Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 18, 2020, 09:06:21 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Gemini 060615 released!
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 16481 times)
Swatch
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1003


jasonims
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2008, 07:38:15 PM »

buggar... I hate that site....  I'll try to post it differently, and I didn't want you guys to think that I'm getting my hopes up... I just wanted to offer my suggestion of what would be a reasonable rewrite incorperating the best of AMSO and NASSP.
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 #16 on: March 08, 2008, 07:55:58 PM »

Swatch, I didn't want to drag down the idea of this thread, I only had the general impression there might be some misconceptions of how much both projects would ever be able to merge. I'm looking forward to your PDF file!
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)
movieman
Project Admin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1710



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2008, 09:16:09 PM »

Having got everyone to agree to the GPL for NASSP code, I don't think you'd be able to un-GPL it for a closed source addon; every single person who's worked on the code would have to agree (or, at least, everyone who'd worked on the files you wanted to use), and I don't think you'd even be able to find some of them. Also, while I haven't had much time for Orbiter lately anyway, I wouldn't much want to work on a closed source addon only to see all the work vanish when a new release of Orbiter makes the old modules obsolete (as has happened with so many old, closed-source addons).

I do tend to think that we're duplicating a lot of work, but I'm not sure that much of the code could be shared. Meshes might be an option if the AMSO guys let us use theirs (e.g. for the LEM) rather than rebuild our own.

To be honest, I suspect a lot of the benefit for a more realistic AMSO would be from the amount of time we've spent figuring out how the internal systems worked; implementing them is often much easier than going through all the NASA documents to see what they did... just look at the long discussions on whether or not the mission timer ran before launch, for example!
Logged
Swatch
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 1003


jasonims
View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2008, 10:55:31 PM »

Hoo-ray for replacing a fan in my server and getting it running again....

Here's the pdf, reposted...this time without that crappy online hoster...

http://swatch.homeip.net/ProjectApollo_NASSP-AMSO_Merge.pdf

I guess I should also point out, that most of these ideas originally pertained to my thoughts on how to rewrite the current NASSP code to make it more modular, the AMSO stuff just came about because of this thread, so even if a NASSP-AMSO merge isn't a possibility (which is completely understandable), then I still present some of these ideas as being pertinent.


PS.  One final disclaimer about that... it was done while slightly dopey from getting my Wisdom Teeth removed.... so it may not all make sense.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 10:59:20 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)
ACSoft
Project Admin
Full Member
*****
Posts: 33



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2008, 09:06:59 AM »

Hoo-ray for replacing a fan in my server and getting it running again....

Here's the pdf, reposted...this time without that crappy online hoster...

http://swatch.homeip.net/ProjectApollo_NASSP-AMSO_Merge.pdf

I guess I should also point out, that most of these ideas originally pertained to my thoughts on how to rewrite the current NASSP code to make it more modular, the AMSO stuff just came about because of this thread, so even if a NASSP-AMSO merge isn't a possibility (which is completely understandable), then I still present some of these ideas as being pertinent.

Yes, this time I got your PDF and read it carefully !

This would be, probably, an already rather detailled basis, for the rewriting from scratch a new application taking the best of both projects, as I have mentionned already earlier.

From my side of view, it fix a lot of points or features which I am not inevitably interested in or would love to see implemented. But, this is normal, you imagined it from what you have on your side and don't know my own tastes or views about what could be the ultimate Apollo simulation.

If we were about to create a small firm, to put on the market the ultimate Apollo simulator, I would see it in a totally different way and could perhaps disregard my desires and my pleasures, assuming that your plan would represent what "the market" expect (which I am not at all convinced it would be really the case). But this is a freeware !!! And a freeware is an hobby you made for your own pleasure first !

Unfortunately, I fear that the NASSP team views of what can be the ultimate Apollo simulation, compared to my own views of that point, are rather drastically different.

A last word about modularity:

Yes modularity would have been great IN THE PAST and maybe even encouraged or even "forced" by Orbiter architecture. This would maybe have allowed today to simply make the following deal: NASSP team, are you interested to exchange my visual module with you system simulation module. But unfortunately, it is too late now for this, almost to my point of view.
 
PS.  One final disclaimer about that... it was done while slightly dopey from getting my Wisdom Teeth removed.... so it may not all make sense.

 Happy   Very Happy   Wink

Don't worry, it make sense to my view. Probably utopic, but it make sense !

