Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

I don’t know how snipers are trained in Italy…but I cannot see any reason for not having to learn how to compensate for <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #FF0000">canted shots</span></span>. If the situation arises, the right tool must be used, which in this case is ColdBore 1.0

All I can say about this is my understanding that sometimes the snipers must shoot from barricades, under a vehicle and other odd places where firing sideways is the only possible way to engage the target.

Canting is a murky topic to some extent, and certainly not explored by most, if not all, ballistics packages. I realize it’s due to the complex math that stands behind, mostly to calculate a compensated and integrated “Fire Solution”.

I forgot to mention that the “POI mode” is only available in the Desktop version. The Mobile is “always” in “Fire Solution” mode.

<span style="color: #3333FF">I still wonder why in FFS when doing MIL-based ranging there is no input for the Viewing Angle? Unless FFS is always assuming that the observer and target are always on the same plane…which is hardly the case in High Angle situations…</span>

On easy things I should say that you can run CB1 as simple or complex as the user desires to. The tools are there if required…after all we are on the pursuit of the best possible software, aren’t we?

<span style="color: #3333FF">The <span style="font-weight: bold">ZERO STOP</span> is very useful for tactical situations and matches alike, since it avoids to reset the scope for a new range making for fast follow up shots.</span>

The user can select/deselect all corrections and units just from the SHOOT! tab…no need to navigate back and forth. See screenshots.

You are right, if I forgot the usage of the “single letter commands” I can always try them…but I still prefer not to guess and have all functions properly labeled thus saving time and get to the point as fast as possible. Let’s say I like clean and neat user interfaces.

I too realize that programming for a device is not the same as for a PC, and some concessions must be granted, however this is hardly an excuse for not applying the most basic aspects of how to avoid ANY KIND of shortcuts, like the aforementioned “single letter” and myriads of menus and submenus…

For the sake of clearness I’m not bashing FFS. It’s a good package but lacking in certain areas and at least to me, hard to use. A better and polished interface could improve upon it a lot. Like I said before, CB1 and FFS are probably the best ones out there.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Compensating for 90 degree shots is pretty simple, no need for a computer at all. For odd angles, the main problem would be knowing the actual angle, entering the data and applying the solution without changing that angle. I have never in 30 years come across such a problem in actual field use, it being much simpler to get the gun plumb. Even the 90 degree shot is more of a match poser than an actual problem.

The same applies to view angle for mil ranging formulas. Mil ranging is antique in any event. If the angle is serious, just range the horizontal rather than the vertical. Yes, it's a feature, but hardly of real use.

As far as I can see, you eother select the corrections like spin drift and vertical deflection or you don't. So, I turn them all on and never go to that menu again, except perhaps to show a class what the actual correction value happens to be.

The VMil column on the Elevation page serves the same function as the zero stop.

A main feature missing in Coldbore is offsets, for shooters, ammo and equipment. For example, I use multiple rounds in my .338, and by clicking B for bullet I can select the optimum load for the target, then engage without any rezeroing or other compensation. Same for suppressor on/off.

I don't see a multi layered tabbed layout with oddly named tabs that much of an improvement over a menu driven system, but that's just me. Track? That's a rifle, scope and ammo? I see an option for Turret units, but no way to create a turret file that would result in a sloution like 1.4.2, one turn, index line 4, 2 clicks, which is either 14.5 MOA on a 10 MOA per turn NF, 19.5 minutes on a 15 MOA Leupold or 9.2 mils on a 5 Mil Leupold

Plus, I think a program that starts up after install with a slew of error messages about missing files does not inspire confidence.

Anyway, still playing with Coldbore, have not had it very long yet.

 

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

CoryT,

It’s just a guess…but the program does not start with errors…you are confusing with the setup process, which is not related to the program at all. And those “missing files”, are probably some DLLs that are not required and that’s the way Windows Mobile reports that. It all comes down to what already is installed on each particular PDA. If a missing file is really a critical one, the program won’t work at all…and since yours is working, then no issue to report. The installer did it work as usual.

<span style="color: #CC0000">It doesn’t matter if the MIL reading is vertical or horizontal. The Viewing Angle affects the same both takings. As simple as that. Pure and simple math, no voodoo here.

Hardly of real use? So why the instructors still teach the method? What happens when in a foggy environment the laser refuses to take readings beyond a certain range? And a laser beam can be detected too…What happens when the angle is of a real concern? Will you admit a WRONG solution? I certainly DON’T.

The Viewing Angle is much more than a “feature” … is a real need for a complete formulation…and if it’s lacking then it’s a not complete “tactical” solution.</span>

Seems than when a feature is not present in FFS is not important at all…undoubtedly that cannot be a serious assertion…and for sure is not a real assessment of a particular system. Being that biased cannot help much for others looking for impartial feedback and serious advice.

Offsets are current in ColdBore 1.0 Just define a new track with the offsets for any system/shooter, save it with a proper description and that’s it. Cannot be more straightforward.

Just check the User’s Manual on how to work with turrets units and tracking errors. All is explained there in deep detail and let me say that’s the same as for any other system like FFS. Just a different approach that you are not yet used to.

I’d recommend against leaving, in the SHOOT! tab the SD, Coriolis and other corrections ON all the time…unless you have set the <span style="color: #CC0000">correct parameters that apply for each function</span>. The software cannot read minds…at least for now.

Odd labels in the tabbed interface? Can you elaborate? I can read plain English and all tabs are properly indicated. Same for every command and units.

In the SHOOT! tab the user has all what is needed for last minute adjustments. No need to start clicking on that maze of menus or cryptic commands…

Like you said, take your time with the system, and get used to the Desktop edition too. Define and test your tracks there and once ready, sync them to the PDA in less than a split second.

The parameters in red, down below, are the ones needed to be right in order to leave SD and Coriolis "ON".

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Eaglet.. the screenshots of CB1 you posted are very clear...clear to explain better how could be difficult for a tactical shooters to have an easy layout... to many fields !!!!

they want to see an easy look !!

you wrote " I don’t know how snipers are trained in Italy "...

I think you don't know also how snipers are trained in the USA, England, Spain and Canada....

CB1 PDA or desktop version are easy to run at home or in a shooting range, you can talk about situations ( barricades ecc ecc )that in a real world never permits to take a look to a PDA...either in combat enviroment or tactical match..

Sorry, I agree with Cory... about initial setup or other thing like installation process..

2 years ago I bought Patagonia PDA and desktop version.. with also all others software available.... I found a lot of bugs for example in the log section, no way to change some setting from metric to imperial and viceversa... no way to have a syncro between the 2 software.... probably you experienced the same thing..

NOTHING TO SAY...about customer care PB was always present to send updates.... I've tons of emails between me and him..

Him asked me to test the first GPS beta version.... but I was not able to have correct output in my NOMAD, so tons of email, update file...ecc ecc..... finally I decided to abort Patagonia use..

the engine was good but the other things ...no.

a tactical shooter or a military sniper are for easy things..... I really do not understand how could you say that CB1 is easy... the most of them probably could not able to finish the installation process... install..look for key, send the key.. copy the licence..install the licence......... believe me.

at present time reading Frank topic about CB1 I decided to buy again a software ( CB1 ) ..

after installation process....how I've written there I was not able to have the GPS available in my NOMAD....what I can say....

PB sent me faster a file to test it and I'm trying to have my issue solved.....

I say again Patagonia customer care is great..

But you can be faster, you can send me tons of upgrade....ecc ecc.... but this is not what I want to see........I want easy thing..

Lex talus send you a card...you put the card in the NOMAD and the software works... without any issue..now Blaine has also implemented the update process...... very very easy thing..

I've no the skills of Frank or Cory, in a scale they are 100, me 10.....but if they said something.....please believe them..

my idea is... you like or you want to talk or to believe about situations impossible to see/use in field enviroment..

PS. " What happens when in a foggy environment the laser refuses to take readings beyond a certain range? "

answer... use a Vectronix..

" And a laser beam can be detected "

answer use a Vectronix PLRF 15C or 25 r other Vectronix...no beam will be detected

in this video in foggy/snowing enviroment you can see what a PLRF is able to do..... in this case the limit could be the shooter.. so the ability to see a target..

click on the image

 

[CoryT]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Look angle only has an effect if the target is not square to the reticle. If you have an 11 degree down angle, and attempt to read the vertical mils on a true vertical target, you will need to multiply the result by .98. If you read the horizontal mils, the 11 degree angle is not relevant at all, because the target width is still square to the reticle. We teach mil reading as a legacy skill, something to be used as a final backup. In any event there is a calculator in the PDA, if I think angle is actually a problem I can take the range and multiply it by the angle cosine, problem solved.

The Coriolis parameters are loaded from the GPS position, so I don't ever enter those manually. Why would I want to selectivly apply spin drift or vertical deflection corrections to a shot? Turn them on, then ignore the settings, I don't need to see those check boxes cluttering up the screen. Same with DA on/off, etc. And why does the Env tab have Barometric checked, then when I uncheck it the title switches to Station and the check box is unchecked? That's not pretty.

The turret function in Coldbore displays the corrected value for internal scope error. It does not, at least not anywhere that I can find, display the actual knob setting. It displays the click count or the MOA/MIL value. All I want to know is what to dial on the knob, referance my example above again and you'll see what I mean.

