Rocksim 10

[roytyson]

I hope that one of the things they fix is the Mac installation. I have never been able to get it to run on my current machine (and no, I haven't gone to the much-hated-by-developers Catalina version of macOs). It does run on the cheapo Lenovo Win10 laptop I use in the field for downloading altimeter data, albeit slowly. I'd really like it to run here....

I finally got mine to work today with the latest Catalina. I deleted every old file of Rocksim I could find. Follow the instructions provided about bypassing Gatekeeper, redownloaded it, and it worked like a charm. PM me if I can help.

 

[Buckeye]

In case anybody from Apogee is lurking on this thread, here is another annoyance that the new programmer can fix.

Switching between units is not correct. If you switch from lbs to kg back to lbs, you don't get the same value. I remember from my programming days that there is a right way and a wrong way to code unit conversions. I think Rocksim is doing it the wrong way.

 

[kuririn]

Just got the email.
Rocksim 10 is now available.

 

[g.pitts]

Just installed on Windows 10. Win10 complains that it's an unknown app, and also Norton flagged it (allowed me to bypass it's objections).

Nice new animated splash screen!

 

[Fattbank64]

Just installed on Windows 10. Win10 complains that it's an unknown app, and also Norton flagged it (allowed be to bypass it's objections).

Nice new animated splash screen!

According to the video on Apogee's website, disable anti-malware programs before upgrading.

 

[g.pitts]

According to the video on Apogee's website, disable anti-malware programs before upgrading.

In my particular situation, not doing so yielded a working installation. As they say, your mileage may vary...

 

[Hangfire]

Pretty underwhelming for a full upgrade. I am guessing mostly internal changes. Still requires a work around on high resolution displays to get fonts displaying right. Still I love the software.

 

[Fattbank64]

I upgraded from v9 to v10 yet the previous version remained activated after the upgrade was activated for Windows 10. I attempted to change RKT file properties from v9 to v10. However, the program-to-open file link was not changed until v9 was uninstalled. Tim said v9 would be immediately inactivated when the v10 activation number v10 was generated.

 

[BEC]

Have successfully upgraded and gotten it installed on my MacBook Pro (running High Sierra). I could never, even with all their help, get version 9 to run here. It installed alongside the last V9 attempt but does not seem to use anything from that folder.

I then entered the Windows download link (from the web page, open on my Mac) into my little Win10 Lenovo that I take to the field and keep in the hobby room. This machine had an functioning copy of V9 on it. After calming Windows down about the program from an unknown publisher and installing it, this installation wanted to merge libraries with what was already there, which I did. I was then able to activate the V10 installation pretty painlessly and quickly verified it seems to be running there as well.

I wish there was some way to change the proportions between the components window and the window showing the view of the rocket short of pulling them into separate windows....as on the relatively small screen of the little Lenovo the view of the rocket is pretty tiny. But I'll learn to adapt, I suppose. See screen shot below.

Version 9 does still seem to run on the Windows machine. Apparently I never associated .rkt files to an application on the Windows box. Having just done so and making the association with Rocksim 10, it looks like double-clicking on .rkt files will open the new version.

 

[Fattbank64]

Version 9 does still seem to run on the Windows machine. Apparently I never associated .rkt files to an application on the Windows box. Having just done so and making the association with Rocksim 10, it looks like double-clicking on .rkt files will open the new version.

A customer service rep emailed about the program monitors activation periodically and would eventually deactivate itself.

 

[ghostfather]

Mine works well enough on my two laptops, but I was disappointed that it still has Windows scaling not fixed, as one of my laptops has a 4K screen. Only old Windows programs seem to have this problem, so there's probably some old code, or some library needed for compatibility with the Mac.

Nice that the motor library is more up-to-date, though I have to change all my motors that I have linked (or import the old files). Also a few motors missing, like the CTI 2grain classic H125, which I fly often. Again, no big deal, I've added it manually.

The libraries of materials and objects are more up-to-date as well, though I miss the PML phenolic tubes. Strange, 'cuz Rocksim has the PML plastic nosecones in it's database.

