ANNOUNCEMENT: OpenRocket version 22.02 Public Beta 5 is now available

Tractionengines

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
700
Reaction score
594
Location
Northeast Ohio
I was playing at lunch, and have a question. The question is on the SIMs for a comparison of a 3 motor cluster where all 3 motors light, and the same with the ignition of one outboard motor set to never. This gives a flight with 2of3 motors working. It does give the correct lift-off weight, landing weight, etc. and seems to give answers that could be correct. Just wondering if anyone has looked into this as believable or not. The 2 images below are the configuration 2nd row has 1 motor ignition set to never, and the main simulation page. Note ~2/3 of altitude, acceleration, etc. and higher landing velocity... is the OFF-AXIS thrust taken into account at all by OpenRocket?

2of3_Motors_Config.jpg 2of3_Motors_SIMs.jpg

This is the graphs for a "normal" flight.
3of3_Motors_Alt_Vel_Acc.jpg 3of3_Motors_Side_View.jpg 3of3_Motors_Stability-Time.jpg

This is the graphs for a "non-normal" flight with only 2 motors.
2of3_Motors_Alt_Vel_Acc.jpg 2of3_Motors_Side_View.jpg 2of3_Motors_Stability-Time.jpg

It's "odd" that at 2/3 of altitude the horizontal travel at apogee is approximately the same (200ft into 5mph wind). It makes sense to me that there will be more horizontal travel per unit of vertical travel with the off-axes thrust, but I would think it would be even more than this.

I did switch which of the POD motos didn't light, and the horizontal distance was a little more with the windward side not lit, than when the leeward side was not lit.

Thanks to helping me think thru this...

Mike
 

JoePfeiffer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
385
Reaction score
370
No, OR doesn't take off-axis thrust into account. I'm a little surprised that which motor you shut off made a difference in your results.
 
Last edited:

Tractionengines

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
700
Reaction score
594
Location
Northeast Ohio
Joe, Thanks for the confirmation: I figured the speed off rail and descent velocity were good, time to apogee may be "kind of" close.

I expected the flight side profile, and stability, to be off, but when it was changing based on which engines I set to never ignite, it made me start wondering.
 

4regt4

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
367
Reaction score
160
Location
Southern Oregon
Not sure if this is the correct thread to report this...

Seems to be what I *think* is a data error. (could be computational, but I doubt it)

Had a rocket come down this weekend on a very late ejection delay. Looking at the sim using an AT 24/40 F39W, it shows a time to apogee as 7.92s and optimum delay of 7.86s. So all I had was a 9 second delay, flew with that. Hey, only a second too long. But it came in scary fast before chute ejected. Altimeter showed time to apogee was 7.3s, as it didn't quite reach projected altitude. To make matters worse, it appears I got a bit of "bonus delay" of nearly 2 seconds. But of course there is nothing the sim could do to forecast that.

Looking at other motor sims for the same rocket, the optimum delay that is calculated for nearly all the rest is very close to (Time to apogee) - (Burn time). Which seems reasonable. But for the F39W, that would give a delay of 6.67s, not the 7.86s shown on the printout.

If it is a data error, you might also look at the AT 29/40-120 F22J. Shows time to apogee 8.94s, burn time 3.14s, optimum delay 7.31s. If you subtract the burn from the time to apogee, you get 5.8s.

Hans.
 

JoePfeiffer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
385
Reaction score
370
Looking at other motor sims for the same rocket, the optimum delay that is calculated for nearly all the rest is very close to (Time to apogee) - (Burn time). Which seems reasonable. But for the F39W, that would give a delay of 6.67s, not the 7.86s shown on the printout.

If it is a data error, you might also look at the AT 29/40-120 F22J. Shows time to apogee 8.94s, burn time 3.14s, optimum delay 7.31s. If you subtract the burn from the time to apogee, you get 5.8s.
The optimum delay is the time to apogee minus the burn time, so this doesn't sound right. Please post your .ork file so we can take a look at it (I may not be able to look until next week, but the other team members should be around in the mean time).
 