Saving offsets as tracks is a non-starter. I can't see what offset value is being used nor can I instantly clear the offset if I shift back to the original configuration.

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

+1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look angle only has an effect if the target is not square to the reticle. If you have an 11 degree down angle, and attempt to read the vertical mils on a true vertical target, you will need to multiply the result by .98. If you read the horizontal mils, the 11 degree angle is not relevant at all, because the target width is still square to the reticle. We teach mil reading as a legacy skill, something to be used as a final backup. In any event there is a calculator in the PDA, if I think angle is actually a problem I can take the range and multiply it by the angle cosine, problem solved.

The Coriolis parameters are loaded from the GPS position, so I don't ever enter those manually. Why would I want to selectivly apply spin drift or vertical deflection corrections to a shot? Turn them on, then ignore the settings, I don't need to see those check boxes cluttering up the screen. Same with DA on/off, etc. And why does the Env tab have Barometric checked, then when I uncheck it the title switches to Station and the check box is unchecked? That's not pretty.

The turret function in Coldbore displays the corrected value for internal scope error. It does not, at least not anywhere that I can find, display the actual knob setting. It displays the click count or the MOA/MIL value. All I want to know is what to dial on the knob, referance my example above again and you'll see what I mean.

Saving offsets as tracks is a non-starter. I can't see what offset value is being used nor can I instantly clear the offset if I shift back to the original configuration. </div></div>

 

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Davide,

You are really making my day a better one! I cannot believe what I’m reading…

One thing is you making money off FFS and a very different one is stating that every feature lacking in FFS is a good thing…I mean, being biased as you are is something I can understand to a given point…but trying to make us believe that “copy & paste” or using a calculator because FFS cannot do something that CB1 can… is well…too much for a single thread!

As you know, I did a lot of programming in the past and just some nowadays.

Do you know what Beta Testing is all about? It’s about BUGS…and please don’t tell me FFS does not have bugs…that you can tell to the Italian snipers, but please not to me…

Just read the “change log” of FFS and you as well as everybody else, can read the TONS of bugs that were fixed during the last years. Am I saying that is something to blame FFS about? Not at all.

BUGS are a simple consequence of programming being doing by human beings.

I’m not going to argue with you about planes because you are a pilot and I’m not…so please do not try to explain me about Beta Testing…

Beta Testing implies that a third party is testing the software looking for BUGS then to report them back. While a software is under Beta status, bugs are welcomed. Just ask Microsoft on their “service packs”…and I didn’t know that you did some Beta Testing on LoadBase, good for you! but now bashing them because of a Beta…well, that is not a nice attitude…

Beta is NOT production code. End of argument.

Just read the posts made by others at the Italian forum on the FFS thread…I cannot read Italian however Google Translate does a fair job and I can see over there many users complaining about its bugs…

Sorry but I never experienced the issues you are reporting on CB1. Never had a single glitch with the installer also.

Please, I never tried to discredit you, so do not try that with me. That’s not a gentleman’s way. I never said that I trained snipers in Canada, the UK or Spain, did I? But I can read and learn many things about their training programs.

I’ve been doing ELR for quite a long time…so do not try to lecture me on ballistics or else. No need for that.

I have to agree with you that Patagonia’s support is probably the best in the industry. Period. Try that with FFS and let me know…

Are you sure a laser beam from a Vectronix cannot be pinpointed? Are you 100% sure?....ask the Russians or the Israelis.

You like SD cards? Good. Try to get the latest update or simply the software from the other side of the planet…when the clock is ticking…I know for sure that our guys deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan got their CB1 licenses in just a couple of minutes…they simple downloaded it from the net. Cannot be simpler…try that with FFS and let me know.

On the other hand, SD cards make certain systems not able to run FFS. Just check what their page say about this.

And foggy or hazy days can make your ELR lazing a nightmare…that’s 100% a sure bet.

CoryT,

Sorry for repeating myself but a vertical or horizontal reading is exactly the same for the problem at hand. It’s basic geometry and it’s called “perspective transformation” and if you like Davide want to make us believe that a critical input for having accurate range calculations from the MIL formula can be solved with a “copy & paste” and a calculator…well, what can I add to that? Just let me run CB1 where I DON’T NEED TO DO awkward “solutions” like in FFS…

Ignore the settings? Sorry but I’m having a hard time following you…please take my humble advice…until you learn how to properly use CB1 leave them unchecked.

You say you don’t like the use of checkboxes in CB1? What about the checkboxes in FFS? Oh… I see…since they are in FFS then they are all of a sudden a blessing!

I tried hard, a lot…and still have to find why a checkbox is an issue…please elaborate further.

You cannot see what the offset is in CB1? Can you explain me how do I tell the difference in FFS? Let me say it’s basically the same in FFS. No big difference here.

