Wildman Rocketry Giveaway!


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 104
  1. #61
    Join Date
    4th April 2010
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by bdureau View Post
    As for the user interface if you look at the other software called SpaceCad
    http://www.spacecad.com/
    it has also a very similar user interface. So who copied from each other?
    Regarding SpaceCAD, let me mention that this software was initially developed by Andreas Firnau and me, distributed by my former company FlyTech, way back in 1990 under the previous name "SpaceCalc+" (later continued by Andreas under his own label SpaceCAD). If I remember right, at this time only some Basic program listings existed along with a Mac software from Estes. I think that SpaceCalc+ was even the first commercial program for PC computers (along with a C64 version). And the first one with the feature to add parts from a part database to simplify the construction of a model rocket.

    So from a historic background, there was no way that SpaceCAD could copy from any other related software because there was none. I would even say that ideas such as the parts database was copied by other programs later (although I do not have a problem with it since makes sense for every software).

    But back to the topic, a fact I like is that - thanks to the great work of Boris - OpenRocket is available in many different languages such as French and German. This may not be an issue in the US or the UK, but in most other countries.

    Greetings,

    Oliver

    European Model Rocketry: http://www.europerocketry.com
    Modellraketen Info: http://www.modellraketen.com

  2. #62
    Join Date
    22nd January 2009
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampo View Post
    Hi,


    I created a feature comparison on the OR wiki. I know I'm biased, but I tried to make a fair comparison of the features. If you think something is misrepresented or some feature is missing, let me know.

    https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawi...ure_comparison

    Cheers,
    Sampo N.
    The staging support in OR has a significant missing feature, and that is being able to simulate stage separation at a time that is different from upper stage ignition. There is a big altitude advantage, especially for high altitude flights, of being able to have the sustainer coast for a significant duration before ignition. As far as I can tell, there isn't a way to simulate this in Open Rocket. Rocksim's interface for controlling the separation time separately from the ignition time is clumsy, but at least it's possible to do. So for now at least, I'd rank the OR staging support behind that of Rocksim.

    What I'd love to see is a more complete and intuitive interface for controlling all the rocket events based on altitude, speed, time, etc. the way you can with full-featured altimeters. Perhaps control of those functions should be together in one place with the recovery events.

    Oh, and one area where you're too modest in the comparison is with the supersonic accuracy. I have found that, especially for rockets with a Von Karman nosecone, the accuracy for supersonic flights is much better than Rocksim's, at least recently (there must have been a change, because a couple of years ago, OR was seriously under-predicting altitude for Mach 2 flights). The leader in accuracy is RASAero, but there's a lot of missing functionality in that software compared to RS and OR.

    Last edited by Adrian A; 30th January 2012 at 08:29 PM.
    Adrian Adamson
    Featherweight Altimeters LLC
    www.featherweightaltimeters.com

  3. #63
    Join Date
    22nd January 2009
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    I'll give you that, Alby. There is tension in the system. RS needs to step up the game to justify the price.
    Indeed. And after communicating known bugs back to Apogee both directly and in the forums, and then being asked to pay for upgrades that don't address these bugs, I don't feel that their business model is working for me. I'm happy to pay for software when the support is there and bugs get fixed.
    Adrian Adamson
    Featherweight Altimeters LLC
    www.featherweightaltimeters.com

  4. #64
    Join Date
    17th August 2010
    Location
    Valley Center, Ks
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampo View Post
    I know having a parts DB would be useful, but since I personally live in Finland and don't really have ready parts available, it hasn't been a high priority for me. I've got some ideas for it though. If someone wants to help out a bit...
    Even if it didn't have a parts database to start with it would great to be able to save components. Then we could share them as well on TRF. For the most part you only need a few parts like BT's, MMT, couplers, eyebolts, etc.
    Dave
    TRA 13362
    Level 1 with Scratchbuilt KC Chief @ LDRS 30
    Level 2 with Scratchbuilt Wildcat (Semroc Laser-X 3X upscale) @ AirFest 18

  5. #65
    RasAero is by far the most accurate for high performance rockets of any of the software I've used. (RockSim, OpenRocket, WinRoc, RASP, and my own.)

