STS-88 (56Kers warned)

[Lurchi]

I really like this Simulation too. In the past i had the old Shuttle Sim from Virgin and i was pleased when i discovered SSM2007 this summer. The Copy Protection didn't cause any problems so far although it is a bit disappointing that i cannot run it on my notebook because of the way it works.

EVAs are a bit tricky but the new updates makes the sim are a little bit more forgiving when it comes to reach the correct position for making the next step in the mission.

I played all missions up to STS-93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-93
which is a nice mission to relax and do some sightseeing in camparison to the former tougher ones .

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Lurchi

I played all missions up to STS-93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-93
which is a nice mission to relax and do some sightseeing in camparison to the former tougher ones .

STS-93 sounds interesting with those system failures during launch. Glad you're enjoying SSM as well, a few nice shots you have there.

And some more from STS-88:
The 2d rendezvous panel.


Just about to start translating down here. Perhaps I started a little late.


External shot of me almost getting Zarya to dock to Unity using the Canadarm during an orbital sunrise.


Two from the EVA.



PD

[Lieste]

I've found their customer service to be extremely offhand to prospective customers.

It isn't possible to register on the forums (even in read only mode) unless you have already purchased the 'game'. As anything even remotely technical gets swept off the front public boards into the member's only area as soon as it is posted I have no idea of how well they treat their paying customer's, what limitations with the currently available demo (some of which are show stoppers for me) are going to be addressed in the product lifetime.

Problems I have, some trivial, some showstoppers:
Significant freezes during the lift off section.
Orbital insertion is usually not at all accurate.
Orbital mechanics are wacky - if an insertion goes wrong and the 'mach' is ~16 the mission can be flown to completion. This is just silly, as the minimum orbital velocity for a low earth orbit is in the region of 24,000 ft/s (ie 'mach' 24).
The inertial frame is continually reset, so you can't just fly the numbers on the ball. (probably because the graphics for the ball are weird and only go up to ~+/- 120 in azimuth.)
The roll/yaw/pitch axes get horribly confused if you aren't facing 'towards' the current 'correct' heading.
The HUD isn't collimated to the outside world, in a 6dof cockpit.
The 2d and 3d HUD have different scales and information.
The flightpath information provided in the HUD doesn't reflect the real world guidance cues for the landing. It is possible (even easy) to land, but you have to deliberately 'cheat' the approach.
Drag in the approach phase is too low, I guess this is to make landings 'easier' but it just makes it impossible to fly the nominal approach path within RL limits.
If you pause the mission during the takeoff, then the SRB seperate after a fixed amount of 'real time' and not after the correct burn time in simulated time... I've had SRB seperation at ~200ft.


The 'development' appears to only be about adding 'new and exciting' missions, and tinkering with internal lights and other 'switchology', and doesn't appear to address any of the 'simulation of flight' stuff.


Which isn't to say it isn't fun (in a strangely compulsive sort of way), but I can't get excited enough about where it might be going to actually pay to find out if they have or have not fixed any of the above stuff...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Lieste

I've found their customer service to be extremely offhand to prospective customers.

It isn't possible to register on the forums (even in read only mode) unless you have already purchased the 'game'. As anything even remotely technical gets swept off the front public boards into the member's only area as soon as it is posted I have no idea of how well they treat their paying customer's, what limitations with the currently available demo (some of which are show stoppers for me) are going to be addressed in the product lifetime.

Problems I have, some trivial, some showstoppers:
Significant freezes during the lift off section.
Orbital insertion is usually not at all accurate.
Orbital mechanics are wacky - if an insertion goes wrong and the 'mach' is ~16 the mission can be flown to completion. This is just silly, as the minimum orbital velocity for a low earth orbit is in the region of 24,000 ft/s (ie 'mach' 24).
The inertial frame is continually reset, so you can't just fly the numbers on the ball. (probably because the graphics for the ball are weird and only go up to ~+/- 120 in azimuth.)
The roll/yaw/pitch axes get horribly confused if you aren't facing 'towards' the current 'correct' heading.
The HUD isn't collimated to the outside world, in a 6dof cockpit.
The 2d and 3d HUD have different scales and information.
The flightpath information provided in the HUD doesn't reflect the real world guidance cues for the landing. It is possible (even easy) to land, but you have to deliberately 'cheat' the approach.
Drag in the approach phase is too low, I guess this is to make landings 'easier' but it just makes it impossible to fly the nominal approach path within RL limits.
If you pause the mission during the takeoff, then the SRB seperate after a fixed amount of 'real time' and not after the correct burn time in simulated time... I've had SRB seperation at ~200ft.


