• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

FSX Spaceflight dynamics module for FSX

Misho said:
Well then, prepare for a deep bow :D

I HAVE overcame all these limitations by implementing what SimConnect was intended for. Forget about speed limitations, time compression... I've removed FSX's flight model completely (possible in SimConnect) and I'm using it only as a visual environment - that's it. Every object that is designated as "spacecraft" becomes completely devoid of any FSX influence. I can do with it whatever I want... and, yes, I've implemented a third party game physics model that governs these bodies implementing a deterministic solver and a high fidelity collision engine. So, the physics part of it is not a hurdle any longer. BTW, I could have just as well implemented a proper driving or boating model, using FSX as a display engine only. As a matter of fact, ballistic model is the simplest of them all!

I DID have a major hurdle to solve, which I did back in April, and it had to deal with coordinate conversion, from FSX's local topocentric to more general geocentric cartesian. But that's all behind now :)

What I still do have a problem with is, as Rob mentioned above, volume shadow and fx shifting issues, which get really exaggerated with the higher altitudes. Today, I somewhat diminished the fx shifting issue by using Arno's RADItor utility (Thanks Arno!). Other limitations are strictly FSX engine limitations, as for example, the altitude limit, greatly expanded in FSX as compared to FS9, which reaches to almost (but not quite) geostationary orbit. I hope this module takes off (pun intended ;) ) so that Dovetail might consider addressing the issues and hopefully fixing them, giving this great hobby of ours yet another dimension!

I do have a day job, so working on this is taking time... but I will persist on it, as it brings me a great deal of joy! Plus, I'm not that great of a programmer so sometimes I take a detour when I need to learn new coding skills. Anything else you'd like to know, feel free to ask!
Click to expand...
Hi Misho,

OK, I'm preparing for the deep bow then .......;)
I guess you're going a lot further with this project then I ever thought possible in the FSX environment.

And I'm sure you realise what a tremendous amount of work and hours you still have to spend, with everything you advertise this in this thread.
Hope you get the problems sorted out, although I doubt that you can get Dovetail interrested in this development (and solve the problems above) since this is not main-stream ...(and there are already other spaceflight programs).

So, much success !!

Best regards, Rob
 
rcbarend said:
Hi Misho,

OK, I'm preparing for the deep bow then .......;)
I guess you're going a lot further with this project then I ever thought possible in the FSX environment.

And I'm sure you realise what a tremendous amount of work and hours you still have to spend, with everything you advertise this in this thread.
Hope you get the problems sorted out, although I doubt that you can get Dovetail interrested in this development (and solve the problems above) since this is not main-stream ...(and there are already other spaceflight programs).

So, much success !!

Best regards, Rob
Click to expand...
Thanks Rob, yeah don't I know it re: Workload, and, agree, Dovetail probably won't have any interest fixing problems that would rarely show up using FSX in a "normal" mode... however, I think that the .fx "wandering" problem is a well documented problem from day one of FSX for ordinary aircraft, plus, I think volume shadow / shadow map could use a better implementation all around ;)
 
Last edited:
Thanks Ed! I will definitely make use of it when the time comes. Although - there is one wrinkle. Do you have a source geometry? The rocket needs to be assembled from its stages, just like the real thing, so I would need the whole thing in at least 4 parts:
SatVfront_5.jpg


And possibly up to 9 parts: 5 stages as above, plus LAS tower, Apollo CM, Apollo SM and LEM.
 
Since Ed said to have at it, I opened the .mdl in MCX, and exported it as a .3ds file. When I opened it in Gmax, as is often the case when trying to reverse engineer without the source file, not all of the grouped parts can be un-grouped.

Here it is if you want to play with it.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2cZ6Nvv_bBLVTlNb1dwUFBoMVk

The LAS tower, the command module, and the service module separated OK.

And for the most part I was able to break it into first, second, and third stages, but the second and third stage engine shrouds cannot be readily separated from the second and first stage groups they are attached to.

Also, the instrument unit doesn't appear to be separate from the top of the third stage.
Amd, there doesn't appear to be anything inside the LEM shroud which is currently attached to the top of the third stage.

I lost all of my source files for a large FS9 project, and I used the same reverse engineering via MCX export as .3ds, with even worse grouping results, so this may be doable (for someone). There was a way, which I don't recall at this moment, where the permanently grouped parts could be un-grouped.

I don't recall it being easy...for me anyways.

I am quite rusty at Gmax.

Cheers
Gman
 
Last edited:
Thanks Gman - actually, I don't have GMax installed any longer... ever since my FS9 dev days :) ... Can you leave it in 3DS format? From there it is easy to separate the mesh elements into usable parts.
 
Very cool! It looks like it needs a lot of element grouping and vertex cleanup/welding, but once I get around to it, it will be a nice starting point.

Do you have textures that go with it?
 
Misho said:
Very cool! It looks like it needs a lot of element grouping and vertex cleanup/welding, but once I get around to it, it will be a nice starting point.

