Lost Features in RockSim

[jqavins]

I've just learned that two features of RockSim have been taken away in Version 11.

• There used to be a display of the static stability margin when the CP is computed for wind angles all around the rocket (in 2D). When the design is not circularly symmetrical the CP varies relative to wind angle, and this view shows where any shortcomings are, i.e. where this fin is sufficient from the wind angle that faces it, but this other one needs to be bigger. I see it as critical for things like space planes, rockets with pods on some fins but not all of them, etc.
• There used to be text based help files. They're gone. Now, the only way to get help is to write to Apogee or sift through a bunch of videos.

I'm upset about both of these losses, and I'd like to know who else is or upset or isn't. If the reactions are as I anticipate, I'll share them with Apogee and hope they get the message.

 

[Antares JS]

I've just learned that two features of RockSim have been taken away in Version 11.

• There used to be a display of the static stability margin when the CP is computed for wind angles all around the rocket (in 2D). When the design is not circularly symmetrical the CP varies relative to wind angle, and this view shows where any shortcomings are, i.e. where this fin is sufficient from the wind angle that faces it, but this other one needs to be bigger. I see it as critical for things like space planes, rockets with pods on some fins but not all of them, etc.
• There used to be text based help files. They're gone. Now, the only way to get help is to write to Apogee or sift through a bunch of videos.

I'm upset about both of these losses, and I'd like to know who else is or upset or isn't. If the reactions are as I anticipate, I'll share them with Apogee and hope they get the message.

The former especially seems like a strange thing to take away when Apogee deals in Shrockets and their own in-house X-15.

 

[jqavins]

For their own designs, they probably use RSPro in house, which is RockSim's 6DoF big brother that's too expensive for most people. Does it have this display? I don't know.

 

[dvdsnyd]

Have you emailed Tim @ Apogee to get his thoughts and reasoning?

 

[manixFan]

It seems like those features likely meet the criteria for two big reasons features are removed – they are too expensive to maintain or they don't function the way they should. The help files are likely difficult to keep up to date and consume a lot of time and money to stay current. I can make a demo video in far less time than it takes to write it up. And my guess is that lots of folks don't read the docs anyway – they very likely head to Youtube when they need help. (I may be guilty of that.) And it's possible that the multi-angle stability display was inaccurate enought that they decided to drop it.

Or, the 2D plot is available in the more expensive pro version and they want folks who need it to upgrade to that.

But I'm with @dvdsnyd – email Tim and see if you can get a response regarding the reasons.


Tony

EDIT: I see on Apogee's website that Tim hosts Rocksim training sessions every Friday afternoon on Youtube. So at least he does seem to be making an effort to reach out to users.

 

[jqavins]

Have you emailed Tim @ Apogee to get his thoughts and reasoning?

I haven't yet. I needed the 2D stability plot yesterday, only to find that it's not where it used to be. So I looked for the help files to see where it is now, and couldn't find those. So I emailed Apogee to ask where both of them are, and got a response today telling me that they are both gone.

I did respond that I and others would miss them and I think it was a mistake to remove them. But I didn't ask why they were removed. I thought it better to back up the "and others" part before writing "Why did you take away things that all these people want?" or words to that extent. Hence the poll.

As to accuracy of the plot, I sure hope that's not the reason, as the plot is just a visual of what the program is doing anyway; the margin shown on the main design screen is the minimum value from the plot.

 

[ljwilley]

I'm sticking with rocksim 10 because you have to pay for 11.

 

[manixFan]

I haven't yet. I needed the 2D stability plot yesterday, only to find that it's not where it used to be. So I looked for the help files to see where it is now, and couldn't find those. So I emailed Apogee to ask where both of them are, and got a response today telling me that they are both gone.

I did respond that I and others would miss them and I think it was a mistake to remove them. But I didn't ask why they were removed. I thought it better to back up the "and others" part before writing "Why did you take away things that all these people want?" or words to that extent. Hence the poll.

As to accuracy of the plot, I sure hope that's not the reason, as the plot is just a visual of what the program is doing anyway; the margin shown on the main design screen is the minimum value from the plot.

