OpenRocket 13.11.1 - Can't add motors

Hey, is it just me, or is it really impossible to add motors to a design in OpenRocket 13.11.1? Because, I can't. No button in the engine mount options nor in the simulation options to get there.

Rolling back to 13.09.1 now...

Go to the configurations tab, hit new configuration, then click the motor column. Select your motor.

Wow, that's confusing.

Solomoriah said:

Wow, that's confusing.

Click to expand...

Speaking as the guy who prodded these changes, can you elaborate what about it is confusing? I don't want to spoil a fresh mind's impressions of the UI, so could you explain what you expected before I explain the rationales behind the changes?

Or was it just that you expected no change from 13.09?

Couldn't figure out how to add motors to a new rocket design. Seriously, "Configurations" tells me 0% about what goes on that tab... if I even noticed that there was a new tab, which I did not at first. So here I am in the Motor tab of the engine tube component... and there is no button to add motors.

Mind you, I write software. For a living. So I'm not your average run-of-the-mill idiot, I'm a special idiot.

So I go to the Simulations tab and add a simulation, but in there also I found no button to add a motor. Egad, I thought, where has it gone? Must be a buggy version. So I posted the above report, reloaded 13.09.1, and got on with my simulating.

Only after I was told where to go did I even notice the Configurations tab. Obvious, when someone shows you where it is and tells you what it's for.

Prior to 13.11.1, I was able to figure it out without trouble. Having obvious labeled buttons made it easier. Perhaps, if I were not an experienced OpenRocket user I'd have explored further and discovered the Configurations tab... but since I was unaware that the user interface was being reorganized (and in fact, it appears little else has changed), I just assumed it was missing altogether.

I have to agree, I am also a software engineer by trade, and it was very non-intuitive to add motors. It's not that the current app flow is hard once you know it, it's just not something easily figured out by tinkering around.

Would renaming the tab to "motor configurations" do the trick? Part of the problem might have been simply that it's different from what you expected; a new user would not have pre-programmed motions for adding motors. (I edited this paragraph)

I also wanted a little instruction line for when the configurations table is empty: "click new configuration, select your motor mount in the table, and click 'select motor'" which would aid discovery.

Also, perhaps if there are no configurations the simulations tab could be grayed out: enforcing a workflow rather than merely suggesting it.

(also added in an edit)Here's my reasons for making the changes: honestly, I felt that the process for adding motors in 13.09 was an abomination of a UI. Layers of popup dialogs, and at least 5 button presses to add each motor configuration and fill it with a motor, and no way to get an overview. I tried to streamline it by pulling the layered dialog into another tab, but it seems the tab change was not obvious enough.

To be honest, I don't find that the new configurations tab makes selecting motors much easier. Sure, it's a slight improvement over the previous way of doing it, but I think the whole process could be simplified even further... PM me if you'd like to here some of my ideas.

Having now used it, I don't find it to be an improvement either. There was absolutely nothing I can see wrong with the original way it worked. And yeah, first pass around I did look briefly at the Configurations tab, but it was far from obvious (when empty) what it was for. Looking at a file that had engines defined made it more clear.

I'd suggest, at minimum, adding an explanatory line in both places where there used to be a button, restoring discoverability to the user interface. Even better would be a button where there used to be a button, acting as an alternative way to pull the tab forward.

rocketgeek101 said:

To be honest, I don't find that the new configurations tab makes selecting motors much easier. Sure, it's a slight improvement over the previous way of doing it, but I think the whole process could be simplified even further... PM me if you'd like to here some of my ideas.

Click to expand...

Join the openrocket mailing list.

Solomoriah said:

Having now used it, I don't find it to be an improvement either. There was absolutely nothing I can see wrong with the original way it worked. And yeah, first pass around I did look briefly at the Configurations tab, but it was far from obvious (when empty) what it was for. Looking at a file that had engines defined made it more clear.

I'd suggest, at minimum, adding an explanatory line in both places where there used to be a button, restoring discoverability to the user interface. Even better would be a button where there used to be a button, acting as an alternative way to pull the tab forward.

Click to expand...