The turret “function” in FFS is everything but a need of a real use. Just a nice way to confuse EASY readings…

Please do not forget that both you and Davide have been asking for EASY at lengths…so why to complicate the life of a sniper who wants “easy” with that Junk ? All he needs is a correction in the same units he is used to. Period.

Cluttered screen? I see…it’s much “easier” to start clicking on cryptic commands and do a lot of page jumping instead of having the corrections and other critical parameters like wind and slope at your fingertips…and you want “easy”…

Take your time with both editions and let me know if I can help you or better yet, send Patagonia an email, after having reading the manual, that they will get you squared fast.

Let’s talk about the engine…

I wonder where in FFS is the option to use a G7 BC…well, I should know better, my bad!! I’m sure G7 BCs are not “critical” or “important” or I can do some weird “copy & paste” to have it…but NO…so far no good…

Let me say that G7 BCs is featured in CB1 since the last four years or so…and I can see it coming…

”FFS developer will not address it until the demand is there…” etc, etc, etc…Garbage I say … as well as many others already said.

And don’t forget we are talking here about the ballistics software with the highest price tag on the market…with G7 been done in a $30 app…

Sure, G1 in FFS (and CB1) does a great job, but lacking the capability to run G7 BCs is definitively a huge shortcoming…and I don’t care how you guys want to disguise it.

You cannot hide all the time all the functions or features in FFS that are not addressed…and at the same are readily available in CB1.

And what about differentiating uphill and downhill shots? Last time I checked it out…FFS was yielding the same solution no matter the direction of the incline…If you can correct me, that will be great for sure. Please add a full sample.

And what about correctly calculating the Danger Space or the Hit Threshold for ANY slope?

Just to be clear, FFS is a nice package, lacking in critical areas like the already reviewed, and been the most expensive of all packages I cannot say it’s my top choice, when I can have a PC and PDA version, fully featured software in CB1…and for half the price.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eaglet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Davide,

CoryT,

Sorry for repeating myself but a vertical or horizontal reading is exactly the same for the problem at hand. It’s basic geometry and it’s called “perspective transformation”

<span style="color: #FF6666"> <span style="font-weight: bold"> If I look down at a 45 degree angle, perpendicular to a 10'x10' wall, the width is still 10', the height is going to APPEAR to be 7'. Draw a pictue of you have too.
</span> [ </span>

Ignore the settings?
<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF6666"> Since the GPS provides them, I've got no need to mess with them, so yes, I ignore them, they are auto fill.</span></span>

You say you don’t like the use of checkboxes in CB1? What about the checkboxes in FFS? Oh… I see…since they are in FFS then they are all of a sudden a blessing!

<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF6666"> I don't need check boxes all over the main page for options that are not going to change, it's just a waste of space. The check boxes on the FFS pages that are there change often. The options are set and forget, check the items on the options menu and just leave it alone.</span></span>



You cannot see what the offset is in CB1? Can you explain me how do I tell the difference in FFS?
<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF6666"> In FFS, the offest for elevation and windage presently in place is shown on the main page in the lower right corner. </span></span>

The turret “function” in FFS is everything but a need of a real use. Just a nice way to confuse EASY readings…

<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF6666"> Really? So you would rather have to count to get to 18 MOA up, rather than just dial 1 turn then 3? Why do any math if you don't need to?</span></span>

Please do not forget that both you and Davide have been asking for EASY at lengths…so why to complicate the life of a sniper who wants “easy” with that Junk ? All he needs is a correction in the same units he is used to. Period.

<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF6666"> So, the knob is in MOA but the reticle is mils, how does CB1 work with mixed units?</span></span>

Cluttered screen? I see…it’s much “easier” to start clicking on cryptic commands and do a lot of page jumping instead of having the corrections and other critical parameters like wind and slope at your fingertips…and you want “easy”…

<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF6666"> What page jumping? The main page shows everything you need for a basic shot. Advanced functions need to open another form, just like CB needs to jump to another tab. Cryptic? So 'WIND' 'Elevation' and 'Windage' are cryptic?</span></span>


Let’s talk about the engine…

I wonder where in FFS is the option to use a G7 BC…well, I should know better, my bad!! I’m sure G7 BCs are not “critical” or “important” or I can do some weird “copy & paste” to have it…but NO…so far no good…

Let me say that G7 BCs is featured in CB1 since the last four years or so…and I can see it coming…

”FFS developer will not address it until the demand is there…” etc, etc, etc…Garbage I say … as well as many others already said.

<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF6666"> Since the G1 solutions are already as good as Doppler radar tracks, I've got no use for G7, it's of no advantage, no matter what others might think. It's just marketing crap. The solution using G7's is no better, sorry.</span></span>

And don’t forget we are talking here about the ballistics software with the highest price tag on the market…with G7 been done in a $30 app…
<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF6666"> Hardly the most expensive, the guys that took over the CheyTac system sell theirs for $2K.

