Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 24, 2013, 02:39:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
20011 Posts in 1930 Topics by 2250 Members
Latest Member: mikegk
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Meadville Space Center
|-+  Project Apollo - NASSP
| |-+  Project Apollo - NASSP News & Discussion (Moderators: movieman, Tschachim, Swatch, lassombra)
| | |-+  Transfer?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Transfer?  (Read 528 times)
Dogsbody
Full Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile
« on: June 22, 2011, 07:16:59 AM »

This might sound like a stupid question but please bear in mind that a non-programmer is asking it...and please don't take it as any kind of disrespect towards Orbiter in any way. I love working with Orbiter.

How much work would be involved in setting up NASSP as a stand-alone programme. Is everything written in a way only Orbiter would understand?

I just ask because I see a lot of comments about being unable to completely replicate the original missions because they can't replicate the exact same orbit parameters, can't implement ground control read-up of PADs, etc.

I was just wondering if it would be possible to take the work already done in getting the spacecraft working (which in my non-programming mind is amazing) and put it into an engine that only simulates the earth, stars and moon states (as opposed to half the milky way) and which will make it easier to get more historically accurate orbit parameters, TLI and MCC burn data, etc.

Just a thought.

Possible?
Logged
Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
****
Posts: 3687


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2011, 07:47:15 AM »

Well, I'll try to explain...

How much work would be involved in setting up NASSP as a stand-alone programme. Is everything written in a way only Orbiter would understand?

NASSP is written as an Orbiter add-on, that means it uses Orbiter's physics and graphics engine as any other add-on. To get rid of Orbiter, well, you'd need to re-implement that stuff, which would be a re-implementation of Orbiter itself.

...and put it into an engine that only simulates the earth, stars and moon states (as opposed to half the milky way) and which will make it easier to get more historically accurate orbit parameters

Orbiter does not simulate "half the milky way", but the solar system. If you want to use only Earth, Moon and the Sun as gravity sources, just throw the remaining bodies out of Config\ProjectApollo\Sol[_VirtualAGC].cfg, no need to switch the engine. Also, you're certainly aware of that the real missions took place in our solar system including all planets (no offense, I'm just not sure how to explain it...), so if you throw out planets, the simulation gets less precise, not more.

I just ask because I see a lot of comments about being unable to completely replicate the original missions because they can't replicate the exact same orbit parameters...

I'm not sure which posts you're referring to, but I can't imagine this is because of Orbiter's physics engine, which is pretty good since we have non-spherical gravity sources etc., but because of inaccurate simulation of the spacecraft (for example only the Apollo 7 and 11 Saturns are using correct parameters at the moment, i.e. a NASSP problem, not Orbiter's), unsuitable navigation tools (see here for example: http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/mscforum/index.php?topic=2706.0) and user errors.

...can't implement ground control read-up of PADs, etc...

I'm not aware of that Orbiter is a problem in any way for implementing ground control stuff?
(But I am aware of that our very limited development resources prevent that at the moment...)

Concluding I don't see any sense in getting rid of Orbiter, but perhaps I don't understand your question correctly?

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

Dogsbody
Full Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 08:44:41 AM »

The milky way comment was a bit daft now that I look at it. Happy

I agree that Orbiter is a good simulation but it just looked to me as if it was impossible to implement a fully historical mission with PADs etc because that is what I was being told on the forums. I understand now that maybe we are just not there yet. Happy I think part of the problem is also that I was trying to fly Apollo 11 instead of Apollo 7. Happy Running before you crawl is never a good thing I guess.

I am also more of an astronaut nut than an orbital mechanics nut I guess. I can't wait till we get to the point where we do have PADs provided instead of doing calculations in MFDs. Guess I must just be a bit more patient. Happy

I must just say that I am addicted to NASSP and am loving finally being able to learn how to fly the Apollo CM. Thank you for all the hard work.
 
Logged
Tschachim
Project Apollo - NASSP
Administrator
Hero Member
****
Posts: 3687


nassp.sf.net


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2011, 09:54:21 AM »

I think part of the problem is also that I was trying to fly Apollo 11 instead of Apollo 7. Happy

Yes, there's a reason why it's in the "Broken Scenarios" folder...  Wink

I can't wait till we get to the point where we do have PADs provided instead of doing calculations in MFDs. 

That won't change much to be honest, instead of calulating your burn in an in-game MFD, you'd switch to an external application (or use a different computer) and calculate the burn there (using a more "Mission Control" look alike interface, which would be the point). The upload of the burn data to the spacecraft and the execution of the burn is the same. So it's not MFDs vs. burn PADs, but MFDs vs. external applications providing the same PADs uplinked the same way.

Cheers
Tschachim
Logged

Pages: [1] 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!