RockSim Feature Requests Wanted

[Gus]

Tim,

Thanks for asking.

Side tubes and cones and scaling would be great additions.

But another upgrade I'd like to see is a more robust flight simulation data screen. I'd gladly pay $20 for it.

I'd like to be able to include any flight characteristic in the summary page. The data RockSim calculates is great, I'd just like to be able to pick and choose what's on the simulation page for different builds.

For example, if I'm working on a 50 second duration model then I'd like to be able to include Time To Landing as a column in the Simulation summary page. On an egglofter I might be tinkering with Velocity at Deployment so seeing that on the summary page would be helpful. For different builds I'd like to include different things, so more control over that would be really helpful instead of having to go into the full summary of each different flight and writing down the particular parameter I'm interested in.

Similarly, it would also be nice if I could include a column on the summary page with some specific characteristic of the build that I was varying from sim to sim. For example, if on my 50 Second duration model if I wanted to see the effect of a 10", 11", 12" body tube length, it would be nice if I could include "Body Tube A length" as a column in the summary, without having to type it in the comments column each time.

And what would be super cool ($35) would be if I could tell RockSim that I wanted to vary a single build parameter by a set amount and run the sims all at once. For example, in the 50 Second duration example, if Rocksim had a Multisim Mode where I could hit the "Vary what parameter?" button and I could choose from a pick list "Body Tube A". Then I'd get a list of the "Body Tube A" parameters and I'd pick "Length". Then RockSim would ask for a "Starting Value", "Ending Value", and "Increment". Then when I hit "Run", it would run all the sims and give me a summary page. That would save me a huge amount of time.

I can get all that info now, it just involves repeatedly going into the build file, changing the single parameter, and re running the sim, and entering the build parameter in the "comments" column. Very cumbersome.

I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of folks using RockSim are doing the type of designing where they make multiple changes to one build parameter and then run the multiple sims to see the effect. A Multisim mode would be a huge help to the TARC teams.

Another way to implement this would be from the Simulation Summary page. If you could include a column with any build parameter on the page and then add a "Duplicate" button to create another row (which the user could add any number of) and allow direct entry of the parameter into the sim page column (kind of like incrementally changing one value from row to row in a single column on a spreadsheet), one could then just rerun all the sims on the page.

However you might do it, I think it would be a huge help to a large number of users.

Whatever upgrade you decide to add, though, I'll buy it. RockSim is a fantastic tool that has added immensely to my understanding and enjoyment of rocketry.

 

[Pantherjon]

My two requests would be for scaling and the ability to add funtional side pods, with cones and fins, that Rocksim can calculate. The ability to add motors to the pods as well. Easily worth $75-100

I second this! Also the ability to cant the motors...

 

[DexterLB]

A Linux version - priceless

Definetly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'd pay $200 for it!

 

[Peartree]

I know many might disagree but I would consider offering more "tiers" of service. Maybe ala cart is too difficult to keep track of, but how about more levels of functionality than just Rocksim and RSPro? All these extra ideas are nice but if they add to the present cost of RS it won't help me. I'm already having a difficult time getting over the $100+ hurdle to start now but I'd be pretty happy with a beginners version that was essentially the 30 trial (no recovery phase) that didn't expire if I could get started for half as much and then "upgrade" to a full version later and then "upgrade" again (even later) to a deluxe version that included all the extras we've been discussing here. If you add the extras but have to charge $200 for the base program I don't think I could ever get over the first hump.

 

[hokkyokusei]

I have no problem with a linux version, but let's be realistic here. It would cost him money to spend a ton of time converting the program over to a format that the vast majority of rocketeers don't use.

Hey, everything costs money, or an equivalent amount of goods/time at the prevailing exchange rate. I was asked what I would like to see. I stated what I would like to see.

 

[WiK]

and a vast majority of rocketeers do use linux- this number is growing

You what?

