You could simply adjust the mass of the rocket for that of the FARG to get more accurate speed off the rail. Of course, that would make for less accurate apogee, so take your pick or run two simulations.
I can't speak for John, but it seems to me that ThrustCurve's simulations are not really aimed at that level of accuracy. It does sound like a good feature request for OR and RS, though.
Running the sim twice is not a bad idea. Mainly I use TC as a way to weed out motors that won't work, then go back to RS/OR to run the more accurate sim. Considering the main disqualifier in TC is "slow off the rail", I guess the answer would be to sim it with the fly-away-guide weight since I am not really using TC as a "flight sim".
At the end of the day, for TC, this would be a "nice to have feature" and agree that it would make a whole lot of sense in RS/OR. Kind of odd that those sims don't have that feature, actually.
If this is a pretty simple tweak, it would be cool to have. If it requires a lot of programming, then it would have to be way low on the feature list.
It would also require adding a field to the rocket definition for the mass of the guide, and the associated interface feature.The programming is pretty simple, probably just need an added "if" statement. if altitude < rail length, then mass = rocket + flyaway guide, else mass = rocket. There is already a provision for the mass of an optional motor adapter in the code.
For the record, OR seems to be more comatose than dead. There's work happening, and a new version with substantial improvements is imminent. But, it seems to have been "imminent" for a good couple of years now.OR has been dead for over 6 years, and while RS is active, they have their hands full with a new developer and v10.
Is this because RS/OR don't do a good enough job of clustering/staging?I'd like to see simulations and combined thrust-time curves for clusters of multiple engine types. 1×D12 + 2×C5, for example. Create the combined thrust curve by using the union of the sets of times in the multiple motors' individual curves, and get thrust values for the other(s) by interpolating between their points on either side.
John, I know you get lots of feature requests, some easier or more practical to implement than others. Just add this one to the pile for consideration:
For some of the search parameters, it would be nice to be able to specify ranges. "I'm looking for I motors in either 38 or 54 mm." "I want all motors of about 600 N average thrust; let's say 550 to 650." And so on. Some of the existing parameters (like diameter) could get this, and some (like average thrust or total impulse) don't make any sense when a specific value is to be given, but do make sense for a range.
On some other parameters, multi-select plays a similar role. Diameter could be that way or a range; either way works. Multi-select would be good for propellants. And so on.
Finally got on ThrustCurve on my desktop, and these are awesome changes! Thank you so much!OK, on the desktop browser you should be able to search for a range of diameters as well as either single or a range of average and maximum thrust.
Maximum thrust also shows up in the search results if there's space.
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: