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'm gonna' build one that will never fly, just to have a scale model in my livingroom!
It is beautiful enough to be captured as a "Static Model".
There was a time in my life when I benefited greatly from Patriot Missile Batteries.
I owe my Eternal Thanks!!!
 
Last edited:
Bump!

I'd love to be able to create fins that follow the contour of a boat tail without having to use a phantom body tube. Translation... Negative values for freeform fin design.

Thanks!
Jim
 
Bump!

I'd love to be able to create fins that follow the contour of a boat tail without having to use a phantom body tube. Translation... Negative values for freeform fin design.

Thanks!
Jim

:handshake:
 
How about being able to print the boattail profile like you can the nose cone, it would make a great pattern for turning your own tailcones, it and the ability to put fins on any part is definitely on the wish list, and while I'm wishing the ability to do fins on the ends of fins like the Rocketarium Jayhawk or Estes Aries SST.
 
Here's a new idea... (I know, this one is far out)

A collaborative mode that allows two (or more) users to access a design and work on it together along with a chat window.
 
Here's a new idea... (I know, this one is far out)

A collaborative mode that allows two (or more) users to access a design and work on it together along with a chat window.

That can easily be accomplished using Google Drive...
 
My newest wish for OR? Tapering on fins. I'd love to be able to sim fins like the Terrier Sandhawk's fins with the taper included. Beveling would also be a nice addition for scale reproduction sims.

Here's an example based from George Gassaway's post in rocketguy101's Nike Smoke build:

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
+1

I've always split the difference of the taper, but I'm sure that's not accurate.

I would also think that type of fin would make a huge difference over a square or even just air foiled fin in the simulation. Waay beyond my comprehension...
 
My wish is to sim the fillets (not just weight, but drag too) and 3D render them. Also, I would like the bugs in OR to be fixed.
 
Here are my first few:

1) Obvious stuff: support fins attached to fins, pods, tail rings, etc.

2) Don't crash on Mac when switching away from 3D views.

3) There should be a couple of state settings for each component, easily accessible in the main tree view:
a) Omit from simulation: some parts are there for appearance only, and they can confuse the simulation terribly. It would therefore be incredibly helpful to be able to designate certain parts as being for appearance only, and not included in the simulation.
b) Disable: sometimes you want to have a couple of variations of a part (e.g. perhaps you are experimenting with fin shape). I want to be able to completely disable some parts, so that they neither appear nor are simulated.

4) Right now, the appearance of each component is set individually. This makes it incredibly tedious to change theme colors. Let's say I have a red, white, and grey rocket like this:
new_ring3.png
It has 6 grey components and 2 red components. Now I want to change that grey. Well, I have to edit 6 components and change them all to the same new color. That is a ton of pointing and clicking, and it doesn't have to be that way. Instead, within a design you should be able to define a set of appearances, and then simply refer to them for each component. For this example, I'd define three theme appearances, for white, red, and grey, and I'll call them theme1, theme2, and theme3.

In the appearance editor for each component, I'd choose to select from available theme colors, rather than defining the color, shininess, etc. Now, if I want to change the grey to something else, I go and edit theme3, and after I change it, all the grey parts change automatically. Playing with color schemes now becomes easy and fun, rather than tedious.

That's enough for now, I'll add more in my next post.
 
Ok, I'm sick as a dog, and tired. I did search, and didn't find anything on this...

Support for the Jolly Logic Chute Release as an option for dual deploy. If there's a simple solution... Please do share.
 
Ok, I'm sick as a dog, and tired. I did search, and didn't find anything on this...

Support for the Jolly Logic Chute Release as an option for dual deploy. If there's a simple solution... Please do share.

Not really simple, but this is how I've been simming it:

* In the model, install a zero mass parachute set as per the size of the booster as per https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter361.pdf for drogueless deployment
* Set zero mass parachute to deploy at apogee or first ejection, depending on how you're set up
* Set a mass object the size and weight as the JL unit with the regular parachute bundle (for general weight and balance)
* Set up the "real" parachute to deploy at the same altitude as you want your JL unit to release

So far I've tried it twice. Once in my Leviathan and once in my Argent. Both times the sim has been pretty close.
 
Last edited:
Not really simple, but this is how I've been simming it:

* In the model, install a zero mass parachute set as per the size of the booster as per https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter361.pdf for drogueless deployment
* Set zero mass parachute to deploy at apogee or first ejection, depending on how you're set up
* Set a mass object the size and weight as the JL unit with the regular parachute bundle (for general weight and balance)
* Set up the "real" parachute to deploy at the same altitude as you want your JL unit to release

So far I've tried it twice. Once in my Leviathan and once in my Argent. Both times the sim has been pretty close.

Thanks!
 
Getting started with Open Rocket on an older computer running java version "1.6.0_65" I am able to run the old version 1.0.0 but not the most current version. I am guessing some version in between those may work. I can not find a version history of Open Rocket that specifically lists the java version requirements for each O.R. version, some release notes state a bug fix for a particular java version, but not for all versions of OR. Does anyone know where I can find that info of OR version and supported java version, or how to determine what is the latest version of OR that will run under java 1.6? I guess I can download them one by one and find out which version number no longer works, if that info is not readily available. Otherwise its back to the cardboard cut outs and swing tests for me. Many thanks!
 
Is Open Rocket still being developed? The last update was nearly a year ago. Wondering if it's time to bite the bullet and purchase RockSim.
 
Drogueless descent is impossible to simulate accurately because the descent speed can vary greatly depending on the orientation of the rocket parts as it comes down.
 