The 'development' appears to only be about adding 'new and exciting' missions, and tinkering with internal lights and other 'switchology', and doesn't appear to address any of the 'simulation of flight' stuff.


Which isn't to say it isn't fun (in a strangely compulsive sort of way), but I can't get excited enough about where it might be going to actually pay to find out if they have or have not fixed any of the above stuff...

Yes, their customer treatement (and treatement of potential customers) made me turning my back on them in some anger, too, after having tried the demo. I strongly refuse to put my money on a blind bet, I want to know what kind of support and future acvtion I am in for BEFORE I separate from my money. They also did not react to two direct emails when I requested some specific info to direct and clearly formulated questions. Too bad for them - I was very close to give them my money. Well, their behavior results in their loss - not mine, for I have good simulations enough, and can happily live on without this sim. But just imagine what this could have turned into if they would have been more customer-friendly and would do a better marketing job! AVSIM's review was extremely positive, and some other reviews as well - but they really do a good job in keeping people away. Stupid to waste all their effort and work so headlessly. They should take eSim as an example of how to do it.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Lieste

I've found their customer service to be extremely offhand to prospective customers.

It isn't possible to register on the forums (even in read only mode) unless you have already purchased the 'game'. As anything even remotely technical gets swept off the front public boards into the member's only area as soon as it is posted I have no idea of how well they treat their paying customer's, what limitations with the currently available demo (some of which are show stoppers for me) are going to be addressed in the product lifetime.

Problems I have, some trivial, some showstoppers:
Significant freezes during the lift off section.
Orbital insertion is usually not at all accurate.
Orbital mechanics are wacky - if an insertion goes wrong and the 'mach' is ~16 the mission can be flown to completion. This is just silly, as the minimum orbital velocity for a low earth orbit is in the region of 24,000 ft/s (ie 'mach' 24).
The inertial frame is continually reset, so you can't just fly the numbers on the ball. (probably because the graphics for the ball are weird and only go up to ~+/- 120 in azimuth.)
The roll/yaw/pitch axes get horribly confused if you aren't facing 'towards' the current 'correct' heading.
The HUD isn't collimated to the outside world, in a 6dof cockpit.
The 2d and 3d HUD have different scales and information.
The flightpath information provided in the HUD doesn't reflect the real world guidance cues for the landing. It is possible (even easy) to land, but you have to deliberately 'cheat' the approach.
Drag in the approach phase is too low, I guess this is to make landings 'easier' but it just makes it impossible to fly the nominal approach path within RL limits.
If you pause the mission during the takeoff, then the SRB seperate after a fixed amount of 'real time' and not after the correct burn time in simulated time... I've had SRB seperation at ~200ft.


The 'development' appears to only be about adding 'new and exciting' missions, and tinkering with internal lights and other 'switchology', and doesn't appear to address any of the 'simulation of flight' stuff.


Which isn't to say it isn't fun (in a strangely compulsive sort of way), but I can't get excited enough about where it might be going to actually pay to find out if they have or have not fixed any of the above stuff...

Hey Lieste,

I don't know when you last tried SSM (I wasn't aware there was even a demo ), but I haven't experienced any of what you've listed. There is some times a barely noticeable pause around Max Q during ascent, which can be annoying. As I've already noted, I do find the EVA's pretty "gamey" and frustrating though. I tried recreating your early SRB sep with a pause and wasn't able to. Would you mind explaining how the orbital insertion isn't accurate? As for the approaches and landings, I just try and keep the diamond centered in the box and things seem to work out . I've never flown a space shuttle before, but from watching youtube videos of the landing and approach sequence things seem to be believable enough to me. I had a hell of a time at first (always landing with too high a sink rate or short of the runway), so it feels pretty heavy and draggy to me. I'd be happy (and interested myself) to test a few specifics out for you.

As for their customer service, the only interaction I've had with them is sending the forum admin an email asking for an exception on a non freebie (Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail etc) and the forum admin replying that the non freebie email only applies to non customers. Their forum regulation is rather rigid, but I don't find it terrible.

As for further development, why would expanding the historical mission set and choosing interesting missions not be a priority? They add about a new historical mission every month. I find the flight/orbital dynamics convincing enough, but perhaps I just don't know better. The last service pack added:

• New Mission – STS-98
• New SPEC 96 GPC SM mode for RMS LIM management
• Virtual Cockpit enhancements
• Performance tuning
• Adjustments across all mission

PD

[Lieste]

Well, for any given orbit there are prescribed combinations of velocity and altitude.

