OpenRocket... A few items for my wish list.

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I bought Rocksim in the '98-'99 timeframe (roughly version 4.0-5.0). It was good enough to design and build a L3 project with at that time. It was also about $40.

When I got back into rockets this year I checked in to upgrading to the latest version and it was WAY more than I'd pay for it. They've added a ton of features like tube fins and pods, but for my needs OR is fine and the price is right.
 
I'm reading that as an implication is that people who use OR are clowns and don't deserve to spend the difference in cost on rocket motors.

Of course. I didn't catch it because it is such an incredibly childish thing to say.
 
Last edited:
I'm fine with clown shoes as long as I get quality open-source, extensible, modifiable, and redistributable software.

Also, there is only one choice on Linux.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
Just thought of another "Wish List" item. A measurement tool to measure the distance between components. For example, from the top of a MMT to the NC or any other components.
 
Bump...

New wish... A way of doing "skewing" on fins... So a fin may be mounted parallel to the surface of the body tube (such as a wing on the Estes Space Shuttle, or the Centuri Hummingbird).
 
Bump...

New wish... A way of doing "skewing" on fins... So a fin may be mounted parallel to the surface of the body tube (such as a wing on the Estes Space Shuttle, or the Centuri Hummingbird).

or a fliskits thing-a-ma-jig? (sorry - have those on the brain this week)
 
Ok, I know this is a big list. It's not because I'm complaining, I just have a lot of ideas about how sim design could be made easier. It probably best to get other people's opions as to how useful these features would be...

If I move a part from one parent part to another, I would like to be prompted on what I want to happen with the offset. That is does the offset remain the same distance relative to the top/bottom of the new parent or should the offset be recalculated such that the part does not move within the entire design?

Instead of overriding the weight I would like to enter the correct weight and have the density of the material automatically corrected.

Also I'd like to be able to add glue weight to a part without overriding the parts weight, this should include an option for the CG of the glue. Likewise an option to add the paint weight. Then you should be able to get statistics about how much glue you used and the paint density etc. All of which would come in handy when starting a new build, especially if I can have the sim default to my predetermined build averages.

Being able to save mass objects to the database of parts. Mass objects are often reusable parts such as quick links, my Raven 3 alt etc.

Having optional sim components in a design. For instance I may have a RF tracker and audio alarm in my rocket, I don't want to have to delete them from my design just so I can do a sim on a small motor and then add them back in to sim a large motor.

I typically rely heavily on a spreadsheet for my builds, being able to export the basic details to a spreadsheet, make a number of updates and then importing the charges back into OR would be really handy. I find that making a lot of changes to the design takes quite a bit of time as does trying to figure out which component weight you forgot to update. The spreadsheet allows you to see the basic details of the entire rocket quite easily. Basic details would be part name, length, OD, ID, thickness?, weight, offset to parent.
 
Definitely Pods, Fins on Transitions/NoseCones/Boattails, ability to save and scale fin shapes (ie save Commanche III fins and then use them on another design, then once pasted on new design adjust size via scaling to proper proportions). Love the software, need MOAR features......
 
Another feature I'd like to see added to OR...

SAE fractions as a measurement. Sometimes I'm working on things that are down to the nearest 1/64th of an inch. If we can't get fractions, perhaps increasing the decimal to around .00001".

Thanks!
Jim
 
Another feature I'd like to see added to OR...

SAE fractions as a measurement. Sometimes I'm working on things that are down to the nearest 1/64th of an inch. If we can't get fractions, perhaps increasing the decimal to around .00001".

Thanks!
Jim

Like this?

fractions.png

The most recent version of OR (and dating back to at least last year IIRC) have in/64 as a length dimension option.
 
My latest wish... A cutaway view of interior parts in the 3D Unfinished view. I'd love to be able to look inside the engine tube to see if I've got the engine block simmed right, motor placement, etc. More importantly, I'd love to see through tube couplers and transitions. I often have a bear of a time trying to visualize (mind sim) what's going on in there (baffles, AV bays, etc.).

Another idea... A freeform nosecone tool. If we had a way of coming up with custom nosecone shapes (round, not like the Sci-Fi shapes) so we could capture those old Estes fat Ogive shapes, I'd love to see that. I see it working like the Freeform fin tool. As long as we can import a lengthwise cutaway image of one radius, it would copy the shape and render it as a 3D object. I could see that really working for things like TopRamen's Talos nosecone.


Thanks!
Jim
 
Last edited:
I would really like to see the ability to add powered Booster POD's for parallel staging. It would really help in some of the scale designs I have in my collection...

Thanks for the great job everyone has done in the development of Open Rocket... it has really helped me keep up with the hobby!!

Now can we get parallel POD's for our designs.... PLEASE??!?!??! PRETTY PLEASE???!?!?!? lol!!!

THANKS BUNCHES!!!!

Kim
 
+1 on pods (powered or not)

Ability to put fins on a tailcone/transition/boattail would allow simming V2s etc.
 
One thing I've been curious about is what OR assumes for reloads.

When you pick a motor reload, is the weight data purely the reload, or does it include a casing as well? What if you use a larger case and a spacer system? Or use different forward closure types because of your retention system, deployment scheme, etc.? (Granted, the mass delta here may not be much, I don't know) It's far from ideal to have to add additional mass component(s) to the model to deal with a larger case + spacers, as that may not apply to every motor you simulate (since they may be different grain counts). It would also be nice if you could tell OR which cases / spacers you own, 1) to restrict the reloads that appear in the list to the ones you can actually fly, and 2) automatically know that if the only cases I have are a 6G and a 3G with 2 spacers, that when I pick a 4G motor it has to use the 6G + 2 spacers, but if I have a 6GXL and a 4G and the requisite spacers, the 4G reload would go in the 4G case with no spacers. Same would go with when you have to add an adapter to fly a smaller diameter motor than the mount, having it automatically add the appropriate reducer for weight and CG shift when necessary, but not otherwise. Or that while I own a 29mm case, I don't have a 54-to-29mm adapter so I can't fly 29mm motors in my 54mm mount (this one you can basically handle by sliding the minimum motor diameter size in the motor selector at least).

With something that could make a more automatic choice for motors and their supporting hardware like this, what I'd really like is a simple way to "add all" available motors based on criteria like it already offers but also the available cases, as adding each one manually becomes quite tedious in my opinion. A step even farther would be to be able to add and simulate all at once, and perhaps even filter motors by their sim results (I want to stay under mach, I want to find the highest flying motor, I want all motors that go over 5000 feet, all motors that stay within my waiver, the motor that gets closest to 7000 feet, etc). Of course I realize these sims never perfectly match the real world so not all of these things will be exact, but it sure beats the manual entry, more simulations, removal of motors that didn't qualify, that I'm going through right now (lots of clicks in different windows & tabs, and this doesn't even factor in any adapters/spacers I would need to add to make things more precise as that would just be way too painful to have to go back and keep modifying in the design).
 
Will,

Both those things are on my wish list as well.

When you add a reload motor, it does include the mass of the hardware for which it was certified. However, it does not account for adapter systems. I worked with John to get the hardware correct for all currently available AT and CTI reloads. That information is now correct. Unfortunately, OR currently doesn't have that information because it's not contained in the RSE files. John does have an automated export system which we could use and obtain that information and add to OR. Then it just becomes a matter of adding some selection stuff (which case you are using) and correctly adjust the mass. But that hasn't happened just yet.

As for the "select all motors such that ..." that also has been on a number of people's wish lists (including my own). It's a great idea and can pretty easily be done with out any additional data. It just takes time and effort.

Kevin

One thing I've been curious about is what OR assumes for reloads.

When you pick a motor reload, is the weight data purely the reload, or does it include a casing as well? What if you use a larger case and a spacer system? Or use different forward closure types because of your retention system, deployment scheme, etc.? (Granted, the mass delta here may not be much, I don't know) It's far from ideal to have to add additional mass component(s) to the model to deal with a larger case + spacers, as that may not apply to every motor you simulate (since they may be different grain counts). It would also be nice if you could tell OR which cases / spacers you own, 1) to restrict the reloads that appear in the list to the ones you can actually fly, and 2) automatically know that if the only cases I have are a 6G and a 3G with 2 spacers, that when I pick a 4G motor it has to use the 6G + 2 spacers, but if I have a 6GXL and a 4G and the requisite spacers, the 4G reload would go in the 4G case with no spacers. Same would go with when you have to add an adapter to fly a smaller diameter motor than the mount, having it automatically add the appropriate reducer for weight and CG shift when necessary, but not otherwise. Or that while I own a 29mm case, I don't have a 54-to-29mm adapter so I can't fly 29mm motors in my 54mm mount (this one you can basically handle by sliding the minimum motor diameter size in the motor selector at least).

With something that could make a more automatic choice for motors and their supporting hardware like this, what I'd really like is a simple way to "add all" available motors based on criteria like it already offers but also the available cases, as adding each one manually becomes quite tedious in my opinion. A step even farther would be to be able to add and simulate all at once, and perhaps even filter motors by their sim results (I want to stay under mach, I want to find the highest flying motor, I want all motors that go over 5000 feet, all motors that stay within my waiver, the motor that gets closest to 7000 feet, etc). Of course I realize these sims never perfectly match the real world so not all of these things will be exact, but it sure beats the manual entry, more simulations, removal of motors that didn't qualify, that I'm going through right now (lots of clicks in different windows & tabs, and this doesn't even factor in any adapters/spacers I would need to add to make things more precise as that would just be way too painful to have to go back and keep modifying in the design).
 
How about a "Stability Margin Calibers" column in the flight simulation tab? It's available under the plot data function, but it would be nice to have it easily available for every motor combination.
 
A step even farther would be to be able to add and simulate all at once, and perhaps even filter motors by their sim results (I want to stay under mach, I want to find the highest flying motor, I want all motors that go over 5000 feet, all motors that stay within my waiver, the motor that gets closest to 7000 feet, etc). Of course I realize these sims never perfectly match the real world so not all of these things will be exact, but it sure beats the manual entry, more simulations, removal of motors that didn't qualify, that I'm going through right now (lots of clicks in different windows & tabs, and this doesn't even factor in any adapters/spacers I would need to add to make things more precise as that would just be way too painful to have to go back and keep modifying in the design).

Thrustcurve MotorGuide and wRASP32 will do these kinds of batch runs/filters for you. I find myself using these two codes to quickly sort through all motors, then do more detailed analysis in OR with just a few motors if necessary. Agreed, manual entry/editing sucks, and given the hundreds of motor options, a batch simulator is absolutely necessary.
 
The only thing I would like on Openrocket is different styles of parachutes (hemispherical, cruciform, etc). Apart from that, the usual:

TUBE FINS.....

.......and that's about it.
 
My latest wish... A cutaway view of interior parts in the 3D Unfinished view. I'd love to be able to look inside the engine tube to see if I've got the engine block simmed right, motor placement, etc. More importantly, I'd love to see through tube couplers and transitions. I often have a bear of a time trying to visualize (mind sim) what's going on in there (baffles, AV bays, etc.).

Another idea... A freeform nosecone tool. If we had a way of coming up with custom nosecone shapes (round, not like the Sci-Fi shapes) so we could capture those old Estes fat Ogive shapes, I'd love to see that. I see it working like the Freeform fin tool. As long as we can import a lengthwise cutaway image of one radius, it would copy the shape and render it as a 3D object. I could see that really working for things like TopRamen's Talos nosecone.


Thanks!
Jim

Actually a freeform nose cone setting would be very cool. I have no idea how OR could simulate the math for aerodynamics. That would involve some pretty serious computation time for our computers.
 
New feature I'd love to see... in the print/.pdf section, a payloadbay.com like tool for creating a fin alignment guide.

I'd still like a different colored background as an option for the 3D Finished view.

Thanks!
Jim
 
Today's wishes...

A way to override the aerodynamic computations on fins. I know that fins are usually designed for aerodynamic reasons, but sometimes they aren't (read: my engine hook simulations). If I could get them excluded from the aerodynamic computations, it may make for more accurate simulations.

I'd also like to see a way to add a Z axis to parts (especially fins and more importantly launch lugs). Allowing these to be moved vertically (including negative Z axis) would eliminate a number of my "phantom body tubes", and again improve simulation accuracy. An alternate to this would be to allow the phantom body tubes to be eliminated from the aerodynamic computations. So, a rocket like the Estes Ventris or the Eggspress would have a maximum body diameter of the real body tubes and not the phantom body tube.

A couple of other requests... A way to allow fins to be shaped in 3 dimensions (e.g. a tapering fin (such as what you see on things like the Standard Missile), tip details (like the rollerons from the AIM-9, or the small fins that are attached to the Crossfire ISX's large fins), and wedge shapes (like the Standard Missile).

Thanks!
Jim
 
Last edited:
New feature I'd love to see... in the print/.pdf section, a payloadbay.com like tool for creating a fin alignment guide.

This might get me to fiddle with it more often.

Also, as someone mentioned, an internal volume tool would be neat.

Does the current version of OR let you put on rail buttons, or just lugs?

Later!

--Coop
 
This might get me to fiddle with it more often.

Also, as someone mentioned, an internal volume tool would be neat.

Does the current version of OR let you put on rail buttons, or just lugs?


Later!

--Coop

They added "rail guides" to the Launch Lug Buttons. Add Launch lug select custom scroll through database until you see RG.
 
I want to be able to make a Rocket Boosted Glider with parachute recovery out of this:

Viper4.gifViper44 2015-05-09 001.jpgVIPER6.jpgViper1.jpgVIPER2.jpg
 
Back
Top