What is the recommendation for a ballistics software for say, a palm pilot or such. Getting tired of toting notes around. Would like a system which you guys have found to be fairly easy and accurate. Hopefully not to expensive either. Seen software that went into a casio pilot and others. Are they GTG or is there something better?????
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Ballistics software
- Thread starter Coyote3
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ballistics software
Re: Ballistics software
I have been using the ballistic software for the iphone and it works suprisingly well. The creator is making updates as needed and I was able to ring steel to 800 yds so far. I also have the atrag from Horus and that is killer software for the palm! Good luck.
Cheers
The agent
I have been using the ballistic software for the iphone and it works suprisingly well. The creator is making updates as needed and I was able to ring steel to 800 yds so far. I also have the atrag from Horus and that is killer software for the palm! Good luck.
Cheers
The agent
Re: Ballistics software
yes. Bulletflight by KAC in conjunction with my iTouch is serving me very well.
I'm very impressed with it.
yes. Bulletflight by KAC in conjunction with my iTouch is serving me very well.
I'm very impressed with it.
Re: Ballistics software
I have Ballistic and KAC's BulletFlight for my iPhone, but I haven't had a chance to test them at the range yet. They produce different numbers for the same load. I am planning on trying them out this weekend at the range so I'll know which one is more accurate.
I have Ballistic and KAC's BulletFlight for my iPhone, but I haven't had a chance to test them at the range yet. They produce different numbers for the same load. I am planning on trying them out this weekend at the range so I'll know which one is more accurate.
Re: Ballistics software
Ballistic on an ipod Touch is coming up with the chart results as my previous exbal but with way more features and useability.
I already had an iPod Touch so nett cost of about $10 for the software and $40 for an otterbox case.
Ballistic on an ipod Touch is coming up with the chart results as my previous exbal but with way more features and useability.
I already had an iPod Touch so nett cost of about $10 for the software and $40 for an otterbox case.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thumper_6119</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have Ballistic and KAC's BulletFlight for my iPhone, but I haven't had a chance to test them at the range yet. They produce different numbers for the same load. I am planning on trying them out this weekend at the range so I'll know which one is more accurate.</div></div>
They should both be within a tenth mil of each other out to 1000yds. It can be tricky to get atmospheric conditions entered exactly the same because of differences in the way the programs input them, but that is most likely the issue (assuming you've checked to make sure you're using the same BC)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes. Bulletflight by KAC in conjunction with my iTouch is serving me very well.
I'm very impressed with it.</div></div>
If you're impressed by Bulletflight, check out Ballistic. It makes KAC's effort look like something put out by purveyors of the short-bus.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thumper_6119</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have Ballistic and KAC's BulletFlight for my iPhone, but I haven't had a chance to test them at the range yet. They produce different numbers for the same load. I am planning on trying them out this weekend at the range so I'll know which one is more accurate.</div></div>
They should both be within a tenth mil of each other out to 1000yds. It can be tricky to get atmospheric conditions entered exactly the same because of differences in the way the programs input them, but that is most likely the issue (assuming you've checked to make sure you're using the same BC)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes. Bulletflight by KAC in conjunction with my iTouch is serving me very well.
I'm very impressed with it.</div></div>
If you're impressed by Bulletflight, check out Ballistic. It makes KAC's effort look like something put out by purveyors of the short-bus.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They should both be within a tenth mil of each other out to 1000yds. It can be tricky to get atmospheric conditions entered exactly the same because of differences in the way the programs input them, but that is most likely the issue (assuming you've checked to make sure you're using the same BC)
</div></div>
Ah, good to know! Thanks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They should both be within a tenth mil of each other out to 1000yds. It can be tricky to get atmospheric conditions entered exactly the same because of differences in the way the programs input them, but that is most likely the issue (assuming you've checked to make sure you're using the same BC)
</div></div>
Ah, good to know! Thanks.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you're impressed by Bulletflight, check out Ballistic. It makes KAC's effort look like something put out by purveyors of the short-bus.</div></div>
I was really trying to resist answering this, but if people are going to post misinformation I feel it needs to be answered with facts. I am the developer of BulletFlight for KAC.
