Ballistic programs

[Murray]

Jis manne

Wat is die beste ballistiese program om te gebruik vir lang afstand skiet?
Ek gebruik huidiglik Strelok vir my jaggewere tot op 500m met redelike sukses.
Wil nou tot 1000m skiet.

Baie dankie

[Gawie(13mm)]

As jy vertroud is met Strelok, kry die "Pro"
weergawe.
Andersins is Apllied Ballistics die pad om te stap.

[Nico Harris]

Ek verkies shooter.

[JPS]

Nico,

shooter werk baie lekker vir vinnige berekininge en is gebruikers vriendlik maar hy neem die kruis winde se lift in ag nie. Wat baie keer hoogte issues weergee.

Strelok pro en AB neem dit wel in ag.

[Nico Harris]

Dankie Jan.

[LongWolf]

Nico,

shooter werk baie lekker vir vinnige berekininge en is gebruikers vriendlik maar hy neem die kruis winde se lift in ag nie. Wat baie keer hoogte issues weergee.

Strelok pro en AB neem dit wel in ag.

+1

[Arnold]

Het enige iemand al Trasol gebruik? Ek het dit afgelaai maar moet nog 'n tydjie kry om dit te beproef.

[PWV]

JBM Ballistic Calculator

[Smitstertjies]

Strelok Pro

[Wouter Roets]

Manne

Ek sien op die reviews van Applied ballistics dat die mense verskriklik kla dat die program crash as n mens die data verander. Blykbaar is daar ook geen terugvoer van die ontwikkelaars met die rapportering van probleme nie. Daar is n hele paar manne wat uitdruklik se dit is n absolute mors van $30. Soos ek verstaan kan jy ook nie in metric werk volgens die reviews nie, so dit sal vir my wat in Millrad werk n probleem wees. Gawie/manne is dit so met die een wat julle het?

Groetnis
Wouter

[tau]

Strelok Pro werk vir my maklik. EK is glad nie PC savvy nie.

[ruaanb]

Hy loop mooi Wouter. Nog nooit 'n issue gehad met veranderinge in settings nie. Tans gebruik ek juis metric vir die makliker kalibrasie van die Eliminator.

[joe rocket]

Hiers n foto

[JacquesT (Stompe)]

Gerhardu het nou so 2 weke terug AB afgelaai en gaan hom parallel met Sterlok Pro hardloop, ek is seker hy kan kom terug voering gee as hy hom deeglik getoets het. Sal vir Captain ob vra om hom te help met die toets.

Hornady gaan ook eersdaags een bekendstel wat gebaseer is om hul 4DOF (4 dimensions of freedon) teorie http://m.hornady.com/in-the-news/latest ... calculator. Die is egter baie sterk gekritiseer deur Bryan Litz, ek sal iemand vra om daai document hier te kon plaas, ek sukkel met PDF en Tape talk.

Groete,
Jacques Theron

[Capt. Yoda]

Marketing Hype in Ballistics - The Hornady 4 DOF Ballistics Calculator
By: Bryan Litz
Applied Ballistics’ missioni is to be the complete and unbiased source of external ballistics information for long range shooters. Gaining the knowledge required to master long range shooting is very difficult, even when you have good information. Unfortunately the hyper-marketing/advertising culture we live in is constantly pushing out misleading or outright false information to promote products with genuine truth as a distant afterthought.
In addition to exploring the unknown areas of ballistics and publishing original information, it’s also part of our mission at Applied Ballistics to address the many questions which arise from the overwhelming marketing hype.

The Hornady 4 DOF Ballistic Solver
If you were a long range shooter in the summer of 2016, you were probably been touched by Hornady’s extensive marketing campaign promoting their Doppler Radar, melting tip bullets, ELD bullets, and the latest big thing which is the 4 DOF online ballistic solver. You may have seen a video, read an article, and maybe even ran the program and wondered if there really is anything special about it. The goal of this article is to examine these questions about the Hornady 4 DOF ballistic solver.
As the Hornady literature explains, DOF stands for Degrees Of Freedom. Each direction something can move or rotate is a degree of freedom. Many ballistic solvers model 3 degrees of freedom: X, Y, and Z. In shooter speak that means: range, windage and elevation; basically what you need to hit a target at long range. A more complex approach to simulating the flight dynamics of projectiles is with 6 Degrees Of Freedom which includes the angles: Pitch, Roll and Yaw.
Both 3 DOF and 6 DOF simulations are common and have their applications. Hornady claims that the Degrees Of Freedom modeled by their 4 DOF solver are: X, Y, Z and angle of attack. Angle of attack is the total angle made by the bullets axis and its velocity vector (flight path).

