How useful would more nose cone shapes be in OpenRocket?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Cabernut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,384
Reaction score
9
I'm asking out of curiosity, as a way to gauge the interest in alternate pre-defined nose cone shapes for the next-next OR release? I know it's something that some devs have been working on - as in the rounded tips that we seem to add anyway. But what about the HoJo/Expedition(with details), or the Interceptor/Trajector cone?

I thought of a way that it might be able to be done, as a couple pre-defined shapes where a mesh is loaded but simulated as a simpler shape. :confused:

In the upcoming release, I was able to finagle an Interceptor cockpit to correct proportions. However it took about 4 hours of work to get this, which likely would sim much worse than a regular cone. Looks decent though.





Your thoughts on the subject?
 
I'd love to see more accurate nosecone shapes being added to OR. I've done what I can to create accurate looking (and hopefully thus flight accurate) nosecones. However, I'm not certain about how well they really perform in actual flight simulations. If these shapes can be determined to give accurate flight characteristics (and look good in the process) I'd be thrilled to know.

I'd also state that there's more than just Estes out there... A lot more than just Estes. Centuri/Enerjet, Semroc, LOC, Quest, Aerotech, MRC, Sky, and Apogee to name a few.
 
If the nose shape simulates correctly for Cd and CP, then yes. I don't use OpenRocket for "looks."

Yeah, I'm of the same opinion. OpenRocket is a simulation tool, it's singular goal should be to provide accurate simulations of rockets. If someone wants to make something pretty there are dozens (if not hundreds) of CAD/modeling programs out there that will do a much better job since that's their goal. So if it's work that will maintain an accurate simulation then it seems worth it, otherwise it's just a waste of the OR developer's time in my opinion.
 
Obsession with looks at the expense of simulation accuracy is a fools errand. Make it sim correctly and stop worrying about a pretty picture- I almost never even change colors in a sim. If you make it sim accurately and do the pretty picture awesome. Sim accuracy first and foremost.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
Obsession with looks at the expense of simulation accuracy is a fools errand. Make it sim correctly and stop worrying about a pretty picture- I almost never even change colors in a sim. If you make it sim accurately and do the pretty picture awesome. Sim accuracy first and foremost.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
It's almost as if you can use the same tool for more than one purpose!
 
For some of us, these "obsessions with looks" are the simulations we desire. Quite often I find a number of so called "sims" on Rocketry Reviews, that upon close examination are no more useful for cloning a vintage design as the Lego Saturn V is for an accurate simulation for the actual vehicle. For me, I don't have the luxury of being able to go to my LHS and buy what I need to clone a design, or the financial foundation to buy every kit that I wish to build (or more accurately wished to build). OR allows me the ability to live the hobby vicariously.

Besides, when I work my designs, I typically make conversion to flight accurate designs easy by clearly labeling what I do, documenting it, and making it easy to remove (just delete the phantom body tube).

It's a tool, like a screwdriver... What's to say that it must be used exclusively for driving screws? If it can do more than one thing, that's pretty awesome (and the price is so much more affordable than it's competition).

Basically... to each their own... Use it the way that you feel most comfortable... and realize that others might not feel the same way as you.
 
I model my nosecones in solidworks a 3D cad program of sorts by Dassault. Perks of engineering student. Free high end software access commercial version. Lol.
 
Typically the power series and Von Karman shapes get 99 percent of what I want even equation wise once in CAD
 
For some of us, these "obsessions with looks" are the simulations we desire. Quite often I find a number of so called "sims" on Rocketry Reviews, that upon close examination are no more useful for cloning a vintage design as the Lego Saturn V is for an accurate simulation for the actual vehicle. For me, I don't have the luxury of being able to go to my LHS and buy what I need to clone a design, or the financial foundation to buy every kit that I wish to build (or more accurately wished to build). OR allows me the ability to live the hobby vicariously.

Besides, when I work my designs, I typically make conversion to flight accurate designs easy by clearly labeling what I do, documenting it, and making it easy to remove (just delete the phantom body tube).

It's a tool, like a screwdriver... What's to say that it must be used exclusively for driving screws? If it can do more than one thing, that's pretty awesome (and the price is so much more affordable than it's competition).

Basically... to each their own... Use it the way that you feel most comfortable... and realize that others might not feel the same way as you.

Jim, you make pretty pictures for sure. Not saying they would be worth much when it comes to flight simulation. You could use a cad program to do what you do, and probably do it better.

