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".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.
This is actually a very good, appropriate request for Thrustcurve. Like you said, rail speed and motor sorting are TC's raison d'être.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.