SSM2007 will often not acheive the nominal values during ascent, which is fine, as there should be plenty of delta_v remaining for an OMS-1 burn to recover all but a very bad insertion. However, the 'game' assumes a nominal orbit, and only adds the nominal delta_v. The OPS 105/OPS 202 pages show the supposed 'nominal' profile and performs burns using these nominal values, but the shuttle itself can follow completely different profiles throughout the mission (including orbiting at < 75% the correct energy).

An example would be an insertion with an apogee of <60nm, while OPS 105 is indicating perigee of 75nm and apogee of 107nm.

The ADI error can be seen simply by rotating to 0,0,0 then setting the reference attitude using the panel switch. Return to the nominal attitude, and then set the ADI mode to 'Ref'. You *should* see a yaw angle of 90 degrees, and level 'ball'. (which incidently is the correct attitude for INRTL mode, the white-bar forwards should be obtained by programming the reference attitude, not by altering the inertial frame of reference.) As far as I am aware, you will still see a value of '60' on the ball.

If you are currently upside down, and facing the opposite direction to that required (as for example after the deorbit burn) then it should be possible to re-orient by either yawing 180 degrees then rolling, or by pitching 180. However attempting to yaw will result in wild meanderings. (Yaw pitch and roll do work correctly when facing 'forwards' to the reset INRTL ball though).

[PeriscopeDepth]

Pardon me for asking so many questions. I am not doubting your assertions, I just don't fully understand them. I can be rather dense when it comes to orbital mechanics.

Originally Posted by Lieste

Well, for any given orbit there are prescribed combinations of velocity and altitude.

Got it, I'm with you so far. I was under the impression most shuttle ascent profiles were pretty similar. I do get the feeling SSM more or less "rides the rails" and just tries its best to match historical ascent profiles for the given mission selected.

SSM2007 will often not acheive the nominal values during ascent, which is fine, as there should be plenty of delta_v remaining for an OMS-1 burn to recover all but a very bad insertion.However, the 'game' assumes a nominal orbit, and only adds the nominal delta_v. The OPS 105/OPS 202 pages show the supposed 'nominal' profile and performs burns using these nominal values, but the shuttle itself can follow completely different profiles throughout the mission (including orbiting at < 75% the correct energy). An example would be an insertion with an apogee of <60nm, while OPS 105 is indicating perigee of 75nm and apogee of 107nm.

On any particular mission, or does it happen on every ascent? How do you know the OPS 105/202 values are erroneous? I'm assuming by looking at the MCC screen?

The ADI error can be seen simply by rotating to 0,0,0 then setting the reference attitude using the panel switch. Return to the nominal attitude, and then set the ADI mode to 'Ref'. You *should* see a yaw angle of 90 degrees, and level 'ball'. (which incidently is the correct attitude for INRTL mode, the white-bar forwards should be obtained by programming the reference attitude, not by altering the inertial frame of reference.) As far as I am aware, you will still see a value of '60' on the ball.

If you are currently upside down, and facing the opposite direction to that required (as for example after the deorbit burn) then it should be possible to re-orient by either yawing 180 degrees then rolling, or by pitching 180. However attempting to yaw will result in wild meanderings. (Yaw pitch and roll do work correctly when facing 'forwards' to the reset INRTL ball though).

I'll try the ADI stuff another time on just focus on understanding the orbital glitches now.

PD

[Lieste]

Well, the orbit is an ellipse, with minimum altitude at perigee, and maximum at apogee. If the current shuttle altitude reads below the value listed at OPS105 or OPS202 as the 'current perigee' then I see a problem

[Lieste]

As far as I can tell, the 'simulator' does in fact run on rails... but it can get confused by pauses in simulation rate (either by explicitly pausing, or due to poor optimation - hell they know exactly what textures and sounds are going to be needed during ascent... it can't be too hard to ensure that you perform these prior to lift off, rather than at the point of highest dynamic change?

Once it has got itself out of sync the lack of proper simulation calculation>display>perform correction is painfully obvious. How they manage to fudge the rendevous navigation with this sort of simulation methodology I can only guess at, but I think it may not be pretty


( I still find this 'fun' sometimes..... just I usually give up in frustration at basic physics flaws where the cues don't agree with what is happening out of the window.. Doesn't happen everytime, but often enough to put me off.)