Here is what I believe BulletFlight does better:
1. The calculations are much more accurate. I ran a comparison test, and compared to JBM, an accurate numeral solver, BulletFlight had something like 50 times less percent error difference for each point averaged from 100-2000 yards every 25 yards for a 175 M118LR .308. This is a fundamental. If you don't have this, you have nothing.
2. It has a profile system so you can configure your rifle/scope and those settings live on.
3. The bullet database and BC input are in the proper military ICAO format. Ballistic is in the civilian Metro format.
4. It will calculate actual BCs. Demanding users need this.
5. It has metric and imperial units visible at the same time, without having to change it in an option.
6. You do not need to exit the program and go to the iPhone settings to change options.
7. It gives output directly in scope clicks and other units at the same time.
8. It has a more advanced atmospheric system and does not use that public-domain model.
9. Sight-in weather is factored in and normalizes the zero.
10. It computes bullet stability with a more advanced/modern formula than Greenhill.
11. It does spin drift.
12. It does Coriolis.
13. The table units don't scroll off the screen.
I own both. Ballistic is a fine program of its type (general purpose ballistic table maker). But overall, and for field use, I see no comparison. Now if you don't agree, that is fine, but if you are going to post the opposite, at least give a specific example (or 13 of them like I did) rather than general nonsensical comments.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you're impressed by Bulletflight, check out Ballistic. It makes KAC's effort look like something put out by purveyors of the short-bus.</div></div>
I was really trying to resist answering this, but if people are going to post misinformation I feel it needs to be answered with facts. I am the developer of BulletFlight for KAC.
Here is what I believe BulletFlight does better:
1. The calculations are much more accurate. I ran a comparison test, and compared to JBM, an accurate numeral solver, BulletFlight had something like 50 times less percent error difference for each point averaged from 100-2000 yards every 25 yards for a 175 M118LR .308. This is a fundamental. If you don't have this, you have nothing.
2. It has a profile system so you can configure your rifle/scope and those settings live on.
3. The bullet database and BC input are in the proper military ICAO format. Ballistic is in the civilian Metro format.
4. It will calculate actual BCs. Demanding users need this.
5. It has metric and imperial units visible at the same time, without having to change it in an option.
6. You do not need to exit the program and go to the iPhone settings to change options.
7. It gives output directly in scope clicks and other units at the same time.
8. It has a more advanced atmospheric system and does not use that public-domain model.
9. Sight-in weather is factored in and normalizes the zero.
10. It computes bullet stability with a more advanced/modern formula than Greenhill.
11. It does spin drift.
12. It does Coriolis.
13. The table units don't scroll off the screen.
I own both. Ballistic is a fine program of its type (general purpose ballistic table maker). But overall, and for field use, I see no comparison. Now if you don't agree, that is fine, but if you are going to post the opposite, at least give a specific example (or 13 of them like I did) rather than general nonsensical comments.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thumper_6119</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have Ballistic and KAC's BulletFlight for my iPhone, but I haven't had a chance to test them at the range yet. They produce different numbers for the same load. I am planning on trying them out this weekend at the range so I'll know which one is more accurate. </div></div>
Ballistic uses Metro BC format. BulletFlight uses ICAO. You cannot use the same BC value for each program. This is the source of the major difference. There are also minor differences due to other factors.
I would like everyone to know I will help everyone out on this forum get the most form BulletFlight. Version 2 has a lot of new features. I can answer any question and if you have a problem I will help. Rather than PM me here though, just email the support link at:
[email protected]
Email is usually answered within minutes because it goes to my iPhone.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thumper_6119</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have Ballistic and KAC's BulletFlight for my iPhone, but I haven't had a chance to test them at the range yet. They produce different numbers for the same load. I am planning on trying them out this weekend at the range so I'll know which one is more accurate. </div></div>
Ballistic uses Metro BC format. BulletFlight uses ICAO. You cannot use the same BC value for each program. This is the source of the major difference. There are also minor differences due to other factors.
I would like everyone to know I will help everyone out on this forum get the most form BulletFlight. Version 2 has a lot of new features. I can answer any question and if you have a problem I will help. Rather than PM me here though, just email the support link at:
[email protected]
Email is usually answered within minutes because it goes to my iPhone.
