CM handling etc.  That being said, I don't think we should do this until we at least release something that can fly to the moon (say around ProjectApollo11).

2) On the subject of merging the codes, I agree with Alain an Tschachim in their evaluations that this can't just be hodge-podged.

3) On the subject of guidance, I suggest we take a page from Orbiter.  More on that later.

4) Licensing will be a little fishy, but I think we can also take this from Orbiter.

5) This would not be necessarily easy, but the end result has the potential to be much better.


I was actually stuck in bed after getting my wisdom teeth out this morning, so I spent some time laying out the ideas I've had in the past about this.
I have a lot more, but the basis of what I'd been thinking about, along with what I've gathered from this thread, is here.

ProjectApollo_NASSP-AMSO_merge.pdf

I'm sorry for my bad handwriting, if you have questions, I'd gladly answer them.  Also, sorry it isn't hosted at my usual location, I can't seem to contact my server right now.

I'm posting this partially completed to see what you all think of my suggestions.  I'm especially interested in your thoughts Alain.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 11:08:55 PM by Swatch » Logged

My Project Apollo Work:
CM Visual
 -VC (~75% complete: texture work beginning again; mesh-78%; texture-70%)
Propulsion Particle Improvements (Focused on S1B right now, BETA 1.0 has been commited)
New Docking Method (~50% complete: research complete; coding partially completed, testing not underway)

Future Work:  (if it's here, it's deemed unnecessary to upcoming release)

Older Work:  (if it's here, it's fair game to whoever wants to improve)
EMS Implementation (committed: minor flaws, but groundwork is there, needs extensive testing)
EMS scrolls (committed: not refined, but usable)
SM Visual (committed: mesh-finished, texture-60%; possibly revisited in future)
J2 Texture (commited: room for improvement)
LRV (committed: mesh-finished, texture-90%; in future a ground up rebuild may be in order, but not on my plans)
FordPrefect
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 268



View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2008, 10:05:23 AM »

Not intending to spoil anything here, but I believe you are getting your hopes too high. If I understand Alain correctly, all he "offers" is that folks from NASSP can contribute as technical advisors for AMSO, therefore forming some kind of merging, nothing less, nothing more.

Of course I gladly stand corrected if I am wrong. In that case, please excuse my false conclusion, Alain!


@Swatch: when trying to download the pdf, I get this error: Incorrect linking code. Please try again.
Logged

My Project Apollo work in progress:
* New detailed Lunar Module Ascent stage with virtual cockpit (VC currently planned as eye candy only) 18 % done

My Project Apollo work to be continued:
* new Service Module SPS engine bell
* various Saturn V textures, exhaust textures
* SIM Bay for the SM


My long-term plans are to create a:
* New detailed Lunar Module descent stage (eventually models of all flown LM's)
* New F-1 engines for the S-1C stage showing the foil (batting) insulation
* New LUT and launch pad (if nobody else does it)
ACSoft
Project Admin
Full Member
*****
Posts: 33



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2008, 05:09:52 PM »

Yes, me too I cannot open the pdf.

I have the advantage over NASSP to be able to read the source of NASSP. It was more than one year now, that I didn't tried NASSP. So, in the background of this discussion, I have installed NASSP 7 beta. Merging AMSO into this code, or the contrary, this would be already a great challenge. Both projects don't have similar architecture.

The best would be obviously to rewrote a new code, taking from both projects the best of it. But this would be also something to do !!!

Now, I must maybe clarify something. On the enlightment of reading here and there the code of NASSP7 about the systems simulations, I would qualify these simulations of hyper-realistic. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO DO IN AMSO. It is perfectly possible to reach a very good level of realism, without the need to simulate 100% the real physic of  everthing. There is "shortcuts" methods vastly used into simulation games, which allow to get almost the same results, with much more simple coding. This is what I am going to do in AMSO, if I go into this adventure.

ACS
« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 05:12:56 PM by ACSoft » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 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!