The problem is that angle of attack is comprised of both pitch and yaw, which are 2 independent degrees of freedom which must be modeled independently. In other words, it’s not actually a 4 DOF solver.
Hornady’s technical manual1 describes their solver as being a modified point mass (MPM) solver, which is basically a 3 DOF solver that also accounts for the low frequency angular dynamics of the projectile. Another way to look at it would be a 6 DOF solver which neglects the high frequency epycyclic motion. Either way you look at it, Hornady promoting their solver
as simulating 4 degrees of freedom is a misrepresentation, and inconsistent with facts and their own technical manual.
Why give it a misleading title? One possible explanation for why Hornady would chose such a technically flawed name for their Modified Point Mass (MPM) solver is that they are attempting to patent it (Hornady states that their 4 DOF solver is patent pending). You couldn’t patent a MPM solver which has been around for decades, but you might be able to fool the patent office by calling your MPM solver something different like a 4 DOF. Research will reveal that there’s not been a 4 DOF solver (because it’s actually not a thing). It’s possible that Hornady is attempting to patent something very old by simply calling it something different and hoping no-one notices. This paragraph is speculation only. I can’t verify what Hornady’s plan is, but it’s one possible explanation for why they would choose such a misleading name for their solver.

Now that we’ve gotten past the misleading title, let’s explore what a modified point mass (MPM) simulation is and what information it requires to work properly.
A properly written MPM solver requires vast tables of obscure and hard to get aerodynamic coefficients for each bullet which characterize the forces and moments on a projectile as it flies thru the air. This data is very difficult to calculate with any accuracy. It doesn’t come from radar testing which only measures the projectiles velocity decay. Generally speaking, these aerodynamic coefficients are estimated using prediction software such as PRODAS. In Hornady’s case, out of the many different tables of aerodynamic coefficients used to drive the MPM solver, the drag coefficient is the only one that was directly measured with the rest being estimated. This puts their claim into perspective and reveals the marketing twist that’s in play. It’s true that a MPM solver simulates more details than a standard solver, however, the data being used to model the additional details is all estimated, not measured. So when the Hornady marketing message says their stability calculations are more accurate than conventional approximations, what they’re not saying is that their own complex stability calculations are based on data that is estimated and not verified with live fire. It’s a good position to spin up marketing hype, but a poor position to support under scrutiny.
For example, what happens when you calculate spin drift with Hornady’s solver is the MPM equations are being solved based on the estimated aerodynamic tables. By contrast, when you run the Applied Ballistics solver, a different approach is used to calculate spin drift: a formula which was developed years ago and has been verified with live fire measurements of actual measured spin drift2 is used. In other words, the Hornady MPM approach does extensive calculations using estimated data, and the Applied Ballistics solver applies a basic formula using measured data. If you wonder which is more accurate, you can read about the live fire verification of the Applied Ballistics method in Modern Advancements In Long Range Shooting – Volume I, which was published in 2014.