What I found wrong with the old way was probably based on my way of using OpenRocket: when I make a new design I want to add 30+ motor combinations, and more with clusters. It used to take an hour, now the same task takes 10 minutes because I can rapidly generate configurations, and then double-click on them in sequence to add motors to them.

What is your workflow like?

I never used the earlier versions, so I can't comment on whether the old way was better. I also wasn't used to either the old or the new way and had no preconceived notions how it should work.

Naming the tab "Motors" or "Motor Configurations" would be a good start. Clicking "New Configuration" just adds an empty line to the list box, I would have expected it to add the lines AND popup the dialog here. I did try double clicking on the first column, but nothing happens if you do that. Seems like it should popup the dialog no matter where in the row you double click. Eventually I figured out (I don't recall now, a tutorial perhaps) that you have to double click the second column.

Minor nitpick: the ignition stuff is just tacked onto the motor mount column, if you're already going to break it up into columns, why not add a third ignition column?

I'm a new user.

I got my whole rocket designed, but could not figure out had to add a motor, and when I did find the button it was grayed out.

Thanks to the forum I finally figured it out.

Now I can run wsimulations but have no idea if they are good or bad.

I built a vagabond and put everything from a 1/2A to an M in it I got different numbers but nothing flagged that I had a problem or kept me from adding a motor bigger than my mount.

I got varying info about speed off the rod from the forum but I was still unsure of what makes a good motor choice or good rocket design beyond cig and cp locations.

Is there a way to see warnings or alarms, or can anyone share the guidelines they use, a range for example of different safe parameters?

Thank you,

CarVac,

I've been using OR for about two years and find it most useful. I'm not a software engineer, just an intermediate end user.

IMO the recent motor changes were not intuitive. After uploading OR 13.11.1, I spent an hour trying to add a new motor. I easily found the "Configuration Tab" but believed the "no motor" tab should activate the "select motor" tab and no matter how many times I clicked it, it didn't. The "Motor Tube" no motor column, indicates "Default Automatically", why would that activate the select motor tab? Strangely it does... I believe the "Select Motor" tab should be activated after the "New Configuration" tab is selected, then a user could just select that tab, without trial and error.

My only complaint with OR is there's a lack of "How to Do It" information or Tutorials, especially when significant changes are made to the software. A specific Open Rocket Forum Topic would be beneficial to a great many users, IMHO.

Spicer

CarVac said:

What is your workflow like?

Click to expand...

I'm generally either scratch-building or cloning something; when I add the motor mount, I immediately install the largest engine I expect the rocket will ever fly with, to check the stability. Since OpenRocket encourages starting at the nose cone and building down, and I usually put the fins on before installing the motor mount, the obvious next step after putting in the mount is putting an engine in there. The new way requires me to go somewhere else, rather than adding the motor *right there* while setting up the mount.

In particular, as a matter of bad habit I suppose, I often forget to set the overhang until after the motor is in the mount. The old way, as soon as I exited the motor dialog, I was back in the Mount tab, with the overhang control right there in my face. The new way, if I forget to set the overhang I have to go back to the build screen, find the mount and configure it. Sure, that's not a lot of pain... but a small rough spot where there was none before is still irritating.

I don't begrudge you your convenience. I just wish it didn't come at the expense of mine.

Lowpuller said:

Is there a way to see warnings or alarms, or can anyone share the guidelines they use, a range for example of different safe parameters?

Click to expand...

There are two things you are usually looking for when designing a new rocket, at least a low-power rocket: stability and deployment velocity. After you get all the parts in your design, select the largest engine your rocket will ever fly with, then look at the stability value displayed in the build screen. It is expressed in "calibers", which are the same as the diameter of the rocket; 1.0 or more calibers of stability is the rule of thumb. If you don't have at least a caliber of stability, flying the rocket is risky. Note that this "rule of thumb" breaks down for very skinny or very fat rockets (skinny rockets often need more calibers, fat ones less).

After you get that bit figured out, set up simulations using all the engine types you think might work, and run them. Look at the deployment velocity column... you want to restrict yourself (in general) to Dv values of 20 ft/sec or less if at all possible. Remember to try different delay times on the engine selections, to find the optimal choices. Overly high Dv values will result in shredded parachutes.

