Coldbore & FFS

[Bigwheels]

I've been contemplating an upgrade. I've been running FFS Delta 3 for years & its been good to me but I think it's time to advance to the next level.
Coldbore is cheaper than FFS but my friend let me borrow his Coldbore to play with the mobile version & there are a few things that I don't really like.
The question is.
Is the ballistics engine in the 2 systems the same? Is one better at predicting accurate solutions than the other? Of course given accurate data entry in both systems.
Thanks.

 

[ZiaHunter]

I run both the latest version of FFS and Coldbore mobile on a Trimble Juno 5. Can't answer your question as to which provides more accurate solutions since I only tested CB out to 1000 against FFS and both provided the same solutions. Will be attending a 4 day XLR class next week and plan on testing both solvers beyond a 1000. I have been using FFS for several years now but just recently installed CB. As far as running on a Windows Mobile device, IMHO FFS has more features including the ability to sync with my PLRF 25C to provide solutions automatically, capture target data and produce range cards as well as handling offsets and different bullet profiles. CB Desktop is a great analytical tool and have enjoyed using it. Understand I have not been using CB all that long as compared to FFS and that may be skewing my opinion somewhat. The reason I purchased CB due to the fact that is highly regarded by some very good shooters and wanted to give it a try as well as being relatively inexpensive. FFS is strictly a mobile platform while CB Mobile and Desktop interface with each other.

 

[LastShot300]

I got both and now CB is the only software I run. Anyway, both are the top dogs when it comes to real LR/ELR work and will outmatch any Point Mass solver app such as AB (with or without custom curves), Shooter, Strelok, etc. You cannot go wrong with either. In my experience CB has the edge on accuracy over FFS when going close and beyond transonic. Like ZiaHunter said CB cannot link to a LRF but it's just a single number and not an issue by itself. The array of feaures on all editons of CB is unmatched by any other package on the market and its analysis capabilities are outstanding.

 

[OzTRG]

I must say that out of curiosity i purchased CB (desktop and mobile) and have compared it to AB (no custom curves yet on th iPhone). Out to a 1000m with the 260 rem they are within .1 of each other once MV tried from data obtained from magnetospeed. I find AB to be more user friendly and easier to set up than CB. Into the transonic and beyond CB appears has the edge with regards to prediction v actual dope. I wanted a dedicated ballistics calculator so I got a windows phone of ebay and installed CB on it. GPS, etc works fine so it is a good unit to take bush.

 

[Bigwheels]

Thanks for the response. My only experience with CB is this mobile version & I don't know if there's an update available. A couple of things I don't like is that I can't inputs the actual range. Apparently it only works with ranges in 5 yds increments? And when changing most inputs the solution is slow in its calculation.
I would like to play with the desktop version & see what I can do with it.

 

[LastShot300]

Well, actually there are three ways to store a new target’s coordinates. You can manually input the values pulled from a map, or using the online map Geopoint feature or by turning on the GPS and let the app to take the last fix. Or you can let the app to calculate the coordinates from rangefinder readings and azimuth from a known position. Don’t know what else can be asked to do this. The Range card is there too, in the Engage feature, however it does not include the actual fire solution like FFS does. How critical this can be is, in my opinion highly reliant on what kind of work you do with the app.

User-friendliness is always a very subjective topic. While I’ve learnt to proficiently operate FFS it’s full of menus and submenus making and you must know where each thing is or you are lost, this kind of navigation is clearly outdated and reminds of the old DOS days. Let me say this, to my dismay in AB (android) you can type “aa1200y” when entering range and the app will say nothing. Is this a joke? Please tell me it’s not. So, what makes an app more user friendly is debatable to say the least because all of them have their own way. I spent countless hours playing with a new app and reading the manuals, which I also consider a metric of quality. Granted most of my friends do not feel comfortable perusing the documentation and always come back to me for tips. Call me a library rat!

When I switched to the Phone version the speed simply amazed me to the point that I emailed Patagonia asking to improve on the PDA version. Long reply short, they cannot do that because of the hardware and software restrictions of the OS, so yes, the PDA takes longer to calculate among other things due to the complexity of the engine, according to the developer. Taking range stepped in 5 yards is no big deal, after all the greatest difference is 2.5 yards which is well within the uncertainty of any LRF on the market.

 

[_Windrider_]

I must say that out of curiosity i purchased CB (desktop and mobile) and have compared it to AB (no custom curves yet on th iPhone). Out to a 1000m with the 260 rem they are within .1 of each other once MV tried from data obtained from magnetospeed. I find AB to be more user friendly and easier to set up than CB. Into the transonic and beyond CB appears has the edge with regards to prediction v actual dope. I wanted a dedicated ballistics calculator so I got a windows phone of ebay and installed CB on it. GPS, etc works fine so it is a good unit to take bush.

AB requires u to use DSF when going beyond transonic or it will be off.

 

[LastShot300]

FFS can be done cord based, just yardage and reverse cord calc'd, GPS or tethered to a vectronix ~ but thats not really my question.

Phone Clarification -
Obviously you know CB phone better than I do - I had mobil on a Trimble but recently on the phone> My questions are CB "phone" based. What I am after is a way to preset the stages were the match director might send out yardage cards in advance.. You have multiple stages with 5-7 targets each. They might say Station 1 T11 316;T12 568; T13 607 etc.. Station 2 T21 468; T22 706 etc.etc. I wouldn't have the time at the stage, nor get the true and relevant cords before hand.. Does that make sense?

Is there an easy way to get the above done on CB phone?

Also a range card is just faster in some situations, so I'd love to learn more on how to do that on a phone.. I do LOVE the desk top version (no targets to transfer though)

Diver160651, just let my say that you are one of the best references when it comes to REAL ELR work! well, certainly you can do that in CB Phone, including direct and inverse mapping calculations (in Mobile version is the same). While I've never did this type of target surveying work for a match, what I'd do is to go to each target location, turn on the GPS and set up each target right one after the other. In case you have a map available beforehand, all the better. Once the surveying is done I'll turn on the GPS and use the Engage feature to read range, slope and azimuth for each listed target. Honestly I don't know if you can survey the targets before, rules applying. In case you are referring to perform the inverse/direct calcs the only drawback here is you cannot tether the LRF. Other than that, it's the essentially the same as in FFS. Makes sense? If not please tell me more about what is the usual procedure when running a match. The Engage feature is your "range card" albeit without the actual Elev and Windage.

 

[ZiaHunter]

"Is the ballistics engine in the 2 systems the same? Is one better at predicting accurate solutions than the other? Of course given accurate data entry in both systems.
Thanks"

Just returned from the second day of the XLR class and we tested CB against FFS, My good fortune is that I am the only one in the class and having taken it previously we could focus on specific things and not have to rehash things covered in the first class. Day one was spent calibrating FFS which only required minimal tweaking then re-verified DOPE at different FFP's at multiple ranges. This morning we repeated the process going past 2k. Following the lunch break we input the parameters from FFS in CB and checked solutions for consistency Then went to range to compare solutions. All targets were UKD from 900 to 1500 plus and were pinged with a Vectronix 25C and verified with a Victor. Solutions were within .1 mil of each other at all distances and basically were rounding errors. Majority were first round hits center mass. Of course I had the Master making wind calls which certainly helped. We plan on shooting out to 2K tomorrow.

I think it is a matter of personal preference of which one you use and how well you navigate the different input screens. Personally I prefer FFS but I am somewhat biased since I have been using it for a number of years and familiar navigating through the different menus. With FFS we were able to prepare range cards at each FFP for different targets and were provided solutions immediately with no manual input required on the mobile device which is a huge time saver.