  6. #66
    troj's Avatar
    troj is offline Wielder Of the Skillet Of Harsh Discipline, Potentate of Perilous Pans TRF_ADMIN.png
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    14,284
    Something I've not seen mentioned in this is that it's beneficial to the hobby for both programs to exist, and have a healthy user base.

    Why? Because it encourages them to keep up with each other in terms of feature set.

    In the end, we, the rocketry community, win, by virtue of having better software available to us.

    -Kevin

  7. #67
    Join Date
    1st June 2010
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    195
    Hi,

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian A View Post
    The staging support in OR has a significant missing feature, and that is being able to simulate stage separation at a time that is different from upper stage ignition. There is a big altitude advantage, especially for high altitude flights, of being able to have the sustainer coast for a significant duration before ignition. As far as I can tell, there isn't a way to simulate this in Open Rocket. Rocksim's interface for controlling the separation time separately from the ignition time is clumsy, but at least it's possible to do. So for now at least, I'd rank the OR staging support behind that of Rocksim.

    What I'd love to see is a more complete and intuitive interface for controlling all the rocket events based on altitude, speed, time, etc. the way you can with full-featured altimeters. Perhaps control of those functions should be together in one place with the recovery events.
    I wasn't even aware this was being done. I'd still consider this rather rare and advanced functionality on the scale of "Simple things should be easy, hard things should be possible."

    One option would be to have a dedicated stage separation condition. What would be reasonable events for stage separation? I'm thinking upper stage ignition, current stage burnout, current stage ejection charge, never and launch (each with an optional +NN seconds). The default would be upper stage ignition, as it is currently.

    An alternative approach would be simulation extensions. I've got some ideas on making "plugins" simpler to use and configurable. This could be used for more advanced event management, such as simulating an arbitrary flight computer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian A View Post
    Oh, and one area where you're too modest in the comparison is with the supersonic accuracy. I have found that, especially for rockets with a Von Karman nosecone, the accuracy for supersonic flights is much better than Rocksim's, at least recently (there must have been a change, because a couple of years ago, OR was seriously under-predicting altitude for Mach 2 flights). The leader in accuracy is RASAero, but there's a lot of missing functionality in that software compared to RS and OR.
    Thanks for the info. I've been unable to directly compare results against supersonic flights, only against published wind tunnel data. The latter suggests an increasingly poor Cd result, with an error starting from about 20% at Mach 2 up to 50% at Mach 4. Maybe that's not that bad after all.

    Cheers,
    Sampo N.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    22nd January 2009
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampo View Post
    Hi,



    I wasn't even aware this was being done.
    I'm pretty sure that most high powered staged flights have at least a few seconds between stage separation and upper stage ignition, to prevent scorching of the booster, increase altitude, or just for effect. Some people set up their rockets so that drag will separate the stages immediately after booster burnout.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampo View Post
    I'd still consider this rather rare and advanced functionality on the scale of "Simple things should be easy, hard things should be possible."

    One option would be to have a dedicated stage separation condition. What would be reasonable events for stage separation? I'm thinking upper stage ignition, current stage burnout, current stage ejection charge, never and launch (each with an optional +NN seconds). The default would be upper stage ignition, as it is currently.
    Most people doing high-powered airstarts will perform staging separation at burnout or burnout + time. Most upper stage ignitions are based on time, but for safety reasons, the idea of igniting the upper stage based on altitude is starting to catch on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampo View Post
    An alternative approach would be simulation extensions. I've got some ideas on making "plugins" simpler to use and configurable. This could be used for more advanced event management, such as simulating an arbitrary flight computer.
    That would be awesome. I would be happy to work with you on reproducing the Raven's deployment options. It would be cool if you could open up a Raven deployment setting config file in Open Rocket, and then assign events in Open Rocket like staging, upper stage ignition, apogee and main deployments to the Raven's 4 output channels.

