- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 22,537
- Reaction score
- 14,950
Pretty sure I know this. I'm guessing it didn't save and reopen properly.
It is still not clear to me if they intend to or not.
Slightly different design, same approach:
View attachment 327964
Nice idea, by the way. Definitely opens up some possibilities.
Does the Cd and CP get calculated correctly?
Almost certainly not.
Appearance is a thing you can simulate .Then this exercise is meaningless for a rocket simulation software. For fancy renderings only, I would turn to Autodesk, or for the OpenSource crowd, Blender. Seem easier that way.
Then this exercise is meaningless for a rocket simulation software. For fancy renderings only, I would turn to Autodesk, or for the OpenSource crowd, Blender. Seem easier that way.
My wish would be the ability to exclude parts for the purpose of flight simming. So I could take one of Jim's really accurate kit-sims and uncheck the parts that aren't flight-sim critical without having to delete them entirely.
Jim, if I understand your 'one pod only, sir' request, it's [partly] so you can split pods and put different decals on them. Full single-pod function might be most flexible, but if that's too much of a challenge for the developers (handling lopsided rockets), then maybe there's a middle ground. Split the pods, so they can be finished differently, but not allow them to be deleted (or have fin-on-pod or pod-on-pod edits). Not fully flexible. Maybe easier to implement and at least partly useful to an advanced kit-simmer like yourself?
As far as I can understand, the existing requirement for at least two pods, symmetrically arranged, is to handle the case when motors are placed in the pods (to keep thrust centered). However, pods have vastly more usage than just for outboard motors. Unfortunately the whole implementation is really geared for outboard motors, but with a few small accommodations it should be able to handle a pretty wide variety of designs.
obligate pod plurality
If the implementation is outboard motor focused, it seems like a (relatively) simple accommodation would be to disable the mounting of motors in pod groups when n<2. [Not having seen the code ]
That is an awesome turn of phrase, gotta use that somewhere (maybe a future rocket name).
I don't think OR has ever been exclusively about flight simulation. It handles lots of interior tubes, disks and parts that yes, contribute to Cg - but don't have to be rendered in semi-transparent views, like OR does. And can be faked with a master weight/Cg override. Nor is decal handling necessary. Or the in-flight photo generation.
My wish would be the ability to exclude parts for the purpose of flight simming. So I could take one of Jim's really accurate kit-sims and uncheck the parts that aren't flight-sim critical without having to delete them entirely.
Jim, if I understand your 'one pod only, sir' request, it's [partly] so you can split pods and put different decals on them. Full single-pod function might be most flexible, but if that's too much of a challenge for the developers (handling lopsided rockets), then maybe there's a middle ground. Split the pods, so they can be finished differently, but not allow them to be deleted (or have fin-on-pod or pod-on-pod edits). Not fully flexible. Maybe easier to implement and at least partly useful to an advanced kit-simmer like yourself?
Is there an actual beta program or is it just a GitHub sync that needs to be done?
I understand how pods can be creatively used. I guess I was thinking back to Jim's first venting about obligate pod plurality. A year or so ago, I think.
That is an awesome turn of phrase, gotta use that somewhere (maybe a future rocket name).
If the implementation is outboard motor focused, it seems like a (relatively) simple accommodation would be to disable the mounting of motors in pod groups when n<2. [Not having seen the code ]
I suggested that as well. It's probably a bit easier said than done. We'll see where it all ends up.
That is an awesome turn of phrase, gotta use that somewhere (maybe a future rocket name).
Then this exercise is meaningless for a rocket simulation software. For fancy renderings only, I would turn to Autodesk, or for the OpenSource crowd, Blender. Seem easier that way.
If you do build a rocket with that name, it needs to have about 8 pods. Just sayin'.
Also, everyone is talking about pods, but I'm not seeing how to get pods at all (let alone pods with motors) in release 15.03. I want two, so am safe from obligate pod plurality rules. Can anyone point the way? Thanks!
That's not why you need single pods... that's why you need that bug fixed.
Enter your email address to join: