Error in OpenRocket

SiboVG

OpenRocket Developer
Joined
Feb 27, 2022
Messages
68
Reaction score
93
Location
Leuven, Belgium
I just loaded the beta.05 again. Pulled up my Level One rocket, clicked the Photo Studio, and got the same bug report that I got when I uploaded beta.05 in late September... :facepalm:

I get that same error report with my other designs also.

View attachment 544421
Yes, the bug has been fixed after the 22.02.beta.05 release. So the bug will be gone in the next OR release.
 

astronwolf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
445
Reaction score
158
See https://github.com/openrocket/openrocket/releases for the release notes.

FWIW, my opinion about "direction" (I can't speak to what astronwolf meant.) I'm sure all the changes are well-intentioned and desirable. They just weren't things that made me want to mess with upgrading from Java 8 to later versions (I use Linux and maybe that's easy and maybe not.) I don't use OR for visual rendering, and while I'm sure the UX changes are less confusing, I was mostly used to the way 15.03 worked. If I need to use boosters or pods I will go to the effort to upgrade.

I'd be more interested in features to simulate extreme flights, including wind modeling, impact dispersion, better supersonic modeling, etc. There's some work on dispersion being done with a 15.03 fork, I forget where that work was being done, I read about it on arocket in the last couple of years.

My perception of the "direction" OR took after 15.03 seemed like further development was making OR to be more like RocSim. I had no use for added features like drop-off boosters, pods, ring tails, and whatnot. I liked that OR up to 15.03 limited design to what can be simulated well, so I stayed with that version. It's just my preference.
 

SiboVG

OpenRocket Developer
Joined
Feb 27, 2022
Messages
68
Reaction score
93
Location
Leuven, Belgium
My perception of the "direction" OR took after 15.03 seemed like further development was making OR to be more like RocSim. I had no use for added features like drop-off boosters, pods, ring tails, and whatnot. I liked that OR up to 15.03 limited design to what can be simulated well, so I stayed with that version. It's just my preference.
For me, the 22.02 release is mostly about rebuilding the OR foundations in two parts: bumping Java 8 to Java 11, and improving the user experience.

1. Switching to Java 11 (and eventually Java 17) is a logical move, because Java 8 will eventually slow down and block development. For instance, I installed the new macOS last week (Ventura), which breaks support with OR 15.03, due to Java 8 compatibility issues. The 22.02 beta runs just fine on Ventura with Java 11.
Now let it be clear: the switch from Java 8 to Java 11 was not easy. It caused (and still does in some areas) a lot of bugs. For example simulation scripting was broken for some time because the JavaScript scripting engine was not supported anymore in Java 11. Also OR's 3D rendering engine suffers from the switch to an updated 3D library. (don't get me started on that)
2. It is true that some users wanted more complex modelling features to be included in the next release. However, I'm a strong advocate of not overcomplicating your program before you get the basics right. And in terms of user experience and general UI, OR 15.03 lacked a lot of basics... OR 22.02 will hopefully make the life of a lot of designers more easy, and also attract new users (I especially hope that our UX efforts will be useful in STEM education programs that make use of OpenRocket).

Now, all your requests are perfectly valid and we are genuinely happy to hear them, but unfortunately for now, you'll have to make do with what we offer for OpenRocket version 22.02. If all goes well, the next release will again be more focussed on improving and extending simulations and modelling.

Final note: I'm talking about rebuilding foundations, but that does not mean that OR 22.02 is the most stable we can get it. There are still fundamental issues, mostly with out 3D engine (which will get a full rewrite after 22.02) and general UI. But we're doing our best, given how small our development team is :)
 

cls

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,814
Reaction score
480
Now let it be clear: the switch from Java 8 to Java 11 was not easy. It caused (and still does in some areas) a lot of bugs.

Good ole Java, write once, debug everywhere. I admire your bravery. Seriously, thanks for OR work.
 

thzero

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
755
Reaction score
429
Yeah that scripting resolution, and don't think we are totally happy with it, was a nuisance.

Would like to see the project moved to Gradle over the aging Ant as some point.
 
Top