Some rockets just have no gentle deployment velocities. For such rockets, I often make extra-heavy-duty parachutes in hopes they will survive the deployment.

BTW, it would sure be nice if the Dv was signed, positive if the rocket was still going up, negative if going down, so we could easily see if we needed more or less delay.

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for their feedback on the UI. On the 13.11 introduction thread there was mostly positive response from users, but being told "Good Job" doesn't offer any ways to improve anything.

Tiger said:

I never used the earlier versions, so I can't comment on whether the old way was better. I also wasn't used to either the old or the new way and had no preconceived notions how it should work.

Naming the tab "Motors" or "Motor Configurations" would be a good start. Clicking "New Configuration" just adds an empty line to the list box, I would have expected it to add the lines AND popup the dialog here. I did try double clicking on the first column, but nothing happens if you do that. Seems like it should popup the dialog no matter where in the row you double click. Eventually I figured out (I don't recall now, a tutorial perhaps) that you have to double click the second column.

Minor nitpick: the ignition stuff is just tacked onto the motor mount column, if you're already going to break it up into columns, why not add a third ignition column?

Click to expand...

Renaming would be simple to do.

The non-popping-up was a result of my use case: set up a bajillion configurations and filling them rapidly.

The reason we don't have a 3rd ignition column is for clusters and staging. I have a rocket with 3 separate motor mount groups, and it would be hopelessly complicated if there were ignition columns as well.

That's also the reason why double-clicking the first column doesn't do anything: when you have multiple motor mounts, double-clicking on each motor mount column selects the motor for that specific one. It's a concession to people who fly clusters: to keep the user experience the same between single and multiple-motor-mount rockets, we had to do that.

Lowpuller said:

I'm a new user.

I got my whole rocket designed, but could not figure out had to add a motor, and when I did find the button it was grayed out.

Thanks to the forum I finally figured it out.

Now I can run wsimulations but have no idea if they are good or bad.

I built a vagabond and put everything from a 1/2A to an M in it I got different numbers but nothing flagged that I had a problem or kept me from adding a motor bigger than my mount.

I got varying info about speed off the rod from the forum but I was still unsure of what makes a good motor choice or good rocket design beyond cig and cp locations.

Is there a way to see warnings or alarms, or can anyone share the guidelines they use, a range for example of different safe parameters?

Thank you,

Click to expand...

There isn't a simple way to set an alarm; what you need to do is use the filtering to only show the motors that you can fit. For example, there are the checkboxes "Limit motor diameter to mount diameter" and "Limit motor length to mount length" which should hide any motors bigger than what will fit.

However, we allow for the flexibility of choosing something larger than the mount: I've built rockets where the motor sticks out the front end of the motor mount; I also designed a 2" rocket that I simmed on a 3" M1500G because that was the closest approximation to a future motor that may come out.

Regarding not knowing whether simulations are "good" or "bad": that's an ever-present problem in ALL simulation programs for all purposes. You need to build experience and talk with other users in order to learn the limitations of the program. It's never simple. Some people have good luck pushing stability limits; others go for 2+ calibers of stability on all rockets. Some people let their rockets leave the rod at 30 ft/s, while others prefer over 60 due to their own experience.

Spicer007 said:

CarVac,

I've been using OR for about two years and find it most useful. I'm not a software engineer, just an intermediate end user.

IMO the recent motor changes were not intuitive. After uploading OR 13.11.1, I spent an hour trying to add a new motor. I easily found the "Configuration Tab" but believed the "no motor" tab should activate the "select motor" tab and no matter how many times I clicked it, it didn't. The "Motor Tube" no motor column, indicates "Default Automatically", why would that activate the select motor tab? Strangely it does... I believe the "Select Motor" tab should be activated after the "New Configuration" tab is selected, then a user could just select that tab, without trial and error.

My only complaint with OR is there's a lack of "How to Do It" information or Tutorials, especially when significant changes are made to the software. A specific Open Rocket Forum Topic would be beneficial to a great many users, IMHO.

Spicer

Click to expand...