Re: Ballistics software
Sweet. The KAC computer got a cover mention.
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/tactical-weapons/knights-armament-m110-308/
Sweet. The KAC computer got a cover mention.
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/tactical-weapons/knights-armament-m110-308/
Re: Ballistics software
on that cover photo , isin't that a KAC , NT4 suppressor on that weapon which appears to be a AR-10 style weapon being a 308?
Does KAC make an NT4 style can for the 30 cals , or is that setup gonna get ugly if its fired
on that cover photo , isin't that a KAC , NT4 suppressor on that weapon which appears to be a AR-10 style weapon being a 308?
Does KAC make an NT4 style can for the 30 cals , or is that setup gonna get ugly if its fired
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK , so where can one find this program </div></div>
http://www.knightarmco.com/bulletflight/
Or go to the Apple iTunes store and search for BulletFlight.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK , so where can one find this program </div></div>
http://www.knightarmco.com/bulletflight/
Or go to the Apple iTunes store and search for BulletFlight.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">on that cover photo , isin't that a KAC , NT4 suppressor on that weapon which appears to be a AR-10 style weapon being a 308?
Does KAC make an NT4 style can for the 30 cals , or is that setup gonna get ugly if its fired </div></div>
KAC makes an NT4 style suppressor in .308 caliber for the rifle pictured. It is known as the Battle Rifle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">on that cover photo , isin't that a KAC , NT4 suppressor on that weapon which appears to be a AR-10 style weapon being a 308?
Does KAC make an NT4 style can for the 30 cals , or is that setup gonna get ugly if its fired </div></div>
KAC makes an NT4 style suppressor in .308 caliber for the rifle pictured. It is known as the Battle Rifle.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you're impressed by Bulletflight, check out Ballistic. It makes KAC's effort look like something put out by purveyors of the short-bus.</div></div>
I was really trying to resist answering this, but if people are going to post misinformation I feel it needs to be answered with facts. I am the developer of BulletFlight for KAC.
...
Now if you don't agree, that is fine, but if you are going to post the opposite, at least give a specific example (or 13 of them like I did) rather than general nonsensical comments.
</div></div>
Ok... didn't mean to step on your toes, which is why I didn't provide a hit list the first time but here is what I, personally, don't like about KAC:
1) I HAVE to enter the BC in ICAO. If I have a fairly accurate G7 BC, well tough titties. If you don't have ICAO info for your projectile you're out of luck
2) I can't just produce a drop chart. If I want to see a range of values or see where energy has dropped off or anything like that I have to keep entering new range values while clicking on the tiny little input field over and over.
3) There are no drop or drift graphs and no comparing two different loads.
4) There is no way to quickly revert back to "standard atmosphere" in any screen.
5) The "Simple" mode does not let you adjust MV or atmospheric conditions without having to back out, modify your profile, save as a new profile and then go back into ballistics
6) The "Simple" mode makes you type in the wind speed using the tiny little text field (hard to hit first time and frequently) and does not let you change wind angle
7) The main screen wastes most of the screen real estate on a profile selection spinner control, as though in the field you generally have 15 different weapons laying in front of you and constantly switch from one to the other.
8)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
5. It has metric and imperial units visible at the same time, without having to change it in an option.
</div></div>
This means twice as many tiny little text boxes on the screen so all those little tap-targets are half as big and your eye has to process twice as much info when trying to find things. Even if that weren't the case, I don't see what advantage that really has, if I'm working in yards, why do I care how many meters away it is? Or vice versa.
9)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
7. It gives output directly in scope clicks and other units at the same time.
</div></div>
Again, big whoop. Don't see how that's an advantage, don't have any interest in how many clicks 27MOA is. And besides, I can multiply by 1,2,4, & 10 in my head so it's not that big a mystery.