Aerodynamic jump is another similar example where the AB solver applies a simple and robust formula which has proven accurate in the field, and the Hornady supplied data is based on a different approximation which is not verified.
It’s strange that Hornady omitted the Coriolis effect in their solver. Depending on your location and azimuth, Coriolis can have an effect comparable in magnitude to aerodynamic jump, and the difference between BC based solutions and their custom drag models.
Hornady’s exclusive use of drag coefficients instead of BC’s in their 4 DOF solver will be the subject of another article. For now I will just point out that they claim the solver to be highly accurate out to 2000 yards, and that the radar derived drag coefficients are so very accurate that no truing is required. However, the Hornady solver requires an axial form factor input; which allows you to scale the radar measured drag tables up or down up to +/-10% from what’s in the library to match your data. This is the same thing as truing, which Hornady claims is not necessary with their solver.
Much of Hornady’s hype centers around their 4 DOF solver being the first to offer some advanced features like spin drift and aerodynamic jump. Of course this is completely false as the Applied Ballistics solver has refined these features thru live fire and incorporated them into our solver many years ago. Hornady is very much following, not leading, in ballistic science.
The previous paragraph clears up some of the misleading hype in which Hornady attempts to take credit as leaders. However the average shooter probably doesn’t care much about who did it first. The average shooter cares more about how accurate the ballistic predictions are. Perhaps one way to approach the accuracy question is to consider real world results. What sort of accuracy have the different solver/data combinations produced thru verified live fire testing?
For the Applied Ballistics combination of solver/CDM, the most recent public demonstration of accuracy was at the 2016 King of 2 Mile (KO2M) Extended Long Range (ELR) shooting event in Raton, NM. The KO2M event is an official competition sanctioned by the 50 caliber shooters association and shot under time constraints, rules, and scored with many observers. In this event, the Applied Ballistics team achieved first round hits on targets out to 2488 yards. This was accomplished with two different rifles and bullet combinations. In order to achieve first round hits on such distant targets, every element of the ballistic prediction has to be right, especially the bullet drag model. In summary, the Applied Ballistics solver results in first round hits with multiple rifles and bullets at over 1.4 miles. 1.4 miles is further than Hornady’s radar is even capable of tracking bullets, and further than their online 4 DOF solver is capable of running. Yet Hornady’s marketing claim is that their approach is better.

For now I leave you with the following facts regarding the Hornady 4 DOF solver:
1) The Hornady solver is not a 4 Degree Of Freedom solver. It is a modified point mass solver; something which has been around since the 1960’s3. It’s not actually possible to model spin drift and aerodynamic jump with 4 degrees of freedom.
2) The angular calculations of Hornady’s solver are based on estimated aerodynamic coefficients. By contrast, the formulas published by Applied Ballistics have been proven accurate thru live fire over the years by thousands of users.
3) The Hornady solver does not account for the Coriolis affect; something which is of comparable importance as the difference between G7 BC’s and custom drag models which Hornady cites as being one of the main advantages of their solver.
4) Hornady’s solver is an easily accessible online tool but the accuracy of even the basic drop and wind drift calculations are difficult to verify for sure since their drag data is hidden and prevents a direct comparison to established solvers.
5) Since the solver is limited to only those bullets in the library, it’s useless for anything but those particular bullets which don’t even include Hornady’s own full line.
6) Hornady’s claim of being the first to introduce advanced ballistic modeling effects such as spin drift and aerodynamic jump is completely false. In reality, Hornady is years behind the curve when it comes to ballistic modeling.
7) Hornady’s claim of superior accuracy is not supported with live fire results like the Applied Ballistics solver is.
In conclusion, Hornady’s 4 DOF solver may be reasonably accurate. However, regardless of the extensive marketing hype, there’s actually nothing novel about it. There are no facts which support their statements of it being more capable or more accurate than what has been available for many years.

i Our Mission: Applied Ballistics’ mission is to be the complete and unbiased source of external ballistics information for long range shooters. We’re highly active in R&D, constantly testing new claims, products and ideas for potential merit and dispensing with themarketing hype which can make it so difficult for shooters to master the challenging discipline of long range shooting. We believe in the scientific method and promote mastery thru unders tanding of the fundamentals. Our work is passed on to the shooting community in the form of instructional materials which are easy to understand, and products such as ballistic software which runs on many platforms. If you’re a long range shooter who’s eager to learn about the science of your craft, we’re here for you.

[Eugene]

Manne

Ek sien op die reviews van Applied ballistics dat die mense verskriklik kla dat die program crash as n mens die data verander. Blykbaar is daar ook geen terugvoer van die ontwikkelaars met die rapportering van probleme nie. Daar is n hele paar manne wat uitdruklik se dit is n absolute mors van $30. Soos ek verstaan kan jy ook nie in metric werk volgens die reviews nie, so dit sal vir my wat in Millrad werk n probleem wees. Gawie/manne is dit so met die een wat julle het?

Groetnis
Wouter

Wouter, daar is bietjie issues met AB op 'n iphone. Die probleem is blykbaar IOS 9 en daar is glo al 'n IOS 10 oppad. Volgens AB se website, is hulle besig om aandag aan die probleem te gee. Op andriod fone is AB meestal sonder hassles.

[Wouter Roets]

Dankie Manne.

[Arnold]

Ek het nie issues met AB op Android nie

[Giepie]

Is Brain Litz een van die ontwikkelaars van AB? Lyk vir my so. Sy negatiewiteit teen die Hornady program lyk vir my verdag. Ek ken nie een van die twee nie, maar dit lyk weer na 'n geval van "kraak die opposisie af sodat my produk beter kan lyk". Vertel en wys my eerder hoekom jou produk goed is sonder om die ander sleg te sê, dan het jy my aandag, dit is hoekom ek nie positief voel oor GSC nie. Ek is selfs negatief oor Peregrine met hulle "best hunting bullet on earth".

Ek het Strelok pro waarmee ek speel, maar nog nooit regtig gebruik nie. Wou dit vroeër die jaar in die Kalahari uittoets, maar daar was nie tyd daarvoor nie, beter om jou geweer se trajek te ken en iemand wat vir jou die afstand kan gee. Vir veldskiet sal dit seker beter werk waar jy dalk meer tyd het en plek om die foon neer te sit. Met bokke wat nie lank stil staan nie is daar nie tyd nie.

[Giepie]

So vinnig na die Hornady program gekyk, dit is lyk my net "online", jy het dus internet nodig daarvoor, of lees ek iets mis?

[Broadbandboer]

Ek het gevind dat op Apple produkte iStrelok pro beter werk. Applied Ballistics werk awesome op android(samsung)

My applied ballistic program crash baie op apple. Op die samsung nooit nie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JPS]

Nico,

shooter werk baie lekker vir vinnige berekininge en is gebruikers vriendlik maar hy neem die kruis winde se lift in ag nie. Wat baie keer hoogte issues weergee.

Strelok pro en AB neem dit wel in ag.

Ek het nou Shooter gekyk op IOS en lyk of shooter nou wel aerodynamic drift in ag neem vir sy elevasie voorspelling.
Ps. Dankie Peet.

[Capt. Yoda]

Is Brain Litz een van die ontwikkelaars van AB? Lyk vir my so. Sy negatiewiteit teen die Hornady program lyk vir my verdag. Ek ken nie een van die twee nie, maar dit lyk weer na 'n geval van "kraak die opposisie af sodat my produk beter kan lyk". Vertel en wys my eerder hoekom jou produk goed is sonder om die ander sleg te sê, dan het jy my aandag, dit is hoekom ek nie positief voel oor GSC nie. Ek is selfs negatief oor Peregrine met hulle "best hunting bullet on earth".

Ek het Strelok pro waarmee ek speel, maar nog nooit regtig gebruik nie. Wou dit vroeër die jaar in die Kalahari uittoets, maar daar was nie tyd daarvoor nie, beter om jou geweer se trajek te ken en iemand wat vir jou die afstand kan gee. Vir veldskiet sal dit seker beter werk waar jy dalk meer tyd het en plek om die foon neer te sit. Met bokke wat nie lank stil staan nie is daar nie tyd nie.

Dink in veldskiet gaan jy nog minder tyd he om op jou foon te krap al was dit toegelaat, die apps is nie regtig ontwikkel vir 400m skiet waar jy onder tyd/druk is nie.
Bryan Litz is die brein agter al Berger/Applied Ballistics (Applied Ballistic is sy maatskapy) se produkte, as hy praat sit die meeste skuts oor die wereld regop om mooi te luister

[Nico Harris]

Net n regstelling. Shooter kompenseer tog vir aerodynamic jump.

[Nico Harris]

Sien Jan het klaar genoem. Shooter werk bitter goed vir my tot op 1km wat ek dit nou al baie getoets het.