Outerra forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Outerra Tech Demo download. Help with graphics driver issues

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12

Author Topic: AeroKinetics Mod  (Read 138693 times)

Uriah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • We do these things not because they are easy. -JFK
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #60 on: December 11, 2014, 01:32:31 am »

Ha ha, yeah I didn't bother making it realistic until I can get the animation in game or else I might have to re-do everything in the end. I promise it will look far more real once OT releases the volumetric shaders, and this is temporary in the long run.

-Uriah
Logged

The-Bean

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 3
  • newbie
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #61 on: December 11, 2014, 05:41:13 am »

Just signed up to say this looks amazing. I'm a big fan of KSP but feel constantly let down with a lot of the decisions the developers make, luckily there are mods. I've been hoping somebody else would come along with something, there's so much untapped gameplay in a realistic spaceflight game, but everyone seems to go the sci-fi route.

Will be keeping a close eye on this, it's looking great. :)
Logged

Uriah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • We do these things not because they are easy. -JFK
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #62 on: December 13, 2014, 05:03:45 am »

Just signed up to say this looks amazing. I'm a big fan of KSP but feel constantly let down with a lot of the decisions the developers make, luckily there are mods. I've been hoping somebody else would come along with something, there's so much untapped gameplay in a realistic spaceflight game, but everyone seems to go the sci-fi route.

Will be keeping a close eye on this, it's looking great. :)

Thank you! Outerra is an amazing engine so far, with a lot of room and flexibility for improvement, and I hope my models do it justice. I will spend more time on texturing and detailed modeling in the future, for now I want to get more functionality working. By the way, have you downloaded the Outerra Tech Demo? (Top left above Home tab). First off, I would like to say that I think KSP is awesome in its own right, a very innovative game to be sure. However there are a number of short comings, in terms of the bad physics and unrealistic landscape/environment. I love the ability to build complex assemblies and essentially build anything you can think of. I hope to be able to provide much of the assembly functions in the future, and hope to minimize the number of unique parts I need by using procedural ones which can be completely customized. Procedural parts are something the KSP developers cannot take credit for as they were develop by the community independently. If you, or anyone has suggestions I am all ears. Once OT puts out an API things will be a lot smoother. We will be able to build a sim using the Outerra engine, instead of being within the extreme limits we are working with currently.

UPDATES:

Until I figure out how to make the rocket more controllable, autopilot is essential for the vertical ascent, zero alpha and gravity turn phases, after which it can be disengaged and flown manually to perform maneuvers. It would be nice if in the future for building custom rockets you could also create custom autopilot flight programs for each stage.

I believe I have found a feasible solution for multi-stage vehicle assembly and therefore stage separation! More on that in the next few days after I do some testing.

In the next release there will a couple of additional functions:

1) Control key to switch between autopilot and manual control. (working!)

2) Display fuel tank levels (percent). (working!)

3) Display fuel tank masses (lbs). (working!)

4) Display thrust and status of engines. (thrust working!)

5) Display orbital inclination.

6) Improved control with manual flight controls.

7) Rocket sounds for each engine. (working!)
« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 09:08:25 am by Uriah509 »
Logged

PytonPago

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • It´s way too complex, dont let me try to explain !
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #63 on: December 13, 2014, 06:11:35 am »

Nice !

... also, saw some funny NASA vid :



« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 08:53:40 am by PytonPago »
Logged
We are still undeveloped as long as we don´t realize, that all our science is still descriptive, and than beyond that description lies a whole new world we just haven´t even started to fully understand.

Uriah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • We do these things not because they are easy. -JFK
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2014, 12:35:55 pm »

Success at last!!!

I am now absoletly sure stage separation is possible where Outtera is at. Everything is contained in FGAircraft so each stage needs a stage.xml file that contains its attributes, which is read by the script.js and current velocity, moments, CG, CP, thrust, drag, lift, etc, for all of the stages are applied to the command module, the final stage vehicle. If you do the math it doesn't matter which object the forces are applied to as long as the rocket components are attached and the centers are in the correct "relative" locations. As a set of stage engines burnout, this triggers stage separation and zeros the point masses for those objects (I have already scripted this and it works). At the same time the physical models are released (can't do this yet of course) and they fall away as the next engines fire after a short time delay. I have everything except a way to attached separate objects together and release the models for spend stages, the rest is done! I even did a demonstration of the script pulling data from stage files and updating the totals for the aircraft. It works too! Just have to write a script for manual control of stage seperation and engine firing for it to be complete.

If someone can help me find a way to attach/detach models, in the same FBX/DAE file or not, we are golden!

Fuel levels (in percent and pounds) are now displayed, along with total weight (current lbs) and thrust (lbs). I realize of course weight should be mass, but I need to be able to convert from the base units first, so weight for now.

With JSBSim now fully functional, I was able to get into an elliptical orbit with an apogee of 698 miles and a perigee of 103 miles, with 148208 lbs of fuel to spare. At over 2,000,000 feet the Mission Elapsed Time dropped to zero, and the rocket went into a slow spin from which I could not recover. Besides that everything was nominal. Eventually I will record all the flight data and compare it against real world data, my guess is the drag is not very realistic. I am also writing a script that reduces the volume with a cutoff at a certain altitude, because there isn't sound in space, however inside the pressurized cockpit the engines and atmospheric sounds can be heard.

Tons more coming soon!

-Uriah

« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 12:40:23 pm by Uriah509 »
Logged

ProGamer

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • newbie
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #65 on: December 13, 2014, 04:55:43 pm »

This mod recently got a bunch of attention on the Kerbal Space Program subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2ow9o7/ksp_is_getting_competition_in_the_form_of_a_mod/
Logged

aWac9

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2588
  • newbie
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #66 on: December 13, 2014, 08:55:05 pm »

I never imagined I go hunting in search of extraterrestrial females was so interesting ..
Why trata..o that I was not? :)

good job .. keep it that way



Logged

Uriah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • We do these things not because they are easy. -JFK
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2014, 03:52:55 am »

I read through the KSP subredit thread and it is certainly inspiring!. It is quite obvious there are a lot of people already interested in this concept who are looking for a more realistic simulator.

For someone who grew up building things and in love with astronomy and space exploration, KSP is one of the most innovative games I have ever seen. It is just limited for me because of decisions made during development to sacrifice realism/simulation for game-play. Maybe that is why KSP is so popular, because typically simulation is actually far more boring and difficult, requiring a lot of calculations. However I find real orbital transfers are impossible to calculate, such as the Hohmann transfer orbits, which is why they developed the orbital node system to perform such maneuvers in KSP because of the 'spheres of influence' system they use. I will be implementing true multi-body physics and setting up orbit transfers will take place in the cockpit flight computer, which allows you to define custom flight programs for each phase of a spacecraft's mission. You'll be able to select a destination, transfer orbit, and it will calculate the launch windows for you, with margins of error as well as the return launch window, for long duration round-trip missions. The flight computer will be loaded with the vehicle definition file, which includes all of the pre-calculated simulation data including delta-velocity for each stage, considering all of the factors including initial planetary spin velocity and atmospheric drag during ascent and descent. If you were to set the destination for Mars in the Ares IV/Jupiter 246 flight computer, it would tell you there is not enough delta-V to put the Orion module into the necessary transfer orbit. I am already working on the javascript for the flight computer. This way you will be able to design and build spacecraft and missions without leaving the launch pad, so you only have to launch one, maybe two test flights in order to refine the design.

Oh yeah, and just wait until you see the new HUD!

 ;D

Regards,
Uriah
Logged

PytonPago

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • It´s way too complex, dont let me try to explain !
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2014, 04:11:43 am »

Copernicus seems a reasonably big housing module, doe, is it really big enough to hold a half and more year of provisions n/orr an space cultivation lab ? Also, in search for it, i found that Trans-Hab module project ...



An interesting idea of conserving mass. I see the apparent problems during space-construction (if any layer got cut or tangled due to manipulation or space-factors ( debris and tiny meteorites )), but recent material sciences had a lot of things happening, to make those layers being stronger and more resistant. Also, special packaging techniques may just need it to be internally pressurized to inflate them in a safe and proper way. The modularity capabilities of textiles is interesting in this :

http://www.archiprix.org/2015/index.php?project=2388

But simply, making such light-weight modules for hydrophobic chambers or purely supply modules wouldn't be a bad cont reduction idea out there. Possibly, if such materials could be created in space conditions, making fitting modules at place could be and interesting addition (in form and structural strength aspect) to printing techniques. So, question is, is still NASA bound with the congressional ban on that program ? That would leave them depending on such a project purely on that commercial venture.



 ... thats some great news Uriah ! Im doe not sure if splitting objects from a single model file for such separations is possible. Doe, if all would be separate models, witch after spawn at the same location fit together, you could probably make somehow a projection of those modules to the position/rotation data of the main one, then at separation, cut this projection and give it proper forces combination to cut it loose and give its momentum.

... well, maybe, if you just make a separate set of physics data ... you probably could actually do that, but the problem is, that origin points(or pivots) of the models separate meshes are taken to account to the main hierarchy. That is, you have to make a script for ascending of each detached part (just simply give it the proper momentum and let it fall due to gravity with some altitude-bound buffers due to air density) as addition to what you have and trigger them at separation. The most problematic thing is, doe, computing the relative position difference from the main module ! First computing, the part of how the separated module would fall off and make the position projection re-calculated to the position of the stage separation from the main module +  a similar calculation for the main module prolonging its flight from that moment.

Its a really bulky way of doing this with lots of math involved due to the fact, that you have to refer the modules position to the main module pivot point and not the altitude/latitude/longitude towards Earth. And only reasonable, till modules burn off in the atmosphere (so you can cut that script then and make the mesh invisible after burning).

Problem could be too, due to LODs, that it probably makes them disappear at some distance from the main one (well, maybe not if its just a single LOD level  there).

Can imagine some script like this, doe, ill say there will be a lot of things to be computed, specially, if ya go on rotating with the main (or remaining group of them) module in some ways after the separation. ... thats why i would prefer them stages as separate models, getting theyr data from the main one till separation and letting the base engine physics then take the job off your hands.