Oh, before I forget, where's the Wind speed calculator or target speed calulator in CB? Not present, that's where.

The SD card lets you move the software between computers along with all the data, oops, can't move CB, need a new key.

The new distribution system will let you download an upgrade directly to the card, as of the current release.
No point in discussing this any further, we agree to disagree.
</span></span> </div></div>

 

[Kevlars]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

I have agree with Cory and Davide. I have used LB, CB and FFS and for ease of use in the field FFS wins hands down. The others are nice to fool with in your living room. Eaglet I am not sure what stake you have with CB but if you can divorce yourself from the product and just look at the ease of use out in the field with respect to data its hard to beat FFS.

Just my two cents.

 

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

CoryT,

Again…unless you are PERFECTLY ALIGNED with the target, you need to apply the perspective correction….you like it or not…so, according to FFS the MIL-based ranging is only valid for a VERY SPECIFIC situation…so what happens when the observation angle (not the Viewing one) is not “perfect”…??

I agree with you that G1 in FFS (and CB1) is perfectly capable of yielding excellent results, something that Lowlight already addressed in some old post.

However, G7 is here and not addressing it is a weakness of FFS. Problem is the engine is tied to a particular method and is not flexible at all. I disagree with G7 being a “marketing crap”, it’s just another Drag model.

In CB1 the offset are just a tab away…no big deal at all.

Easy. Just click on the upper UNITS and that’s it. Make your choice for MOA, MRAD, IPHY, etc.

Never used Cheytac’s so I cannot comment, but I don’t think it’s much used around. For their manual reading I fail to see anything special…completely overpriced for no good reason in my opinion.

Wind Calculator? What for? I have a wind meter…and if not working I have a backup. And let me add that the calculator in FFS is merely a simple table taken from the sailing books…no magic…but if you feel it’s of “tactical need” let me know…

I have to grant you that. FFS can be moved around…until the SD card breaks down…

Patagonia has been doing download since the last 6 years. Anyway, it’s good news to see FFS now doing the same.

Kevlars,

It’s a matter of opinion and yours is as good as mine. You find FFS easier, well, I feel exactly the opposite. No big deal. To each its own.

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Eaglet .. in the first part of your message, you right, sorry it was not my intention to offend you... I apologize, always using a keyborad is quite difficult because you can use wrong words to try to explain what you have in the head....and for me is a little bit difficult, my English is not so good...

otherwise....talking about MIL reading, if you need to use it is because all other systems fail... and in this case the approximation will be one thing to take in account.... same thing if I've to use input for cant due shooting position..( barricades )

try to MIL some target at unknow distances...and try to do it in a hurry situation... we are talking about fixed targets....

try to think about some movers...... are you sure to be ready to take in consideration all the factors ? slope, target dimension, light... ecc ecc....... again good tool to play in a range.

about this <span style="color: #FF0000">Just read the posts made by others at the Italian forum on the FFS thread…I cannot read Italian however Google Translate does a fair job and I can see over there many users complaining about its bugs…</span> )........

the BIGGEST bug of FFS for Italian guys is the price, for software and platform.. you know the story " the fox and the grape " ?.......I've seen 2 guys that prefer shooter ballistic... but not for FFS bugs... other things... but their knoledge about software is poor....even cheapest software is very very poor..... if you follow Italian forum please take a look how one of this guy use JBM to create table..... but give me evidence of the topic where you have seen bug report and I'll translate for you...

I agree with Cory replay....so nothing more to say..

<span style="color: #FF0000">Wind Calculator? What for? I have a wind meter…and if not working I have a backup. And let me add that the calculator in FFS is merely a simple table taken from the sailing books…no magic…but if you feel it’s of “tactical need” let me know…</span>

again... the wind calculator of FFS is to try to have wind spotted down range... I've used this tool and works great..
may be you can use your wind meter in a UAV or drone.... yes is a tactical feature to help tactical shooter.....same thing for a moving target.....

About laser beam of some Vectronix products...yes some are not visible, for example PLRFC 10/10C is visible...PLRF 15/15C is not visible..

about foggy day...have take a look of my video ? was snowing and I was able to laser more then 1000 m.......but that day due mist and poor visibility the effective distance to shoot was not more then 700/800 meters.

about FFS card..... right may be fail like other electronic devices.. but how Cory wrote you can use the card in different PDA....without limit...

ok the FFS card fail......I'll use a back table ( even for CB1)
the PDA fail....I can use FFS card on another PDA

but if the PDA where is located the CB1 fail.... you can use only table.....

So this feature of FFS is a greater plus......

