Open Rocket & Roc Sim Sticky Thread

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

bradycros

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
10
Some people knowledgeable in RocSim and Open Rocket should make sticky post(s) here in Rocketry Electronics and Software section. This would help others learn how the programs are manipulated in a "Step by Step" or "How To" format.

Pointers on tricking the program to do things it wouldn't normally do would also be great.

I think Sticky Posts of this type would benefit alot of people.

Anyone care to step up to the task and benefit others?
 
I would like to see a very simple users guide for OR. For someone that has never used it before it is difficult to figure out where to start. I'm sure someone that knows how to use it could write such a thing in just a few minutes.
 
Really? A few minutes? You are seriously underestimating the effort needed.

Such is life in the open source world. If you want to see some enhancements, then be prepared to step up and do it yourself as Sampo correctly suggests. You are not paying for it, so it is impossible to get everything a commercial product offers.
 
Hi,

If you're up to writing instructions for OpenRocket, I suggest contributing to the OpenRocket User's Guide in the wiki.

Unfortunately the SourceForge wiki doesn't allow anonymous editing, so you need to follow these instructions for editing rights.

Cheers,
Sampo N.

Maybe my suggestion on giving instruction was not clear enough. I am asking for direction from others, I am in no position to give it.

Your post let me know there is a OpenRocket User's Guide. That's information I was unaware of. Thank you.

This type of information in a sticky thread would be very helpful to new users.


I would like to see a very simple users guide for OR. For someone that has never used it before it is difficult to figure out where to start. I'm sure someone that knows how to use it could write such a thing in just a few minutes.

Yes, that's what I'd like to see also.


Really? A few minutes? You are seriously underestimating the effort needed.

Such is life in the open source world. If you want to see some enhancements, then be prepared to step up and do it yourself as Sampo correctly suggests. You are not paying for it, so it is impossible to get everything a commercial product offers.

Again, maybe my suggestion on giving instruction was not clear enough. I am not suggesting the OpenRocket User's Guide be rewriten by anyone. I'm asking individuals from a group of knowledgeable people to write a post about how they use Open Rocket and any tricks they may have used to get the results they desired.

How hard can that be? :wink:
 
Last edited:
There are only two kinds of people in the world; those who relish discovering the world with a "what would happen if" attitude and those who need to have everything explained to them in excruciating detail for fear of making a mistake.

I've always wanted to believe that those who play with model rockets are the former. What a disappointment.

Again, maybe my suggestion on giving instruction was not clear enough. I am not suggesting the OpenRocket User's Guide be rewriten by anyone. I'm asking individuals from a group of knowledgeable people to write a post about how they use Open Rocket and any tricks they may have used to get the results they desired.

How hard can that be? :wink:
 
I've been kicking this around since I started using OR. Let me toss something together today and post it, then we can get some critique from the TRF community...
 
It is significantly more difficult to write a 'how to' guide than people think, even if you are proficient in use of the product. This is especially true in computer programs that give you wide options.

As Peter alluded to, the problem is that if you are writing a 'how to' guide, it is because you are trying to explain how to use something that lends itself to exploration without consequence to a person who doesn't want to explore. Because of that, it requires a lot of handholding, screenshots, and exploration of most of the facets of the program in detail. That all takes time, effort, and lots of skull sweat. What may be inherently obvious to you won't be to a noob, so you have to plan for that. You have to proofread, then let someone else do it, then preferably run through it yourself, following the instructions exactly as you wrote them to get the intended result.

Sounds a lot like making good instructions for building a kit, right?

Or to put it another way, imagine doing a build thread, except you're not only doing the build, documenting it throughly, but you're showing different techniques for the same build ("Here's what wood glue does for ya...now lets use epoxy and build it AGAIN...").

I've had to do plenty of this kind of writing for a combat flight simulation that has an open structure...and people still astonish me with how little skull sweat they are willing to put in to be able to run custom content.

Simply put, if you have a high school level understanding of the English language and physics, have progressed in your rocket building skills to be able to create and successfully fly scratch build LPR models, and can navigate these forums without crashing your computer, you have MORE than enough skills to design and build a rocket in OR. Technical issues getting OR to run might be a different story and could require specialized knowledge...but that's not what this discussion is about.