For folk concerned with flying, pretty pictures do not cut it. Give me performance data that works and the picture could be a stick.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
While we're on the topic of OR and nose cones, does anyone know how to extend the nose cone down the body tube for a bit? I'm making a nose where it continues the full body tube diameter for 11 cm before starting to bend to the tip.

Edit to add: I'm hoping to send a stack of 3 Pringles cans to Mach 1. Yes there will be some reinforcement.
 
While we're on the topic of OR and nose cones, does anyone know how to extend the nose cone down the body tube for a bit? I'm making a nose where it continues the full body tube diameter for 11 cm before starting to bend to the tip.

Edit to add: I'm hoping to send a stack of 3 Pringles cans to Mach 1. Yes there will be some reinforcement.
I would just make a BT and coupler out of plastic/glass. There might be a better option but if so I don't know what it is.

Sent from my LGL44VL using Rocketry Forum mobile app
 
While we're on the topic of OR and nose cones, does anyone know how to extend the nose cone down the body tube for a bit? I'm making a nose where it continues the full body tube diameter for 11 cm before starting to bend to the tip.

Edit to add: I'm hoping to send a stack of 3 Pringles cans to Mach 1. Yes there will be some reinforcement.

Rounded tip: use a nosecone... Power series tends to give better looking appearances, Parabolic might give more realistic performance numbers
Curved portion: Use a transition, whatever shape matches your curvature.
Cylindrical section (with shoulder): Use a transition to do this straight part with the same OD as the body tube.
 
Yeah, I'm of the same opinion. OpenRocket is a simulation tool, it's singular goal should be to provide accurate simulations of rockets. If someone wants to make something pretty there are dozens (if not hundreds) of CAD/modeling programs out there that will do a much better job since that's their goal. So if it's work that will maintain an accurate simulation then it seems worth it, otherwise it's just a waste of the OR developer's time in my opinion.

Exactly! I would rather see dev effort go into accurately modeling fins on a boattail or transition; tube fins; pods on fins; side pods; etc. Stop trying to duplicate a CAD or graphics program.
 
These opinions are all very interesting, but the developers will work on what they want to work on. I'd like to see more complete simulation, such as support for pods, thrust and balance asymmetry, and better airfoil drag calculations. But I can appreciate why some are interested in the visual aspects. Telling those people to use a CAD program isn't completely realistic, because most of those have a very steep learning curve. At any rate, we'll get what we get.
 
As a fairly casual user who is interested in performance simulations mostly, the one thing about the current released version (and earlier ones) with respect to nose cones which frustrates me is alluded to in the OP - rounded tips on the existing shape set. An obvious example is the Alpha III nose cone.

I expect there is a way to cobble together something out of smaller pieces that yields a simple shape like that but I'd rather not. Something more complex, like the Trajector/Interceptor nose cone would be a bonus for me.

I'm also with David just above - pods and such would be higher on my personal priority list - if I were in a position to set them. I bought RockSim several years ago just so I could design a pod configuration (B Cluster Altitude model - central tube and four pods with fins alongside and a motor in each - with which I ultimately won the event at NARAM-56) but I would have been happy to have designed that one in OR instead.
 
I'm asking out of curiosity, as a way to gauge the interest in alternate pre-defined nose cone shapes for the next-next OR release? ...

... which likely would sim much worse than a regular cone. Looks decent though.

...


Your thoughts on the subject?

I personally don't have any use for components that don't sim well (or at all) in a sim program. However if the alternate shapes are implemented in ways that don't degrade sim performance when they aren't being used then go for it. And thank you for being part of the development team ! :)

I got nothin' but love for the krazy Klingon. :wink: His posts concerning his ongoing quest for insanely hyper-accurate digital models using the limited palette of a freeware sim program have been educational and entertaining.
 
I would prefer to see the current new feature set locked down and prepared for release before adding more features that will extend the release timeline. Maybe work on more nosecones for the next release.
 
I would prefer to see the current new feature set locked down and prepared for release before adding more features that will extend the release timeline. Maybe work on more nosecones for the next release.

Agreed. Love to get a new release sooner than later.
 
I would prefer to see the current new feature set locked down and prepared for release before adding more features that will extend the release timeline. Maybe work on more nosecones for the next release.

That's already the plan. Next release code is locked down for new features. Correctly simmed rounded tip nose cones almost made it in. Work on nose cone shapes is deferred. HPR nose cones are already covered quite well. It's the oddball LPR cones that would be nice to have.
 
Back
Top