There is the documentation on the OpenRocket wiki, but it's a little outdated. When I get a bit more time I will try to work on it. You're free to help too!

One thing to note about your post: it's somewhat confusing for me because the terminology you used is inconsistent. There are tabs ("Configuration tab"), tables ("no motor" is shown in one of these), and pop-up windows ("Select Motor") which you mix up. Could you clarify?

Solomoriah said:

I'm generally either scratch-building or cloning something; when I add the motor mount, I immediately install the largest engine I expect the rocket will ever fly with, to check the stability. Since OpenRocket encourages starting at the nose cone and building down, and I usually put the fins on before installing the motor mount, the obvious next step after putting in the mount is putting an engine in there. The new way requires me to go somewhere else, rather than adding the motor *right there* while setting up the mount.

In particular, as a matter of bad habit I suppose, I often forget to set the overhang until after the motor is in the mount. The old way, as soon as I exited the motor dialog, I was back in the Mount tab, with the overhang control right there in my face. The new way, if I forget to set the overhang I have to go back to the build screen, find the mount and configure it. Sure, that's not a lot of pain... but a small rough spot where there was none before is still irritating.

I don't begrudge you your convenience. I just wish it didn't come at the expense of mine.

Click to expand...

Well that's why we can discuss it.

The original reason I advocated removing all other ways of accessing configurations was because when I'm using a program, I find it confusing when there are redundant, but different ways of changing the same set of parameters. Now that I know a reason for it, we just need to work out an elegant way to allow for it.

One possibility: a button "Configure motors for this tube" which in one fell swoop selects that tube as a mount, closes the tube dialog, and switches to the configuration tab. Would that work for you? (if possible, which I think it is) Would it be too confusing for newer users to be forced onto a new tab? Would explaining what the button is about to do help?

Haha overhangs... I always forget to put overhangs in... Would it help if that could be set from the "motor mounts" box on the configuration tab? That would make it easier with clusters where you'd otherwise have to click on, and it would let you easily set it after-the-fact when adding more motors in. Furthermore, it would be pretty apparent once the "configure motors for this tube" spits you out there.

CarVac said:

One possibility: a button "Configure motors for this tube" which in one fell swoop selects that tube as a mount, closes the tube dialog, and switches to the configuration tab. Would that work for you? (if possible, which I think it is)

Click to expand...

No, wouldn't help, since it "closes the tube dialog" where the overhang is set. It would help newbies find the right place to set up engines, though.

CarVac said:

Haha overhangs... I always forget to put overhangs in... Would it help if that could be set from the "motor mounts" box on the configuration tab? That would make it easier with clusters where you'd otherwise have to click on, and it would let you easily set it after-the-fact when adding more motors in. Furthermore, it would be pretty apparent once the "configure motors for this tube" spits you out there.

Click to expand...

This would help.

Personally, rockets I design are 100% LPR, and a 0.25" overhang is always what I choose. Want to make my life easier? Let me set a GLOBAL setting that says "Default motor mount overhang" so I never have to set it again. How big a rocket do I have to build before I want a half inch? No idea, never built one that large.

more feedback

New does not typically open a new window, but if it's going to, it should have ... after it
Export Decal should have ...
Preferences should have ...
All analyze submenu items should have ...
All help submenu items should have ...

The Export Decal and all analyze submenu items are missing icons

Sustainer - Why not named Stage 1 ?

I expected to be able to right click items in the design to see a popup menu with cut/copy/paste/etc

Often times centering rings and fin patterns are draw overlapping on PDF export

This could be something I've done wrong, but often times optimizing fin placement, it will put them far behind the end of the body tube in an impossible placement

When I first started optimizing I was getting strange results because my initial stability was outside the required min/max I specified. A warning here would have been very helpful

Seems odd there are no "Engine hook" or other motor retention components

Any of the "Choose component preset" dialogs, a double click on the choice should auto accept the dialog

My personal preference would be if a part is chosen from a preset and the name was its default name eg. "Body Tube" it should change the name to the part name I chose, eg. "BT-50"

I never have been able to figure out how to set a default appearance, only to say that a part should use the default

If you're using the "Flight simulations" tab and select copy/paste menu options, they seem to work, but the app keeps flipping back to the "Configurations" tab which is jarring

If you select "Filled" on a nose cone, the shoulder end cap checkbox should be forced to true and disabled

In workng with multiple stages, I could press the "Stage 1" button and see only the first stage, pressing "Stage 2" I would see the first two stages. What I really wanted was for these to be check boxes so I could see only the single stage I was working on.

