Celestia Forums

Here are some previews of a new VERY NICE model of the Mir space station, from this web site :
http://www.foundation3d.com/index.php?c ... ileid=1050







I love this babe !

Here's the model itself :

http://fsgregs.startlogic.com/Public_Fi ... ir.3ds.zip (1.4 MB)

How download the model?

I've updated the first message with a download link to the 3ds file. Enjoy !

I've updated the 3ds file, 5 min ago, just to replace a tube which was showing some defects in Celestia.

EDIT : I've also placed the second docked spaceship on the other side of the station, for better accuracy :

thanks cham its beautiful...

Cham, even if it looks very nice if compared to the actually available one, IMHO it looks like a..."plastic model".
Moreover there are inaccuracies all around.
I think that if Christophe will have some free time and will decide to apply it to this project, he could use a lot of stuff from his ISS model, when finished.
Christophe?
Bye

Andrea

ANDREA wrote:Cham, even if it looks very nice if compared to the actually available one, IMHO it looks like a..."plastic model".
Moreover there are inaccuracies all around.
I think that if Christophe will have some free time and will decide to apply it to this project, he could use a lot of stuff from his ISS model, when finished.
Christophe?

It's what I told Cham via mail some days ago. I do have some part ready on ISS but still I guess you can dig for docs. Anyway, again it's not for tomorrow. (I WANT TO END ISS AND APOLLO FIRST!!!!)

ANDREA wrote:Moreover there are inaccuracies all around.

I compared the model with pictures of the real thing and I find the model accurate enough. IMO, the "inaccuracies" you're talking about are very acceptable, considering the raisonnably low level of details of the model. Most of the other models we already have (probes, satellites, etc) do have lots of "inaccuracies", anyway, considering their level of details.

I like the semi-plastic feel of the model because it's consistent with its level of details, and the model act like a very nice schematic representation of the real thing. It doesn't pretend to be highly realistic. This Mir is a bit like our old Skylab model (semi-plastic and low level of details). It's certainly MUCH better than the old model we had, anyway.

The old version was so ugly that I already trashed it a long time ago (there was no Mir at all in my installation) : it was simply unbearable!

Cham wrote:

ANDREA wrote:Moreover there are inaccuracies all around.

I compared the model with pictures of the real thing and I find the model accurate enough. IMO, the "inaccuracies" you're talking about are very acceptable, considering the raisonnably low level of details of the model. Most of the other models we already have (probes, satellites, etc) do have lots of "inaccuracies", anyway, considering their level of details.

Cham, I'm well documented on the matter, thanks to this NASA big document, titled "NASA RP 1357- Mir Hardware Heritage- David S.F. Portree, March 1995, that you can find here:
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19950016829
Checking it, you can find at least four important discrepancies:
1- The double antenna boom was installed on 1991, and the instrument package at the end of the longer boom was due on 1992. This means the model shows the Mir configuration on or after 1992. But the TKS (the conic module at bottom) was used only on 1983, almost ten years before.
2- Moreover, the longer antenna boom should not be perpendicular to its module, like the shorter one, but inclined about 10 degrees toward the main modules.
3- the configuration with four cross-shaped modules is not shown in such a document, so I fear it shows a mix of different configurations, so not a particular moment of Mir's history, but its potentiality of modules linkage.
4- The solar panels of the antenna booms module are not present in the given document.
I stop here.
If that document is credible, and I believe so, there are many discrepancies with the model, as you can see checking the below shown two images:

Cham wrote:I like the semi-plastic feel of the model because it's consistent with its level of details, and the model act like a very nice schematic representation of the real thing. It doesn't pretend to be highly realistic. This Mir is a bit like our old Skylab model (semi-plastic and low level of details). It's certainly MUCH better than the old model we had, anyway.

Cham, don't take my words as a criticism, they show my opinion, no more.
BTW, I told this model is way better than the previous ones, so... many thanks for your effort, as always very appreciated, as you well know.

Cham wrote:The old version was so ugly that I already trashed it a long time ago (there was no Mir at all in my installation) : it was simply unbearable!

I fully agree, but the old Mir was way better that the Skylab you was speaking of, that's absolutely horrible and unusable.
I searched all the web for a better Skylab model, without results, and this is a shame, because it was the Western world reply to the Eastern's Mir, the first manned Space Station.
May be that, in the future, let's hope, someone...
BTW, I'm ready to give my little help to any Skylab volunteer.
Hehehehe!
Bye

Andrea

The model is looking like these pictures (better than a diagram) :




Of course, there are much less details on the model, and some boom and panels are not exactly in the same position. The panles are moveable mechanical pieces that changed very frequently (direction of the Sun, etc), so...