Additionally you listed the following things as unqiue to KAC, but which Ballistic does as well...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
2. It has a profile system so you can configure your rifle/scope and those settings live on.
9. Sight-in weather is factored in and normalizes the zero.
</div></div>
Additionally, Ballistic provides a range estimation tool (at least as useful as the "BC Calculator" to most users, I'd guess), lets you store and retrieve multiple atmospheric conditions via the range log, lets you select multiple different BC methods, and provides a baseline library of projectiles with published BC values, which the user can tweak as desired. Additionally I believe the new HUD with the ability to easily adjust wind speed and direction, in addition to range, and allowing you to fully tune atmospheric, zeroing, and MV data provides a better interface that the KAC "simple mode" while accomodating 90% or more of the capabilities of the KAC "advanced mode" (or whatever you call it.)
Again, this is just my opinion and I don't generally like to bash on another developer's work like this, but you asked. There are also things I wish Ballistic did that it doesn't, such as accommodate IPHY as well as true-MOA scopes and provide a chronograph logging function with linked atmospheric conditions. Who knows if it will ever do either of those. In the end, I wrote neither so you've both contributed more to the community than I.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you're impressed by Bulletflight, check out Ballistic. It makes KAC's effort look like something put out by purveyors of the short-bus.</div></div>
I was really trying to resist answering this, but if people are going to post misinformation I feel it needs to be answered with facts. I am the developer of BulletFlight for KAC.
...
Now if you don't agree, that is fine, but if you are going to post the opposite, at least give a specific example (or 13 of them like I did) rather than general nonsensical comments.
</div></div>
Ok... didn't mean to step on your toes, which is why I didn't provide a hit list the first time but here is what I, personally, don't like about KAC:
1) I HAVE to enter the BC in ICAO. If I have a fairly accurate G7 BC, well tough titties. If you don't have ICAO info for your projectile you're out of luck
2) I can't just produce a drop chart. If I want to see a range of values or see where energy has dropped off or anything like that I have to keep entering new range values while clicking on the tiny little input field over and over.
3) There are no drop or drift graphs and no comparing two different loads.
4) There is no way to quickly revert back to "standard atmosphere" in any screen.
5) The "Simple" mode does not let you adjust MV or atmospheric conditions without having to back out, modify your profile, save as a new profile and then go back into ballistics
6) The "Simple" mode makes you type in the wind speed using the tiny little text field (hard to hit first time and frequently) and does not let you change wind angle
7) The main screen wastes most of the screen real estate on a profile selection spinner control, as though in the field you generally have 15 different weapons laying in front of you and constantly switch from one to the other.
8)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
5. It has metric and imperial units visible at the same time, without having to change it in an option.
</div></div>
This means twice as many tiny little text boxes on the screen so all those little tap-targets are half as big and your eye has to process twice as much info when trying to find things. Even if that weren't the case, I don't see what advantage that really has, if I'm working in yards, why do I care how many meters away it is? Or vice versa.
9)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
7. It gives output directly in scope clicks and other units at the same time.
</div></div>
Again, big whoop. Don't see how that's an advantage, don't have any interest in how many clicks 27MOA is. And besides, I can multiply by 1,2,4, & 10 in my head so it's not that big a mystery.
Additionally you listed the following things as unqiue to KAC, but which Ballistic does as well...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
2. It has a profile system so you can configure your rifle/scope and those settings live on.
9. Sight-in weather is factored in and normalizes the zero.
</div></div>
Additionally, Ballistic provides a range estimation tool (at least as useful as the "BC Calculator" to most users, I'd guess), lets you store and retrieve multiple atmospheric conditions via the range log, lets you select multiple different BC methods, and provides a baseline library of projectiles with published BC values, which the user can tweak as desired. Additionally I believe the new HUD with the ability to easily adjust wind speed and direction, in addition to range, and allowing you to fully tune atmospheric, zeroing, and MV data provides a better interface that the KAC "simple mode" while accomodating 90% or more of the capabilities of the KAC "advanced mode" (or whatever you call it.)
