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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program
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="BryanLitz" data-source="post: 1227640" data-attributes="member: 7848"><p>As previously stated, the issue with the above statement is 'first publicly available...' It is not the first public solver to calculate AJ. If you're clinging to the word 'correctly', that is a marketing twist. A prediction of AJ from a MPM solver is still a prediction. Until it's demonstrated to be more accurate than an alternative prediction, it's quite presumptuous to say it's the first one to do it correctly.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So then how can Hornady patent a 4DOF solver if we agree it's been around so long? </p><p></p><p>Estimates of aero coefficients from PRODAS are still estimates. </p><p></p><p>I'm sure it's taken the guys at Hornady a lot of work to create the 4DOF solver, and much more work to create the library of bullet models. Of all people I understand and appreciate how much work that is! Those guys should be proud of what they've done. They should also be careful not to let the marketing get out of hand and tarnish a good thing with false claims. </p><p></p><p>I see this all too often with bullets which advertise inflated BC's. Everyone wants them tested, so we test them and publish the real performance and if it's less than advertised, that bullet maker is in a PR hole. Unfortunately, even if the bullets are good and have respectable BC's, the story becomes: inflated performance. That's where Hornady is now. They have something that might be good, but are suffering from over hyping it with false information which unfortunately overwhelms the good.</p><p></p><p>Over the years I've written all kinds of solvers including 6-DOF, 3-DOF and many in between. Here's an example of my 6-DOF solver that we published in 2009: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9SCbCBHaY" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9SCbCBHaY</a></p><p>Of course when providing solvers to the market (apps, websites, and all kinds of devices that solvers have to run on) we heavily considered all options. We settled on our current approach not because we weren't aware of MPM and 6DOF solvers, but because we believed our approach was best for the various applications and over the years that has proven to be true.</p><p></p><p>My hat's off to Hornady's engineers for elevating their ballistics game, but don't let the marketing sell you on them becoming the leaders in this area overnight.</p><p></p><p>-Bryan</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BryanLitz, post: 1227640, member: 7848"] As previously stated, the issue with the above statement is 'first publicly available...' It is not the first public solver to calculate AJ. If you're clinging to the word 'correctly', that is a marketing twist. A prediction of AJ from a MPM solver is still a prediction. Until it's demonstrated to be more accurate than an alternative prediction, it's quite presumptuous to say it's the first one to do it correctly. So then how can Hornady patent a 4DOF solver if we agree it's been around so long? Estimates of aero coefficients from PRODAS are still estimates. I'm sure it's taken the guys at Hornady a lot of work to create the 4DOF solver, and much more work to create the library of bullet models. Of all people I understand and appreciate how much work that is! Those guys should be proud of what they've done. They should also be careful not to let the marketing get out of hand and tarnish a good thing with false claims. I see this all too often with bullets which advertise inflated BC's. Everyone wants them tested, so we test them and publish the real performance and if it's less than advertised, that bullet maker is in a PR hole. Unfortunately, even if the bullets are good and have respectable BC's, the story becomes: inflated performance. That's where Hornady is now. They have something that might be good, but are suffering from over hyping it with false information which unfortunately overwhelms the good. Over the years I've written all kinds of solvers including 6-DOF, 3-DOF and many in between. Here's an example of my 6-DOF solver that we published in 2009: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9SCbCBHaY[/url] Of course when providing solvers to the market (apps, websites, and all kinds of devices that solvers have to run on) we heavily considered all options. We settled on our current approach not because we weren't aware of MPM and 6DOF solvers, but because we believed our approach was best for the various applications and over the years that has proven to be true. My hat's off to Hornady's engineers for elevating their ballistics game, but don't let the marketing sell you on them becoming the leaders in this area overnight. -Bryan [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program
Top