Would be nice if the first page of the PDF it printed out the overall length under the empty mass

I would prefer if the PDF heading on the first page was the name of the rocket, instead of the fixed text "Rocket Design"

On the first page of the PDF, it would be helpful if it printed the Designer, Comments, and Version history from the "Rocket configuration" dialog

On the PDF, I would suggest the OpenRocket Vx.x.x was printed out somewhere on the first page, or page footers etc. Also a date printed would be useful for tracking purposes

The default nose cose is cardboard with no shoulder. seems an odd choice..

Tiger said:

I never have been able to figure out how to set a default appearance, only to say that a part should use the default

Click to expand...

I think the "default appearance" depends on the material. I.e. what the part looks like without paint.

Haha this is a bit overwhelming. I'm gonna have to make a list...

Tiger said:

more feedback

New does not typically open a new window, but if it's going to, it should have ... after it
Export Decal should have ...
Preferences should have ...
All analyze submenu items should have ...
All help submenu items should have ...

Click to expand...

??? For me, "New" always makes a new window.
I don't understand what you're trying to say with the rest. Do you mean that there should be an ellipsis after any item that creates a new window? I have never seen that convention before in any program.

The Export Decal and all analyze submenu items are missing icons

Click to expand...

Somebody's gotta make them then. Icons aren't really a necessity; the ones that are there are simply generic ones that come with the GUI toolkit.

Sustainer - Why not named Stage 1 ?

Click to expand...

Honestly, does this matter that much?

I expected to be able to right click items in the design to see a popup menu with cut/copy/paste/etc

Click to expand...

This would be nice.

Often times centering rings and fin patterns are draw overlapping on PDF export

Click to expand...

If you can figure out exactly what conditions cause this, it would make it easier to fix the bug.

This could be something I've done wrong, but often times optimizing fin placement, it will put them far behind the end of the body tube in an impossible placement

Click to expand...

That's because you need to set limits on the position.

When I first started optimizing I was getting strange results because my initial stability was outside the required min/max I specified. A warning here would have been very helpful

Click to expand...

I've never seen this happen before. Can you post an example?

Seems odd there are no "Engine hook" or other motor retention components

Click to expand...

In my opinion that's a tiny detail that's not worth the effort for the development team. There are so many different retainers on the market; for LPR there are hooks and some screw-on retainers, as well as molded plastic ones in ready-to-fly kits; there are plate-based retainers like Madcow's one and PML's PMR; there are snap-ring based ones like Slimlines; there are threaded Slimlines of two types (normal threaded and quik-lock with knurling); there are HAMRs; there are Aeropacks of 2 or 3 varieties in each size.

Any of the "Choose component preset" dialogs, a double click on the choice should auto accept the dialog

Click to expand...

That indeed would be good.

My personal preference would be if a part is chosen from a preset and the name was its default name eg. "Body Tube" it should change the name to the part name I chose, eg. "BT-50"

Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. However, in my personal use (HPR) I mix brands of tubes and so I end up custom naming everything based on the role in the rocket, or leaving it as "body tube". It's definitely worth considering.

I never have been able to figure out how to set a default appearance, only to say that a part should use the default

Click to expand...

Solomoriah covered this.

If you're using the "Flight simulations" tab and select copy/paste menu options, they seem to work, but the app keeps flipping back to the "Configurations" tab which is jarring

Click to expand...

You've found a bug!

If you select "Filled" on a nose cone, the shoulder end cap checkbox should be forced to true and disabled

Click to expand...

Indeed.

In workng with multiple stages, I could press the "Stage 1" button and see only the first stage, pressing "Stage 2" I would see the first two stages. What I really wanted was for these to be check boxes so I could see only the single stage I was working on.

Click to expand...