ACS
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2008, 03:34:11 PM »

I have to mention that I actually made bad experience with older projects for Apollo and the Space Shuttle until I met Tschachim and project Apollo-NASSP. The first project I made panel graphics for was the STS Project. Its intentions were pretty similar to those of Apollo-NASSP but just for the Space Shuttle. At the end the project reached the deadline. Also project "Moonwalker" a few years ago, which was intended to become what NASSP is today, didn't really reach a different state other than preparation/planning. In my point of view the problem is that a detailed systems simulator just takes A LOT of time to be developed with almost no finish line visible. And this all "for free". That actually was why the past STS and Apollo projects died rather soon I guess. I didn't gave up making 2D panels but panels are just nothing without very good programmers. So, today we have project Apollo-NASSP which already reached an amazing statuts, related to systems simulation. Actually, to me it is a wonder that Apollo-NASSP made it that far. Tschachim and others did and still do an amazing great job!!! But there is still no real finish visible... And compared to AMSO, we really need a lot of 3D and artistic stuff too...

When I look at AMSO, not from the viewpoint of a developer, but from the viewpoint of a user, which I am, AMSO seems to be almost a perfect and awesome Apollo Simulation, and with working 3D panels for the LEM and CM it will be the most exciting available addon for Orbiter like never before, at least in my point of view. So, yes, a merge of NASSP and AMSO seems to be awesoms in theory, but the more I think about it, and the more I look back to the "years" of NASSP, my fear would be that a merge is rather risky. It might even lead into an end "sometime". Imagine all the stuff which needs to be "melt together" and even to be rewritten... And there is the fact that the virtual AGC, which actually is the heart of NASSP, won't become a part of AMSO. And it actually shouldn't, at least the work of LazyD should remain a big part of AMSO as it is. AMSO already has reached its own high level. So, in my current point of view, a merge could be a risky adventure. For now we have two phantastic projects. One available, one still under development. I have way less doubts that there could be a clash when AMSO is getting working 3D panels, rather than serious personal and programming problems as a result of a merge...
« Last Edit: March 09, 2008, 04:32:44 PM by Moonwalker » Logged
movieman
Project Admin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1710



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2008, 10:09:18 AM »

I haven't really looked much at Swatch's PDF, but I agree that I'd like to be able to stick arbitrary stages together. I'm not sure it would work with attachments though, don't they have a bunch of problems? The other big issue is that the autopilot would need to know how to handle any arbitrary launcher we created.
Logged
startrekmaniac
Full Member
***
Posts: 83


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2008, 03:46:30 PM »

Will AMSO have panels like Project Apollo? I wish that you two would start all over again with a new project. But continue with the projects that have already been made. Stupid comment I know.
Logged
FordPrefect
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 268



View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2008, 04:25:26 PM »

I am confident that NASSP will improve a lot in the graphics department in the not so distant future!  Rolling Eyes
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)
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2008, 07:57:08 PM »

Will AMSO have panels like Project Apollo? I wish that you two would start all over again with a new project. But continue with the projects that have already been made. Stupid comment I know.

There are plans of working 3D panels for AMSO past version 2.0... Excited!

But starting a new project wouldn't be a good idea. Everything is fine for now. AMSO is going to be a real winner. And also NASSP has reached an amazing status which will continue too. I've seen some projects disappearing from the scene during my Orbiter-era. Cutting things now in relation to current progresses of AMSO and NASSP wouldn't be advisable. There is just too much work already done. In other words: there is no escape anymore Very Happy

« Last Edit: March 16, 2008, 08:00:28 PM by Moonwalker » Logged
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2008, 07:57:51 PM »

I am confident that NASSP will improve a lot in the graphics department in the not so distant future!  Rolling Eyes

Sounds rather interesting... Any secret news? Happy
Logged
startrekmaniac
Full Member
***
Posts: 83


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2008, 10:32:33 PM »

I didn't mean start all over again. I mean keep developing your current projects but on the side use what you have and merge.
Logged
FordPrefect
Project Team Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 268



View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: March 17, 2008, 04:19:26 PM »

Sounds rather interesting... Any secret news? Happy

Not a big one, however while working on the new LEM ascent stage I learned a lot about 3d modeling in the last couple of days and I'm enjoying it more and more  Happy
NASSP deserves the best possible, accurate and detailed (yet framerate friendly) models and this is what I am working on. I should be able to show you some progress in upcoming weeks. Actually, I hope the results will shock you!  Very Happy
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)
NoName
Project Team Member
Hero Member
****
Posts: 795


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 17, 2008, 06:07:00 PM »

Sounds rather interesting... Any secret news? Happy

Not a big one, however while working on the new LEM ascent stage I learned a lot about 3d modeling in the last couple of days and I'm enjoying it more and more  Happy
NASSP deserves the best possible, accurate and detailed (yet framerate friendly) models and this is what I am working on. I should be able to show you some progress in upcoming weeks. Actually, I hope the results will shock you!  Very Happy

Sounds great. I'm rather busy at the moment with different things, not only Orbiter. Actually I don't know where to start and what to do because there is just so much in my mind Very Happy but nothing of it really is going to be finished "soon"... Rolling Eyes

And my progress of learning 3D modeling isn't a fast one at the moment. I'm really looking forward to your LEM ascent stage!
Logged
constellation
Full Member
***
Posts: 28


View Profile Email
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2010, 03:54:45 PM »

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

I know this is an old post but I'd like to add my opinions on this matter..

