Sad state of Rocksim and Openrock

gdjsky01

Whoosh, pop: life is good
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
622
I can crash them both within a few minutes. Especially ROCKSIM which is, IMO, unforgivable given I have paid for it since v5. I guess I just love misery. Literally I was designing a 2.6 inch based RedTop missile. In Rocksim I could not finish without a crash. Both on the Mac and Windows 10. Having coded for over 35 years, from 8080 assembler, C, C++, Java, and now Kotlin, I simply don't understand how Apogee can live with themselves. ROCKSIM is so easy to crash. Just do a few cut/pastes or deletes. Hell I can not get EITHER version (Mac or PC) to create a short 2.6 inch elliptical nose cone without crashing.

Openrock does not crash as in "go bye bye"! Yea! It just is still the totally counterintuitive simulation UI as well as more bugs than a Louisiana Bayou (especially rendering)! Wow. What a sad sad state of affairs. Well I guess the community is small. So there is no real business proposition to make it better. I just though by v10 of RS, maybe stability would have been baked in.

I expect OR to be a fail since its free and coded by a 100 people or more. To be clear, it is actually its more stable than RS. But its simulation UI is still, years later, crap. And as I said, it's rendering has more bugs than a subtropical rain forest. Just ranting... I thought things would be better.

CHEERS!
 

eggplant

L3 | NAR 93664, TRA 17791
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Messages
1,799
Reaction score
497
The beauty of open source software is that you can take your 35 years of software development experience and use it to make Open Rocket better. It is written in Java, so it should be right up your alley!

I haven't personally encountered any rendering bugs in OR, but that might be specific to some OSs/graphics hardware. I agree that the plotting interface isn't super intuitive, but again, if this is a program that you get value from and have the skills to contribute to, what's stopping you from making the changes you want? I'm sure a lot of people would love it if the plotting interface was more intuitive.
 

neil_w

OpenRocketeer
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
14,750
Reaction score
8,429
Location
Northern NJ
I expect OR to be a fail since its free and coded by a 100 people or more. To be clear, it is actually its more stable than RS. But its simulation UI is still, years later, crap. And as I said, it's rendering has more bugs than a subtropical rain forest. Just ranting... I thought things would be better.
1) If by rendering you're referring to 3D rendering, then yes we know about this. We are in the process of switching 3D libraries to remedy this but it's going to take a little time.
2) If you have specific complaints and/or recommendations regarding the simulation UI, then please by all means share them with us. Just saying "it's crap" doesn't really give us much to work with.
3) If there are indeed actual crashes (as you stated in your first sentence) then please report them. We have eliminated a lot of them over the course of the beta period.
 

SiboVG

OpenRocket Developer
Joined
Feb 27, 2022
Messages
69
Reaction score
95
Location
Leuven, Belgium
Also: if you aren't already, use the latest beta version of OpenRocket, it has a better UI for the simulations (not the barf-inducing grey background) and (hopefully) less crashes and bugs.

But as Neil stated: an open-source program can only become better if you report bugs and possible improvements.

Also: your estimate of how many people actively develop OR is overshot by a factor of about 10.
 

lakeroadster

Improvise, Adapt and Overcome
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
6,617
Location
Central Colorado
I can crash them both within a few minutes. Especially ROCKSIM which is, IMO, unforgivable given I have paid for it since v5. I guess I just love misery. Literally I was designing a 2.6 inch based RedTop missile. In Rocksim I could not finish without a crash. Both on the Mac and Windows 10. Having coded for over 35 years, from 8080 assembler, C, C++, Java, and now Kotlin, I simply don't understand how Apogee can live with themselves. ROCKSIM is so easy to crash. Just do a few cut/pastes or deletes. Hell I can not get EITHER version (Mac or PC) to create a short 2.6 inch elliptical nose cone without crashing.

Openrock does not crash as in "go bye bye"! Yea! It just is still the totally counterintuitive simulation UI as well as more bugs than a Louisiana Bayou (especially rendering)! Wow. What a sad sad state of affairs. Well I guess the community is small. So there is no real business proposition to make it better. I just though by v10 of RS, maybe stability would have been baked in.