 

[Bigwheels]

ZiaHunter, thank you for replying to my question. That was the answer I was looking for. I too have been using FFS for many years but I'm not that loyal that I'll not look at the competition. My impression was similar to what you described.
Now for a follow-up question.
Have you tried the solutions at shorter ranges after trueing at ELR range? My experience in doing so with both systems is it predicts slightly more elevation at shorter ranges than actual dope. Averages 1-2 clicks, which really isn't a big deal at say 5-700yds but curious that they both would predict the same error.

 

[ZiaHunter]

"Have you tried the solutions at shorter ranges after trueing at ELR range? My experience in doing so with both systems is it predicts slightly more elevation at shorter ranges than actual dope. Averages 1-2 clicks, which really isn't a big deal at say 5-700yds but curious that they both would predict the same error."

I have tested FFS at the shorter ranges you mentioned but not CB and FFS and not noticed a much error if any. From a practical standpoint if you are off .2 mils at 700 yards that correlates to 5.04 inches of vertical or approximately .7 MOA which depending on the size of target may not make much of a difference.

 

[Bigwheels]

Yes from a practical standpoint a couple clicks at 5-700 yds isn't as big an error factor as it is at 1500+. Obviously my equipment is aging as am I. Like I said in my OP I've been running FFS Delta III since it came out, and have been too cheap to spend the $$ on the upgrade. But perhaps it's time. Problem is I need to rebarrel again too. My 300WM is on its 2nd barrel, and that one has over 3200 rnds on it. I wonder if the FFS Delta (where is it now 5??) is using a more advanced ballistic engine? Probably going to stick with FFS in the end since I'm more familiar with it, and it's faster to use in the field. But the new barrel is probably going to come first...

 

[LastShot300]

Diver, Zia: I now got a better understanding of your scenarios when running matches with multiple UKD targets and I have to agree that a Range Card is the way to go for that particular application, and CB is lacking with its Engage feature, which is not exactly the same. Unfortunately I don't have the required familiarity to be of much help here. What I do the most is to survey potential hunting spots then get their coordinates to work up the Engage feature, which is all I need for my needs. Perhaps you should contact Gus to detail what kind of mod you are after to tackle it though I did jot down a few ideas in a notebook for further tinkering.

Truing with either FFS or CB is very easy once you got a solid MV and BC. While I rarely change the DC (DK in FFS is not the same though) tweaking it is the right way to work the solution out. I have to say that the Error Budget helped me a lot to grasp how the system’s uncertainties influence the fire solution to the point that if a prediction is inside the projected CEP I call it right most specially when going beyond transonic.

My 2 cents on PDAs. I no longer use the Trimble, CB on a phone is extremely fast, incorporates a hardware-based Inclinometer (to the point that I removed the ACI from my rifle) and syncs with my CB Desktop. Plus I no longer need the stylus to operate it. The online map is very handy too with its satellite imagery.

Accuracy wise, CB has proved me to have the accuracy edge over FFS and the “long vs. short” range is of no concern once the data is solid and eventually DC-adjusted. It’s not the what you see with AB or any other solver that suffers the usual inconsistency we are used to.

 

[Nik H]

Diver160651 @Lastshot,

Since we are talking FFS versus CB, I have a question that I am hoping one of you can answer.

I use CB on my desktop and also the mobile version running on a NOMAD. On the desktop version of CB, I can turn AJ on and off and see the impact on my firing solution. The CB mobile doesn't mention AJ at all. Does the mobile version take AJ into account? Does FFS take it into account and give you the ability to toggle AJ.

Thanks in advance

 

[Nik H]

Thanks Diver. I will wait for LastShot to respond. I cant find any mention of AJ on the mobile version so I don't know what is going on in there. The desktop version is clear.

 

[Bigwheels]

I'm pretty sure that it's built in to CB mobile. When I was fiddling with the wind speed & direction the elevation would also change a click here & there.

 

[LastShot300]

Thanks Diver. I will wait for LastShot to respond. I cant find any mention of AJ on the mobile version so I don't know what is going on in there. The desktop version is clear.