SolarYellow

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
353
Reaction score
185
Location
First country to put a man on the moon.
I would love it if there was a way to export the simulation results summary table as a .csv. I tend to try out a lot of motors, and it would be nice to be able to save that table and play with it in Excel. For example, indicating the short list of particularly good matches, highlighting bad ones, adding comments, etc.

I could just delete the bad ones, but then my little terrier brain will want to go back and try them again, which wastes time. I leave them in the file to keep a log of what I've tried that didn't look good, but I'd also like to be able to produce a compact list of just the good ones.
 

Charles_McG

Ciderwright
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
1,561
Location
SE Wisconsin
It would also be a way to compare design changes- at least externally.

I’ve already submitted this, as well as the option to pick more column, as a feature request.
 

thzero

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
626
Reaction score
367
I would love it if there was a way to export the simulation results summary table as a .csv. I tend to try out a lot of motors, and it would be nice to be able to save that table and play with it in Excel. For example, indicating the short list of particularly good matches, highlighting bad ones, adding comments, etc.

I could just delete the bad ones, but then my little terrier brain will want to go back and try them again, which wastes time. I leave them in the file to keep a log of what I've tried that didn't look good, but I'd also like to be able to produce a compact list of just the good ones.

Submit a pull request!
 

Charles_McG

Ciderwright
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
1,561
Location
SE Wisconsin

JoePfeiffer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
385
Reaction score
370
I'm wondering how hard it would be to implement an option to 'release' (disable/not count) one chute when a later one is deployed. I'm thinking a checkbox in the design window. Maybe fancier recovery configuration options.
It shouldn't be too hard... I'd generally like he some fancier options -- being able to separate the payload section will be another.
 

4regt4

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
367
Reaction score
160
Location
Southern Oregon
The optimum delay is the time to apogee minus the burn time, so this doesn't sound right. Please post your .ork file so we can take a look at it (I may not be able to look until next week, but the other team members should be around in the mean time).
I can't replicate the issue....

My computer crashed sometime after printing out the sims for the Aerotech Cheetah. Upon reopening OR, it seems I didn't save the Cheetah file after loading a few motors to sim. So I added them back in. It now looks like the delays are more reasonable. The 24/40 F39W still looks slightly off, but it's much closer now.

What might have happened is that I could have done the sims with 22.02. Beta 2. I have the printouts, nothing that I now do to the Cheetah file agrees with those printouts. The file itself was ported from AT's published RocSim file and not modified except for a 0.7 oz adjustment to the mass. Weird.

Hans.
 

smstachwick

LPR/MPR sport flier with an eye to HPR and scale
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
2,282
Reaction score
2,045
Location
Poway, CA
Where should I go with a feature request? The ability to optimize for delay time would be useful for a few things I’m thinking about.
 

H. Craig Miller

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
398
Reaction score
820
Location
Placer County, California
OpenRocket already provides the optimal delay for a specific flight configuration on the Flight simulations tab.

Where should I go with a feature request? The ability to optimize for delay time would be useful for a few things I’m thinking about.

What are you thinking of where you would optimize specifically for delay time?
 

H. Craig Miller

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
398
Reaction score
820
Location
Placer County, California

ANNOUNCEMENT: OpenRocket version 22.02 Public Beta 5 is now available​

Download: https://openrocket.info/downloads.html?vers=22.02.beta.05

Financial contributions: https://opencollective.com/openrocket

Full release notes: https://openrocket.info/release_notes.html

Ongoing discussion and support: https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...-is-now-available.171295/page-21#post-2327284

Reporting new issues: https://github.com/openrocket/openrocket/issues

Wiki User's Guide: http://wiki.openrocket.info/Main_Page


Please review the release notes and outstanding issues before opening a new issue that you discovered or experienced prior to the release of OpenRocket 22.02 beta 5.
 
Last edited:

neil_w

OpenRocketeer
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
14,510
Reaction score
7,998
Location
Northern NJ
The first few posts in this thread are now up-to-date with the latest and greatest info regarding Beta 5.

I wanted to repeat, in case gets lost in the shuffle, that the OpenRocket project is now accepting donations to fund our ongoing operations. For more details see https://openrocket.info/donate.html. Of course, donations are entirely voluntary, and OpenRocket remains free to use for everyone.
 

thzero

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
626
Reaction score
367
"Starting with the 2022 release, we will be distributing OR primarily as a packaged application for Windows, Mac, and Linux."

Gah...

Otherwise good idea.
 

H. Craig Miller

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
398
Reaction score
820
Location
Placer County, California
For use with Beta 5 and higher.

To assist those who wish to use the Estes motor hooks in their designs, a 13mm (mini) and 18mm (standard) motor mount file is attached. Although there is a pending issue for the creation of a freeform mass component to replace this freeform fin hack, until that is done users need to be aware that this hack negatively affects flight performance. In other words, OpenRocket will not correctly simulate the flight of a rocket using this outer component hack to simulate an inner component that is aerodynamically ignored, without adjusting the engine hook Cd.

As an adjustment to partially correct for the increase in Cd caused by the use of this hack, beginning with Beta 5, OpenRocket allows a negative value Cd override so that the user can match pre and post engine hook use performance by overriding the engine hook Cd with a negative value. However, because the Cd changes throughout a flight, this engine hook Cd override value is motor specific.

This is how to use one of the motor mount files. . . cut and paste the circled parts to the last outer airframe component (tube or transition) in your design; the fore diameter of the transition in the motor mount file should always be set to auto.

MMT.png

The proper use of these files will not trigger a discontinuity warning, but will trigger zero length and jagged edge warnings.
 

Attachments

  • Estes 18mm Motor Mount-Hook.ork
    3.3 KB · Views: 0
  • Estes 13mm Motor Mount-Hook.ork
    3.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

JoePfeiffer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
385
Reaction score
370
"Starting with the 2022 release, we will be distributing OR primarily as a packaged application for Windows, Mac, and Linux."

Gah...

Otherwise good idea.
The .jar is still available. We don't foresee changing that.
 

neil_w

OpenRocketeer
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
14,510
Reaction score
7,998
Location
Northern NJ
If you have Java 11 installed on your Raspberry Pi, then I think you can run the JAR file. 3D stuff will be non-functional, though (right now it’s x86-specific).
 

cls

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
344
If you have Java 11 installed on your Raspberry Pi, then I think you can run the JAR file. 3D stuff will be non-functional, though (right now it’s x86-specific).

Thanks. Tried it, things like the file open dialogue cause it to crash, etc. I didn't understand that OR needs native libs installed.
 

BEC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,873
Reaction score
1,686
Location
Auburn, WA
What is required for it to run on ARM, my Raspberry Pi?
f you have Java 11 installed on your Raspberry Pi, then I think you can run the JAR file. 3D stuff will be non-functional, though (right now it’s x86-specific).
Same question for a new Mac using an M1 or M2 ("Apple silicon") processor. I don't have one of these, but after seeing how screamingly fast my wife's new M2 MacBook Air is, I may move replacing this 15 inch MacBook Pro up a bit in priority....

I will admit, however, that I haven't even started playing with OR 22.02 at all yet, so this question certainly doesn't need an answer in the near term. However, I did just download the Mac .dmg file for beta 5 and will play with it some in the next couple of days.

Thanks to all for huge amounts of work on this!!!
 
Last edited:

K'Tesh

OpenRocket Chuck Norris
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
20,298
Reaction score
11,338
Little confused about the contribution vs backer thing... I would have selected backer but for the "fine print"

Contribution Summary

Contribution to OpenRocket$5.00 USD


Today's charge$5.00 USD

If you select PayPal, you will be charged on the same day each month. Otherwise the next charge will be on September 1, 2023 and then the first day of the same month each year. You can cancel or edit this contribution by going to 'Manage Contributions'.
I was going to select a yearly contribution but the "same day each month" part confused me, and as much as I love OR, I can't afford to be contributing $600 per year ($50/month) towards it.
 
Top