The suggested motors feature is nice, though it would be great to have more filters, like maximal length of motor. If my short rocket can only take a two grain motor, I dont need to see 40+ motors from 3grains and upwards.

I'll try it out on some rocksim files that seems to break rocksim 9, such as with short transition/tailcone on a Thunderbird 3 upscale.

 

[ghostfather]

Sort of hoped there would be tablet versions of Rocksim this time around, suitable for Android en iPads. That would be so much better in the field.

 

[cwbullet]

Woohoo.

 

[Apogee Components]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Bobby and I work at Apogee Components, and I created this account today to answer some of your questions / concerns about RockSim V10. Note, that with the world as it is right now, my time for these outreaches is a little limited, but I'll be checking this thread daily for the foreseeable future. Please feel free to leave any questions or comments here, and I'll address them (but please, troubleshooting and customer service should still be conducted through our normal channels).

That being said, I'm late to this party so let me go back and address a few things.

Kuririn said "Hopefully it isn't 10 years till 11"
Fear not! We made the changes around the development here so that we can really get RockSim to the next level. 10 is just the first step in a long list of improvements, and we've really doubled down on the RockSim development going forward.

Fattbank64 (I'm paraphrasing) said "Components and parts DB need scrubbed"
We agree! And so we did. We've fully rebuilt our parts and rocket databases for this release. If it is available on apogeerockets.com, it's in the V10 database.

FredA mentioned the new programmer and speghetti code giving him some worries. I'd like to clear up our meaning here.
Yes, he's relatively new (to us, not his profession) and RockSim is a complex program, not just in what it does, but the way it's coded. That being said, we are extremely confident in his capabilities. This guy is a rockstar, just unbelievably talented, and we're certain he's the right man to bring RockSim to new heights.

There have been questions regarding the free upgrades and how to find your license keys. Fortunately, for many of you Apogee has that information on file in your account, and should make it painless. For more information, please see this page - https://www.apogeerockets.com/blog/RockSim-10-Now-Available

Thank you all for your time and continued support of Apogee. Even though we don't hop on here to say it enough, we love this community more than you could know. You're all family in our eyes.

Please feel free to ask me anything!

 

[neil_w]

Pretty underwhelming for a full upgrade. I am guessing mostly internal changes. Still requires a work around on high resolution displays to get fonts displaying right. Still I love the software.

Based on Tim's previous postings about this, basically this is the result of a new developer getting familiar with the code, adding a few features and improvements, and setting the stage for future updates. At least that's my take.

[whoops, ninja'd by Apogee!]

 

[Apogee Components]

Based on Tim's previous postings about this, basically this is the result of a new developer getting familiar with the code, adding a few features and improvements, and setting the stage for future updates. At least that's my take.

[whoops, ninja'd by Apogee!]

Haha, I was waiting moderator approval.
But that's exactly right. We know it's been too long, and we wanted to give you a show of good faith, letting you know we are serious about RockSim's future - but this was his first big dive into the program, and a tiny fraction of our long term goals. That is the primary reason we are offering it free to all V9 users - it's a gift for your loyalty and a promise of things to come.

 

[cwbullet]

Do you get an email or can I just update?

I did suggest to Apogee and Tim to implement more 3D printing features.

 

[Apogee Components]

Hey CW Bullet, you should just be able to update! Our hope is that the process is pretty painless, but we are ready to assist you if you run into any problems through our contact form, phone call, or chatbot!

If you don't know where to begin, look here - https://www.apogeerockets.com/blog/RockSim-10-Now-Available

 

[Winston]

In case anybody from Apogee is lurking on this thread, here is another annoyance that the new programmer can fix.

Switching between units is not correct. If you switch from lbs to kg back to lbs, you don't get the same value. I remember from my programming days that there is a right way and a wrong way to code unit conversions. I think Rocksim is doing it the wrong way.

Also, at 8:58, in the batch processing results: for 1/2A6, a "Recommended delay" of 2.00 sec, but an "Optimal delay" of 6.13 sec?

