OpenRocket motor overhang setting?

I thought I saw a motor overhang setting while using OpenRocket, but now I can't find it. Anyone?

Also, where can one submit bug reports and improvement suggestions? Here are mine:

When a dimension (or other design data) slider is selected/highlighted, my keyboard left or down arrows work to move the slider to the left, but the up or right arrows won't move it to the right. A bug or just on my machine?

Some suggestions by desirability:

Right now, the input data up/down arrows increment or decrement each value by one whole unit. I'd like to have the ability to highlight a significant digit (including those to the right of the decimal point) to increment/decrement so that fractional changes can be made. Otherwise, one has to move back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse instead of being able to do what is desired using the mouse alone.

I own and use the latest version of Rocksim and find the OpenRocket method of handling motors less intuitive. I'd like to see all motor-related settings moved to a pop-up window with the button/icon to open that window being located within the same section that includes all of the other design components.

If an engine block is present in the motor tube, when a motor is loaded it should be by default placed with its forward end in contact with that engine block. Moving it would still be allowed if desired.

All of that said, this is a fantastic program and I really appreciate the efforts by whoever wrote it.

Winston,

The motor overhang is on the "Inner Tube" configuration dialog. You need to switch to the Motor tab. I think it's in the right column somewhere.

I don't know about the problem you have with the slider up&left keys. I've never used the keys. Might be a bug. I always type in the desired dimension because I find twiddling the slider too painful with the mouse.

As for suggestions, there is a bug tracking system on openrocket.sourceforge.net which you can submit "features". Or you can just shout them out here.

Honestly, I'm not particularly fond of the "edit configuration" dialog - there are some serious usability problems with it.

For the motor & engine block relationship, from your requirement, I am guessing you use primarily BP motors (like Estes). However, for MPR/HPR motors, they usually include a thrust ring so those should actually overhang some by default. What I'm saying is, the default for you doesn't work for everyone. We don't have the information about which motors include thrust rings (and how long the rings are) so we cannot deduce this automatically.

Kevin

Winston said:

I thought I saw a motor overhang setting while using OpenRocket, but now I can't find it. Anyone?

Also, where can one submit bug reports and improvement suggestions? Here are mine:

When a dimension (or other design data) slider is selected/highlighted, my keyboard left or down arrows work to move the slider to the left, but the up or right arrows won't move it to the right. A bug or just on my machine?

Some suggestions by desirability:

Right now, the input data up/down arrows increment or decrement each value by one whole unit. I'd like to have the ability to highlight a significant digit (including those to the right of the decimal point) to increment/decrement so that fractional changes can be made. Otherwise, one has to move back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse instead of being able to do what is desired using the mouse alone.

I own and use the latest version of Rocksim and find the OpenRocket method of handling motors less intuitive. I'd like to see all motor-related settings moved to a pop-up window with the button/icon to open that window being located within the same section that includes all of the other design components.

If an engine block is present in the motor tube, when a motor is loaded it should be by default placed with its forward end in contact with that engine block. Moving it would still be allowed if desired.

All of that said, this is a fantastic program and I really appreciate the efforts by whoever wrote it.

Click to expand...

kruland said:

Winston,

The motor overhang is on the "Inner Tube" configuration dialog. You need to switch to the Motor tab. I think it's in the right column somewhere.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks.

I don't know about the problem you have with the slider up&left keys. I've never used the keys. Might be a bug. I always type in the desired dimension because I find twiddling the slider too painful with the mouse.

Click to expand...

I often want to use the slider (mostly), arrow keys, or the up/down arrow buttons next to the data input field to visually slide components into position along the body tube as I do in Rocksim. That is a very convenient and useful feature that I use a lot. That's why the arrow keys need to work and, in addition, the default increment/decrement units need to be much smaller than currently used (my other complaint).

The current increment/decrement unit size is no issue when using metric measurements because one can simple switch between cm and mm, but one cannot switch between inches and tenths of an inch with the current allowable settings and the 1" unit increments are way too large.

The fix would be to allow the mouse cursor to be used to select/highlight the significant digit to be incremented/decremented and, if that isn't done, to simply increment in much smaller units (tenths of an inch) when the left/right up/down arrows, up/down buttons next to the data field, or slider bar are used.

Since this is not a problem when using metric units, the authors of this software don't see this problem. I assume the primary authors use metric measurements since the program starts in metric by default.

As for suggestions, there is a bug tracking system on openrocket.sourceforge.net which you can submit "features". Or you can just shout them out here.

Click to expand...

OK, Thanks.

For the motor & engine block relationship, from your requirement, I am guessing you use primarily BP motors (like Estes).

Click to expand...

No, occasionally single use composites without thrust rings. However, that feature would be most useful to those who mainly use BP motors.

We don't have the information about which motors include thrust rings (and how long the rings are) so we cannot deduce this automatically.

Click to expand...

It may not be worth the effort since it's really no big deal, but off the top of my head, I'd go on the assumption that all BP motors in the database don't have a thrust ring. That's a (possibly) safe bet. Beyond that, it would require a survey of the composite motors in the database as some Aerotech single use motors have a thrust ring while others don't.

Winston said:

I often want to use the slider (mostly), arrow keys, or the up/down arrow buttons next to the data input field to visually slide components into position along the body tube as I do in Rocksim. That is a very convenient and useful feature that I use a lot. That's why the arrow keys need to work and, in addition, the default increment/decrement units need to be much smaller than currently used (my other complaint).

The current increment/decrement unit size is no issue when using metric measurements because one can simple switch between cm and mm, but one cannot switch between inches and tenths of an inch with the current allowable settings and the 1" unit increments are way too large.

The fix would be to allow the mouse cursor to be used to select/highlight the significant digit to be incremented/decremented and, if that isn't done, to simply increment in much smaller units (tenths of an inch) when the left/right up/down arrows, up/down buttons next to the data field, or slider bar are used.

Since this is not a problem when using metric units, the authors of this software don't see this problem. I assume the primary authors use metric measurements since the program starts in metric by default.

Click to expand...

Winston,

I noticed this increment problem with Inches unit too. The way it works (in current code) is to increment by 1 in whatever unit you are using - I completely agree that 1" is waaaay too large.

You are correct that the principle developer (Sampo) has very little experience with imperial units - and this is reflected in the way the system operates with inches. I mentioned to him, that our rulers are marked in "binary fractions" of inches - fractions who's denominator is a power of 2. It is because of this that I implemented in the new version (to be released real soon) a new unit called "in/64" which represents lengths in 64ths of an inch. When you use this unit, the length 2.25 (inch) is displayed as '2 1/4' (inch). The slider then increments in 64ths (which is a little small but acceptable in my opinion). You can also type in values with fractional inches using either decimal (2.25) or fractional (' 2 1/4' or '9/4') and it gets it right.

Kevin

kruland said:

Winston,

I noticed this increment problem with Inches unit too. The way it works (in current code) is to increment by 1 in whatever unit you are using - I completely agree that 1" is waaaay too large.

It is because of this that I implemented in the new version (to be released real soon) a new unit called "in/64" which represents lengths in 64ths of an inch.

Kevin

Click to expand...

That fix will definitely work for me. Many thanks for your efforts and that of any others involved with this excellent application.

and with AT rms motors the length in the data base does not include the aft closure...so one has to set the overhang to zero. I've often switched to mm to visually move a component, so using 1/64" increments will work nicely. thank you.
rex