Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Ballistic calculators are OK, but...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BallisticsGuy" data-source="post: 1462159" data-attributes="member: 96226"><p>Ballistics calculators are awesome. They are always right... so long as you put the data in correctly. I publish my own ballistics app but instead of making users input their data I do it for them as a service including tuning things like Ballistic Coefficient:Velocity curve, Temperature Induced Muzzle Velocity Variation, Turret Click Values, etc... </p><p></p><p>Part of the need for that level of expertise is that G1 BC's are good in specific regimes of flight but anything closer or farther will get progressively less accurate as the distance grows. People then say "G7 blah blah" without understanding that G7 only applies to G7 compliant projectiles and that truing still is used in G7. So you have to tune BC or MV at some point. Add troubleshooting skills for all the other factors and it can get really easy to make mistakes.</p><p></p><p>I know precisely what I'm doing with the inputs only because I learned that junk so I could code ballistics software and had to learn how to diagnose what was causing departures from calculated to actual to validate the functionality of the software. No other ballistic calculator maker does that for a reason, it's tremendously skilled-labor intensive. Makers of other apps all seemingly expect you to be part meteorologist, ballistician, mathematician and sniper. Mine was created with the idea that all you'd need to be is a guy with a rifle that can read numbers and ask for help.</p><p></p><p>It occurs to me now that designing something to be optimized for a "guy that can ask for help" is possibly like building an oxymoron machine but I did it anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BallisticsGuy, post: 1462159, member: 96226"] Ballistics calculators are awesome. They are always right... so long as you put the data in correctly. I publish my own ballistics app but instead of making users input their data I do it for them as a service including tuning things like Ballistic Coefficient:Velocity curve, Temperature Induced Muzzle Velocity Variation, Turret Click Values, etc... Part of the need for that level of expertise is that G1 BC's are good in specific regimes of flight but anything closer or farther will get progressively less accurate as the distance grows. People then say "G7 blah blah" without understanding that G7 only applies to G7 compliant projectiles and that truing still is used in G7. So you have to tune BC or MV at some point. Add troubleshooting skills for all the other factors and it can get really easy to make mistakes. I know precisely what I'm doing with the inputs only because I learned that junk so I could code ballistics software and had to learn how to diagnose what was causing departures from calculated to actual to validate the functionality of the software. No other ballistic calculator maker does that for a reason, it's tremendously skilled-labor intensive. Makers of other apps all seemingly expect you to be part meteorologist, ballistician, mathematician and sniper. Mine was created with the idea that all you'd need to be is a guy with a rifle that can read numbers and ask for help. It occurs to me now that designing something to be optimized for a "guy that can ask for help" is possibly like building an oxymoron machine but I did it anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Ballistic calculators are OK, but...
Top