Again, this is just my opinion and I don't generally like to bash on another developer's work like this, but you asked. There are also things I wish Ballistic did that it doesn't, such as accommodate IPHY as well as true-MOA scopes and provide a chronograph logging function with linked atmospheric conditions. Who knows if it will ever do either of those. In the end, I wrote neither so you've both contributed more to the community than I.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LDA338UM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shit guys just buy both programs,rsilvers and jonathan are both doing a great service for us.Both are great programs.Damm i spent more than that on beer today.</div></div>
That is a very good point. It's not like these things are $400 each. I mean, damn, if you shoot at all then $12 here or there is nothing compared to the cost of ammo.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LDA338UM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shit guys just buy both programs,rsilvers and jonathan are both doing a great service for us.Both are great programs.Damm i spent more than that on beer today.</div></div>
That is a very good point. It's not like these things are $400 each. I mean, damn, if you shoot at all then $12 here or there is nothing compared to the cost of ammo.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Ok... didn't mean to step on your toes, which is why I didn't provide a hit list the first time but here is what I, personally, don't like about KAC:
1) I HAVE to enter the BC in ICAO. If I have a fairly accurate G7 BC, well tough titties. If you don't have ICAO info for your projectile you're out of luck
2) I can't just produce a drop chart. If I want to see a range of values or see where energy has dropped off or anything like that I have to keep entering new range values while clicking on the tiny little input field over and over.
3) There are no drop or drift graphs and no comparing two different loads.
4) There is no way to quickly revert back to "standard atmosphere" in any screen.
5) The "Simple" mode does not let you adjust MV or atmospheric conditions without having to back out, modify your profile, save as a new profile and then go back into ballistics
6) The "Simple" mode makes you type in the wind speed using the tiny little text field (hard to hit first time and frequently) and does not let you change wind angle
7) The main screen wastes most of the screen real estate on a profile selection spinner control, as though in the field you generally have 15 different weapons laying in front of you and constantly switch from one to the other.
</div></div>
1. ICAO is the military standard since 1962. Metro is the civilian standard. I am not sure I qualify as the 'short bus' because I tuned the app for military use. You may convert a Metro BC to ICAO by multiplying by 0.983. If you have any questions I can answer them right away if you email [email protected].
2. Yes you can, but you need version 2. It is a free upgrade for any past owner.
http://www.knightarmco.com/bulletflight/
3. That is true. I don't plan to add them. They are good for desktop applications but I feel they have no use on a field-app. Adding features which have no purpose is bad for people getting shot back at.
4. True. It only has specific atmospheres. If people want this I can add it. No one has asked for it.
5. The simple screen is designed to be simple. If you want more features you would use the full calculate screen. But yes, muzzle velocity is set for the weapon profile. This has advantages in that when you change profiles, all settings related to that profile, including MV, is changed for you. If it did not have this feature you would have to remember your MV for each weapon.
6. False.
7. You start up the app, select the weapon, and move to the calculation screens to use it. The startup screen is the startup screen and the best place to select a profile because you cannot accidentally change it later during shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Ok... didn't mean to step on your toes, which is why I didn't provide a hit list the first time but here is what I, personally, don't like about KAC:
1) I HAVE to enter the BC in ICAO. If I have a fairly accurate G7 BC, well tough titties. If you don't have ICAO info for your projectile you're out of luck
2) I can't just produce a drop chart. If I want to see a range of values or see where energy has dropped off or anything like that I have to keep entering new range values while clicking on the tiny little input field over and over.
3) There are no drop or drift graphs and no comparing two different loads.
4) There is no way to quickly revert back to "standard atmosphere" in any screen.
5) The "Simple" mode does not let you adjust MV or atmospheric conditions without having to back out, modify your profile, save as a new profile and then go back into ballistics
6) The "Simple" mode makes you type in the wind speed using the tiny little text field (hard to hit first time and frequently) and does not let you change wind angle
7) The main screen wastes most of the screen real estate on a profile selection spinner control, as though in the field you generally have 15 different weapons laying in front of you and constantly switch from one to the other.
</div></div>
1. ICAO is the military standard since 1962. Metro is the civilian standard. I am not sure I qualify as the 'short bus' because I tuned the app for military use. You may convert a Metro BC to ICAO by multiplying by 0.983. If you have any questions I can answer them right away if you email [email protected].
2. Yes you can, but you need version 2. It is a free upgrade for any past owner.
http://www.knightarmco.com/bulletflight/
3. That is true. I don't plan to add them. They are good for desktop applications but I feel they have no use on a field-app. Adding features which have no purpose is bad for people getting shot back at.