I say again... Cory and Frank have some credits..... if they said that FFS is better for field tactical use you MUST.. agree with them.. otherwise explain better your credits ( long range shooter is not a credit

)

Eaglet where are you located ? may be you could do a field test with Cory about CB1 and FFS......or make a phone call to Cory if you are located far away from him or Frank... but if you are located in Nevada... try to take 2/3 days for a trip to Gunsite or to Frank...may be a good opportunity to share a lot of info.. because it seem you know very well CB1.. and a field test with other Cory/Frank in a tactical enviroment will be a good choice...... thinks about it....

ciao

 

[CoryT]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Ok, last post, promise.

Perspective correction is such a small error at normal ranges/angles that you have much bigger problems. If the target appears to be angled, take a few percent off the range or size and drive on. If it looks like 45 degrees, multiply the target size by .7, if it's 60 degrees use .5. Unless of course you can get the target to hold a protractor for you to get the actual angles. In the real world this has never been an issue. When the average range is < 400 yards and < 5 degrees, it just has no real effect. If you are at 1000+ yards, you can't mil anything anyway. So, for this to matter at all, I need to find a target at 600-800 yards and a 30 degree or more angle. At which point, if I can't get the range any other way I can just multiply my normal reading by the cosine of the angle and drive on.
G7 has been around for longer than computers. The Pejsa system delivers perfectly good solutions with G1. Why in the world would I need to compute that same solution with a different process? How does giving me the exact same answer using a different constant that most bullet makers don't even supply make for an improvement? Answer: Marketing crap

I don't want to tab away to see if there are offsets. Isn't that what you complain about in FFS, having to change pages?

Cliking on the units changes ALL the units. I want Elevation in MOA and Wind in mils. The knob is in MOA and the reticle is in mils, I don't want to click back and forth between them.

The Wind page has a downrange wind calculator, where you measure drift against yout reticle. Now it's a known value rather than an estimate. Same with movers using the Speed page. Have you actually USED FFS, or have you just looked at the Web page screen shots?

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

<span style="color: #FF0000">" Perspective correction is such a small error at normal ranges/angles that you have much bigger problems. If the target appears to be angled, take a few percent off the range or size and drive on. If it looks like 45 degrees, multiply the target size by .7, if it's 60 degrees use .5. Unless of course you can get the target to hold a protractor for you to get the actual angles. In the real world this has never been an issue. When the average range is < 400 yards and < 5 degrees, it just has no real effect. If you are at 1000+ yards, you can't mil anything anyway. So, for this to matter at all, I need to find a target at 600-800 yards and a 30 degree or more angle. At which point, if I can't get the range any other way I can just multiply my normal reading by the cosine of the angle and drive on. "</span>

real world ( above )..... a tons of people buy a scope with MIL reticle...... and they said...with the MIL reticle I can MIL my targets..... I've seen tons of people never used the reticle to MIL their target....

if some more plus of CB1 are, cant, the tool for MIL target that appears angle...ecc ecc........ it's very easy to understand that these major features doesn't make sense in real world.....

when I was speaking about USA, Canada, Spain and English snipers was not my intentions to offend Eaglet... but it difficult for me to understand that people like " real sniper " did request to have these tools...

because in the real world what happens is what Cory wrote.....

 

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

I liked the example given on milling. But I disagree on some concepts. If the operator is milling a tall target, like a telephone pole, the problems remains the same, simply because it’s a structure that does not pose any major trouble to acquire even at long range…and we can add for sure to the list many more examples of likely structures…and all of them happen in the elusive sought after “real world” …so where lies the true under those cases?

My point is, if milling is required having other means been precluded, I’d like to have a built-in function with all the potential. After all, it’s up the user to use them or not. While the reverse IS NOT true.

On a positive note, I’m sure that FFS can improve on this function on a future update, being it an easy one…only thing is I hope the “solution” being something better than “copy & paste” and a calculator…

I’m sure it’s my fault for not being clear enough. In FFS the user ALWAYS leave the “main page”…it’s a simple consequence of how its interface was designed…in contrast to that, in CB1 a user NEVER leaves the page…different design strategies. And no, I don’t mind to navigate between perfectly labeled tabs…takes me about 1 microsecond. No big deal.

Designing a user interface for portable devices with such a small screen estate is always a major challenge, if truth must be said. Let me add that the issue with FFS is not the use of menus/submenus…is the OVERUSE of them…up to the point where some pages have up to 6 menus…and their corresponding submenus…a real exercise in memory…

Changing units in CB1 SHOOT! tab…could take what to perform… perhaps a half microsecond? Is that so horrifying? Don’t think so…

I rather have to do that and have CLEAR AND EASY to understand, bold correction for Elevation and Windage including their directions (UP-DOWN-LEFT-RIGTH) for a NIL error chance due to a misunderstanding. And for what Lowlight posted before, he had a part in the final design, and I can only agree to this.

