Is there any way to add a camera on openrocket?

[Harrison Vance]

Looking to see if there are any options or bypasses to simulate the weight of a camera on the outside of the rocket. I believe their isn't a way that I know of, but if anyone has any tips on getting a close simulation with something please let me know! Thanks

 

[lakeroadster]

Looking to see if there are any options or bypasses to simulate the weight of a camera on the outside of the rocket. I believe their isn't a way that I know of, but if anyone has any tips on getting a close simulation with something please let me know! Thanks

You can add a pod, then simulate it as a nose cone and body tube. weigh the camera, then over-ride the mass in Open Rocket.

 

[kalsow]

A short, thick, heavy fin?

 

[Harrison Vance]

Awesome. I'll give it a try. Thank you all!

 

[lakeroadster]

A short, thick, heavy fin?

Then you'll get an error message, about a thick fin... using an offset pod is a better approach, from a simulation accuracy perspective.

 

[neil_w]

If all you want to simulate is the offset *mass*, then you can do it with an ordinary mass component, using the radial position tab:


If you want to simulate the *aerodynamics* then yeah, use a pod.

 

[K'Tesh]

15.03 +1 on a fin...
Later versions of OR... Fin +pod...

 

[lakeroadster]

@Harrison Vance,

Here's a link to the thread that contains @K'Tesh 's Cineroc Omega Open Rocket files.

 

[JoePfeiffer]

Assuming the pod plus body tube approach, select the diameter so you get similar frontal area to the camera, then length so you get similar surface area.

 

[jqavins]

Can one set a radial position for a pod? I bet one can. In which case, you could use the pod, body tube, and nose cone method as @lakeroadster suggested in post #2, and burry it half way inside the main body tube as @neil_w showed in post #6. That would allow you to simulate the weight and the frontal and wetted areas, while also modeling the look of a shroud. @K'Tesh, is that what you've done in post #7? I know that before OR had pods you did a lot of wizardry to make it produce the pictures you wanted that weren't always good for sims (blatant OpenRockt abuse).

 

[neil_w]

Yes, you can set radial distance of a pod, and can do the half-buried pod. It’s not perfect for sim purposes because OR doesn’t know that part of the pod is not beside the airframe.

 

[K'Tesh]

Can one set a radial position for a pod? I bet one can. In which case, you could use the pod, body tube, and nose cone method as @lakeroadster suggested in post #2, and burry it half way inside the main body tube as @neil_w showed in post #6. That would allow you to simulate the weight and the frontal and wetted areas, while also modeling the look of a shroud. @K'Tesh, is that what you've done in post #7? I know that before OR had pods you did a lot of wizardry to make it produce the pictures you wanted that weren't always good for sims (blatant OpenRockt abuse).

You could download the .ork file and reverse engineer it... But IIRC, I made it a fin, and put it on a phantom body tube. However, it's perpendicular to the body tube, and not at the correct angle... I'll need to redo this sim when the 3D bugs get worked out.