Manual Sep. still possible ??

[Ender]

Was trying ot a few (s****d) things during launch.

Discovered that the switch covers and switches itself of the manual sep. posibility and engine control switches seem to be non functional anymore.

The previous versions did have this functionallity.

Am i doing something wrong here or is there an other reason for this.

Ender.

[Admin]

It did, but since no manual, non-scheduled SRB sep occured in real missions, we decided to disable it for now. Non mission-related "Free-flight" is currently not within the scope of the game, hence the name "Space Shuttle MISSION" and not space shuttle simulator .

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

It did, but since no manual, non-scheduled SRB sep occured in real missions, we decided to disable it for now. Non mission-related "Free-flight" is currently not within the scope of the game, hence the name "Space Shuttle MISSION" and not space shuttle simulator .

/Admin

Well, I would like to mention that there is a very big opposition within your concept of simulating historical missions in relation to the Shuttle and its systems. Disabling switches which weren't used, while on the other hand using the MEDS panel design for pre-MEDS-cockpit missions makes your concept failing by 100% for all pre-MEDS-cockpit missions. It is more unrealistic to disable non-used functions, while simulating panels which were not used too for the most Shuttle missions. And not to mention the exterior of the Shuttles which in reality differ too (for exmaple the vertical tail of Columbia, TPS tiles, markings and so on...). For now, the only historical thing is the MEDS-cockpit missions. The pre-MEDS-cockpit missions are only realistic for the payloads and mission profiles. I'm a little bit disappointed about that in SSM.

But don't worry, I nevertheless love SSM

[Admin]

Hi,

We hear you and we understand that people will always want more (sometimes MUCH more) that we intended initially.

We're trying hard to meet expectations while not deviating too much from the scope we defined. For now, events that did not happen during missions are not supported and while we had to simplify some things (as we repeatedly warned in the manual), we still firmly believe that people did not get a bad deal after all.

We're happy you like the sim nevertheless 

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Well, it's not only that I just like SSM: it is my basic simulation software now. I always was waiting for something like that, which certainly is the case for the most users here

I know that you're doing hard work on it, and you do it very well. The complexity already is amazing, beside the few things I mentioned above. Can't wait to see more missions and stuff in future...

PS: but maybe, when releasing the mission editor in distant future, it would be great to enable the abort scenarios and manual sep possibilities too...

[wolf68]

My two cents:

I partially agree with Moonwalker though I understand Admin point of view, but we also know that you (Admin) are constantly asking what users would like to be implemented as new game features and this is very nice; You started a specific thread (poll) where we can post our wishes and it looks like "failures and contingencies" is the most voted.
My wish is that you actually disabled those switches for the simple reason the sim does not yet contamplate any abort/non normal procedure, but you will eventually implement those "non normals" in the next future (and the related switches).

We do like SSM but my guess is that most of us would really like to get a real Shuttle sim and not just a "Mission player".
If you don't think you'll ever do it then the next question is: once we'll be done with all the historical STS missions (and it won't take ages) shall we just quit the game and forget it? What will be SSM future if you don't turn it into a sim? 

[Admin]

You're really expecting me to foresee what will happen in two years from now? 

Besides, Space Shuttle Missions are performed within VERY specific parameters which are pre-planned and if needed to be changed, re-planned by teams of experts at the MCC and then uploaded to the Shuttle. The "freedom" to do anything you want is simply not there. The Space Shuttle is not intended for Cessna-like VFR flights and a more accurate simulation will mean endless frustration for 90% of the users who still have trouble with the RMS operations.

Regarding the features Poll thread: well, there are only 60 or so votes out of whihc about 17 voted for more "faults" - hardly a significant number compared to the number of customers (whom are not even members of the forum). That Poll thread will remain open for a long time and hopefully more will participate and give us more statistically meaningful results. Don't forget that although it may seem so at times, only a very small percentage of our customers become forum members, and they usually do so only if they have questions to ask .

As you see, we created a special Polls board to expose these questions even more. The participation in the feature Poll shows either lack of interest in the subject or that only a still smaller part of the forum members are actually pro-active. So no, we cannot decide anything now - there is still a long way to go until we get a clear picture.

/Admin

[wolf68]

You're really expecting me to foresee what will happen in two years from now? 

Besides, Space Shuttle Missions are performed within VERY specific parameters which are pre-planned and if needed to be changed, re-planned by teams of experts at the MCC and then uploaded to the Shuttle. The "freedom" to do anything you want is simply not there. The Space Shuttle is not intended for Cessna-like VFR flights and a more accurate simulation will mean endless frustration for 90% of the users who still have trouble with the RMS operations.

/Admin

Alright, then why some parts of the game require  absolute accuracy and as you said are exactly what the real Astronauts get from NASA but others show an extremely high error tolerance? I can't grapple if I miss the correct angles/coordinates by 1 tenth of a degree but I can still smash the Shuttle on the Rwy or land 10 miles long in the desert with no problem at all! I'm not saying we want "freedom to do anything" but maybe you could make different parts of the simulations a little more "even" as far as difficulty and realism.

[Moonwalker]

...Don't forget that although it may seem so at times, only a very small percentage of our customers become forum members, and they usually do so only if they have questions to ask

That sounds good to me. I mean the more customers the more safe the future of SSM I already thought: 'mhhh, less than 500 members/customers is a little bit less'. But if it's only a small percentage of the SSM customers, I'm rather glad.