That probably could be done, but it needs a bit of thought so that it doesn't create situations confusing for newbs where the rocket simply doesn't show up and they can't figure out why.

Would be nice if the first page of the PDF it printed out the overall length under the empty mass

I would prefer if the PDF heading on the first page was the name of the rocket, instead of the fixed text "Rocket Design"

On the first page of the PDF, it would be helpful if it printed the Designer, Comments, and Version history from the "Rocket configuration" dialog

On the PDF, I would suggest the OpenRocket Vx.x.x was printed out somewhere on the first page, or page footers etc. Also a date printed would be useful for tracking purposes

Click to expand...

Good ideas.

The default nose cose is cardboard with no shoulder. seems an odd choice..

Click to expand...

Nobody ever uses the default anyway, so it really doesn't matter what it starts as.

For "New" I was referring to Windows apps in general, New clears out the current window, it doesn't pop open a new one. For example, try New in Notepad. Now I wasn't suggesting you change the app behavior here, just add the ... to alert users of the non-standard behavior.

The ellipsis has always been an indicator that selecting that menu item will popup up a (modal) dialog, this is true of all Windows apps since as long as there has been Windows. You followed this convention in lots of places, I was just pointing out a few spots that were missed.

Sustainer vs Stage 1, I was just baffled because its called "Stage 1" everywhere but one place in the whole app. which lead me to scratch my head and wonder what I was missing if its named different here? If it's 100% the same, use the same name.

Re overlapping: I can send you files that exhibit the bug, but I don't know why it works in some cases and not others. I'll keep an eye on it though, seems to occur most frequently with centering rings.

Re optimizing: The strange results were just strange to me in my head because I guess I was assuming my stability was within the legal range when I started, but I had inadvertently changed something and didn't realize it no longer was. I would say, optimize for altitude and it would keep giving me a max altitude lower than my current design, and I would scratch my head, wondering how the optimized value was worse than my starting values. A warning here would really have helped me smack me upside the head that I was just being dumb.

For the retainers it is more of just a "what am I missing here?' deal, something that pretty much every rocket needs and there's no icon for adding it? I think there should at least be an icon, even if it is really only modeled as a generic mass component for now.

On the default appearance, I guess I was just hoping for functionality that isn't there. It would be nice if you could set the default color for a rocket to say, white, and have all the parts use that as default. Then if you wanted to see what the rocket looked like painted red, you could change the default in a single place, rather than clicking through every piece and setting the color on each one, one at a time. Did I mention I like designs with lots of little fins?

when last I noticed, the default material for almost everything was cardboard...chutes were interesting they had elastic shroud lines .
Rex

Tiger said:

For "New" I was referring to Windows apps in general, New clears out the current window, it doesn't pop open a new one. For example, try New in Notepad. Now I wasn't suggesting you change the app behavior here, just add the ... to alert users of the non-standard behavior.

Click to expand...

Now that I've tried it in several applications (on Linux) I notice what you pointed out. However, it's only true for temporary dialog windows; anything which spawns a new standalone window (for example, "view log" and "help" in my instant messaging program) does not have an ellipsis. Also, Notepad's implementation of "New" is archaic and not really relevant anymore; in MS Word "New" will give you a new window and it doesn't have an ellipsis.

So "Export decals", "Preferences", and "Rocket Optimization" should have ellipses, but "New" and "Help" and "Component Analysis" don't and rightfully so.

I believe the distinction is thus: If the title of the menu item is an action that could presumably be made as a button ("optimize the rocket" or "export the decal"), it gets an ellipsis if it spawns a dialog. However, something where the action is meaningless without further interaction, like viewing the help dialog, or examining the results of component analysis, you should expect that a new window would appear.

That's just based on my observations of existing programs. Does it make sense for you?

There is the documentation on the OpenRocket wiki, but it's a little outdated. When I get a bit more time I will try to work on it. You're free to help too!

One thing to note about your post: it's somewhat confusing for me because the terminology you used is inconsistent. There are tabs ("Configuration tab"), tables ("no motor" is shown in one of these), and pop-up windows ("Select Motor") which you mix up. Could you clarify?

