I have and like LoadBase 3.0, but it lacks some tactical features of Precision Workbench. Has anyone compared the accuracy of these two programs past 1000 yards?
LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
- Thread starter gunderwood
- Start date
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunderwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have and like LoadBase 3.0, but it lacks some tactical features of Precision Workbench. Has anyone compared the accuracy of these two programs past 1000 yards? </div></div>
gunderwood,
There is a gentleman that tried a long range shot at 2285 yards with a 338-300 RUM also known as 338 Edge. The bullet would be flying <span style="font-weight: bold">over 500
yards being subsonic</span>; as we know LoadBase has the ability to work with such situations and a couple of us gave LB3.0 the info for the shot after the shooter had done a bunch of shooting and came to the conclusion that he needed 118 MOA (this would be real life vertical adjustment in the southern hemisphere). The program he was using was not giving him that close of an info.
To make a long story short, LB3.0 gave me the solution of 117.8 moa of vertical adjustment. Very Cool!!!
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/need-help-2285-yard-shot-51859/index7.html#post355327
LB3.0 has been said to allow first shot hits at 2200 meters where other programs have fallen short. Also, when running
comparisons of some ballistic programs against radar Doppler, the superiority of LoadBase 3.0 has been evident.
If you would, tell us more about the tactical features.
Thanks for posting!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunderwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have and like LoadBase 3.0, but it lacks some tactical features of Precision Workbench. Has anyone compared the accuracy of these two programs past 1000 yards? </div></div>
gunderwood,
There is a gentleman that tried a long range shot at 2285 yards with a 338-300 RUM also known as 338 Edge. The bullet would be flying <span style="font-weight: bold">over 500
yards being subsonic</span>; as we know LoadBase has the ability to work with such situations and a couple of us gave LB3.0 the info for the shot after the shooter had done a bunch of shooting and came to the conclusion that he needed 118 MOA (this would be real life vertical adjustment in the southern hemisphere). The program he was using was not giving him that close of an info.
To make a long story short, LB3.0 gave me the solution of 117.8 moa of vertical adjustment. Very Cool!!!
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/need-help-2285-yard-shot-51859/index7.html#post355327
LB3.0 has been said to allow first shot hits at 2200 meters where other programs have fallen short. Also, when running
comparisons of some ballistic programs against radar Doppler, the superiority of LoadBase 3.0 has been evident.
If you would, tell us more about the tactical features.
Thanks for posting!
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eaglet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunderwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have and like LoadBase 3.0, but it lacks some tactical features of Precision Workbench. Has anyone compared the accuracy of these two programs past 1000 yards? </div></div>
gunderwood,
There is a gentleman that tried a long range shot at 2285 yards with a 338-300 RUM also known as 338 Edge. The bullet would be flying <span style="font-weight: bold">over 500
yards being subsonic</span>; as we know LoadBase has the ability to work with such situations and a couple of us gave LB3.0 the info for the shot after the shooter had done a bunch of shooting and came to the conclusion that he needed 118 MOA (this would be real life vertical adjustment in the southern hemisphere). The program he was using was not giving him that close of an info.
To make a long story short, LB3.0 gave me the solution of 117.8 moa of vertical adjustment. Very Cool!!!
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/need-help-2285-yard-shot-51859/index7.html#post355327
LB3.0 has been said to allow first shot hits at 2200 meters where other programs have fallen short. Also, when running
comparisons of some ballistic programs against radar Doppler, the superiority of LoadBase 3.0 has been evident.
If you would, tell us more about the tactical features.
Thanks for posting!
</div></div>
I've been talking to Patagonia Ballistics (makes of LB3) to get a few unique features added. The jury is still out as to if they would be willing to implement them, but I can say that PB is has been very interested in hearing from their users and helpful.
One simple example is that LB3 manages everything by tracks in the DB, which is fine until you start recording many different configurations for one gun. Then it gets cumbersome. I.e. suppressor on/off, multi-caliber guns, etc.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eaglet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunderwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have and like LoadBase 3.0, but it lacks some tactical features of Precision Workbench. Has anyone compared the accuracy of these two programs past 1000 yards? </div></div>
gunderwood,
There is a gentleman that tried a long range shot at 2285 yards with a 338-300 RUM also known as 338 Edge. The bullet would be flying <span style="font-weight: bold">over 500
yards being subsonic</span>; as we know LoadBase has the ability to work with such situations and a couple of us gave LB3.0 the info for the shot after the shooter had done a bunch of shooting and came to the conclusion that he needed 118 MOA (this would be real life vertical adjustment in the southern hemisphere). The program he was using was not giving him that close of an info.