FC
 
It is significantly more difficult to write a 'how to' guide than people think, even if you are proficient in use of the product. This is especially true in computer programs that give you wide options.

As Peter alluded to, the problem is that if you are writing a 'how to' guide, it is because you are trying to explain how to use something that lends itself to exploration without consequence to a person who doesn't want to explore. Because of that, it requires a lot of handholding, screenshots, and exploration of most of the facets of the program in detail. That all takes time, effort, and lots of skull sweat. What may be inherently obvious to you won't be to a noob, so you have to plan for that. You have to proofread, then let someone else do it, then preferably run through it yourself, following the instructions exactly as you wrote them to get the intended result.

Sounds a lot like making good instructions for building a kit, right?

Or to put it another way, imagine doing a build thread, except you're not only doing the build, documenting it throughly, but you're showing different techniques for the same build ("Here's what wood glue does for ya...now lets use epoxy and build it AGAIN...").

I've had to do plenty of this kind of writing for a combat flight simulation that has an open structure...and people still astonish me with how little skull sweat they are willing to put in to be able to run custom content.

Simply put, if you have a high school level understanding of the English language and physics, have progressed in your rocket building skills to be able to create and successfully fly scratch build LPR models, and can navigate these forums without crashing your computer, you have MORE than enough skills to design and build a rocket in OR. Technical issues getting OR to run might be a different story and could require specialized knowledge...but that's not what this discussion is about.

FC

So...are you "for" or "against" creation of a basic OR build tutorial which can then be appended and modified until a consensus is reached among us that is pretty much a complete product?
 
There are only two kinds of people in the world; those who relish discovering the world with a "what would happen if" attitude and those who need to have everything explained to them in excruciating detail for fear of making a mistake.

I've always wanted to believe that those who play with model rockets are the former. What a disappointment.

My suggestion for a win/win situation: You don't read what I post, we won't have to read about your disappointments.
 
Last edited:
So...are you "for" or "against" creation of a basic OR build tutorial which can then be appended and modified until a consensus is reached among us that is pretty much a complete product?

Personally, I think it's a good idea...just sometimes I think rocketeers are smart enough to be able to figure it out. And that it isn't as easy to make a coherent document about it as is sometimes thought.

Having said that, thank you for stepping up to the plate...better than most of us, including myself.

FC
 
Jeff,

This is great! I'll read through it, comment & contribute. Turning it over to Sampo at some time for inclusion in the online docs would be nice.

I think something as simple as "building & simulating a 3fnc" would be useful. With something as complex as this software, people are probably overwhelmed by the interface and don't know what to click first. I suspect that once they understand how to add components, tweak weights, cd, select a motor, simulate and plot a flight -- they will be able to explore more on their own.

Kevin

I've been kicking this around since I started using OR. Let me toss something together today and post it, then we can get some critique from the TRF community...
 
Hasn't everyone read "The Handbook of Model Rocketry"? If not, such a tutorial would need to include a lot of conceptual information and in the end, it would wind up about half the size of Stine's book. Without that conceptual framework there will be some interesting thought exercises that if committed to cardboard and balsa, will result in a very confused modeler.

When the documentation takes longer to write than the program, there's a mismatch between the product and the market.

So...are you "for" or "against" creation of a basic OR build tutorial which can then be appended and modified until a consensus is reached among us that is pretty much a complete product?
 
Personally, I think it's a good idea...just sometimes I think rocketeers are smart enough to be able to figure it out. And that it isn't as easy to make a coherent document about it as is sometimes thought.

Having said that, thank you for stepping up to the plate...better than most of us, including myself.

FC

Provide a link for the 1st draft in .pdf shortly. It was 2mb, so I couldn't upload directly to the TRF site. And...re: Stepping up to the plate...your time is upon you! I hope the TRF gang will provide their expertise in various areas to continue to expand the manual :wink:

Kevin: You'll be our first Guineau Pig :D

Peter: Yes, I agree that everyone should read Stine's book, or at least excepts from it. I own it as well as a couple of others specializing in HPR design. What was requested here, to my understanding, was a step by step tutorial on how to construct a rocket using a specific piece of software.
 
Last edited:
And my take is that it was made by someone who lacks the curiosity to investigate for themselves. That seems to be the basic approach of those once characterized by a slimy NAR politician as "bikers with motors." So now we have to provide hand holding for the other side of the spectrum. Neither is a credit to the sport.

Peter: Yes, I agree that everyone should read Stine's book, or at least excepts from it. I own it as well as a couple of others specializing in HPR design. What was requested here, to my understanding, was a step by step tutorial on how to construct a rocket using a specific piece of software.
 
Really? A few minutes? You are seriously underestimating the effort needed.

What I'm interested in is something that says
1. Here is how you enter a simple body tube
2. Here is how you enter a simple nose cone
3. Here is how you enter fins
4. Here is how you enter a motor mount

If we had something like that to start with, then it could be added to over time with all of the complexities that would take time, but how many words does it take to tell someone how to enter just a body tube or a nose cone? I would guess that lots of people download the program and never figure out where to start.
 
And my take is that it was made by someone who lacks the curiosity to investigate for themselves. That seems to be the basic approach of those once characterized by a slimy NAR politician as "bikers with motors." So now we have to provide hand holding for the other side of the spectrum. Neither is a credit to the sport.


Sticks and stones...:marshmallow:
 
What I'm interested in is something that says
1. Here is how you enter a simple body tube
2. Here is how you enter a simple nose cone
3. Here is how you enter fins
4. Here is how you enter a motor mount

If we had something like that to start with, then it could be added to over time with all of the complexities that would take time, but how many words does it take to tell someone how to enter just a body tube or a nose cone? I would guess that lots of people download the program and never figure out where to start.

Have you a link to EXACTLY that very shortly :wink:
 
Great start!

On page 9 you describe converting metric to standard manually. An alternative would be to select the unit and change to mm. Then type the diameters in mm in the text box.

I think going between slide 14 and 15, you should describe what you had to do to get the "select a rocket motor" dialog to appear.

Kevin


 
Bradycros...that's odd. Tried it again and it's fine from here. PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send you a copy directly.

Kevin: Great observations! I'll wait and see what else we get, and then work on a v2 :wink:
 
Bradycros...that's odd. Tried it again and it's fine from here. PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send you a copy directly.

Kevin: Great observations! I'll wait and see what else we get, and then work on a v2 :wink:


Your effort is just what I'd hope for, very good images and text. :D

I'll need to work with this information and get a feel for it.

Thank you for sharing your time and effort with us.
 
I love OpenRocket - use it all the time.

Try looking at the power point presentation for NARCON 2010 by the Fox Valley Rocketeers.

Under NARCON 2010, click presentation.

Even though the presentation is was done with an older version, It's still very helpful.:D
 

Hey, that's not bad at all. Your tutorial does assume a modicum of computer ability among the users (drag and drop, pull down menus). My assumption was more along the lines of complete computer neophytes.

My only suggestion for this level of building is emphasizing saving your work regularly, and maybe a few examples of doing it wrong (starting with the BT first, instead of the NC) to show how easy it is to fix.

FC
 
perhaps I missed it...but I didn't see the step that tells OR that the inner tube was a motor mount. one might also consider mention of 'naming your components', makes it much easier to see at a glance which parts being used(and which parts you need to build it).
 
Rex, You didn't miss it. It wasn't shown. On the second tab of the "inner tube configuration" window is a box for "is motor mount".

Kevin

perhaps I missed it...but I didn't see the step that tells OR that the inner tube was a motor mount. one might also consider mention of 'naming your components', makes it much easier to see at a glance which parts being used(and which parts you need to build it).
 
Didn't work for me either, it keeps coming up with a blank page and says "stopped".

Really strange! I tried it again from home to rule out a possible issue with the campus firewall, but it came up fine from here too! Perhaps try right clicking the link and doing a "save as"?

I appreciate all of the reviews and constructive ideas thus far. It'd be nice to get the basic tutorial all polished up to where we get a thumbs up from everyone (well, maybe 85%...let's be realistic), then start working on additional modules like:

Clustering
Staging
DD Designs
Geometry Optimization
Using RocketReviews Rocksim files to do Upscales
etc...
 
Back
Top