... if ewer OT could separate some meshes from the model due to selecting some frome the hierarchy and create a separate model whyte physics "on the fly", than it would be awesome for such things, doe, im sure, in the future, those rockets will have other "payloads" and set-ups witch oppose the one model structure a little further too.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2014, 04:18:08 am by PytonPago »
Logged
We are still undeveloped as long as we don´t realize, that all our science is still descriptive, and than beyond that description lies a whole new world we just haven´t even started to fully understand.

Uriah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • We do these things not because they are easy. -JFK
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2014, 04:41:17 am »

Pyton, that is exactly what I have in mind.  :D

Its not as difficult as it sounds, I just need to find the right java function to attach at spawn/detach for jettison, JSBSim handles everything else, so no math really. They will essentially act as individual aircraft, and the jettisoned stage will have the same position and velocity vectors. There is also a jettison force applied to the spent stage directly after the fastener is disabled. Since there is no API to speak of I can't talk to the game engine functions yet.

-Uriah
Logged

bomber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • newbie
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2014, 05:45:56 am »

This is going so fast I can't keep up never mind offer any help... Which by the sounds of it you don't need :-)

Well done.
Logged
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell

Uriah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • We do these things not because they are easy. -JFK
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #71 on: December 14, 2014, 06:06:45 am »

Thank you very much! I can't take all the credit, Levi has been awesome!

Actually I really need help! Any ideas on attaching/jettisoning stages? I have been scouring the forum to no avail, and all my magical javascript spells haven't been able to attach/detach components.

Regards,
Uriah
Logged

PytonPago

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • It´s way too complex, dont let me try to explain !
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #72 on: December 14, 2014, 06:48:45 am »


If someone can help me find a way to attach/detach models, in the same FBX/DAE file or not, we are golden!

Pyton, that is exactly what I have in mind.  :D

Its not as difficult as it sounds, I just need to find the right java function to attach at spawn/detach for jettison, JSBSim handles everything else, so no math really. They will essentially act as individual aircraft, and the jettisoned stage will have the same position and velocity vectors. There is also a jettison force applied to the spent stage directly after the fastener is disabled. Since there is no API to speak of I can't talk to the game engine functions yet.

-Uriah


Oh ... muffled myself in-between, doe, if separate models, then all should be as separate FBX/DAE imports. (otherwise, it will bound them all to the main object and pivot point and probably just the stupid back-referencing way i wrote would work because of it)

Could think of an "physical-mechanical" attachment, but it would involve custom collision meshes - hence OT update needed. Not sure if ya can say somehow the distance between two models pivot points to play with them aether (but would be a handy thing too).
« Last Edit: December 14, 2014, 06:59:46 am by PytonPago »
Logged
We are still undeveloped as long as we don´t realize, that all our science is still descriptive, and than beyond that description lies a whole new world we just haven´t even started to fully understand.

pina_coladas

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
  • newbie
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #73 on: December 14, 2014, 07:01:42 pm »

I also just registered to share my enthusiasm and gratefulness for this project.  In case you haven't stumbled across this already, here is a link to the thread for the Principia mod work-in-progress for KSP: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68502-WIP-Principia-N-Body-Gravitation-and-Better-Integrators-for-Kerbal-Space-Program

It's all way over my head, but it is clear that the people working on that project really know their stuff when it comes to calculating and visually representing trajectories in an N-body gravity environment.  Hopefully that thread can be a good resource for the people here, whenever you get to that point in the development of your mod.

Good luck!
Logged

Uriah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • We do these things not because they are easy. -JFK
Re: AeroKinetics Mod
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2014, 07:16:41 am »

Thank you! I really appreciate all the enthusiasm!  ;D That is awesome to hear about Principia, I had no idea.

Download the Jupiter 246 Demo for Outerra: J246.GNU.OTX

Controls:

P                   Information display
. (period)      Hold-down force (on=1, off=0)
pgup            Increase throttle
pgdn            Decrease throttle
enter            Exit/enter rocket
G                  Google Maps

To enter a prograde orbit with minimal inclination, spawn the rocket using Google Maps to face due West. This will orient the autopilot to make an Eastward gravity turn. To make sure the rocket does not have pitching moments or go into a spin directly after launch follow these instructions carefully. After spawning the rocket, press '.' (period) to take off the hold-down force. This will allow the rocket to rotate into a vertical position. Wait until the rocket stops moving completely before turning back on the hold-down. By pressing 'P' you may see the status of the hold-down force, (on=1, off=0). Slowly increase the throttle until above 70%, this will fire the four SSME RS-25 engines, wait a few seconds for the thrust to stabilize, increase to 100% to fire the two SRBs. Release the hold-down force after the SRB thrust has stabilized. After the SRBs burnout, they will be jettisoned in JSBSim, and the mesh hidden (separation still not working). When the main External Tank is empty the first stage will be jettisoned. Enjoy your flight!
















« Last Edit: December 15, 2014, 08:55:18 am by Uriah509 »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12