Cham wrote:The model is looking like these pictures (better than a diagram) :
Of course, there are much less details on the model, and some boom and panels are not exactly in the same position. The panles are moveable mechanical pieces that changed very frequently (direction of the Sun, etc), so...

At this point I must admit that you are right and I (no, not me, NASA! ) was wrong, but still I don't understand why the things are so different.
I explain: the document gives the full history of Mir, with the timings of all the modules, Soyuzes and whatever else docked and when.
It gives the date of the Antenna booms installation, but no information on TKS after 1983.
But in your images antenna booms and TKS are both there...
Grrrrrr!
Have I to lose my faith about official documents?
If this will happen, we'll have many problems with all what we'll go to model.
Double grrrrr!!
Thank you Cham for opening my eyes on this problem.
BTW, as you can see, it's not true that your work is not appreciated and/or followed; simply Celestians do that without reporting this, until they find something they doubt about, or would like in another way (and this IS NOT a condescending comment, it's the real thing!).
So, please, Cham, go on this way, your work is highly appreciated by a lot of silent people.
Bye

Andrea

ANDREA wrote:...Have I to lose my faith about official documents?

It's why I'm always looking for a shoot in situation to confirm any diagram, description or even assembly shot...

ANDREA wrote:[
BTW, as you can see, it's not true that your work is not appreciated and/or followed;...
So, please, Cham, go on this way, your work is highly appreciated by a lot of silent people.

Andrea,

I wasn't saying that my work isn't appreciated (or maybe I was badly explaining myself ?). What I'm saying is that there's an evident lack of activities and participation on the forum (on the addons front, that is). Addons creators is a too small population on the board here. No exchanges, no new creation ideas and experiences, etc. In other words : the forum is boring, dull, ... well, ... dead on the addons front ! But this is OFF-topic...

Cham wrote:...What I'm saying is that there's an evident lack of activities and participation on the forum (on the addons front, that is). Addons creators is a too small population on the board here. No exchanges, no new creation ideas and experiences, etc. In other words : the forum is boring, dull, ... well, ... dead on the addons front ! But this is OFF-topic...

Cham, I do agree 100%.
Now, what kind of post can creates exchanges etc...? A simple release won't do that. You do a release, people say tx, that's it. What do you think I've always been posting a lot of preview and stuff in all my modeling threads for? If you want action, again it's up to you! People as Andrea or Bob will eventually give a hand for docs, you know well that I'll help with any mesh problem, many people are interested in following such threads and it's can be also a way to publish a tutorial... So what are you waiting for? Again, it's not saying that the forum is boring that things will change... (and BTW, talking about exchanging ideas etc, if I recall well you haven't post a single word in the dev threads related to the next GUI... not really cool... )

ElChristou wrote:(and BTW, talking about exchanging ideas etc, if I recall well you haven't post a single word in the dev threads related to the next GUI... not really cool... )

Well, to tell the thruth, I don't care much about the next GUI ! I'm even against this "unification" philosophy (Qt). But this is OFF-topic too.

Cham wrote:

ANDREA wrote:[BTW, as you can see, it's not true that your work is not appreciated and/or followed;...So, please, Cham, go on this way, your work is highly appreciated by a lot of silent people.

Andrea, I wasn't saying that my work isn't appreciated (or maybe I was badly explaining myself ?). What I'm saying is that there's an evident lack of activities and participation on the forum (on the addons front, that is). Addons creators is a too small population on the board here. No exchanges, no new creation ideas and experiences, etc. In other words : the forum is boring, dull, ... well, ... dead on the addons front ! But this is OFF-topic...

Well, be sure that if I would be able to model myself, we would have now a different Skylab, probably way better than the actual one.
But I'm not a modeller, and I'm too old to start studying what I know for sure is a very difficult work, at least at the levels you have used us to wait for.
I agree that there are too few modellers here, but we cannot blame Celestia or Celestia people if this happens.
IMHO Celestia addons need a lot more research work, checks (to avoid mistakes like NASA's one, just shown above) and a notable skill, that just a few people can obtain with a lot of hard work.
But skill is obtained with time, and skilled people are the ones that are deep in their job career, so with just a little time to dedicate to hobbies like Celestia addons are.
Mine is just a loud voice thinking, but I think this probably is one or the main reason why you are so few.
You say "no new creation ideas"... my God, what are you speaking of?
You brought here a zillion new ideas and wonderful addons.
So, please, don't stop doing what only you and just a few other people are able to do.
PLEASE!!!
Bye

Andrea

I think it could do with some texturing... it looks a bit too clean. Nice all the same though!