Big Game Info Ballistics calculator.

[klinkers]

I'm not adverse to graphs, in many cases graphical representation is definitely the solution. In my experience they work well for comparisons such as your link example. Under my current configuration you can't access more that one load for comparison. I'll have to give that a little thought. I've not used IE export to Excel, I'll explore that as well and see what I can come up with.

 

[JBM]

When I sold programs years ago, I did supply graphs, but I've always wondered how much they were used. I know I've never really used them. Even in comparison, I'd rather look at a column of numbers. What do people like to see?

 

[klinkers]

I guess when it comes to ballistics I'm pretty much with JBM. I own several ballistics tools that provide graphics capabilities but I never really used them in any meaningfull way but I assumed others were getting something from them that just wasn't apparent to me.

When I use a ballistics tool I'm primarily interested modeling the load in question as accurately as possible and getting output that is easy to use and understand.

 

[ricka0]

There's really no debate in the scientific community, the only way you can quickly comprehend lots of data is visulation. Playing with columns of #'s I was going to build a 300 RUM to shoot 125 BT's at a scortching 3850 fps - until the guys on this fourm educated me.

I'd like to use an image here <font color="red"> BUT A BUG IN THIS SOFTWARE (which I've reported several times in the past) DOesN'T ALLOW IMAGE URI's MORE THAN A FEW CHARS </font>
125 gr BT vs 155gr Scenar
Rt click the EARL and Open in New Window
The graph clearly shows in a couple of seconds that the 155gr has higher velocity than the 125 after only 350 yards (what I call the beginning of long range shooting /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

Now look at the wind deflection - even more important along the Missour river (out of GF Mt) where I deer hunt.
125gr vs 155 Scenar vs 180 BT

A first easy step would be to expose the data so we can right click and Export to MS Excel
Then anyone can make a macro to graph the data.

PS - I really like your Optimal Game Weight Next time the 338 LM guys start talking about shooting elk at 2500 yards I'll bring up a chart /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[goodgrouper]

Here is my ULTIMATE program:

It has the quick layout of Exbal with all the pertinent info on one screen so you don't have to bounce all over the program to find things. It needs to be all there to see at once so you can use it in the field for hunting.

It would show graphs like Infinity on a second page for easy comparison.

It would adjust the zero properly for different elevations like I stated in my earlier scenario. (When I played with the big game calculator of Klinkers, It didn't seem to calcuate any differently than the other programs mentioned that didn't work. In fact, I saw something in there that it runs off of Infinity for the drop charts.)

The program would also let you figure your own BC's.

The program would allow you to enter a different mode in which you could run 3 different traces like Oehler's ballistic explorer.

It would give your drops in MOA, Miliradians, clicks, and inches.

It would allow you to design cartridges and see what the proper loads would be like LOAD and QUICKLOAD.

It would have a data base for case capacities of popular cartridges.

The program must also allow you to enter angle in cosine or degree.

It would have all the other things listed in the "options" menu of infinity and Exbal.

It would have a bullets and factory ammo database of bc's that are as new bullets come out, as well as a custom bullet creation section in which you could insert found BC's.


I think all those things would really make the ultimate program.

I have been tinkering lately with the ballistic explorer and the big game calculator, and unless I missed something somewhere, they do not adjust the zero farther out for different elevations. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
I have had people email me and tell me that exbal adjusts for this phenomenon by slightly changing the drop for each yard after the zero. So this would work, and obviously does, as I have cranked in the MOA listed and had first round hits, but I would like to visually see what the computer is doing.

Any thoughts on this??

 

[4ked Horn]

Ok Klink I've spent some more time playing with this program and I really like it for a few basic reasons that are important to me.

1. I can copy and paste the ballistics chart into MS excell. This lets me move portions of the chart around to make those range cards I keep talking about.

2. You go out to 2000 yards by increments of 5 yards if I want and at the extreme ranges of 1200 yards for my .308 this is something I want.

3. I LOVE that you put the drops in "MOA + Clicks". This save me tons of time pecking away here at the computer. BTW, can you do this for windage as well? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I do have a question about two of your data columns. What does the momentum column do for me? is it there just for comparason? And what is your source for the game size column? Is this also a "Rule of thumb" output?

I am going to respond to the others that have posted but the responses are meant for you as just more input from one more LR shooter. I'm not a programmer and I try not to get too "techie" out in the field ( I bring enough ballistic research crap as it is) so this will influence where I'm coming from for most of my responses. I'll catch you tomorrow evening.