    http://www.featherweightaltimeters.com/FIP.php
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampo View Post
    Thanks for the info. I've been unable to directly compare results against supersonic flights, only against published wind tunnel data. The latter suggests an increasingly poor Cd result, with an error starting from about 20% at Mach 2 up to 50% at Mach 4. Maybe that's not that bad after all.

    Cheers,
    Sampo N.
    For a Mach 2 flight to 32,000 feet last October, RASAero predicted 31,800 feet, Rocksim predicted 22,020 feet, and Open Rocket predicted 29,930 feet after I adjusted all the sims for the actual pre-flight mass.
    http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthr...t=26383&page=6
    Adrian Adamson
    Featherweight Altimeters LLC
    www.featherweightaltimeters.com

  9. #69
    Join Date
    1st June 2010
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    195
    Learn something new every day. I haven't thought of how high-power staging is performed, so it hasn't been taken into account OR.

    I'll have to see if I have some time to implement this - it shouldn't be that hard to make the separation event configurable. The fully configurable event management will have to wait until the plugin system is better fleshed out.

    Cheers,
    Sampo N.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    12th July 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampo View Post
    Learn something new every day. I haven't thought of how high-power staging is performed, so it hasn't been taken into account OR.

    I'll have to see if I have some time to implement this - it shouldn't be that hard to make the separation event configurable. The fully configurable event management will have to wait until the plugin system is better fleshed out.

    Cheers,
    Sampo N.



    This is why Open Source Rocks.
    __________________
    TRA #12860
    CallSign: KK4DLV

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Alby View Post
    This is why Open Source Rocks.
    This isn't why OSS rocks. This is and example of excellent customer service. OSS's strengths lie in transparency (access to source code) and ability for others to use that code (within various licensing agreements).
    "Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now."

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by El Phantasmo View Post
    This isn't why OSS rocks. This is and example of excellent customer service. OSS's strengths lie in transparency (access to source code) and ability for others to use that code (within various licensing agreements).
    +1 to that. I suspect that Sampo's excellent service would be equally visible in a commercial product.
    Last edited by Buckeye; 2nd February 2012 at 10:37 PM. Reason: premature save click

  13. #73

    Designing with OpenRocket

    Hello
    For those of you who are not yet convinced on how easy it is to design a rocket with OpenRocket here is a video that one friend from Tripoli France did to demonstrate basic fonctionalities

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmdW3uqdAYM

    Again thanks a lot Sampo for making it free
    Regards
    Boris
    Last edited by bdureau; 4th February 2012 at 09:48 PM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    15th August 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    155
    I use open rocket and dont have to change the design every time....

    is there something i should be changing?

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffgeraci View Post
    Thank you, you've made up my mind; I find that I switch motors constantly, and no WAY do I want to have to change the design every time! That's worth $120

  15. #75
    Join Date
    10th November 2011
    Location
    Northeastern Maryland
    Posts
    779


    Not sure what this is all about either. I have designs that I drop anything from an Estes 24mm E to a 38mm CTI into in OpenRocket and I have never had an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Inerax View Post
    I use open rocket and dont have to change the design every time....

    is there something i should be changing?
    -James Hamilton
    L2
    https://sites.google.com/site/disasterguysrocketry/
    I love America but I also love Canadian bacon, whiskey, and MOTORS.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    21st October 2010
    Location
    SoTex
    Posts
    199
    I downloaded Openrocket, but I can't get it to work (I think I have issues with my Java). I have RockSim 9.0, and I am about 95% pleased with it (100% is really hard with me!). I'm glad I forked out the $$$$.