Do you have textures that go with it?
Click to expand...

Hi Misho,
You can find the textures in Ed's mdl download above.

I tinkered around some more today and was able to isolate the Launch Escape system Tower, the command module, the service module, the LEM adapter (empty), the third stage, the second stage, the interstage adapter, and the first stage, without the LEM, that makes 8 components.

Very nice work Ed. :)

Cheers
Gman
SV_01.jpg

SV_02.jpg
SV_03.jpg
 
Hi, wow amazing model :O
Misho, how its going with your video project? :) I just can't resist :)
 
I recognize that model from somewhere...NASA's public domain Saturn V?


The polycount is a bit high on these. I've tried to "kerbalize" their S-IB, but ended up redoing the model from scratch because the original would've dragged down performance in KSP too much.
 
Gman, thanks for the praise. But, it is indeed the open source from NASA cleaned up quite a bit to reduce polys. I had gotten it down to where the poly count was acceptable for FSX on a pretty crappy machine. (Pentium 2.4 ghz Dual Core) That is why there is no LEM, it was just too heavy to clean up.
 
Ed Akridge said:
Gman, thanks for the praise. But, it is indeed the open source from NASA cleaned up quite a bit to reduce polys. I had gotten it down to where the poly count was acceptable for FSX on a pretty crappy machine. (Pentium 2.4 ghz Dual Core) That is why there is no LEM, it was just too heavy to clean up.
Click to expand...

Rogerz on all of that.
Still pretty cool to play around with. I always wanted a good moon landing sim with spot on physics, photoreal scenery, and a lunar rover.
It's all good!

Cheers
Gman
 
Ed Akridge said:
Gman, thanks for the praise. But, it is indeed the open source from NASA cleaned up quite a bit to reduce polys. I had gotten it down to where the poly count was acceptable for FSX on a pretty crappy machine. (Pentium 2.4 ghz Dual Core) That is why there is no LEM, it was just too heavy to clean up.
Click to expand...
It needs also a heavy vertex welding session. It has perhaps 10x more vertices than it needs (co-located)... You can tell by the fact that the parts can't be smoothed... :)

In any case - excellent model candidate to put my addon to a test, once I get the linking and staging going. There will have to be more tweaking on the above model... for example, the LEM shroud (the cone below the Apollo CSM) has 4 segments - it opens up like petals of a flower ;)
 
Marc L said:
Hi, wow amazing model :O
Misho, how its going with your video project? :) I just can't resist :)
Click to expand...

I haven't started on the video yet. Unfortunately, I am dealing with a family medical emergency, so that of course takes priority. Patience, my friend. Here are a few sunset shots to tie you over for the time being (I just love how the colors change at sunset and sunrise)

upload_2016-9-29_23-30-38.png

upload_2016-9-29_23-31-47.png
 
Oh no :(
Take care of you family first, its way more important that virtual life :
:)

Pictures are beautiful btw
 
Heretic said:
Orbiter?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that didn't come out right. Should have been "Personally, I always wanted a good moon landing sim with spot on physics, photoreal scenery, and a lunar rover."

The Apollo CSM is essentially an orbiter (moon), and playing around with it and the Saturn V reminded me that I always wanted a Moon landing simulator. Without the option to fly to and orbit the moon in Misho's sim, I guess the Saturn V and its Apollo CSM will be "all dressed up with nowhere to go."

Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo mission never left Earth orbit, and like Ed's model, it carried an empty *LEM adapter, so the Saturn V rocket and Apollo CSM models are still viable for Misho's orbital purposes.
(*The four panels of the Apollo 7 LA failed to deploy, which led to the use of explosive charges for LEM adapter panel deployment on subsequent missions)
Although it would be nice to have the LEM up there to dock with in Earth orbit, I'm not sure what you would do with it when it was time to come home...send it a remote command to burn up on reentry I suppose.

Cheers
Gman
 
Gman said:
Yeah, that didn't come out right. Should have been "Personally, I always wanted a good moon landing sim with spot on physics, photoreal scenery, and a lunar rover."

The Apollo CSM is essentially an orbiter (moon), and playing around with it and the Saturn V reminded me that I always wanted a Moon landing simulator. Without the option to fly to and orbit the moon in Misho's sim, I guess the Saturn V and its Apollo CSM will be "all dressed up with nowhere to go."
Click to expand...

You missed my point like Neil and Buzz missed their planned landing spot. Maybe this will make my remark clearer:



Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo mission never left Earth orbit, and like Ed's model, it carried an empty *LEM adapter, so the Saturn V rocket and Apollo CSM models are still viable for Misho's orbital purposes.
(*The four panels of the Apollo 7 LA failed to deploy, which led to the use of explosive charges for LEM adapter panel deployment on subsequent missions)
Although it would be nice to have the LEM up there to dock with in Earth orbit, I'm not sure what you would do with it when it was time to come home...send it a remote command to burn up on reentry I suppose.
Click to expand...

You don't need a remote command. Just leave it up there and microgravity will do the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top