I no longer use CB on the PDA, but I checked out the manual and as far as I can tell there is no AJ option to switch on. In CB Phone you have the option for AJ and it matches the Desktop calcs to the last digit.

 

[ZiaHunter]

Went to the 2K range this morning and tested solutions from 1800 to 2100 and change. The only changes made from yesterday was updating atmospherics to current conditions. Both CB and FFS provided solutions with .1 mil of each other and most likely attributed to rounding errors. With this particular load we were at the transsonic upper boundry at 1726 yards and were in the lower transsonic boundary at 2100+ per FFS.

 

[ZiaHunter]

Thanks Diver. I will wait for LastShot to respond. I cant find any mention of AJ on the mobile version so I don't know what is going on in there. The desktop version is clear.

Nik:

I have not been able to find an AJ option in the mobile version running on my Trimble. Not saying it doesn't exist just haven't been able to find it.

Additional information on my post above see below.

Distance 2,185 yards
CB Solution 26.4 mils
FFS 26.3 mils
Temp 55 F
DA 5119
SP 25.53
Hum 23
338 LM with 285 ELD-M at 2,830fps

 

[Bigwheels]

Diver. That is what I'm getting. If I true at 5-700 yds when I reach out to a mile (still SS out there) I will be low. Then when I true at a mile I'll be high at 5-700 yds. I have measured my scope calibration & everything as best I can but still see this. The only thing I haven't looked at is if my scope calibration changes through the adjustment range.

 

[ZiaHunter]

Diver:

The two solvers were almost identical. The .1 mil at 2185 translate to a vertical spread of approximately 8". So many other variable can affect the shot at that distance it is basically immaterial. I have not tried at shorter distances the past couple of days and most of our shots were in the 1200 to 1600 yard range. Did engage a few at 900 and they were spot on.

 

[CoryT]

Coming into this thread a bit late, computer problems, sigh. Anyway, Bigwheels, if you run into this in FFS then you actually need to change the DK. To do that, you need to shoot a group on paper at about 3/4 of the SS range with the entries that have you dead on at 500-700. Then enter the offset into the compute DK page and it will 'tweak' the deceleration constant to get the curve on track.

So far as I'm able to tell, the solver in FFS and CB will deliver basically the identical solution given the same inputs and both are as precise as we can practically use in the field. Personally, I have a very hard time with the CB interface in the mobile version. The placement of data on the tabs and the way it saves 'tracks', the separation of functions into modules that must be launched from the main page, the poor implementation of GPS/targeting functions, separation of target info from the solution page, all these issues and plenty more make this very much harder to use in the field than FFS, at least for me.

In FFS, you rarely need to leave the main page. Enter the atm on the Presets page and you can shoot. The profiles setup rifles and ammo in a more usable format than the tracks of CB, and I don't really see how those pages are hard to remember or get to.

User interfaces tend to be personal preference. I, for example, and quite comfortable with the menu driven system but I truly HATE the iPhone. The AB system on the Kestrel is practically unusable as far as I'm concerned. I like the CB desktop software and use it all the time, the mobile version I rarely even startup.

I can't get any phone apps to work well through four days of XLR. Is the Nomad big and a tad pricey? Yep. Nothing else works as well, so that's what I use.

 

[LastShot300]

I've been contemplating an upgrade. I've been running FFS Delta 3 for years & its been good to me but I think it's time to advance to the next level.
Coldbore is cheaper than FFS but my friend let me borrow his Coldbore to play with the mobile version & there are a few things that I don't really like.
The question is.
Is the ballistics engine in the 2 systems the same? Is one better at predicting accurate solutions than the other? Of course given accurate data entry in both systems.
Thanks.

I wouldn't say the engines are the same. Most people, in particular LR shooters do not usually test solutions for lower velocities and lower BC which are typical of, say, handguns, but as a handgun hunter I do. It's in this realm where you can fully appreciate the engines are not alike. In my experience with both, I've found that some combinations yield quite close solutions while others don't. I have no clue why is this happening but it's clear enough to make me say, again, the engines are not the same.