 

[4ked Horn]

[ QUOTE ]
Even in comparison, I'd rather look at a column of numbers. What do people like to see?

[/ QUOTE ]

I preffer numbers but I will admit that a graph that is the result of BC, MV and bullet weight at a fixed set of atmospheric conditions (say, 3000 feet elevation at standard conditions) would be a nice quick way to visualize the trajectory and energy for 3 or 4 bullets you might want to compare. But it would not be a usefull tool beyond that. Numbers are more usefull by a long shot (no pun intended).

IMHO

 

[4ked Horn]

[ QUOTE ]
It has the quick layout of Exbal with all the pertinent info on one screen so you don't have to bounce all over the program to find things. It needs to be all there to see at once so you can use it in the field for hunting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bouncing is bad. That is one thing I noticed but did not think about untill you said it. I like ALL input data on one screen (page) like daves older program. All input on the same page as the main chart. (I don't bring a computer to the field (yet) so I don't have input on this.)

[ QUOTE ]
It would show graphs like Infinity on a second page for easy comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be cool.

[ QUOTE ]
It would adjust the zero properly for different elevations

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be nice so you don't have to rezero your scope every time you change altitude. Your old 100 yard zero at sea level is now your 128 yard zero at 6000 feet and the drops are adjusted out from there. (it just dawned on me what you wanted from the program, that is a GREAT idea. Us knob crankers dont care at what distance our rifle is zeroed as long as the drops are adjusted for that new zero. VERY COOL.)

[ QUOTE ]
It would give your drops in MOA, Miliradians, clicks, and inches.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot about Mills. They do come in handy every now and again for windage as well as elevation.

[ QUOTE ]
The program must also allow you to enter angle in cosine or degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

Dude, I gotta go shooting with you some time. Sounds like you have all the fun toys.

 

[JBM]

[ QUOTE ]

It has the quick layout of Exbal with all the pertinent info on one screen so you don't have to bounce all over the program to find things. It needs to be all there to see at once so you can use it in the field for hunting.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought a simple table printed out for the area you're hunting in would be simpler than dragging a computer into the field -- that's what I've done in the past. Is this not the case?

[ QUOTE ]

It would show graphs like Infinity on a second page for easy comparison.


[/ QUOTE ]

Comparison of what? Drop/windage? How would you want it displayed if the trajectories are close -- when it gets hard to see any difference (as is the case for many trajectories)

[ QUOTE ]

It would adjust the zero properly for different elevations like I stated in my earlier scenario. (When I played with the big game calculator of Klinkers, It didn't seem to calcuate any differently than the other programs mentioned that didn't work. In fact, I saw something in there that it runs off of Infinity for the drop charts.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is a must. Most programs I've see are "bullet centric". They really need to be rifle centric.

[ QUOTE ]

The program would also let you figure your own BC's.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what kind of data?

[ QUOTE ]

The program would allow you to enter a different mode in which you could run 3 different traces like Oehler's ballistic explorer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Three different traces of what? I don't have Oehler's ballistic explorer.

[ QUOTE ]

It would give your drops in MOA, Miliradians, clicks, and inches.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[ QUOTE ]

It would allow you to design cartridges and see what the proper loads would be like LOAD and QUICKLOAD.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anybody know what models they use?

[ QUOTE ]

It would have a data base for case capacities of popular cartridges.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is typically very expensive or requires lawyers (copyright etc). I don't think it's strictly legal to just grab it out of a book and import it into your software...

[ QUOTE ]

The program must also allow you to enter angle in cosine or degree.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

[ QUOTE ]

It would have all the other things listed in the "options" menu of infinity and Exbal.


[/ QUOTE ]

?

[ QUOTE ]

It would have a bullets and factory ammo database of bc's that are as new bullets come out, as well as a custom bullet creation section in which you could insert found BC's.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there can be copyright issues here. In my experience some bullet manufacturers will let you use their data (e.g. Speer, Sierra and smaller companies), and some won't without payment (e.g. Hornady). Some guys writing software don't worry about it, my lawyer did.

[ QUOTE ]

I think all those things would really make the ultimate program.


[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

[ QUOTE ]

I have been tinkering lately with the ballistic explorer and the big game calculator, and unless I missed something somewhere, they do not adjust the zero farther out for different elevations.
I have had people email me and tell me that exbal adjusts for this phenomenon by slightly changing the drop for each yard after the zero. So this would work, and obviously does, as I have cranked in the MOA listed and had first round hits, but I would like to visually see what the computer is doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I think it gets very confusing for users when the program does little things like that without specifically telling you why. It is compounded when you're looking at a table of numbers and aren't sure whether or not something changed...