    Proud holder of the duck tape merit badge

    Amateur Radio Station KF5UFA

    NAR # 91736
    "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." ― Wernher von Braun
    “There is no such thing as an unsolvable problem.” ― Sergei Korolev
    "Let's go!" ― Yuri Gagarin
    "Why don't you fix your little problem and light this candle?" ― Alan B. Shepard Jr.

  17. #77

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Blakkzakk View Post
    I downloaded Openrocket, but I can't get it to work (I think I have issues with my Java). I have RockSim 9.0, and I am about 95% pleased with it (100% is really hard with me!). I'm glad I forked out the $$$$.
    Download Java 7 from: Java Downloads. I, personally, found is initializes much quicker than 6, and I don't rely on anything Java 6 specific. Once you download it, you can either install it then uninstall v6, or vice versa to clean things up.
    "Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now."

  18. #78
    Join Date
    21st October 2010
    Location
    SoTex
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by El Phantasmo View Post
    Download Java 7 from: Java Downloads. I, personally, found is initializes much quicker than 6, and I don't rely on anything Java 6 specific. Once you download it, you can either install it then uninstall v6, or vice versa to clean things up.
    I will, when I get a chance......I'm in no hurry. Like I said, my RockSim works just fine.

    Proud holder of the duck tape merit badge

    Amateur Radio Station KF5UFA

    NAR # 91736
    "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." ― Wernher von Braun
    “There is no such thing as an unsolvable problem.” ― Sergei Korolev
    "Let's go!" ― Yuri Gagarin
    "Why don't you fix your little problem and light this candle?" ― Alan B. Shepard Jr.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    16th February 2012
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    154
    I love OpenRocket, I was able to get up and running in under an hour, and have modeled my entire current (modest) fleet.

    The only real limitation I have found is with mass components and external pods.

    I would like to be able to design or import internal mass components (from Sketchup or AutoCAD maybe?). Things like motor clips, eye screws. I have approximated these with the cylindrical mass components, but the visual feedback that it is placed correctly would be nice.

    I'd also like to design external components like a camera hoods (or cameras) that would affect CG and drag. I don't know if RockSim gives you this or not, but it isn't worth $120 to me one way or the other.

    Thank you Sampo!

  20. #80
    Join Date
    26th January 2012
    Location
    Florida, Near TTRA
    Posts
    2,215
    Personally, I would rather guess than pay $123.60 for RS. OR works just fine for me. For all the people who complain about not having a parts database, every time you make an new engine mount or nose cone or tube, etc, just copy and paste it into a document labelled parts database. I'm going to start doing this soon. I think you might have to add some parts as a new stage but it should work.

    Thanks Sampo, OR makes all of my scratch builds possible!

  21. #81
    Join Date
    9th November 2009
    Location
    Layton Ut
    Posts
    1,832
    OK i just talked my genius programing friend, who will scratch his chin for a second and have it programed in about an hour. For Open Rocket.

    I asked him to work on the fins and/or pods to be added to the fins attached to the air frame. (That is if it is not being worked on.) There are other things I could ask him to do to but his time is limited so any suggestions?

    TA
    Last edited by thobin; 27th February 2012 at 11:58 PM.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson


    TRA 05571 lvl 2 LOC Mini Magg, Loki J-528
    NRA 71778 lvl 1 Binder Design Excel Plus, Loki H-160

    LokiResearch.com Performance Under Pressure!
    Stickershock23.com Never fly naked!

  22. #82
    Join Date
    9th November 2009
    Location
    Layton Ut
    Posts
    1,832
    I'm wanting to see in OP is the Tube fins, Ring-tail fins, External pods done the most. and some printing issues and exporting to a drawing program format of some kind.

    TA
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson


    TRA 05571 lvl 2 LOC Mini Magg, Loki J-528
    NRA 71778 lvl 1 Binder Design Excel Plus, Loki H-160

    LokiResearch.com Performance Under Pressure!
    Stickershock23.com Never fly naked!

