Range Calculator development

[Ragnarok]

Have you considered hiding the more advanced options and inputs on a separate tab?

That is vaguely what I'm trying to working towards.

Simple version on one tab, a full set of options on another - it's probably better to do it that way than simple/advanced split, because then advanced users would have to keep switching backwards and forwards between tabs.

It's a little difficult guessing where each function should go, but, well. Basically, it's things like I'm not sure if wind/environmental condition and Cd vs. Mach should be covered under the "basic" tab.

Obviously, advanced users will be interested in such things, but I don't know whether the average user will be bothered about the changes involved. You tell me.

Not really. Any symmetrical shape flying such that its long axis is aligned with the flight path won't generate any lift.

Well, there is natural asymmetry in that air density naturally thins with altitude.
Obviously, this is very very minor, but it does create lift - negligible lift, certainly, but lift all the same.

@al-xg: That really depends on how you define "most important".

It might come down to the fact that I may be the only person who's ever going to use the advanced options in a serious manner, but given that it's modelling things of that order that's why I'm interested in getting this to work appreciably, they're certainly highly important to me.
And being the programmer means that if I think it's important, I get it.

Of course, this thread is for you to shout at me what you think is important. But that doesn't mean I'll put aside what I want it to be able to do.

[maverik94]

What programming language are you using? Visual Basic?

[Ragnarok]

@maverik94: That's what I'm supposed to be using, linked with Excel.

Suffice to say, it's not my speciality. At least it's a BASIC language, which is about the only thing I ever learnt in the past.

[maverik94]

ok, I do program, but I have never done anything with VB, so I can't help you, as much as I'd like to. Good luck!

[al-xg]

What I mean is that before you go calculating the coriolis effect and earth curvature over long range multi-altitude supersonic standing on one foot shots, you'd want to make sure you could at least predict trajectory accuratly over short distances first. But maybe that is the case, it just doesn't seem to be what is put forward in your posts.

I'm not suggesting avanced features shouldn't be included, on the contrary, but if you're thinking of making a public the hidden options suggestion seems like a good idea.

I hope you manage to take this as far as you have planned, it should be a very interesting tool.

[Ragnarok]

The program is fully capable of predicting trajectory accurately over shorter distances, as long as it's given the right information in the first place, of course.

Still, it's matching up very nicely with what experimental data I have to hand, so I can't complain.

Getting exactly the right data might prove a bit of a task, but eventually, I hope to have tools which I can add as part of the package that will make determining things like a reasonably accurate, rather than estimated ,drag coefficient a slightly less daunting task.

[ramses]

If you wanted to, you could probably cut out pennyweight, troy ounces, troy pounds, and Rankine temperature.

I assume there will be output of energy/area on impact.
Also, will there be options of different drag models, G1,G2,G7, etc.

Thanks for making a thread like this

[Ragnarok]

@ ramses: I guessed those were the less likely unit candidates. Unless anyone expressly expresses interest, they'll probably be going.
I quite want to cut some of the pressure units as well, but Barometers can give answers in such unusual units, I don't know which to cut, if any.

There may be an energy/area option. However, I'm not sure about including it, because although it's a guestimate of penetrative ability, it doesn't actually relate to anything too specifically, because there's lots of other factors involved. It's sort of an "Um... I'd like to put something like that in, but I'm not sure how much use it is."

At this point, I will state outright that I have no intent of building in my penetration estimation tool, because I am NOT writing the guide that I'd need to for that thing. It's a nightmare for me to use, let alone someone who doesn't know the intricacies of it.

And yes, there will definitely be different drag models, although I may make them an advanced feature. Feedback needed on whether it's an advanced or simple tool.

[Biopyro]

I agree with rameses, but also inches and mm of water and inches of mercury - If it's only spudders using this tool, there will be very little call for those.

[Ragnarok]

I agree with rameses, but also inches and mm of water and inches of mercury - If it's only spudders using this tool, there will be very little call for those.

Inches/millimetres of mercury is actually quite a common one for barometers to be marked in (well, inches of Hg on imperial barometers anyway), so I think those two at least should stay.

[Biopyro]

Ah, I was thinking of it's use for chamber pressure as opposed to atmospheric pressure, in which case I suppose they should stay.

[Ragnarok]

@Biopyro: No, at the moment, there's no reason to enter chamber pressure, because at the moment, this is just an external ballistics modeller.

Internal ballistics is the job of Apocalypse - However, that has never been something I've planned to release publicly.

[MountainousDew]

Why don't you plan on releasing Apocalypse to the public, or even just us?

[Ragnarok]

Why don't you plan on releasing Apocalypse to the public, or even just us?

In this case, You Lot = Public.

The short answer is because Apocalypse is far more advanced than any of you need. It's considerably more complex than GGDT, and demands a lot more from it's users.
Yes, it is more accurate under certain inputs, but in general terms, if you think GGDT is good enough, you don't need Apocalypse.

Also, I have little intention of being drawn into having to make that acceptable for public release as well as the LRC.

[john bunsenburner]

Wow rag, amazing stuff. One thing my uneducated mind, when it comes to physics, fails to comprehend is why one would need to enter the atmospheric pressure when the altitude is supplied as well. Is it an option of either entering altitude OR atmospheric pressure or is it a matter of entering both for some reason(which I fail to recognize).
Also really this is "only" a calculator and so you should have no trouble at all using visual basic for this. I am not familiar with the exact details of your desired program but really the programing of a calculator(how ever complicated it may be) on visual basic is extremely easy and thus should just require time but not too much learning.

To end this post I think I speak on behalf of the whole spudgunning community by saying the floowing; I would like to thank you for investing your time and effort into this, I am positive it will prove very useful to the more experienced, and as a useful tool for all those who are just starting this hobby.