NSD Login
Forums
Statistics
- Users
- 3530
- Articles
- 156
- Articles View Hits
- 1591882
Hancock The Superb wrote:
And therein lies your problem. There is nothing on the other side of the equation to cancel. The target is motionless, it is not growing into the ground while the bullet is in flight. From the perspective of the bullet, the target is actually accelerating upward. At 100 yd. if you aim between the target's knees and feet, you will miss.the angle added due to gravity (as the projectile takes an parabola instead of a line) is cancelled on both sides of the equation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
If these numbers are correct why were they always told to low? Doesn't the bullet fall enough already.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Since you are unwilling to do the calculation properly, I shall do it for you.Ah. But the angle at which you fire it does not matter in my study. The only thing that matters is the range of angles that will hit a target. The target could be below the ground, above the ground...it really doesn't matter. As far as my study is concerned, the Civil War could have taken place on the moon. The range of ANGLES = Upper angle - lower angle. I just removed the step of actually calculuting what that upper and lower angle are at specific distances.
Adding the lower angle to both sides gives you Lower angle + range of ANGLES = Upper angle...if we break the lower and upper angles into their velocity/acceleration components, you get 1/2at^2 on both sides, and since the t is roughly the same...they can be cancelled. This leaves me with the fantastically simple law of cosines that works for a target anywhere. The target just has to be 5'10" tall, but as far as the math is concerned, it may as well be sinking into the soil at 9.81m/s^2. To shift the angles up, I just add a factor to the top and bottom that accounts for gravity, but like I suggested earlier, there is no need when I only care about the difference between the two.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Yes, it is called adjustable sights. That's why rifles have them, to compensate for the gravitational drop of the bullet.So my question is: Isn't there some empirical evidence to back this stuff up somewhere?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
I know nothing about physics but I do know there are two kinds: theoretical and experimental (hey, I watch PBS). So my question is: Isn't there some empirical evidence to back this stuff up somewhere?
Or better yet, maybe we have MTG and HTS stand 100 yards apart with muskets and see who hits whom based on their calculations.
B
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
2 snipers from 400 yards, each one locked on a target !!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Hancock The Superb wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Since you are unwilling to do the calculation properly, I shall do it for you.
Without gravity:
d = Dist. to target: 100yd. (91.44M)
h = Height of target: 70.2in (1.78M)
angle = atan(h/d) = 1.12 degrees
With gravity:
speed of bullet: 950ft/sec (290M/S)
g = 9.8M/S**2
time of flight of bullet = t = 91.44/290 = 0.316 sec
drop of bullet during flight = hg = 1/2gt**2 = 0.49M
hr = real height of target = h - hg = 1.29M
angle = atan(hr/d) = 0.81 degrees
Gravity reduces the acceptance angle by 28% (good estimate Barrow)
If you have any desire to go into a field where quantitative measurements and calculations are required, I urge you, for your own sake, to listen to the criticism you receive and perform the measurement as they suggest. Only then can you determine its accuracy. No one gets particularly upset if you make a mistake in your assumptions or measurements. Science is a self correcting endeavor. However, people get very upset when you refuse to entertain the possibility of error.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
>As you can see from the table on the right, the difference between the angles
>exactly follows my prediction of earlier (as seen by the chart on the first
>page): off only by the third significant figure on a couple of them.
If I'm reading your table correctly, in all these calculations your target is
at a different elevation from your shooter, and your "distance" is the hypotenuse.
In your original post it seemed like your distance was the horizontal separation
between shooter and target, and they were both at the same elevation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
And you, Mayonaise, come across as misspelled, white and fluffy, and quite tasty on a turkey and cheese sandwich.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Olszowy
If you want a ballistically correct game, great, not sure what that brings, but okay, go for it. I'd rather time be spent on ensuring the battlefield framework, comprehensive scenario editor, battlescript for co-op games, better orders, placeable breastworks, and such be worked on.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
If these numbers are correct why were they always told to low? Doesn't the bullet fall enough already.
They were told to aim low because a standard .58 Calibre Minie Ball moves in an arc when fired. Modern weapons do the same thing. Thus they were told to aim low because at the short distances they were fighting from, the bullet would still be moving in an upward arc.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
No.Does the engine actually track the trajectory of EVERY projectile in the game? Just a thought.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.