CoryT made a good point of what I said earlier about "user friendliness" for him FFS is way easier, to me is just the opposite. With CB I don’t need to remember where the countless menus and submenus are, because once in a Module you don’t need to resort to go out to perform a certain function. In reality, every time you pull down a menu in FFS you are going to another page, don’t get the wrong impression of what is really happening. That’s not the case with CB you are always in the same page despite what you can think. All is labeled and not hid under a menu tree. So, every guy out there is entitled to a definition of what is “friendly” and what is not. Enter CB Phone a completely different story because the platform is cutting edge tech. Like I said, no more Trimble for me. Heavy, cumbersome and slow. I fully agree with CoryT, user interfaces are in most cases, a personal preference.

 

[ZiaHunter]

Yes, your saying what I was pointing out.

But, that 8” is not how we should think about it, that’s easy math. What is actually harder to acknowledge is that our own offsets day to day can make that much difference. Right? Check your Zero one day and come back a week later. Now if your using F-class rests or bench rests and free recoil, maybe not.. but ELR has always been a field sport.

the rounding errors make both solutions the same.

Diver:

Agree and that was the point I was trying to make.

 

[LastShot300]

FWIW, I almost forgot to say that another point that really separates both engines is when it comes to G1 and G7. CB works with both, while FFS only does G1.

 

[Nik H]

I no longer use CB on the PDA, but I checked out the manual and as far as I can tell there is no AJ option to switch on. In CB Phone you have the option for AJ and it matches the Desktop calcs to the last digit.

Thanks Lastshot

There isn't a switch. I don't believe the PDA version looks at AJ. I say this because the mobile solution matches the desktop solution when AJ is turned off.

 

[Nik H]

Nik:

I have not been able to find an AJ option in the mobile version running on my Trimble. Not saying it doesn't exist just haven't been able to find it.

Additional information on my post above see below.

Distance 2,185 yards
CB Solution 26.4 mils
FFS 26.3 mils
Temp 55 F
DA 5119
SP 25.53
Hum 23
338 LM with 285 ELD-M at 2,830fps

Thanks for the information. I think you'll find that the solutions from the mobile version are identical to the desktop solutions when AJ is disabled on the desktop. I have reached out to Patagonia but have heard nothing which is really odd. He usually responds right away

 

[CoryT]

FWIW, I almost forgot to say that another point that really separates both engines is when it comes to G1 and G7. CB works with both, while FFS only does G1.

Is that really a difference? As they both produce a correct solution with a G1 value (which basically every mfg provides) does it matter that you can enter a G7 value into CB and get the same valid solution? Since the bullets land someplace, if that place is the predicted value from the software does it matter if you use G7 or G1 to get there? For all we know, when you enter the G7 value it may just convert it to G1 for the solver. Since the curve that is predicted should be the same, how would you tell except by looking at the code?

 

[LastShot300]

Having G7 is always a good option, despite the fact that in FFS and CB, solutions are very solid with G1. I don't know if it's a conversion, I may be wrong but I highly doubt it for the simplest of reasons, the results are not the same in most cases, close, yes, but not the same. I like having options, for your application, a course of fire with multiple targets is high on your list, for me, it's of no consequence given what I do. Some people swear by the Trimble...I sold it and never looked back. So where does this leaves us at?

 

[Nik H]

I love the Trimble NOMAD. I bought it here used for $200. 6GB version with all of the bells and whistles and a 2nd battery. It also had the ATRAG SW for the Horus reticles on it. It looked brand new. It was the deal of the century. I have no desire for a second phone so I really didn't have a choice. I have compiled a pretty nice data book using CB and in all honesty, that is what I use most of the time.

Patagonia got back to me and the PDA version of CB does not use AJ. They have no immediate plans to update it. He said the phone version does use AJ.

 

[one shot ST]

FFS no compromise..

https://youtu.be/hA5rBlte0nk