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="AaronSkipDavidson" data-source="post: 1227689" data-attributes="member: 6373"><p>I'm a third party observer to this. I wish the Hornady team was able to man the forums as well as Bryan and his team. Filtering responses to claims of "twisted and false" is probably not direct enough.</p><p></p><p>Hopefully, the reader understands what is going on here. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in ten years of industry work. It's really hard for me to post here on this topic because I do have a really good relationship with Hornady, and I've been a part of their move into the long range shooting market. What everyone doesn't realize is that Bryan and I have worked together on a ballistic project as well. He is correct that he has made functioning solvers of all types, but the reader needs to understand that the mathematics behind the different methods are basically open source. I've interviewed college graduates that have create the same programs using these solvers, if you have the math backgound, its pretty simple stuff.</p><p></p><p>The real contribution a company can make (like AB or Hornady) is the application of routines that simplify the inputs a 6DOF program requires to calculate a near perfect solution. When we started 10 years ago, I used a solver I bought from James Millard (JBM) to create our turret marking software, and to publish an online solver that iteratively adjusted BC or Muzzle Velocity to match drop data from live shooting. It was a pretty new concept. The idea was really offensive to ballistics guys. It's brute force at best. I remember having the philosophical argument with Bryan. He felt (correctly) that establishing a consistent BC measurement routine was vital, he had just published his first edition. I think what Bryan contributed was excellent, but I also believe that he has matured his position on truing data. His new Kestrel products have advanced methods for truing. Even his measured BC's are still subject to truing. The reason isn't because his methods are bad or that the solver has issues, its because each individual rifle has different behavior. Just simple things like twist rate and land/groove configuration can effect the drag characteristics of a bullet. </p><p></p><p>Putting all the argumentative statements aside, the real development here is that hornady is measuring/generating a characteristic CD vs Mach profile of a bullet. Bryan agrees with the importance of this, because that is "advanced methodology" he's pushing with his solver. Custom Drag Profiles aren't limited to comparative performance against the G1 or G7 profiles. Theoretically, they match what that bullet is actually doing. Even though they are customized to the bullet, these drag profiles will still need trued to the gun to accommodate individual systems (either Hornady or Applied Ballistics!).</p><p></p><p>Ok, so we have one major difference. Hornady is measuring and publishing their custom drag profiles based on radar methodologies, and AB is doing the same with acoustic methodologies. They can both argue until they are blue (or red) in the face about which one is better, I'm not sure I really care. If they work as good as I can shoot, it probably doesn't matter. However, I can see Hornadys perspective, and would liken it to the chronograph situation, if I want really good MV data, I use a Labradar, not a Stienhart Sensing Systems acoustical chrono - Bryans book confirms this choice.</p><p></p><p>The second difference is where it gets into the weeds, and I definitely couldn't walk you through the math, so I'll render into the simplest form that I can. It has to do with the calculation of Aerodynamic Jump, Corriolis, Eovtos, and Spin Drift. Bryan has created analytical models, algorithms, that relate the effects of the aforementioned phenomena to basic, easy to identify input parameters like twist rate, latitude, etc. From the standpoint of programming, this is much easier to implement than solving a 6dof set of equations. Less computations, and less power consumption. Is it perfect, no. Does it work better than most of us can shoot? I think so!</p><p></p><p>Hornady hasn't spent as much time marketing (publishing) their exact methods, so I'm reading between the lines. (and will accept correction if necessary). Hornady is measuring what they can with the radar, then using PRODAS to estimate the coefficients required to solve a more complex system of equations (4DOF). I'm not quite sure what Bryan's argument is. Perhaps that this methodology is not accurate enough? I'm not sure. I do know the guys behind this development, and they are not first timers....Hornady, on the other hand, believes this methodology is an improvement over Bryans use of a simpler set of equations combined with his highly developed analytical models. These are the claims that have excited the AB camp like knocking down a wasp nest! If it's true, the industry will move the direction of Hornady's methods, if it's not, or the improvement doesn't matter, it may stay where it's at.</p><p></p><p>I think fundamentally, the customized nature of the drag curve and coefficients (even if generated by PRODAS) derived from the radar data is truly the direction the industry will move. We'll see if Bryan and AB go the route of the radar or remain with their proprietary system. My next solver will hopefully feature Hornady bullet files!</p><p></p><p>This unprofessional attempt to discredit Hornady is unbecoming, even if the battle is only against their marketing department. The engineering staff, and underlying science is sound.</p><p></p><p>Claiming unprofessional behavior is acceptable because you share truth with the public is a ridiculous position. If Hornady makes their method stick, it could affect your dominance of the market. Competition is a threat, but it will also drive a company to excel. After Hornady has shared its process to the public, let's let a third party without the financial stake evaluate. In the meantime, let's let the public use it and shoot it.