[ QUOTE ]

Any thoughts on this??


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll probably never do internal ballistics. I don't have the data/algorithms/time. I'm not even sure I'll ever write commercial ballistics software again -- no market. If I did, it would probably be a modular program that is rifle centric with an unpopulated database (populate as you go).

 

[klinkers]

One of the opportunuties to excel provided by developemnt of web sites is the lack of a hardware standard to code to. This forces you to reduce the minimum system requirements to some worst case that is a less than optimal configuration so the majority of your users can access your site with a reasonable degree of functionality. In this case my site is designed to be used at 800x600 resolution or better. This constraint limits the amount of data I can display on the screen at one time. While not the optimum for those with high resolution monitors, the tab configuration provides a workable solution. This limited display space limits the functionality that is practical in internet applications like this one. If it were an intranet application or a windows forms application much additional fuctionality could readily be added.

If you could suggest a alternate organization of the data items to be more usable within those constraints I'd certainly welcome your thoughts.

I'm not sure that you and I are talking about the same adjustments for elevations. To aid in our discussion I created a sample page with two trajectory charts the top one for a normal zero, the bottom one showning the trajectory @ 10000 ft with the original zero:
http://biggameinfo.com/AltitudeSample.htm

You will note the point of impact @ 500 yds has changed from -36 in to -30.7. This is the effect I've been referring to. Is this what you've been talking about?

As far as BC calculations go, I think that should be on a separate page rather than trying to add even more to the existing page.

I've been giving the graphics idea some thought and I think that is doable with a little more thought, though I will probably not limit you to 3 at a time.

I definitely have no desire to attack internal ballistics at all, way beyond my knowledge and comfort level. I don't think anybody will sue me over a bad trajectory calculation, the same probably wouldn't hold true with a mangled rifle or worse.

I think the adding the mils display woud be pretty straight forward, probably need to change the method of selection but doable.

As far as the database type addons go, I'm not to sure where to go with those.

 

[klinkers]

Did you try turning off output items so the printer friendly page has only what your looking for?

Momentum is just there, you can turn it off on the preferences tab.

The OGW or Optimal Game Weight column is based on an article in a Lyman loading manual a few years back. What it really is momentum multiplied by energy divided by a factor. No real scientific justification but it produces numbers that are intuitively correct. It does produce some questionable results for very fast light bulets in my opinion but overall it might help a novice avoid shooting a griz with .243.

 

[klinkers]

JBM this calc engine should be very familiar to you since you wrote it, I ported it and put a different frontend on it but under the covers it's your calculations. The elevation adjustment I've been trying to describe is the equivalent of entering the displayed elevation value and unchecking "adjust elevation for zero" on your site. I'm probably doing a poor job of explaining it perhaps you could explain it so everyone understands a little better.

 

[4ked Horn]

Yes I did turn on and of the desired output options. I like that part quite a bit.

Several times I clicked on calculate and got some wierd HTML page but when I went back and changed a parameter or added a selectable out put (as at one point I only had MOA drops and windage) then tried again it would go through.

What GOOD grouper seems to be talking about is changing the altitude in the program and then seeing an adjusted trajectory that does not retain the same zero distance. All the ballistics programs send the bullet through the same zero distance and overlay the trajectory to coincide.

Example: I sight my gun in at sea level. I am shooting the center of the target at 100 yards. Then I drive into the mountains to shoot an elk at 820 yards. Because of the thinner air I can no longer be zeroed at 100 yards. But where am I zeroed and what should my 820 yard come ups be at this new altitude? I dont have any place to sight my gun in again so what I need is a program that tells me how my trajectory elongated relative to the muzzle and not my 100 yard zero as this should have also changed.

(This is what you are saying right Good grouper?)

 

[klinkers]

My apologies, I didn't use a very good example. The default zero is 2.5 high @ 100, with that zero the change while discernable isn't obvious with the change in altitude. I took the liberty of updating the example to a 300 yd zero, entered the elevation value of 7.039 moa and change the altitude to standard conditions for 10000 ft. This then results in the bullet being 1" high @ 300 yds. I believe that is what everyone is looking for.

You might also play with the SureShot tab, your described problem is what that is all about. You site your rifle in at home then go up on a mountain, where's it shooting now. Give it a try, you'll like it other than the fact I haven't added you moa + clks display yet...