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Lieste

Well, the orbit is an ellipse, with minimum altitude at perigee, and maximum at apogee. If the current shuttle altitude reads below the value listed at OPS105 or OPS202 as the 'current perigee' then I see a problem

Resounding doh! I should've guessed you were looking at the orbiter instruments, tricky guy you are.

As far as I can tell, the 'simulator' does in fact run on rails... but it can get confused by pauses in simulation rate (either by explicitly pausing, or due to poor optimation - hell they know exactly what textures and sounds are going to be needed during ascent... it can't be too hard to ensure that you perform these prior to lift off, rather than at the point of highest dynamic change?

Once it has got itself out of sync the lack of proper simulation calculation>display>perform correction is painfully obvious. How they manage to fudge the rendevous navigation with this sort of simulation methodology I can only guess at, but I think it may not be pretty

I'm going to try to throw a bunch of pauses at the sim during launch and see what dirty tricks rear their heads. The sim is certainly VERY mission time governed in its dynamics and procedures. I think if errors happen the sim irons itself out and puts everything back on the rails when you hit the "next action" button and fast forward a few hours/days forward into the mission to the next player action.

I don't mind the riding the rails, as enough of spaceflight is computer controlled anyways and the sim does make for a convincing experience. And the physics manual orbital rendezvous/formation maneuvering seems to be legit when your rotating/translating around objects. But I suppose that's just a matter of relative speeds/simple energy impulses and can't be that hard too pull off. I've been playing for about 50 hours I'd guess, and only had one "huh?" moment when doing an orbital rendezvous (the farther off portion, which starts after a few burns, you hit next action and the sim spits you out about 45,000 feet from the rendezvous target and you manually translate towards it using the rendezvous panel. It was fixed by me just selecting the "next action button" again and being properly spat in to visual range of the rendezvous target.

Annoying, but tolerable to me. It's the only real game in town for a detailed Space Shuttle sim.

PD

[Lieste]

I think I did a 'uh-oh phone call' followed by 'I'd better make a coffee and grab some food' type pause, immediately after launch...

When I came back 20 minutes or so later the SRB detached on restart.

I could replicate at will by repeating the long pause. The oribter doesn't go awfully high on main engines only...

I've also managed to 'run out' or not start the shuttle main engines a few times.

[Lieste]

What are your impressions of the new 2.30?

Are there any improvements to physics consistency?
Does AOA now work correctly in TAEM/Finals?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Lieste

What are your impressions of the new 2.30?

Are there any improvements to physics consistency?
Does AOA now work correctly in TAEM/Finals?

v 2.30

-Added: STS-51A (New mission)
-Added: "Shakes" FX during roll out.
-Added: "Bouncy" landing FX
-Added: New sound FX at liftoff.
-Change: T:-00:00:12 start, changed to T:-00:01:00.
-Change: Shuttle attitude check more forgiving.
-Fixed: Astronaut leaves flight deck too early
-Fixed: Fuel cell restart no longer needs to be made by timeskipping.
-Fixed: Minimal vertical screen resolution is now 768 pixels.
-Fixed: Graphic bug on VC overhead low panel.
-Fixed: LVLH functionality of the ADI
-Fixed: Aft ADI defaults to Inertial
-Fixed: Misc. mission checklists text

I'm about to do the deorbit phase of STS-88 and will post shots of it, but the fix list makes no mention of physics/AOA. But then again it does refer to fixing the LVLH ADI mode. TBH I think that's something farther down the road, and something we'll more than likely have to pay more for. Which I think is fair. And I don't seem to have had consistency problems nearly as badly as you, and have been paying a lot more attention to that since you mentioned it. Only one "huh?" moment for me so far still. You have to remember this is made by a few guys when they are not at their day jobs, it's a good sim as it is and they certainly seem to be committed to making it as complete as their talents/time will take it.

PD

[Lieste]

I'm glad to see the start time has shifted for the T -0:0:12

That was one of the list of suggestions I made

They may have fixed the ball at the same time as they altered the behaviour of the LVLH mode, but I can't check that.

I'm still planning to buy 'sometime' but I want to see more fixes for the stuff that isn't working properly first.

I'd quite like to see the new landing features, so I'll keep my eyes open for Youtube videos... so far they are all waaay off parameters though

[Lieste]

I'd be more than happy to help them. Detailed bug reports, reproducible errors etc. I trained as an Aero Engineer many moons ago, and have been developing simulation flight models for a while...

But as I said they were off-hand and slightly dismissive, and they don't make it easy to get involved in the 'community'