 

[Marsman]

Canting motor tubes for clusters. $10-20
Right now, RockSim doesn't deal with offset thrust or canted motors. If I set up a 3 engine cluster and only put one in, it would sim as though that motor was centered in the body tube. Can that be changed, along with lateral mass offsets?

 

[apogee]

A parts editor - $25

Al, what do you mean by this? I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Hospital_Rocket]

Basically a way to create a part (ex: custom nose cone shape, fin shape, or other part) and save it in the inventory. I would want it GUI based. Pehaps with a list that can be browsed. In the same fashion I would like to be able to store subassemblies as parts and call them up as needed from a list I can browse.

 

[Hospital_Rocket]

Hey, everything costs money, or an equivalent amount of goods/time at the prevailing exchange rate. I was asked what I would like to see. I stated what I would like to see.

Gee I should have asked for a port to VMS....

 

[WiK]

Basically a way to create a part (ex: custom nose cone shape, fin shape, or other part) and save it in the inventory. I would want it GUI based. Pehaps with a list that can be browsed. In the same fashion I would like to be able to store subassemblies as parts and call them up as needed from a list I can browse.

I thought you could do this already? Make the part in the normal way, then hit the "Save To Database" button. Right?

 

[rocketguy101]

The ability for fins on fins, tubes on fins, tubes on tubes, fins on tubes (any combinations I missed). Including nose cones on these tubes. Price - $15.

Parallel tubes, allowing offsets for like an old Estes Trident, or Sunward's Gravity Rider, or Fliskit's Night Whisper - another $15.

My prices are based on the present cost for Rocksim 8 (download version) is $111.13. I don't want the price to get too much higher.

I agree, plus canted motors.

I am not so sure scaling overall would work, due to different tube sizes. But scaling fins would be nice (5$)

 

[centuriguy]

A simple scaling feature so I don't have to redesign the entire rocket to up or downscale it.

Adding nosecones to outboard tubes

an Undo feature.

The ability for fins on fins, tubes on fins, tubes on tubes, fins on tubes (any combinations I missed). Including nose cones on these tubes.

Parallel tubes, allowing offsets for like an old Estes Trident, or Sunward's Gravity Rider, or Fliskit's Night Whisper

And please correct the bug that prints a blank page when I select white as the "interior" color for a transition. Pretty please!

I'll give ya 30 bucks for those features added to my current RockSim 8 setup.

(Hey, I'd like to stimulate *everybody's* personal economy, but I don't think anyone would appreciate my efforts at counterfeiting money. And I'd be doing serious jail time, to boot!)

 

[Chrisn]

you would pay $30 for 5 features, when rocksim is only $100 for many hundreds of features?

 

[stealthfixr]

1. Scaling--ability to specify the new size (1x, 2.5x, etc) of the enlarged design!!! Exact matches will be tough, but have it jump to next closest tube sizes (no such thing as a 3.4" body tube if that's the 3x match--auto downscale to 3" tube or upscale to 4" tube)

2. Motor Optimizer--script runs through all usable motors and lists those that work best with given motor delays (closest to apogee), weather conditions and measured rocket CG

3. Build process needs to be simpler and quicker; it's just not newbie friendly

4. Ability to specify the weight and CG of a design AND THEN have further changes adjust accordingly (I have a built rocket with a weight/CG that does not match the optimum design in Rocksim, but if I make it match, the CG will not change with new design updates--like adding nose weight for more powerful motors)

 

[Indiana]

2. Motor Optimizer--script runs through all usable motors and lists those that work best with given motor delays (closest to apogee), weather conditions and measured rocket CG

That would be great.

 

[jbuscaglia]

I would like to see a RockSim equivalent to Adobe Acrobat Reader - a program to allow anyone to view .rkt files to take advantage of the vast library of designs out there. No editing functionality - just parts list, templates and a three-D view.

Ideally, it'd be free, but a nominal charge (maybe $15) would be reasonable.