Unfortunately in this world, there are politics even in the arena of free add-ons for free add-ons (NASSP/AMSO for OrbiterSim, etc) AMSO is not like PMDG where they strive on profits made from the sale of the software (which is quite expensive.. price in hefty euros for Microsoft Flight Simulator addon) to sustain development (PMDG is a commercial venture for a commercial platform FS9 and FSX, whereas NASSP and AMSO are not commercial in nature and the platform used is although closed-sourced but also free OrbiterSim)

Of course utlimatley we have no choice but to respect the AMSO admin decision to remain closed sourced, but what a shame it is if I must say so myself.. Ideally imagine what Apollo addon would be like right now if we had AMSO's current graphics (especially the LEM, and the 3d cockpits, and the launchpad, etc) coupled with NASSP's outstanding fidelity in systems integration and simulation and the emulation of vAGC/DSKY.. Together this would be the mother of all simulator addons, perhaps even rivaling that of the famed PMDG 744 - it will once and for all really be as real as it gets!

I mean we all talking about free addons for a free simulator after all! It is not like people's livelihoods depend on this and this ain't exactly a strategic business decision one way or the another. I'm sure everyone that contributed to any orbitersim addon did so because out of a sense of love and support for the space simulation community at large.. It is obvious neither AMSO nor NASSP have "bad intentions" - they are after all both providing free quality simulations in their own ways.. But what a darn pity it is to have politics entangled in this much like so many other areas of life..

But in the real world you can' t always have your cake and eat it too.. As I'm getting both OrbiterSim, AMSO, and NASSP for free there is no room for me to complain about anything.. I'm just expressing my own opinions..

Hypothetically if I had to pick I would say the NASSP method and strategy is preferable in the long run to the AMSO position. OrbiterSim itself has never been heavy on graphics, but instead has relied on a accurate Newtonian physics engine that is underneath the hood.. NASSP approach of getting the core underlying realism implemented first and then graphics can come later is preferable to the backwards approach of making fancy looking models and then trying to go back to increase the realistic settings..

In the good old MS DOS days there was once a very high fidelity simulator for the Boeing 747.. I believe it is called Aerowinx 747.. There was basically no graphics at all.. Instead you only can fly the plane by the panels, instruments, cockpit, and data.. 99.9% of the B747-400 systems were simulated in the aerowinx 747. But at the time there was not the graphics power of today..

Eventually however after nearly a few decades later when flight simulator for desktop pc matured enough the company PMDG took that aerowinx systems blueprint inspiration and spirit and built upon that core realistic package a complete 3d addon for the Flight Simulator 2004 and later ported it over to the FSX. So today we have a 747-400 desktop pc simulator that not only models the functional of nearly every aspect of the 747, but also have the 2d panels and 3d cockpits to match! But the important thing to remember from all of this is that the core code came first, then the bells and whistles followed! Can you imagine it being the other way around? I, for one, cannot!

Today there are many Apollo simulators for PC. I have played Eagle Lander 3D and astragon's Apollo Simulator, and some others. All service their own purpose and own niche theme, and all have unique and distinct strengths and weaknesses, NASSP and AMSO included..

But imho, the vAGC/DSKY is what makes "NASSP" what-it-is-all-abouts. The vAGC is the core and the spirit and essence of NASSP. Without that vAGC then the NASSP is nothing, but with it, NASSP has the potential to become everything! Ironically my first introduction to simulating the DSKY was back years ago when in high school at this page: http://apollo.spaceborn.dk/dsky-sim.html  I almost wet myself when I saw this neat little javascript program.. but today we have NASSP with the vAGC! What a long ways we have come already!

Open source is the way to go, (especially for the nature of free programs addon such as NASSP/etc) I'm afraid in the long run that this little obstacle will be AMSO's own isolation in the makings. (just my opinion..) I doubt AMSO will EVER get as procedurally realistic and accurate as NASSP already is (with regards to vAGC and other systems integration) without getting the vAGC, and it won't be legally feasible for them to incorporate that code without of course also going open source.. If they someday DO decide to go open source, then a 'merger' between NASSP and AMSO willbecome very possible and likely indeed! (or even if AMSO is unwilling to open source, NASSP can simply use its code anyway!)

As it stands, I think NASSP is the better path of the two. If I only have time for one addon I'd stick with NASSP. Push comes to shove I'd much rather have an accurate fly by the data "simulator" than a fancy graphics engine eye-candy and fireworks display. I'm an Apollo fan and something like this ten or fifteen years ago would literally have been a dream come true! Realism is the name of the game here, and even though the NASSP LEM is crippled and ugly with no textures, I think this addon will become the best Apollo addon ever created. 







« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 03:56:59 PM by constellation » 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!