CarVac,

Please excuse my terminology. When I selected the "New Configuration", tab, button, field, whatever...hereafter all referred to as "Tab", it opens two windows at the bottom of the motor list. Correction, one windows say's "no motor", the other says "none" and the new motor selection will post to those fields, correct. The initial confusion is what tab, will activate the "Select Motor" tab. My suggestion is the "Select Motor" tab should be activated as soon as you select the "New Configuration" and eliminate the unnecessary step activating the "Select Motor" tab.

I agree with you, once you learn how to navigate the Select Motor process, it's a lot quicker than the old way. Thanks for your feedback.

PLEASE,PLEASE, PLEASE........

Somebody make an OpenRocket App for my iPhone and iPad...............that would absolutely ROCKet!

CarVac said:

Join the openrocket mailing list.

Click to expand...

How? [edit... I found it...]

I haven't done a lot with OR since the configuration tab change. Today I did and it was a frustrating experience. In the configuration tab, I expected to be able to click on a configuration and then click Select Motor, and I couldn't figure out why the buttons were greyed out. Eventually I finally stumbled across the fact that I had to click in the motor mount column, not the configuration column. Sort of obvious in retrospect but not at all obvious until then. I'm afraid I'd consider this a serious failure of interface design.

Not sure what to suggest instead. Possibly get rid of the buttons and instead put a pair of dropdown menus in the motor mount column(s), one for the motor and one for ignition, but I'm not at all sure that would be better.

Also, with the window expanded to near full screen and only one motor mount in the rocket, the configuration and motor mount columns are nearly half a screen apart, which is ugly and hard to integrate visually. At least on my Mac, which has other spacing quirks too.

Rich,

The reason why selecting the configuration cell does not enable the motor/ignition selection buttons is when there are multiple motor mounts it would be unclear which motor you are choosing. To further confuse things, the configuration remove/rename/copy buttons are always enabled (when there is a selection) because the entire row containing the selected cell would be removed/renamed/copied.

I realize for single motor mount model, this behavior doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Would it make sense to have the tables behave differently when there is only a single element (motor mount, recovery device)? What I'm thinking is if the table contains two columns (the configuration name and motor mount, for example), the table operates with row selection model. Then when you click on the configuration cell, the entire row is selected, and the buttons enabled. Also double click in the configuration column would open the motor selection dialog.

Kevin

Rich Holmes said:

I haven't done a lot with OR since the configuration tab change. Today I did and it was a frustrating experience. In the configuration tab, I expected to be able to click on a configuration and then click Select Motor, and I couldn't figure out why the buttons were greyed out. Eventually I finally stumbled across the fact that I had to click in the motor mount column, not the configuration column. Sort of obvious in retrospect but not at all obvious until then. I'm afraid I'd consider this a serious failure of interface design.

Not sure what to suggest instead. Possibly get rid of the buttons and instead put a pair of dropdown menus in the motor mount column(s), one for the motor and one for ignition, but I'm not at all sure that would be better.

Also, with the window expanded to near full screen and only one motor mount in the rocket, the configuration and motor mount columns are nearly half a screen apart, which is ugly and hard to integrate visually. At least on my Mac, which has other spacing quirks too.

Click to expand...

kruland said:

Rich,

The reason why selecting the configuration cell does not enable the motor/ignition selection buttons is when there are multiple motor mounts it would be unclear which motor you are choosing. To further confuse things, the configuration remove/rename/copy buttons are always enabled (when there is a selection) because the entire row containing the selected cell would be removed/renamed/copied.

I realize for single motor mount model, this behavior doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Would it make sense to have the tables behave differently when there is only a single element (motor mount, recovery device)? What I'm thinking is if the table contains two columns (the configuration name and motor mount, for example), the table operates with row selection model. Then when you click on the configuration cell, the entire row is selected, and the buttons enabled. Also double click in the configuration column would open the motor selection dialog.

Kevin

Click to expand...

I think that would be a good idea. If one motor mount is selected, the entire row acts as one. If multiple motor mounts are selected, then you must deal with individual columns in the table.

That, plus a few tweaks (renaming the "Configuration" column to "Configuration Name", and having a "Select a motor mount" tip displayed when there is none selected), should make a big difference.