The New Features of Rocksim V10

 

[Nytrunner]

Also, at 8:58, in the batch processing results: for 1/2A6, a "Recommended delay" of 2.00 sec, but an "Optimal delay" of 6.13 sec?

I believe this comes from the 1/2A6 only having a 2 second delay, so that's the only one they can recommend. Whereas the rocket would coast for 6 if allowed to

 

[Winston]

Do you get an email or can I just update?

I did suggest to Apogee and Tim to implement more 3D printing features.

Yes! STL output would be great... but probably not easy.

 

[Winston]

I believe this comes from the 1/2A6 only having a 2 second delay, so that's the only one they can recommend. Whereas the rocket would coast for 6 if allowed to

6.13 seconds to coast to a max altitude of 219.65 feet? That's what threw me. Could be, I guess. Max velocity in the output would make that easier to see.

 

[Apogee Components]

Also, at 8:58, in the batch processing results: for 1/2A6, a "Recommended delay" of 2.00 sec, but an "Optimal delay" of 6.13 sec?

The New Features of Rocksim V10

Yes, to anyone unfamiliar with RockSim that may seem odd. However, that is actually correct. The recommended delay is telling you which of the available motor options has the best delay for the simulation while the optimal delay tells you what would truly be the best delay for your rocket (for use if you are venting or plugging the ejection charge and using electronic deployment).

Basically, because the 1/2A6 only comes with a two second delay, that will always populate as the optimal delay when running a simulation on that motor.

Also, that altitude given would be with that recommended delay (meaning the 'chute deployed after 2 seconds). You could re-run the simulation on that motor with no ejection charge assigned to see a more true altitude.

 

[Nytrunner]

6.13 seconds to coast to a max altitude of 219.65 feet?

I don't think so. I'd reason that the 220' is the result of the 2 second delay. (It's just also telling you that it'd be better to have a 6 second delay. This comes in much handier for motors with adjustable delays)

 

[Winston]

I don't think so. I'd reason that the 220' is the result of the 2 second delay. (It's just also telling you that it'd be better to have a 6 second delay. This comes in much handier for motors with adjustable delays)

And yet that's a "recommended" delay even though that would be a fairly high velocity 'chute deployment event?

 

[Nytrunner]

And yet that's a "recommended" delay even though that would be a fairly high velocity 'chute deployment event?

Right, just like Apogee said above, that is the only delay for that motor, so it's all they can recommend (Then the flier's wisdom takes over and says Hmm, maybe I shouldn't use the 1/2A6)

 

[Winston]

Yes, to anyone unfamiliar with RockSim that may seem odd.

I've owned and used Rocksim from at least version 8.

Basically, because the 1/2A6 only comes with a two second delay

Which shouldn't automatically qualify it as a "recommended" and "safe" delay. I can see that if the max deployment velocity is considered safe and I can see that considering the low impulse motor. I think that's what may be going on.

 

[Apogee Components]

And yet that's a "recommended" delay even though that would be a fairly high velocity 'chute deployment event?

It's the recommended delay only because there are no other delay options available.

For instance, if the 1/2A6 also came with a 4, 6 and 8 second delays - it would recommend the 6. It's recommending the closest delay available for that motor.

 

[Nytrunner]

Which shouldn't automatically qualify it as a "recommended" and "safe" delay. I can see that if the max deployment velocity is considered safe and I can see that considering the low impulse motor. I think that's what may be going on.

That's a good thought. I admit I prefer seeing the values instead of the binary safe/unsafe

It's the recommended delay only because there are no other delay options available.

For instance, if the 1/2A6 also came with a 4, 6 and 8 second delays - it would recommend the 6. It's recommending the closest delay available for that motor.

Is there an option to see the actual deployment and rail exit speed values (Maybe by hovering or clicking the safe box?)

 

[Winston]

It's the recommended delay only because there are no other delay options available.

For instance, if the 1/2A6 also came with a 4, 6 and 8 second delays - it would recommend the 6. It's recommending the closest delay available for that motor.

But it's recommended and listed as safe simply because it's the only delay available? I hope a low enough velocity chute deployment is the reason behind that call. It would be more obvious if the max velocity at deployment column would have been selected for display.