The so called “wind calculator” in FFS is really a feature I do not care for at all…and for a good number of reasons, including the fact that if not for smoke, the utility is basically a very good way to waste time…leave me with my wind meter.

However, if you think that it’s a “nice to have” feature, while I’m not Lowlight, I can try and ask PB to add it and will see if they are willing to work on it.

What worries me the most is some reasoning that I can only define as twisted…or if you prefer, <span style="font-weight: bold">stubborn blindness</span>.

Let me explain…having a fully featured Kestrel module with functions that automatically accommodates and parses units (CB1) is not needed…having a built-in GPS ellipsoids conversion feature (CB1) is not needed…compensating for canted shots (CB1) is not required…having a complete formulation for milling (CB1) is not required…differentiating and correctly compute sloped shots given uphill/downhill (CB1) is not required…doing the same for any slope for Hit Threshold and Danger Space (CB1) is not required…G7 BC (CB1) is also not a need…and the list can go on…but just these few examples already touched are enough to make the point in case.

But…<span style="font-weight: bold">having a “wind calculator” is a MUST?</span> I must admit that I’m completely at lost here…most especially when a so called “expert” explains what is “tactical” and what comes to be “real world” ?...please gimme a break...

Excuse me, but since a long time I’m not more into some marketing monikers like “tactical” or “real world”…too much abused for my taste to the point of making them meaningless…true marketing garbage. I’m afraid to say that they no longer work on my purchasing decisions.

However saying that the UK, Canadian or Spanish snipers are not “real world” is perhaps a tribute to them…when we all know that those guys are 100% serious business.

Finally, and at the risk of being repetitive…FFS is a good package, and I truly hope that time will get it better, but for now is second in my pick, just after CB1 which is my premier to-go ballistics solution….which can also be improved as everything else in this world. I think that we as users must push on the developers to make improvement a continuous cycle.

Thank goodness this thread was mostly civil and in spite of the perseverance on both sides to prove which application is better none of us was able to change the other's mind but deep inside we all know the CB1 has a bright future and FFS has some serious changes to be done.

Finally the readers will make their own mind. Some will go one way and others the other way.

Greetings to all,

Sincerely,

<span style="font-weight: bold">Eaglet</span>

 

[one shot ST]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Eaglet......and the trip to Gunsite ? will be a perfect location to compare the 2 software.. with plus and minus....

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Not too wade too deep into this debate, but..,

Eaglet, most of the features your are citing as being requested by military snipers are for close range engagements. The reticle dope is very nice but is mainly used for speed and done inside working distances like 600m you dont reference anything you shoot and move. Same with chanting a rifle to side. Used for very close in engagements to shoot under or around thing very close. And in most cases you can get away with going Hawkings position and avoiding it completely.

I am not going to get into G7, but it is not a limitation not having. because neither program is using a drag dependent solution like a point mass solver.

Knowing the wind or target speed down range is more importanting than chanting.

The problem people see interface wise and I have spoken to Gus about it, is opening the software outside the "shoot" tab. That was always the complaint, at least expressed by me. I do believe he changed it so you can stay in the shoot tab but it was not always that way.

Come to the Gunsite Class you have many months to prepare.

What I am gonna do is run CB1 as my primary this go around as I have already done it with FFS so with CB1 being new I will use it instead.. (Still showing up on Sunday for the refresher.).

 

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Lowlight,

I appreciate your last post. It’s a good one. Let me add that while I’m used to the Hawkins stance, I still feel that canting can be an issue if the shooter is forced to take the shot under less than ideal conditions. Even at a sensible range, let’s say 600 yards, if not able to compensate correctly for even a scant 25º the final POI can be easily off by about 24 inches. Of course, shooting as level as possible is the goal, but sometimes it’s not that practicable and your post is very clear of such circumstances. If given the choice I’ll take the package featuring it over one that does not.

I do agree with what you wrote, wind is critical, just happens that I simply don’t want to add another error source like canting. Please take my statement on the “wind calculator only in regards to its usefulness in lieu of the other features that somewhat were ignored or dismissed for no good reason at all. Estimating downrange wind speed is not that hard given adequate practice, on the other hand, for any given software not accounting for certain ballistics effects is an altogether different situation.

I don’t have your influence on Patagonia’s design protocol, so just let me say that you did a great job on driving CB1 to its current form. I know, by personal experience, that persuading a developer to that extent is not easy.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Most people who can't do so at less than 5 degrees, which is extremely noticeable in the scope but really doesn't show up until it is too late. Are you really gonna cant on purpose to the point of knowing "I am canting 10 degrees for this shot so the solution is" hell no. When a person is canted it happens on the rifle to a small degree well past the point of stopping, returning to the computer and running the number.

Sorry, your explanation is not how people shoot and well under the degree you think.

In fact I took pictures of the Winner of the 2012 SHC Wade with his rifle slightly canted according to his level and he still managed to hit more than he missed, ukd targets most less than 2 MOA.

 

[Eaglet]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most people who can't do so at less than 5 degrees, which is extremely noticeable in the scope but really doesn't show up until it is too late. <span style="font-weight: bold">Are you really gonna cant on purpose to the point of knowing "I am canting 10 degrees for this shot so the solution is" hell no.</span> When a person is canted it happens on the rifle to a small degree well past the point of stopping, returning to the computer and running the number.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Sorry, your explanation is not how people shoot and well under the degree you think.</span>
</div></div>

Some Call it URBAN PRONE POSITION... I would call it SAVE YOUR BRAINS POSITION...

<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">Are you really gonna cant on purpose?</span></span>

This the standard normal well known prone position. Any one with 5 cents worth of brains know that a sniper at 500 -600 yards could easily deprive this shooter from his brains.


But you know that of all people.

This shooter is better protected but his rifle has been canted 90°. So now his UP and Down turret will work for right and left adjustments and his RIGHT and LEFT turret WILL BE USED FOR DOWN AND UP. Contrary to some folks thinking that this is a no brainer, you could quickly get mighty confused. I'd rather to have a real application like CB1 that would say... <span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">For 500 yards 90° cant Solution: LEFT 12.1 MOA; DOWN 1.9 MOA</span> CB1 in this case is expecting you use use the turrets as you know them but when it says LEFT you'd be adjusting for UP and when it says down you'd be adjusting towards the LEFT. I love CB1.0 because you don't have to think about any of it you just make the adjustments as you would normally do... Let it fly...

This is my last post for this thread</span>; this was not about testing my knowledge in sniping work since I'm not a sniper nor a trainer but it was about proving which application is a better one.

No doubt ColdBore 1.0 IS THE WINNER IN MY EYES AND has a brighter future. TIME WILL PROVE THAT!

Davide, thanks for the invitation, but this man is staying home!

Sincerely,

EAGLET!

 

[Mr Flannel]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Any idea when CB will be able to be run on Windows based phones? I used to use FFS but needing a separate dedicated PDA to run windows mobile for that or CB is a bit over-the-top for my needs, particularly with the cost of rugged PDAs. I think a cheap PDA would last about 5 mins with the way I bang shit around..but at least these days you can get tough covers for a fair range of phones.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Trust me I know that position much better than you think and it is a completely ridiculous position to use when you have Hawkins or other options, especially if you think you are gonna say, "hey I will roll over here, and oh wait let me get my computer out and run the program to see what dope I need" really --- NOT !

This was originally meant for short range engagements underneath things like cars, mainly with an AR / M4 and not a precision rifle. It is not meant for long range engagements by any stretch of the imagination. It was meant for across the street, like 40 yards. If you need longer, there is a solution for that.

Plus you specifically said, 25 degrees or more, which if you were forced in this position you will not have time to run the computer. If you had that much time get a better position, or use Hawkins. This is a field expedient, OH SHIT SHOT needed to be taken right the fuck now.

You're stretching here, by a long shot, this position used to be a staple at tactical competitions rarely past 100 yards and once I was told to use it at 300, at least that was the idea. I went to Hawkins made the shot with no offset and no drama.

Here is an idea, pull a fucking brick out and shoot between them...

Tell me why you would use this position to the point of needing a computer to give you a solutions ? The only use would be with the car, and not very far, otherwise you can simply back up and away from the car. The image at the bricks, you are not any lower in the Supine (that is what many call it) than in the one with the rifle resting on the bricks, plus you are not a full length target, but a slimmer 18" wide one instead of 60 inches long. As if that elbow sticking up isn't visible.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Wow, what an informative thread. I wish we could sticky the info in here.

 

[Graham]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trust me I know that position much better than you think and it is a completely ridiculous position to use when you have Hawkins or other options, especially if you think you are gonna say, "hey I will roll over here, and oh wait let me get my computer out and run the program to see what dope I need" really --- NOT ! ...</div></div>Simply dial a PBZ, hold to the right by the amount of the sight-height and hold high by whatever the actual bullet drop is at distance. Problem solved.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

Dial the elevation down by actual drop at zero, setting parallel bore, dial up the elevation you like on the windage knob. The bore height is a meaningless amount at any real distance, so drive on. Interesting for nothing other than an annoying match stage.

 

[jasonk]

Re: Ballistic software, and ballistic scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bore height is a meaningless amount at any real distance, so drive on. Interesting for nothing other than an annoying match stage.</div></div>

LMAO....so true.