I expect OR to be a fail since its free and coded by a 100 people or more. To be clear, it is actually its more stable than RS. But its simulation UI is still, years later, crap. And as I said, it's rendering has more bugs than a subtropical rain forest. Just ranting... I thought things would be better.

CHEERS!

Opinions Vary. I know nothing about Rocksim, but Open Rocket works great on my ideapad Laptop.

Few things in life are free.
And even fewer free things are as great as Open Rocket.
And even fewer free things have folks available, literally right at your fingertips, to help with any issues that may arise.

Time to count your blessings.

"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time"." ― John Lydgate
 

Arnie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2021
Messages
135
Reaction score
72
I can crash them both within a few minutes. Especially ROCKSIM which is, IMO, unforgivable given I have paid for it since v5. I guess I just love misery. Literally I was designing a 2.6 inch based RedTop missile. In Rocksim I could not finish without a crash. Both on the Mac and Windows 10. Having coded for over 35 years, from 8080 assembler, C, C++, Java, and now Kotlin, I simply don't understand how Apogee can live with themselves. ROCKSIM is so easy to crash. Just do a few cut/pastes or deletes. Hell I can not get EITHER version (Mac or PC) to create a short 2.6 inch elliptical nose cone without crashing.

Openrock does not crash as in "go bye bye"! Yea! It just is still the totally counterintuitive simulation UI as well as more bugs than a Louisiana Bayou (especially rendering)! Wow. What a sad sad state of affairs. Well I guess the community is small. So there is no real business proposition to make it better. I just though by v10 of RS, maybe stability would have been baked in.

I expect OR to be a fail since its free and coded by a 100 people or more. To be clear, it is actually its more stable than RS. But its simulation UI is still, years later, crap. And as I said, it's rendering has more bugs than a subtropical rain forest. Just ranting... I thought things would be better.

CHEERS!
You quote about OR being counterintuitive is spot on
 

gdjsky01

Whoosh, pop: life is good
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
622
You quote about OR being counterintuitive is spot on
Its totally ridiculous you have to create a configuration before you can 'launch it'. It's been like that from almost day one. WTH are they thinking? I just what to load an engine, set the delay (or any recovery event(s) ) and launch. WTH would I want this to be a two step process? Half the time the engine UI does not update leaving me with a 'no-engine' configuration. OR is now on what? Its 10th, 20th, release? This is your QA? I already know RS has zero QA.

As for open source and writing myself, if I HAD time for that, I'd have done it. That does not excuse rocksim which I can crash on any PC or Mac, and have for years, in only a few minutes. All you have to do is a few copy pastes, abort a couple of part additions, delete one or two and it goes bye bye. But OR? I'd have expected the community to take more pride.

I knew writing this would get me hate. But it needs to be said for those that might give Rocksim authors money. Don't bother. Open Rocket is a terrible UI but you can actually get through a scratch build without crashing. (BUT SAVE AFTER EVERY STEP).
 

rharshberger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
11,957
Reaction score
3,783
Location
Pasco, WA
Its totally ridiculous you have to create a configuration before you can 'launch it'. It's been like that from almost day one. WTH are they thinking? I just what to load an engine, set the delay (or any recovery event(s) ) and launch. WTH would I want this to be a two step process? Half the time the engine UI does not update leaving me with a 'no-engine' configuration. OR is now on what? Its 10th, 20th, release? This is your QA? I already know RS has zero QA.

As for open source and writing myself, if I HAD time for that, I'd have done it. That does not excuse rocksim which I can crash on any PC or Mac, and have for years, in only a few minutes. All you have to do is a few copy pastes, abort a couple of part additions, delete one or two and it goes bye bye. But OR? I'd have expected the community to take more pride.

I knew writing this would get me hate. But it needs to be said for those that might give Rocksim authors money. Don't bother. Open Rocket is a terrible UI but you can actually get through a scratch build without crashing. (BUT SAVE AFTER EVERY STEP).
First of all OR release numbers are THE YEAR that version was released not consecutive iterations so the current v22 (2022)is not 7 versions after v15 (2015) its the 2nd one as there were 7 years between releases, early versions of OR did use a traditional method of tracking iterations. The number of people working on OR is not a 100 (though over time it maybe), but probably more like 10-15. There have been less than 10 full versions but a total of 37 releases (mostly patches) versions of OR and each one has added features and improved dramatically. It works, sometimes its buggy but, it works.
 