 

[rocket72175]

2. Motor Optimizer--script runs through all usable motors and lists those that work best with given motor delays (closest to apogee), weather conditions and measured rocket CG

And what would be super cool ($35) would be if I could tell RockSim that I wanted to vary a single build parameter by a set amount and run the sims all at once. For example, in the 50 Second duration example, if Rocksim had a Multisim Mode where I could hit the "Vary what parameter?" button and I could choose from a pick list "Body Tube A". Then I'd get a list of the "Body Tube A" parameters and I'd pick "Length". Then RockSim would ask for a "Starting Value", "Ending Value", and "Increment". Then when I hit "Run", it would run all the sims and give me a summary page. That would save me a huge amount of time.

You can do these things with SMARTSim and/or SMARTSim batch. Batch operations require some prework and spreadsheet manipulation on your part. Worth the effort if you want to repeat many sims (and do it again later on a different rkt file).

https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/newsletter130.pdf
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/newsletter134.pdf
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter168.pdf
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter169.pdf
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter202.pdf

 

[centuriguy]

you would pay $30 for 5 features, when rocksim is only $100 for many hundreds of features?

Chris,

(chuckling) I bought Version 7 for $95, and got a free upgrade to Version 8 (since Apogee was going to upgrade shortly thereafter anyway).

My point is I'd be willing to pay $30 for the improvements, but there's *no way* I could afford shelling out another 100 bucks. :no:

Of course, how many hours of work would it take programmer Paul Fossey to implement just *one* of those features? Probably a lot longer than 6 hours at the rate of $5 an hour...

So I think $30 is a reasonable compromise. Your mileage may vary.


Cheers,

 

[JRThro]

Of course, how many hours of work would it take programmer Paul Fossey to implement just *one* of those features? Probably a lot longer than 6 hours at the rate of $5 an hour...

So I think $30 is a reasonable compromise. Your mileage may vary.

Or more reasonably, probably a lot longer than 1/2 an hour at the rate of $60 an hour...

(Hi, Jay!)

 

[Starcommander]

I know many might disagree but I would consider offering more "tiers" of service. Maybe ala cart is too difficult to keep track of, but how about more levels of functionality than just Rocksim and RSPro? All these extra ideas are nice but if they add to the present cost of RS it won't help me. I'm already having a difficult time getting over the $100+ hurdle to start now but I'd be pretty happy with a beginners version that was essentially the 30 trial (no recovery phase) that didn't expire if I could get started for half as much and then "upgrade" to a full version later and then "upgrade" again (even later) to a deluxe version that included all the extras we've been discussing here. If you add the extras but have to charge $200 for the base program I don't think I could ever get over the first hump.

Oh yeah, this is a good idea!

What RC should be doing is update the parts and motor list, and getting rid of the decerted ones. RC is not as intuitive as stated, the younger TARC members (7th&8th grade), had a time of it, and spent many hours before they got anywhere.

Also, drawing fins is not very easy, and adding strakes, forward mouted fins, etc, is tough. You should not have to "trick" the program to do these things.

 

[JDcluster]

Some people like to fantasize about the old days with all the great motors.
I like to have as many option as possible to get a better idea on how a design will fly. Even though I still rather use WRASP for altitude prediction.
Maybe they need a separate TARC version of RockSim that's stripped down to keep costs low?




JD

Oh yeah, this is a good idea!

What RC should be doing is update the parts and motor list, and getting rid of the decerted ones. RC is not as intuitive as stated, the younger TARC members (7th&8th grade), had a time of it, and spent many hours before they got anywhere.

Also, drawing fins is not very easy, and adding strakes, forward mouted fins, etc, is tough. You should not have to "trick" the program to do these things.

 

[roadkill]

- Parallel staged drop-off boosters with nosecones

- Canted motormounts / body tubes

- User specifiable payload mass in user specifiable location and
an on/off checkbox for it

- More realistic cd calculations

$50 package deal....

 

[JDcluster]

Please take out the need for ejection delays & just go with a standard 4, 7, 10, 15 or user specified.

I can't run my full scale Sparrow ARCAS SIMS WITH THIS Dam THING!