Well if the plot accuracy was not the issue, it could be they want folks to upgrade then. It is hard to understand otherwise. Please keep us updated.


Tony

 

[jqavins]

I've added a poll response "I am not a RockSim user." I guess that should have been not a RockSim 11 user. Anyone who answered "I don't care about either" due to not being a affected, please be so kind as to change your vote to the new one.

Thanks.

 

[NTP2]

I've added a poll response "I am not a RockSim user." I guess that should have been not a RockSim 11 user. Anyone who answered "I don't care about either" due to not being a affected, please be so kind as to change your vote to the new one.

Thanks.

Can I still vote on the one I feel they should keep, I wish open rocket had that 2D one.

 

[neil_w]

What did the 2D view look like exactly? Anyone got a screenshot?

 

[sr205347d]

What did the 2D view look like exactly? Anyone got a screenshot?

Look in the Peak of Flight newsletters.

 

[sr205347d]

I think the 2D display was likely very confusing for too many people.

 

[neil_w]

Look in the Peak of Flight newsletters.

Sorry not interested in looking through the vast number of POF issues devoted to Rocksim to find what I'm looking for. If you can point me to a specific issue I'll be happy to go look there.

 

[manixFan]

What did the 2D view look like exactly? Anyone got a screenshot?

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Peak-of-Flight/Newsletter545


Tony

googled: "peak of flight newsletter 2d stability display"

 

[Buckeye]

I recall seeing CNa reported in previous versions as well, but that no longer exists in v10, maybe earlier.

These data were probably too confusing for most users, generated lots of calls, and so Apogee eliminated them.

 

[neil_w]

These data were probably too confusing for most users, generated lots of calls, and so Apogee eliminated them.

It’s a good idea but it really is confusing to interpret. I think the data presentation has (or had) room for improvement.

The data it provides is quite useful though, for asymmetrical designs.

 

[cls]

I sure used the stability diagram, especially on asymmetrical designs. Never had any trouble reading it.

But I can see, in a world of folks that wonder about a 1 dimensional index like calibers of Cg over Cp, 2 dimensions would be mind blowing.

Could we add it to OR?

 

[neil_w]

I sure used the stability diagram, especially on asymmetrical designs. Never had any trouble reading it.

But I can see, in a world of folks that wonder about a 1 dimensional index like calibers of Cg over Cp, 2 dimensions would be mind blowing.

Could we add it to OR?

I’m not sure if there’s an existing feature request for it. Feel like adding one on GitHub?

 

[jqavins]

Can I still vote on the one I feel they should keep, I wish open rocket had that 2D one.

I'd rather you didn't. I want to present to Apogee a poll of RS users. If you want it in OR, talk to the OR developers. One of whom has already asked about it here in this thread.

 

[jqavins]

I think the 2D display was likely very confusing for too many people.

It’s a good idea but it really is confusing to interpret. I think the data presentation has (or had) room for improvement.

The data it provides is quite useful though, for asymmetrical designs.

I agree that there is considerable room for improvement. I found it a little confusing at first too. In case it needs any clarification:

The improvements that come to my mind are:

• Use a real polar plot instead of the green and red lines.
  • I don't know why it used lines like that. Do they represent a margin of error? If so, the polar plot curve could be a band.
• Add a circle that represents margin = 0.
• Eliminate some of the rocket aft view's detail. Show all the fins and the items they are attached to, be it a tube or a pod, and omit the rest.

As I recall, I didn't pay much for the upgrade from RS 10 to 11. This feature had been one of the features I valued in RS as opposed to OR, and I'm upset to find that I paid and lost this. The other feature RS has over OR is ring tails (or is it tube fins? I just can't keep that straight.) If OR implements this, I would not pay for the next paid RS update, and I'll just have to live without ring tails (except I'm pretty sure that's a feature you're already working on).