H. Craig Miller

OpenRocket Development Team
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
413
Reaction score
846
Location
Placer County, California
Not to be argumentative, but I've read through your posts and the closest you get to actually describing an issue is this:

Its totally ridiculous you have to create a configuration before you can 'launch it'. It's been like that from almost day one. WTH are they thinking? I just what to load an engine, set the delay (or any recovery event(s) ) and launch. WTH would I want this to be a two step process? Half the time the engine UI does not update leaving me with a 'no-engine' configuration. OR is now on what? Its 10th, 20th, release? This is your QA? I already know RS has zero QA.

The current version of OpenRocket is just that simple. After your rocket design is complete, go to the Motors & Configurations tab and pick your motor, verify the delay, and get the results.

Attack.Rev_01.png

If you believe that this can be done in fewer steps, I'd be very interested in knowing how you would approach doing so.

Complaints without suggestions for improvements are not helpful to anyone.
 

Sandy H.

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
2,047
Reaction score
1,439
Great, write a couple of complete sentences and put them in a bug report!

I only build supercomputers for a living, so it's possible I'm just used to things being unnecessarily cantankerous.

In all fairness, he didn't assert you weren't competent based on your professional experience, it is that he is more competent as he has written code for more computers than the number of cars you and your parents have owned.

You and I have never met, so I'm not sure of the history of you and your family's automotive procurement frequency and/or history. Based on my and only my history, I believe the answer would be approximately 20-25, but in all fairness, I was born at a very young age and don't necessarily remember the first few cars my parents had. Thankfully we always purchased and never leased, so it keeps that calculation simple and its VERY good that siblings weren't included, as my brother has probably bought and sold more than a hundred cars and I have no idea if he could even figure out how many over the years. This year is more than 10 so far, so the more than a hundred number is likely low.

Either way, it appears that he has written code for 20-25 computers if my history is similar to yours. A super quick, non-verified google search indicates that Americans buy between 9.4 and 13 vehicles over their lifetime on average, so that would be 28-39-ish for you and your parents, therefore code has been written for 28-39 computers based on my interpretation of his statement. (In all fairness, I assumed he was talking about the cars that you and your parents have owned. . . it is possible that he meant cars you've owned + the number of parents you have or he has written code for your parents, possibly).

Hopefully some of the above is not taken seriously and is at least mildly humorous. I've had zero experience with RockSIM, but used wRASP back in the day and think OpenRocket is awesome for what you pay and how responsive customer support is. I don't use it for design (sketch to CAD to swing test most of the time, but I do use it to help pick delays and estimate altitudes at times if I'm being serious or trying to achieve a particular goal).

Sandy.

[edit 12:26am 06282022: Added more so there was at least a little 'content' even if not useful.]
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
1,211
Reaction score
884
I too have been a Rocksim user forever. The current release is reasonably stable. The immediately preceding release was unstable. It still crashes occasionally when I try to use some of the more complex features, but it's manageable. I'm old school - save often. I suspect most of the issues are memory related. It's old code, so it is what it is.

Now, EngEdit crashes a lot, definitely memory related. And updating the motor files within Rocksim itself is archaic as all get out. Without Thrustcurve, managing motor files would be a nightmare.
 

watheyak

Barnstormer
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
1,167
Reaction score
1,063
Location
Arizona
You have know idea What you are talking about. Thanks for the waste of bandwidth. I know better. I've written code for more computers than cars you've owned. And your parents.

Oh we're all very impressed.

You've admitted that simple applications crash on your computer.

You have an OS hygiene problem.
 
Last edited:

smstachwick

LPR/MPR sport flier with an eye to HPR and scale
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
2,537
Location
Poway, CA
You have know idea What you are talking about. Thanks for the waste of bandwidth. I know better. I've written code for more computers than cars you've owned. And your parents.
That’s not likely to be a very high bar. Code can be transferred widely between machines for minimal difficulty and cost. Purchasing a vehicle is a significant financial decision in people’s live, and often a milestone.

For what it’s worth, I had stability issues with the trial version of RockSim but the legacy versions of OR operate just fine on my machine. It’s nothing fancy, I bought it two years ago for like $800, if that gives you any idea how capable it is. If a simple text-based message on a standard forum website is enough of a waste of bandwidth to complain about that loudly, maybe consider an upgrade to your machine or your network?