JD

 

[j.a.duke]

Part 1: What would you like to see as a new feature in a future version of RockSim?

Part 2: What would you be willing to pay for it? (Not the total version of the software, but for that one extra feature.)

I'd second Al's request for a parts editor and the request for a nice intuitive way to put sub-assemblies into the database.

I'd also like to see a way of prioritizing parts-like a favorites for certain parts like body tubes, centering rings, etc. I build most of my designs with BT-60 and smaller, so to have to scroll through large numbers of parts that I'm not using to find (or not) a nose cone or other item is a waste of time. Let me drag the parts I use most to a sidebar or create an alias in the favorites folder.

I'd like a way to draw fins with bezier curves rather than the silly points-I can trace an existing fin shape scan in about 2 minutes in any good drawing package, but the same task is frustrating in RS. Also, let me import some formats or convert them so if you can't/don't provide a rich drawing environment, I can use my current chosen one and bring the files over. I think SVG might be a good choice as it's a defined and open standard under active development.

For the flight simulation animation, can you add a slow-motion option either or the whole flight or parts of it? I can't always tell graphically when recovery deploys since it happens too quickly, but if it happens at 1/60th real time, I shouldn't have any trouble seeing it. And if you're working on this, a single run, rather than looping would be welcome.

As for addressing the pricing issue raised by others, maybe a RS LPR, then a RS HPR version where the limitation would be the body tube diameter-what's the largest tube BMS or Semroc ships? That could be the cutoff for the LPR variant. Or maybe maximum single motor impulse.).

Finally, I'd want an Intel-native binary for Mac OS X. Apple isn't going to continue support for PowerPC binaries forever (I'd predict 18-24 months tops) so that issue will come to the fore soon enough. And the performance of an Intel-native version would smoke the current Rosetta-translated PowerPC version.

What would I pay in upgrade fees? Intel-native: $10-15 (should be a checkbox for compile); Fins via real drawing environment: $25-30; SVG import: $20; Parts favorites: $10; A more comprehensive parts database: $5

 

[fishnutt90804]

Too be honest I think $100 bucks is a little much for the software.

How about offering a service that a person could log onto your site for a much smaller fee and build the rocket. You could call it the rocket garage. people could mess around with the software for a month free and then pay by the month to continue to use the service. I know I do not have a need for the software all the time. I would me a customer of something like that.

Kevin Davidson
NAR L3

 

[bigone5500]

I'd like to see a right click context menu. For example, you could right click on a body tube and have the option to delete, add components, edit, etc. I would also like to see the ability to add side pods and nacelles on the side of a rocket. I would also like to see a larger parts database although you can import them yourself. Lastly I would like to be able to save my parts databases in a single file for backup using the file menu.

If this is going to be a release in a new version I would pay a little more for it. Money is tight but I suppose if these features were included I would pay $120 for it...

You gotta think...if software companies sold v.1.0 and gave free upgrades for life they would go out of business very quickly. You can't work on a product and keep dishing out freebies forever.

 

[apogee]

Please take out the need for ejection delays & just go with a standard 4, 7, 10, 15 or user specified.
JD

It is possible to type in a number. Just select the a delay, highlight the number and type over it.

Another option is to select "NONE" which is a plugged motor, and then use the events tab to set the time that the parachute deploys.

I hope that helps.

 

[m85476585]

Too be honest I think $100 bucks is a little much for the software.

How about offering a service that a person could log onto your site for a much smaller fee and build the rocket. You could call it the rocket garage. people could mess around with the software for a month free and then pay by the month to continue to use the service. I know I do not have a need for the software all the time. I would me a customer of something like that.

Kevin Davidson
NAR L3

I agree that $100 is too much.

I don't think they would make an online version because they would basically have to rewrite Rocksim for the web, and that would be a lot of work for a free/cheap service.

 

[gtm3323]

Update engine file $10

Sort certified motors, uncertified motors, and non-existing motors into a colum at engine selection. Somtimes at launches I hear individuals say "that motor does exists I saw it in rockSIM". $10