 

[NTP2]

I agree that there is considerable room for improvement. I found it a little confusing at first too. In case it needs any clarification:
View attachment 677469
The improvements that come to my mind are:

• Use a real polar plot instead of the green and red lines.
  • I don't know why it used lines like that. Do they represent a margin of error? If so, the polar plot curve could be a band.
• Add a circle that represents margin = 0.
• Eliminate some of the rocket aft view's detail. Show all the fins and the items they are attached to, be it a tube or a pod, and omit the rest.

As I recall, I didn't pay much for the upgrade from RS 10 to 11. This feature had been one of the features I valued in RS as opposed to OR, and I'm upset to find that I paid and lost this. The other feature RS has over OR is ring tails (or is it tube fins? I just can't keep that straight.) If OR implements this, I would not pay for the next paid RS update, and I'll just have to live without ring tails (except I'm pretty sure that's a feature you're already working on).

OR does have tube fins, but no ring fins.

ps come and join the dark side of open source

 

[neil_w]

The improvements that come to my mind are:

• Use a real polar plot instead of the green and red lines.
  • I don't know why it used lines like that. Do they represent a margin of error? If so, the polar plot curve could be a band.

That is possibly the part I find most confusing. It feels like the stability margin should be a line, not a fuzzy band, which actually obscures the "stability=1" line.

• Add a circle that represents margin = 0.
• Eliminate some of the rocket aft view's detail. Show all the fins and the items they are attached to, be it a tube or a pod, and omit the rest

Hmm, I'm going to give a "maybe" to both of these. I think for sure it's something that needs to be played with and tweaked, and possibly some creative approaches need to be taken to make it both (a) useful and (b) easy to understand. It is not a simple problem, and I don't fault Rocksim for not exactly "nailing it". But I'd want something better before it went into OR.

 

[jqavins]

Another improvement I forgot to add: put a legend on the screen.

I'd want something better before it went into OR.

I assume that means adding it to a developmental version, improving the design, and making a beta release?

 

[NTP2]

That is possibly the part I find most confusing. It feels like the stability margin should be a line, not a fuzzy band, which actually obscures the "stability=1" line.

Hmm, I'm going to give a "maybe" to both of these. I think for sure it's something that needs to be played with and tweaked, and possibly some creative approaches need to be taken to make it both (a) useful and (b) easy to understand. It is not a simple problem, and I don't fault Rocksim for not exactly "nailing it". But I'd want something better before it went into OR.

what about something like this?

 

[jqavins]

Interesting. Shaded regions did not occur to me. Maybe at lunch time I'll draw what I was thinking of, but now I have to do the work I get paid for.

 

[sr205347d]

An easily understood presentation could be done by adding a slider to the top and side view diagrams. As you move the slider, the rocket would rotate in roll, and the CP would move according to the viewing angle.

 

[NTP2]

Interesting. Shaded regions did not occur to me. Maybe at lunch time I'll draw what I was thinking of, but now I have to do the work I get paid for.

 

[neil_w]

Another improvement I forgot to add: put a legend on the screen.
View attachment 677475

I assume that means adding it to a developmental version, improving the design, and making a beta release?

Well, we would want to get it to a point where we're at least somewhat happy with it before exposing it to the world, although anyone can grab the JAR file from a work-in-progress PR and try it out at any time.

 

[neil_w]

An easily understood presentation could be done by adding a slider to the top and side view diagrams. As you move the slider, the rocket would rotate in roll, and the CP would move according to the viewing angle.

Thank you for the reminder.

OK everyone, time to get your mind blown. Try this:

1) Open up a nice asymmetrical design in OR. A 2-finned rocket is a good one.
2) Make sure "Show CG/CP" is checked.
3) Open up Tools -> Component analysis. Make sure it is not blocking the Rocket Figure display.
4) Drag the "Wind direction" slider back and forth.

OK, maybe not exactly mind blowing but I'm going to guess, at the very least, surprising. It was not that long ago that I learned about this. Perhaps I will create a tutorial about it.

This does not negate the appeal of some sort of polar plot, but it does mean that you can accomplish the same exact thing right now, albeit in a somewhat non-obvious way.

Video provided for those unable to try it themselves right now.

View attachment component_analysis.mp4