[Admin]

:-)

We actually want as many active forum members as possible and not only if they have problems. Fact is that forum member numbers do not really reflect the actual number of customers. To take the FS forums as examples, there are @2-4 million legal FS customers out there but only a tiny fraction are actually active forum members. Maybe it is possible to extrapolate to some extent but again, this also has to do with the type of game etc. Fascinating subject nevertheless.

Some of the more "hard core" gurus here are mostly beyond problems and more into helping noobs, or engaging in quite pro discussions that benefit everybody. That's why we opened more "relaxed" boards - Astronomy, NASA missions, Stories etc. Our hope is that with time, the SSM forum will become a more educational point of interest, not only a "problems reporting" tool 

/Admin

[Admin]

Alright, then why some parts of the game require  absolute accuracy and as you said are exactly what the real Astronauts get from NASA but others show an extremely high error tolerance? I can't grapple if I miss the correct angles/coordinates by 1 tenth of a degree but I can still smash the Shuttle on the Rwy or land 10 miles long in the desert with no problem at all! I'm not saying we want "freedom to do anything" but maybe you could make different parts of the simulations a little more "even" as far as difficulty and realism.

Because those parts were actually within the abilities of the average+ gamer with the right patience and perseverance. We actually got an email suggesting to cut the "wait time" between mission phases and also have a "next button" key that will activate the keys without having to look for them (like having a copilot or other Astronauts doing that task).

As you can see, we are pulled by two extremes - one expecting us to implement the ultimate simplicity while the other expecting us to implement the ultimate accuracy.

We'll add more checks for "crazy ops" and fix bugs that allow certain unspeakable things too, as we learn that some gamers like to live dangerously <g> - you will discover that now you will not be able to smash the Shuttle into the RWY  anymore and the next release will not allow you to  pull more than 4Gs anymore. So we're evening out the ground and closing more and more of this things as we discover what gamers try to do (or fail to do).

Specific to the RMS, I've explained it before VERY extensively: we cannot allow a larger degree of error because every tenth of degree can and will translate to many inches of error at the EE end. That is not acceptable. We did however make some "hardwired cheats" into the game that makes grappling more forgiving with noobs. The difficulty most have is understanding the 6DoF coordinates the RMS uses. We cannot do anything to make the learning process faster.

We have chosen the middle path whenever possible but there is no "even ground" for everything. There are some phases that are doable by a gamer (and within the scope of our game) and some which are not. We ultimately want people to be able to finish missions and understand a tiny bit of what flying a Space Shuttle Mission means. Hopefully after playing this and future releases of SSM2007, more people will understand more about the STS program than before SSM2007, and this will be a push to read and learn more about Space Exploration, Astronomy etc.. If we have achieved that, then we feel we've met our main goal.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

...Hopefully after playing this and future releases of SSM2007, more people will understand more about the STS program than before SSM2007, and this will be a push to read and learn more about Space Exploration, Astronomy etc.. If we have achieved that, then we feel we've met our main goal.

In my point of view you have met that goal. I'm already learning original STS stuff from NASA more than ever before

And in this context I would like to mention that the RMS simulation of SSM is much more than I ever expected to get one day. It's just amazing. With all that payload bay lights during the Earth's dark side and the simulated CCTV, using the RMS is a real adventure and excitement. And its behaviour is awesome too. Can't understand why some people have trouble with it. For me, after about one hour of training, it was no problem to become an expert

[wolf68]

Because those parts were actually within the abilities of the average+ gamer with the right patience and perseverance. We actually got an email suggesting to cut the "wait time" between mission phases and also have a "next button" key that will activate the keys without having to look for them (like having a copilot or other Astronauts doing that task).

As you can see, we are pulled by two extremes - one expecting us to implement the ultimate simplicity while the other expecting us to implement the ultimate accuracy.

We'll add more checks for "crazy ops" and fix bugs that allow certain unspeakable things too, as we learn that some gamers like to live dangerously <g> - you will discover that now you will not be able to smash the Shuttle into the RWY  anymore and the next release will not allow you to  pull more than 4Gs anymore. So we're evening out the ground and closing more and more of this things as we discover what gamers try to do (or fail to do).

Specific to the RMS, I've explained it before VERY extensively: we cannot allow a larger degree of error because every tenth of degree can and will translate to many inches of error at the EE end. That is not acceptable. We did however make some "hardwired cheats" into the game that makes grappling more forgiving with noobs. The difficulty most have is understanding the 6DoF coordinates the RMS uses. We cannot do anything to make the learning process faster.

We have chosen the middle path whenever possible but there is no "even ground" for everything. There are some phases that are doable by a gamer (and within the scope of our game) and some which are not. We ultimately want people to be able to finish missions and understand a tiny bit of what flying a Space Shuttle Mission means. Hopefully after playing this and future releases of SSM2007, more people will understand more about the STS program than before SSM2007, and this will be a push to read and learn more about Space Exploration, Astronomy etc.. If we have achieved that, then we feel we've met our main goal.

/Admin

I really appreciate you took some time to explain in details the reasons that lie behind certain choices and options. That's fair enough for me.
Some of the sim features are already outstandingly realistic (as Moonwalker pointed out about RMS ops) some others are not and I understand that cause as you said you need to keep the sim at a reasonable level for the average user.
About this issue some users already suggested to introduce different difficulty levels so that everybody can still enjoy the game regardless of their ability/skills. It is probably not necessary at the state of the art but maybe, as you keep on improving and introducing new realistic features, it will be welcome in the future.
The more realistic the whole thing will be the more we'll understand and appreciate Space Shuttle ops (which in turn is one of your goals)