I haven’t had a lot of issues with the UI either. I will agree that it’s not very easy to learn new functions, but then again, I haven’t actively sought out tutorials or looked for accompanying documentation, sooo….maybe either of those might be a good place to start? I can get a stability margin, an altitude prediction, an optimum delay, a ground hit speed, a deployment speed, an estimated mass, and a bunch of other figures that look right, so that’s enough for me.

I’ll reiterate the messages from the others and encourage you to file bug reports. Software doesn’t improve by conducting personal attacks, especially since some of the developers are active here. Please don’t discourage them from conducting the work they do. It is valuable, and in the case of OpenRocket, we owe them our patience and gratitude. Apogee I could understand raging at, given that they’re selling the software for a not insubstantial sum, but is this really an avenue and attitude that will solve anything? A simple question would have accomplished much more.

(Minor edits)
 
Last edited:

neil_w

OpenRocketeer
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
14,750
Reaction score
8,429
Location
Northern NJ
If you believe that this can be done in fewer steps, I'd be very interested in knowing how you would approach doing so.
In a potential futile attempt to extract something useful out of this thread, let me take a guess where the complaint is. While the latest betas have definitely eliminated some mouse clicks and smoothed the overall process of creating simulations, there is still an aspect that some might find bothersome/cumbersome/unintuitive.

Right now, a flight simulation consists of two separate entities: the motor configuration and the simulation, and this (I think) is the crux of the complaint. There is a one->many relationship between the two. Although the mouse clicks have been streamlined, there is still a two-step process to first create a motor configuration, then simulate using that configuration. Motor configurations include deployment options. The simulations have a separate set of editable parameters.

This is a very flexible arrangement, but splits all the information for a particular flight sim in two separate tabs. If I want to change a particular sim, I may have to bounce to a different tab to change the motor config.

An alternative, more direct approach would be to include motor configuration and deployment information as part of each sim. This is probably analogous to the way Rocksim does it, if I recall correctly. Create a new sim, select motors, set sim parameters, and go. Editing any parameter of a sim would all be in one place. This approach might sacrifice a bit of flexibility, and/or make it a little harder to share motor configs among multiple sims (I would need to think about a good way to do it). But it would probably be more straightforward. It would also lend itself to something more like a wizard UI to set up a sim.

I hope folks will let me know if I'm hitting (or missing) the mark here.
 

tjkopena

Rocketship Games
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
245
Reaction score
419
Location
Philadelphia, PA
In a potential futile attempt to extract something useful out of this thread, let me take a guess where the complaint is. While the latest betas have definitely eliminated some mouse clicks and smoothed the overall process of creating simulations, there is still an aspect that some might find bothersome/cumbersome/unintuitive.

There's definitely significant potential for confusion in the current workflow. Clearly it's confusing the OP. I have a couple thoughts but will put them in another thread, this one's gross.

I'm currently using 22.02.beta.01. For what it's worth, the only stability issue I had in previous versions revolved around Undo actions. I haven't had any of those problems in this version. Biggest glitch I have in this version, and it's a minor one, is that in the 3D views the display of stability and apogee calculations doesn't update as I make changes to the design. I have to switch to 2D to have them update. (this display glitch is resolved in beta.04)
 
Last edited:

H. Craig Miller

OpenRocket Development Team
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
413
Reaction score
846
Location
Placer County, California
Biggest glitch I have in this version, and it's a minor one, is that in the 3D views the display of stability and apogee calculations doesn't update as I make changes to the design. I have to switch to 2D to have them update.

I believe that this has been resolved in the current 22.02.beta.04.
 

Kelly

Usually remembers to get the pointy end up
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
868
Reaction score
766
Location
Oregon
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that while I don't think OR is perfect, it is an AWESOME piece of software that does 99% of what I need it to do, and does it pretty well. The fact that I can use it FOR FREE is a cause to thank the developers who have (and continue to) donate their time to the effort. Thanks!
It's perfectly fine to report bugs, shortcomings, and suggestions, but to complain about free software?
 

Daddyisabar

Oddroc scum. Mindsimmer.
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
5,834
Reaction score
1,476
Location
Littleton Colorado
Even a buggy computer generated sim is way better than a grumpy old dude mindsiming!

