First, I never spoke disrespectfully or anything like that, but the responses to my posts have been way too emotional for no reason. I said from the start the problem is in the algorithm and that looking at the 6DOF or wind, is the wrong place to look, especially here since it’s obvious. I know what I’m talking about, even if it doesn’t come across that way.
Also, the fact that your 6DOF model doesn’t include a sight reference isn’t a problem; adding a sight‑offset is straightforward, but it’s not what this post is about. No need to get personal. Let’s keep it professional.
Like I said, the issue has been around since the first version — I ran tests back then — though I get you can’t be sure without internal QA. The code I posted was just a pointer to where to look, nothing more. I don’t know how much you and Jayden code, but the hint was meant to help start the debug.
If the reference frame were wrong, everything would be wrong. It isn’t.
It’s common for developers to miss some of the physics and math. Either train the devs in ballistics or provide precise, testable requirements for implementation—this is where most delays and errors come from.
IMHO...your software QA should be reviewed in your internal coding process.
I respect Hornady and appreciate you taking feedback, testing it in the field, and working to fix this issue
PS: the web version has other bugs besides the angled-fire problem.