4. True. It only has specific atmospheres. If people want this I can add it. No one has asked for it.
5. The simple screen is designed to be simple. If you want more features you would use the full calculate screen. But yes, muzzle velocity is set for the weapon profile. This has advantages in that when you change profiles, all settings related to that profile, including MV, is changed for you. If it did not have this feature you would have to remember your MV for each weapon.
6. False.
7. You start up the app, select the weapon, and move to the calculation screens to use it. The startup screen is the startup screen and the best place to select a profile because you cannot accidentally change it later during shooting.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, Ballistic provides a range estimation tool (at least as useful as the "BC Calculator" to most users, I'd guess)</div></div>
So does BulletFlight, but I think it is better because you can enter any units without having to push buttons to change preferred units. So you may know a guy is 6 feet tall, so enter '6' into the feet field. Or you may know a guy is 20 inches at the shoulders, so enter '20' in the inches field. Also Ballistic gives range down to 1mm all the timem even at 1000 meters. We know that is not possible, so why overload the user with false numbers?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, Ballistic provides a range estimation tool (at least as useful as the "BC Calculator" to most users, I'd guess)</div></div>
So does BulletFlight, but I think it is better because you can enter any units without having to push buttons to change preferred units. So you may know a guy is 6 feet tall, so enter '6' into the feet field. Or you may know a guy is 20 inches at the shoulders, so enter '20' in the inches field. Also Ballistic gives range down to 1mm all the timem even at 1000 meters. We know that is not possible, so why overload the user with false numbers?
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
5. It has metric and imperial units visible at the same time, without having to change it in an option.
</div></div>
This means twice as many tiny little text boxes on the screen so all those little tap-targets are half as big and your eye has to process twice as much info when trying to find things. Even if that weren't the case, I don't see what advantage that really has, if I'm working in yards, why do I care how many meters away it is? Or vice versa.</div></div>
Because your laser might be set up in meters and you may think in yards. So when you get a reading from the laser, you enter it into the meters field, but then you see the result as yards. Or your spotter might call out another unit. Especially in combat working with other guys. It keeps you from having to exit, go to a preference screen, change units, and come back. In fact in Ballistic you have to exit the application and go to some main Apple options area to change most preferences.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
5. It has metric and imperial units visible at the same time, without having to change it in an option.
</div></div>
This means twice as many tiny little text boxes on the screen so all those little tap-targets are half as big and your eye has to process twice as much info when trying to find things. Even if that weren't the case, I don't see what advantage that really has, if I'm working in yards, why do I care how many meters away it is? Or vice versa.</div></div>
Because your laser might be set up in meters and you may think in yards. So when you get a reading from the laser, you enter it into the meters field, but then you see the result as yards. Or your spotter might call out another unit. Especially in combat working with other guys. It keeps you from having to exit, go to a preference screen, change units, and come back. In fact in Ballistic you have to exit the application and go to some main Apple options area to change most preferences.
Re: Ballistics software
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
7. It gives output directly in scope clicks and other units at the same time.
</div></div>
Again, big whoop. Don't see how that's an advantage, don't have any interest in how many clicks 27MOA is. And besides, I can multiply by 1,2,4, & 10 in my head so it's not that big a mystery. </div></div>
Think of the Barrett BORS which automatically adjusts your scope. BulletFlight is like that except without the automatic turret changing. It just tells you how many clicks to adjust your scope directly so you do not have to do any math under stress. This is made for users who are getting shot back at. When you configure your weapon profile, there is a scope setup area where you put in what a 'click' is on your scope. It then remembers it. But at the same time, it will also give output in MOA or mRad, and in Inches or CM drop.
Here is the profile-setup:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
7. It gives output directly in scope clicks and other units at the same time.
</div></div>
Again, big whoop. Don't see how that's an advantage, don't have any interest in how many clicks 27MOA is. And besides, I can multiply by 1,2,4, & 10 in my head so it's not that big a mystery. </div></div>
Think of the Barrett BORS which automatically adjusts your scope. BulletFlight is like that except without the automatic turret changing. It just tells you how many clicks to adjust your scope directly so you do not have to do any math under stress. This is made for users who are getting shot back at. When you configure your weapon profile, there is a scope setup area where you put in what a 'click' is on your scope. It then remembers it. But at the same time, it will also give output in MOA or mRad, and in Inches or CM drop.
Here is the profile-setup:
Re: Ballistics software
That is interesting, when did version 2.0 roll? I had just reinstalled BulletFlight a couple of weeks ago after having deleted it some time ago and it gave me the old version and the App store had not notified me of an available update until I went and searched specifically for it.
So, apparently I was wrong and BulletFlight has added most of the features that I thought were only in Ballistic. My mistake. I personally still prefer Ballistic because it has, as you say, more "desktop" ballistics features. Clearly you like your features better. As the developer it is your prerogative to write a program that conforms to your own personal tastes. As nothing but a user I am just fortunate that Ballistic conforms to mine. But I do admit that my previous statement about Ballistic being far and away a better product was incorrect as I was apparently comparing an old copy of BulletFlight.
That aside, I should explain about the muzzle velocity and atmosphere issues, because my point on that still appears to be confused.
In Ballistic you setup your profile for a load, including MV, zero atmosphere, and current atmosphere. From that you can calculate your drop chart or compare with other loads or whatever. Then when you go into HUD mode (Simple mode) you can easily adjust MV and atmosphere to match current conditions (eg, if your chrono was run @ 40* and now it's 90* and your BL-C2 load is going to be 45fps faster because of it) directly in HUD mode, without having to change the underlying configuration of the profile. That way you can have a "standard" profile that is customized to current conditions each time rather than having to first edit the profile before you can use it in Simple mode.
That is interesting, when did version 2.0 roll? I had just reinstalled BulletFlight a couple of weeks ago after having deleted it some time ago and it gave me the old version and the App store had not notified me of an available update until I went and searched specifically for it.
So, apparently I was wrong and BulletFlight has added most of the features that I thought were only in Ballistic. My mistake. I personally still prefer Ballistic because it has, as you say, more "desktop" ballistics features. Clearly you like your features better. As the developer it is your prerogative to write a program that conforms to your own personal tastes. As nothing but a user I am just fortunate that Ballistic conforms to mine. But I do admit that my previous statement about Ballistic being far and away a better product was incorrect as I was apparently comparing an old copy of BulletFlight.
That aside, I should explain about the muzzle velocity and atmosphere issues, because my point on that still appears to be confused.
In Ballistic you setup your profile for a load, including MV, zero atmosphere, and current atmosphere. From that you can calculate your drop chart or compare with other loads or whatever. Then when you go into HUD mode (Simple mode) you can easily adjust MV and atmosphere to match current conditions (eg, if your chrono was run @ 40* and now it's 90* and your BL-C2 load is going to be 45fps faster because of it) directly in HUD mode, without having to change the underlying configuration of the profile. That way you can have a "standard" profile that is customized to current conditions each time rather than having to first edit the profile before you can use it in Simple mode.
Re: Ballistics software
Ratbert... from an outside perspective here, and solely my own opinion... I'm confused as to why your posts come off sounding like you are pissed off. hehe
I knew you had not played with 2.0 based on your earlier post. The program is constantly evolving.
Some of your points I agree on. Having the ability to compare loads as well as having a "separate" atmospheric function that differentiates between "zero" atmosphere and "current" atmosphere would be a nice timesaver. Maybe set it up so that we can change atmospheric conditions separately from the profile, and have it automatically change the dope based on the difference between current conditions and the "zero" conditions for each profile?
I don't have small hands either, so hitting the right field can sometimes be a pain, but I've gotten used to it. After downloading both Bulletflight and Ballistic, I do like Bulletflight better. Perhaps it is just the graphic designer/web designer in me... but the Bulletflight app seems very much more "polished" than the Ballistic app.
Ratbert... from an outside perspective here, and solely my own opinion... I'm confused as to why your posts come off sounding like you are pissed off. hehe
I knew you had not played with 2.0 based on your earlier post. The program is constantly evolving.
Some of your points I agree on. Having the ability to compare loads as well as having a "separate" atmospheric function that differentiates between "zero" atmosphere and "current" atmosphere would be a nice timesaver. Maybe set it up so that we can change atmospheric conditions separately from the profile, and have it automatically change the dope based on the difference between current conditions and the "zero" conditions for each profile?
I don't have small hands either, so hitting the right field can sometimes be a pain, but I've gotten used to it. After downloading both Bulletflight and Ballistic, I do like Bulletflight better. Perhaps it is just the graphic designer/web designer in me... but the Bulletflight app seems very much more "polished" than the Ballistic app.
Re: Ballistics software
I hadn't intended to sound pissed off, I really don't have any real stake in the success or failure of either program. If I did it was probably just some latent hostility to the accusation that I was making blanket statements without careful consideration.
I hadn't intended to sound pissed off, I really don't have any real stake in the success or failure of either program. If I did it was probably just some latent hostility to the accusation that I was making blanket statements without careful consideration.
Re: Ballistics software
Understood.
I would definately like to discuss the "range conditions" side of things. For some reason I can't come up with a rational suggestion on how to do this easily in BulletFlight. I'm sure rsilvers has some thoughts, and I'd like to hear those as well.
Understood.
I would definately like to discuss the "range conditions" side of things. For some reason I can't come up with a rational suggestion on how to do this easily in BulletFlight. I'm sure rsilvers has some thoughts, and I'd like to hear those as well.
Re: Ballistics software
After PM'ing rsilvers and getting some easy instruction on what I was doing wrong (which was my ignorance of the data I was entering as opposed to a problem with the software), I have to say that I really do prefer BulletFlight. It is less cumbersome (for me) and like orkan, I agree that it seems much more polished. I plugged in my data into both Ballistic and BulletFlight, and BulletFlight came up with the exact same numbers as JBM. The bullet database is much easier to use (again, for me), and the ranging app. is awesome. The atmospheric conditions load much more quickly as well. Although I have yet to try it all out at the range as of yet, I really to like the BulletFlight app by comparison.
After PM'ing rsilvers and getting some easy instruction on what I was doing wrong (which was my ignorance of the data I was entering as opposed to a problem with the software), I have to say that I really do prefer BulletFlight. It is less cumbersome (for me) and like orkan, I agree that it seems much more polished. I plugged in my data into both Ballistic and BulletFlight, and BulletFlight came up with the exact same numbers as JBM. The bullet database is much easier to use (again, for me), and the ranging app. is awesome. The atmospheric conditions load much more quickly as well. Although I have yet to try it all out at the range as of yet, I really to like the BulletFlight app by comparison.
Re: Ballistics software
Go to "Range Report and Exterior Ballistics". Do a search on Blackberry. It returns 169 results. In other words, that subject has been extensively covered.
Go to "Range Report and Exterior Ballistics". Do a search on Blackberry. It returns 169 results. In other words, that subject has been extensively covered.
Re: Ballistics software
I think the combination of ballistic and bulletflight are very useful.
I like the simplicity of bulletflight, no frills, just as it should be for guys in the field that are concerned with things shooting back at them.
I also like the huge factory load database that ballistic has. It may not be as accurate as having a chrono and doing your own massive testing to input data, but I've found it gets you very close right off the bat.
As others have said to get both of them it's still less than $25, except of course if you go out and buy an Ipod touch so you can use them at the range
I think the combination of ballistic and bulletflight are very useful.
I like the simplicity of bulletflight, no frills, just as it should be for guys in the field that are concerned with things shooting back at them.
I also like the huge factory load database that ballistic has. It may not be as accurate as having a chrono and doing your own massive testing to input data, but I've found it gets you very close right off the bat.
As others have said to get both of them it's still less than $25, except of course if you go out and buy an Ipod touch so you can use them at the range
Re: Ballistics software
Cool.
It has frills. BulletFlight is both simple and complex. It is simple when you want it to be, but it is also very detailed in that it does spin drift, coriolis, has a large database, does GPS auto weather lookup, calculates scope clicks, factors in sight-in weather, and lots more.
Cool.
It has frills. BulletFlight is both simple and complex. It is simple when you want it to be, but it is also very detailed in that it does spin drift, coriolis, has a large database, does GPS auto weather lookup, calculates scope clicks, factors in sight-in weather, and lots more.
Similar threads