Getting started with Open Rocket on an older computer running java version "1.6.0_65" I am able to run the old version 1.0.0 but not the most current version. I am guessing some version in between those may work...

https://sourceforge.net/projects/openrocket/files/openrocket/
Well, I did not have to search very far, starting at the top of the list with 15.03, which does not work for me, I started working my way backwards and found the next older version 14.11 to work on under Mac OS X 10.7.5 with java 1.6

the 15.03 version dropped support for java 1.6, according to the release notes:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/openrocket/files/openrocket/15.03/ReleaseNotes/view
"OpenRocket now requires Java 1.7 for execution."

Going to try to work out a multi-stage mod to a classic rocket.

======update======
I found that I could download java 1.8 from https://java.com/en/
I did not realize that Apple Software Updates were no longer updating the JRE, and just found that java 1.8 was available for Mac OS X 10.7 from the Oracle java web site. So, now I can run Open Rocket 15.03 - cool beans! (java beans, of course)
 
Last edited:
I would like to see the ability to cant motor tubes and have it calculate the effect on the rocket of angling the motor thrust. I do a few rockets with fwd and canted motors. It would be nice for OR to do the calcs for me.
 
All I want to do is to be able to OPEN OpenRocket so I can try it out! I've got the current Java release (1.8.0_73-b02) but I cant get past the opening logo. I'll post this rant in the proper place, but since this thread is a wish list, this is mine! EDIT: Here's what I got when I tried to open OR with a cmd prompt:
OpenRocket fatal error.jpg
 
Last edited:
Another thing to add to the list...

And adjustment to allow launch lugs to be offset from the body tube (without using phantom body tubes). This would allow us to accurately sim launch lugs on rockets that have larger diameter body tubes (say a payload section), and transitions down to a narrower body tube.
 
Eddie,

I know its been a while but we are still working on Open Rocket. There's some nice new features being lined up, but unfortunately, I've been quite busy constructing and preparing for my L3.

Kevin

Is Open Rocket still being developed? The last update was nearly a year ago. Wondering if it's time to bite the bullet and purchase RockSim.
 
Mike,

Odds are you installed the wrong version of Java. Make certain you have the correct "bit" version - 32, or 64.

Kevin

All I want to do is to be able to OPEN OpenRocket so I can try it out! I've got the current Java release (1.8.0_73-b02) but I cant get past the opening logo. I'll post this rant in the proper place, but since this thread is a wish list, this is mine! EDIT: Here's what I got when I tried to open OR with a cmd prompt:
View attachment 284892
 
This is a long and pretty complete list, but one thing I'd love to be able to do (and maybe it can be done, I'm just not figuring it out)- export the simulation data table into Excel. I know it can be done (Select the Sim-> Plot/Export-> select variables), but I mean just the summary table- 2016-03-29_15-33-10.jpg. Would be helpful to sort and keep handy for motor selection.
 
This is a long and pretty complete list, but one thing I'd love to be able to do (and maybe it can be done, I'm just not figuring it out)- export the simulation data table into Excel. I know it can be done (Select the Sim-> Plot/Export-> select variables), but I mean just the summary table- View attachment 286684. Would be helpful to sort and keep handy for motor selection.


This, all day long. I'm tired of doing a screen shots and cutting and pasting to get the whole chart.
 
This, all day long. I'm tired of doing a screen shots and cutting and pasting to get the whole chart.

OR needs a batch simulator for motors or any other parameter(s) you wish to change in bulk. Until then, Thrustcurve will be the easiest way for motor selection, in my book.
 
My newest request for OR... Metal/Chrome/metal flake textures for simulating those on finished rockets.
 
My newest request for OR... Metal/Chrome/metal flake textures for simulating those on finished rockets.

You just reminded me. I think I have some GLSL code somewhere that gave a metal flake like effect that I used in an android game. Now I'm curious what OR uses code-wise for the 3D part. I really need to dig into that part of the code and see if I can come up with something.

I would add semi-transparent materials to the list as well. Plexiglass fins or actual clear payload bays would be cool.
 
Apologies, this is not a 'wish' item.
This thread was the closest thing I could find to an OR support/bug report forum.

For some reason, CTI K360 is lumped in with the J motors.
Confused the heck out of me for some time when I couldn't find it, I even visited CTI's website to check I wasn't going crazy.
I changed the filter from 'K' to 'J' and suddenly there it was.
 
Apologies, this is not a 'wish' item.
This thread was the closest thing I could find to an OR support/bug report forum.

For some reason, CTI K360 is lumped in with the J motors.
Confused the heck out of me for some time when I couldn't find it, I even visited CTI's website to check I wasn't going crazy.
I changed the filter from 'K' to 'J' and suddenly there it was.

OR may be listing it correctly. According to the motor data on RocketReviews, it's a 95% J at 1250N. Why it gets the name "1281K" I don't know. But it's a J.
https://www.rocketreviews.com/cti-1281-k360-wh-13a.html
 
Good point, that is very likely what is happening, tho it's not a 'J'
OR filter slider shows designation so really that's what it should be filtering. If a certifying authority says it's a 'K', then that's what it is.

Interestingly, OR's 'show details' tab for the motor lists it as 1280 (100% 'J')
However, Thrustcurve lists it as 1280.9, based on the CAR certificate, which does indeed make it a 'K', though only just scraping in.
My guess is OR rounded down instead of up.

Strangely, I am unable to find the details on the CAR cert page! https://www.canadianrocketry.org/motor_index.php
 
Back
Top