  23. #83
    Join Date
    24th January 2009
    Location
    Decatur, Il
    Posts
    22
    IMHO the most important issue I would like to see reolved would be external pods, tube fins. The rest I can live with...
    Dave

    NAR 85998

    “Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” -- Dr. Seuss

  24. #84
    Join Date
    9th November 2009
    Location
    Layton Ut
    Posts
    1,832
    Well he is not done with the pods issue yet, but you can now import a bitmap file for the fin shape in the free form section. I haven't seen it work yet but he did call me and told me that its done. And he has moved on to bigger and greater sections of OP.

    TA
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson


    TRA 05571 lvl 2 LOC Mini Magg, Loki J-528
    NRA 71778 lvl 1 Binder Design Excel Plus, Loki H-160

    LokiResearch.com Performance Under Pressure!
    Stickershock23.com Never fly naked!

  25. #85
    Runs natively on a Mac. Just double click on it.

    It had some trouble making out the entire oop estes Viper rocsim file.

  26. #86
    Well, technically it doesn't run natively on a Mac. It still runs inside of a JVM.

    Mac's are nice in that you can just click on the JAR file and the rest happens automagically. ;-)

  27. #87
    Join Date
    9th November 2009
    Location
    Layton Ut
    Posts
    1,832
    Well A new version of Open Rocket is out some new upgrades one of which my friend did. Check it out.

    TA
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson


    TRA 05571 lvl 2 LOC Mini Magg, Loki J-528
    NRA 71778 lvl 1 Binder Design Excel Plus, Loki H-160

    LokiResearch.com Performance Under Pressure!
    Stickershock23.com Never fly naked!

  28. #88
    Join Date
    13th January 2010
    Location
    Western Kansas where rockets can roam free
    Posts
    1,412
    I have both and what I like about Rocksim are the drop-downs for parts. Yeah, it has lots of bells and whistles, but I primarily purchased it in multiple licenses because I would like to expand my rocketry classes next year to a design class and I thought that Rocksim would be easier to teach in a short amount of time with all the little extras that Open Rocket does not have. That said, I do like both for various reasons.

    What I would like to see with Rocksim is an expanded parts list to include all Estes BTs and more Semroc parts. (Not that there is anything wrong with those listed.) And have it available as an upgrade that you can download without buying a new program.
    Last edited by SteveA; 20th March 2012 at 05:31 PM.
    NAR # 91455

  29. #89
    Join Date
    19th April 2012
    Location
    Bartlett, Texas
    Posts
    3

    Thumbs up Wow, some things never change...

    The reason I was directed to this particular thread, I am looking for a way to design a rocket that comes down in two or more parts.

    Specifically, I want a single stage, single Estes style motor rocket to launch, then separate at ejection into a payload section and "booster" section that return independent of each other.

    The payload would use a parachute, while the booster uses a streamer.

    I have decided that I want to go HP, and my 13 year old son is wanting to do TARC, hence my "new" needs. But I haven't figured out how to do that in OR, and I don't know if RS 9 can do it (I have d/l'd the demo, but I'm looking for an answer before I start the RS clock).

    Also, I really like the idea of a customizable dB, exporting to RS, and especially the idea of flight computers.

    I'll continue my search, but I just have to comment on how some folks simply can't live without abusing each other; I have learned that there is no one perfect solution to any situation, sometimes you need choices.

    For the record, I have a copy of RS 6, which I still fire up now and again, but until just recently, I almost exclusively use OR for everything, including the after school program I instruct (5th through 8th grade). OR is well within their price range and capabilities.

    There is also something to be said for commercial software, but when you finally get down to sustainability, both are as vulnerable as the other, except that OS can be assumed by a thoughtful community if the need exists... and, all things considered, that's the power of OS, IMHO.

  30. #90
    Apogee has a TARC video section on their site that explains how to have separate components come down under their own recovery devices.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •