You have to get it from a plot or data export, along with many other useful data points. The way sim data is output right now is... well, let's just say "an area for future improvement".
ANNOUNCEMENT: OpenRocket version 22.02 Public Beta 5 is now available
- Thread starter neil_w
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,632
- Reaction score
- 1,361
All good - thanks for the quick response!
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2018
- Messages
- 768
- Reaction score
- 435
Only place I'm aware of.
Might be interesting to enhance the simulation output page with ability to add more fields, or certain fields for each booster (velocity at deployment, max velocity, max acceleration, time to apogee?, flight time?, ground hit velocity, maybe starting time/altitude/velocity?). Might make the screen busy and certainly scroll horizontal.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,632
- Reaction score
- 1,361
Hmm... So I'm attempting to eject either streamers or small parachutes from the two side boosters on the first stage. However, nothing I change on the recovery side of things (streamer vs parachute, length, deploys at _, etc seems to have any effect on the simulated descent velocity.
Yeah, that's the problem... current output format would be very unwieldy with a zillion columns. Constant horizontal scrolling is very unpleasant. Needs a rethink on how to present more comprehensive data in a more readable fashion.
In the meantime... Plot/Export.
I haven't played with side boosters too much, will need to get back to you on this. Can you provide the ORK file?
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2018
- Messages
- 768
- Reaction score
- 435
<shrugs> To some sure, to others maybe not. As long as its configurable by the user, outside of the base, then its all up to the user whether they want to see them or not.
That's the rub. Programming to fill in a pre-defined form with available data is relatively easy. Writing the code to allow the user to define the form and then cherry picking the data to match the form the user defined is a whole different level of programming complexity. Not that it can't be done, it's just several levels more complicated.
JoePfeiffer
OpenRocket Developer
Unfortunately, the only options at present are to do what you described, or else to export the booster's simulation branch as a csv and look at it on a spreadsheet.
We're trying to think of better ways to present more sim data...
SiboVG
OpenRocket Developer
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,632
- Reaction score
- 1,361
Thanks. And no big deal - the software is incredibly helpful as is. I just wondered if I was overlooking something.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
iirc weren't the Balsa Machining Service airframes in the parts data base on v.15? If they were why are they no longer there now, we also seem to be missing the Fliskits parts (tubes so far that I have seen.
Edit: I finally found them hidden under the "legacy database" and custom drop downs, IMO they should be in the current not legacy data base.
Edit: I finally found them hidden under the "legacy database" and custom drop downs, IMO they should be in the current not legacy data base.
The BMS stuff has been fixed post-beta5. I'm not sure of the status of the Fliskits parts, will find out.
JoePfeiffer
OpenRocket Developer
We don't really know how accurate the parts in the 15.03 database are (and there have been many, many complaints of errors) so they have all been marked as Legacy.
Dave Cook has taken great pains to ensure his database is accurate, and @hcraigmiller has similarly been very careful with parts he has added; these are the parts that are not marked Legacy.
Anyone who would like to go through some of the Legacy database parts and either verify or correct them is welcome to do so; after that happens we'll take the Legacy tag off.
Dave Cook has taken great pains to ensure his database is accurate, and @hcraigmiller has similarly been very careful with parts he has added; these are the parts that are not marked Legacy.
Anyone who would like to go through some of the Legacy database parts and either verify or correct them is welcome to do so; after that happens we'll take the Legacy tag off.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
Thank you Joe, nice thing about the BMS parts is they should be easier to verify as BMS has all the tube specs on their website ID OD wall thickness and length.
Has anyone run into a "Ransomware" during the installation of OR 22.02 beta?
I just tried to download and install it and my Virus and Malware program blocked it with these notes:
I could not open the file without running it under "admin".
I just really dont wont to go down the rabbit hole if it is indeed an issue or is it just my overly aggressive protection program.
(Trend Micro - I have been running for years and this is the first time I have been blocked on anything I was trying to install.)
I just tried to download and install it and my Virus and Malware program blocked it with these notes:
I could not open the file without running it under "admin".
I just really dont wont to go down the rabbit hole if it is indeed an issue or is it just my overly aggressive protection program.
(Trend Micro - I have been running for years and this is the first time I have been blocked on anything I was trying to install.)
waltr
Well-Known Member
I think it is just the overly paranoid protection software.
OpenRocket does not have a MS certificate and being a niche users it would not be known to Trend Micro.
In the OpenRocket folder I did the install are those .png files listed as 'changed'.
It does require Admin privileges and MS will ask a few times if you are sure you want this to install.
I've been using and installing OR since V15 without any issues.
OpenRocket does not have a MS certificate and being a niche users it would not be known to Trend Micro.
In the OpenRocket folder I did the install are those .png files listed as 'changed'.
It does require Admin privileges and MS will ask a few times if you are sure you want this to install.
I've been using and installing OR since V15 without any issues.
The final release, which is coming soon, will have proper certificates and should provide relief from this sort of ugliness.
One thing that has not been discussed much is how to obtain a download of the current version, safely. Because most anything can be cloned to look like the original site these days, "links" to OpenRocket downloads should generally be avoided (this is why the OpenRocket Wiki no longer contains a "direct link" to the download page). The safest way to navigate to the download page is either to click the openrocket.info link on the OpenRocket GitHub site or to navigate to the OpenRocket Info site by typing "openrocket.info" in your browser's search bar.
And, as neil_w related, the next release should have both Apple and Microsoft certificates.
Thank you, I followed the link from the first post. Once downloaded I received the notices above. I closed everything down and tried again with a new download with the same results.
My protection program did block the download and opening the exe file unless I did so under the admin profile.
Interesting is that after I closed the installer I found the Icon on my desktop. Clicking the Icon ran the program normally.
My protection program did block the download and opening the exe file unless I did so under the admin profile.
Interesting is that after I closed the installer I found the Icon on my desktop. Clicking the Icon ran the program normally.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2018
- Messages
- 768
- Reaction score
- 435
Safest way is to only download the .jar with the correct version of Java installed.
Even that is only safe if the .jar file hasn’t been maliciously altered. That is why the .jar file is also available for download at openrocket.info. That site should be the only place from which OpenRocket is downloaded (except .jar files are also available for download on the OpenRocket GitHub site).
ATTENTION: If anyone would like to help us test out the final release version of OR, please PM me. We would especially like to get a couple of folks running on Apple Silicon to test our new fancy-shmancy ARM-native build.
Release candidate will be ready for test within the next week or so.
Release candidate will be ready for test within the next week or so.
SiboVG
OpenRocket Developer
So if you like stress-testing and breaking OR, now's your chance!!
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2018
- Messages
- 768
- Reaction score
- 435
Oh boy
@SiboVG , fantastic job with the 3D work in Arm. It's working for me on the M1 w/Java 17 in my source builds, where it was not before.
Not sure how much a stress tester I am, but I have some pretty complex models. I'll try to load up the best/worst of them and poke around a bit. In general, the only big difference I saw between M1 MaxOS and x86-64 Linux up to now has been the lack of 3D view.
Not sure how much a stress tester I am, but I have some pretty complex models. I'll try to load up the best/worst of them and poke around a bit. In general, the only big difference I saw between M1 MaxOS and x86-64 Linux up to now has been the lack of 3D view.
I'm probably a bit late in this request, but I've found it a bit awkward to specify body tube sizes - specifically motor tubes, but the problem can appear elsewhere:
1. Add (or modify existing) internal tube.
2. There are (at least for me..) some default values. I change the units to mm for the internal dimension.
3. Specify a motor tube internal size - say 24mm
4. As it can be awkward to accurately measure O.D. I like to measure the thickness. Click on "wall thickness". Oops. The internal dimension goes back to whatever default was there. Enter the wall thickness.
5. The internal size now changes again. Re-enter the internal size. But it won't "stick".
Aargh.
It seems to want the external dimension, which is usually the one that I don't have. So I have to calculate the O.D. manually. Which seems odd that it won't self calculate. And after a few beers, this requires a calculator, as my math abilities start slipping.
It's not a killer, just a bit awkward.
Hans.
1. Add (or modify existing) internal tube.
2. There are (at least for me..) some default values. I change the units to mm for the internal dimension.
3. Specify a motor tube internal size - say 24mm
4. As it can be awkward to accurately measure O.D. I like to measure the thickness. Click on "wall thickness". Oops. The internal dimension goes back to whatever default was there. Enter the wall thickness.
5. The internal size now changes again. Re-enter the internal size. But it won't "stick".
Aargh.
It seems to want the external dimension, which is usually the one that I don't have. So I have to calculate the O.D. manually. Which seems odd that it won't self calculate. And after a few beers, this requires a calculator, as my math abilities start slipping.
It's not a killer, just a bit awkward.
Hans.
Just curious, are you using a commercial motor tube? If so, use a part from the preset library. Even if you are using a custom tube of some sort, you might still find it easier to start with (say) a standard 24mm tube.
But it is true that the tube entry is keyed to the outer diameter.... other values adjust around it.
Well, I'm sure it's a commercial tube. But I don't know what exactly because it just from loose parts in my spares box.
Realistically, it doesn't matter, as all that is affected is the mass, and that would be small. Last time I think I arbitrarily set O. D. to 25mm and inside to 24mm. Good 'nuff.
Hans.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War- Latest: jbsommerfeldt
-
-