"Back in the day all we had was a Big Chief tablet, a carpenter's pencil and slide rule. If we didn't get it right there would be hoards of godless commies running amok in the streets and on the farms." Put away your balsa nose cones and toxic sanding sealer and make the great leap into the 21st century. "Me computer and phancy phone ain't workin' too good but the rebuild on me carburetor is workin' sweet! Now let's fly that fine looking oddroc!" OH THE HORROR! RUN FOR THE HIILS! GOT MY CAPS LOCK KEY STUCK AGAIN! ;)
 

rocketgeek101

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
370
Location
NB Canada
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that while I don't think OR is perfect, it is an AWESOME piece of software that does 99% of what I need it to do, and does it pretty well. The fact that I can use it FOR FREE is a cause to thank the developers who have (and continue to) donate their time to the effort. Thanks!
It's perfectly fine to report bugs, shortcomings, and suggestions, but to complain about free software?
Could not agree more! And for what it's worth, beta 04 and the current 15.03 release have been very stable and mostly bug free for me (aside from the 3D views that is). Beta 04 has been so good in fact, that I now use that by default over the current official release version. The way one adds motors into a design in OR seems fine to me.

I have nothing but gratitude and appreciation for the folks who are working hard to get the new release out!

I tried the free trial of Rocksim recently, and found it to be less intuitive to use than OpenRocket, but I suppose it depends on what you are used to using.
 

prfesser

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
3,090
Reaction score
4,146
Location
Murray, KY
When MS Windows and Office both require periodic patches...and considering that Office is extremely expensive to buy, somewhat less so when it's leased (though still exorbitant IMHO)...a program that is incredibly useful to the rocketry community and costs nothing is hardly deserving of badmouthing.

I notice that OP said he "can crash them both in a few minutes." That sounds like one is trying to crash the program. If instead the programs crash on routine use, that might be a different story, but it does not surprise me that someone who is coding-savvy could force a program to crash. I'm anything but savvy when it comes to programming---the last software I wrote was in machine language for a Commodore 64, for data acquisition---but I can crash Windows without a whole lot of trouble (inadvertently, unfortunately).

(As for Office, I had to go through the final Word file for Experimental Composite Propellant 2e THIRTY-SIX TIMES to fix all the screwups that it did with figures and fonts, and get it so that it would properly generate an Acrobat file. Stupid thing crashed uncounted times.)

Best -- Terry
 

smstachwick

LPR/MPR sport flier with an eye to HPR and scale
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
2,537
Location
Poway, CA
I notice that OP said he "can crash them both in a few minutes." That sounds like one is trying to crash the program. If instead the programs crash on routine use, that might be a different story, but it does not surprise me that someone who is coding-savvy could force a program to crash.
If the OP’s attitude were better I’d say to extend an offer to join the team. Those skills could be put to use in testing releases, but he has no people skills to go with them
 

JoePfeiffer

OpenRocket Developer
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
410
Reaction score
395
Location
Las Cruces, NM, USA
If the OP’s attitude were better I’d say to extend an offer to join the team. Those skills could be put to use in testing releases, but he has no people skills to go with them
There is a standing offer to everyone to join the team, in whatever capacity you can. Filling a bug report is a big help; so is tearing off an issue, fixing it, and filling a PR to get the fix incorporated in the project. You can expect suggestions for improvements especially as you're getting familiar with the code base, but I think we're pretty gentle. There's no experience or education requirement; if you write good code and it works you've clearly got the skills we need.

And you'll start right out at the same pay as the rest of us!
 

NateB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
3,013
Reaction score
3,801
Location
NE Indiana
I have had a couple of crashes using Open Rocket on Windows over the years and I can't think of a time I was able to reproduce the crash. For me, it has been as reliable as most other programs run on Windows.

I've used it on Linux too and cannot recall any issues. The crashes I have had have probably been more related to the OS than the OR build.
 

mh9162013

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 25, 2022
Messages
855
Reaction score
550
Location
Western, KY
Maybe it's just me, but I took the OP's post as a rant/vent. So maybe it's not the most rational or logical, but he/she is frustrated and annoyed and wanted an outlet.

Just my take.
 
Top