</p><p></p><p>Long and windy, sorry. I'm out....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AaronSkipDavidson, post: 1227689, member: 6373"] I'm a third party observer to this. I wish the Hornady team was able to man the forums as well as Bryan and his team. Filtering responses to claims of "twisted and false" is probably not direct enough. Hopefully, the reader understands what is going on here. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in ten years of industry work. It's really hard for me to post here on this topic because I do have a really good relationship with Hornady, and I've been a part of their move into the long range shooting market. What everyone doesn't realize is that Bryan and I have worked together on a ballistic project as well. He is correct that he has made functioning solvers of all types, but the reader needs to understand that the mathematics behind the different methods are basically open source. I've interviewed college graduates that have create the same programs using these solvers, if you have the math backgound, its pretty simple stuff. The real contribution a company can make (like AB or Hornady) is the application of routines that simplify the inputs a 6DOF program requires to calculate a near perfect solution. When we started 10 years ago, I used a solver I bought from James Millard (JBM) to create our turret marking software, and to publish an online solver that iteratively adjusted BC or Muzzle Velocity to match drop data from live shooting. It was a pretty new concept. The idea was really offensive to ballistics guys. It's brute force at best. I remember having the philosophical argument with Bryan. He felt (correctly) that establishing a consistent BC measurement routine was vital, he had just published his first edition. I think what Bryan contributed was excellent, but I also believe that he has matured his position on truing data. His new Kestrel products have advanced methods for truing. Even his measured BC's are still subject to truing. The reason isn't because his methods are bad or that the solver has issues, its because each individual rifle has different behavior. Just simple things like twist rate and land/groove configuration can effect the drag characteristics of a bullet. Putting all the argumentative statements aside, the real development here is that hornady is measuring/generating a characteristic CD vs Mach profile of a bullet. Bryan agrees with the importance of this, because that is "advanced methodology" he's pushing with his solver. Custom Drag Profiles aren't limited to comparative performance against the G1 or G7 profiles. Theoretically, they match what that bullet is actually doing. Even though they are customized to the bullet, these drag profiles will still need trued to the gun to accommodate individual systems (either Hornady or Applied Ballistics!). Ok, so we have one major difference. Hornady is measuring and publishing their custom drag profiles based on radar methodologies, and AB is doing the same with acoustic methodologies. They can both argue until they are blue (or red) in the face about which one is better, I'm not sure I really care. If they work as good as I can shoot, it probably doesn't matter. However, I can see Hornadys perspective, and would liken it to the chronograph situation, if I want really good MV data, I use a Labradar, not a Stienhart Sensing Systems acoustical chrono - Bryans book confirms this choice. The second difference is where it gets into the weeds, and I definitely couldn't walk you through the math, so I'll render into the simplest form that I can. It has to do with the calculation of Aerodynamic Jump, Corriolis, Eovtos, and Spin Drift. Bryan has created analytical models, algorithms, that relate the effects of the aforementioned phenomena to basic, easy to identify input parameters like twist rate, latitude, etc. From the standpoint of programming, this is much easier to implement than solving a 6dof set of equations. Less computations, and less power consumption. Is it perfect, no. Does it work better than most of us can shoot? I think so! Hornady hasn't spent as much time marketing (publishing) their exact methods, so I'm reading between the lines. (and will accept correction if necessary). Hornady is measuring what they can with the radar, then using PRODAS to estimate the coefficients required to solve a more complex system of equations (4DOF). I'm not quite sure what Bryan's argument is. Perhaps that this methodology is not accurate enough? I'm not sure. I do know the guys behind this development, and they are not first timers....Hornady, on the other hand, believes this methodology is an improvement over Bryans use of a simpler set of equations combined with his highly developed analytical models. These are the claims that have excited the AB camp like knocking down a wasp nest! If it's true, the industry will move the direction of Hornady's methods, if it's not, or the improvement doesn't matter, it may stay where it's at. I think fundamentally, the customized nature of the drag curve and coefficients (even if generated by PRODAS) derived from the radar data is truly the direction the industry will move. We'll see if Bryan and AB go the route of the radar or remain with their proprietary system. My next solver will hopefully feature Hornady bullet files! This unprofessional attempt to discredit Hornady is unbecoming, even if the battle is only against their marketing department. The engineering staff, and underlying science is sound. Claiming unprofessional behavior is acceptable because you share truth with the public is a ridiculous position. If Hornady makes their method stick, it could affect your dominance of the market. Competition is a threat, but it will also drive a company to excel. After Hornady has shared its process to the public, let's let a third party without the financial stake evaluate. In the meantime, let's let the public use it and shoot it. Long and windy, sorry. I'm out.... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program
Top