To make a long story short, LB3.0 gave me the solution of 117.8 moa of vertical adjustment. Very Cool!!!
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/need-help-2285-yard-shot-51859/index7.html#post355327
LB3.0 has been said to allow first shot hits at 2200 meters where other programs have fallen short. Also, when running
comparisons of some ballistic programs against radar Doppler, the superiority of LoadBase 3.0 has been evident.
If you would, tell us more about the tactical features.
Thanks for posting!
</div></div>
I've been talking to Patagonia Ballistics (makes of LB3) to get a few unique features added. The jury is still out as to if they would be willing to implement them, but I can say that PB is has been very interested in hearing from their users and helpful.
One simple example is that LB3 manages everything by tracks in the DB, which is fine until you start recording many different configurations for one gun. Then it gets cumbersome. I.e. suppressor on/off, multi-caliber guns, etc.
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you would, tell us more about the tactical features.</div></div>
There are a lot of interesting features in Field Firing Solutions which are oriented toward military snipers, like the ability to directly connect to rangefinders which output distance and bearing data, as well as accept FFP and target position information as GPS and/or map data.
But, you can see for yourself:
http://www.precisionworkbench.com/field.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you would, tell us more about the tactical features.</div></div>
There are a lot of interesting features in Field Firing Solutions which are oriented toward military snipers, like the ability to directly connect to rangefinders which output distance and bearing data, as well as accept FFP and target position information as GPS and/or map data.
But, you can see for yourself:
http://www.precisionworkbench.com/field.html
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
I have both and I find them both equally accurate...
the Loadbase 3.0 has a ton of features not found in the FFS, but at the same time, as Lindy mentioned FFS is more for the military shooter.
If you want to tinker with your program Loadbase has more of what you are looking for, a deeper library and just tons and tons of features, pretty much the kitchen sink. But I like the fact I can put in my rifle and it stays front and center in FFS and it loads up faster and easier for me. Once I have what I need, I don't need to be tinkering anymore so I want it up and running from the start like FFS.
I use Loadbase for things I don't know and FFS to shoot with more often.... As far as output I have found most are within 2/10ths of a mil of each other with the same data.
I have both and I find them both equally accurate...
the Loadbase 3.0 has a ton of features not found in the FFS, but at the same time, as Lindy mentioned FFS is more for the military shooter.
If you want to tinker with your program Loadbase has more of what you are looking for, a deeper library and just tons and tons of features, pretty much the kitchen sink. But I like the fact I can put in my rifle and it stays front and center in FFS and it loads up faster and easier for me. Once I have what I need, I don't need to be tinkering anymore so I want it up and running from the start like FFS.
I use Loadbase for things I don't know and FFS to shoot with more often.... As far as output I have found most are within 2/10ths of a mil of each other with the same data.
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
As a ps to my above, I like the fact I can get a Chip now from FFS, that makes it much easier especially since I tend to be hard on PDAs, and reloading the data on a new one is not easy as I would like.
As a ps to my above, I like the fact I can get a Chip now from FFS, that makes it much easier especially since I tend to be hard on PDAs, and reloading the data on a new one is not easy as I would like.
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have both and I find them both equally accurate...
the Loadbase 3.0 has a ton of features not found in the FFS, but at the same time, as Lindy mentioned FFS is more for the military shooter.
If you want to tinker with your program Loadbase has more of what you are looking for, a deeper library and just tons and tons of features, pretty much the kitchen sink. But I like the fact I can put in my rifle and it stays front and center in FFS and it loads up faster and easier for me. Once I have what I need, I don't need to be tinkering anymore so I want it up and running from the start like FFS.
I use Loadbase for things I don't know and FFS to shoot with more often.... As far as output I have found most are within 2/10ths of a mil of each other with the same data. </div></div>
I have LB3 and like it a lot, but FFS does seem to be more tactical focused. I was contemplating the idea of using LB3 as my default for most guns, but setting up profiles in FFS for only my tactical competition guns. $350 for FFS IV seems steep though.
I have read through the FFS manual and website, but I still really wish they had demo. Would you mind discussing your experience with FFS in a little more detail? I have a few specific questions if you don't mind. The manual covers these, but it can be easy to read more functionality into the descriptions then actually exists.
1. I am curious about the program speed and interface layout. LB3 is fast once it starts up and only within a particular module. Not unexpected though since you are getting the kitchen sink. The shear amount of data presented can be overwhelming in the mobile edition too (for a tactical gun comp). However, LB3 does a simplified field solution page. The interface pics are nice, but not the same as using it.
2. Map/GPS ranging feature. Mind providing an example of how you use it? Ideally, I would want to download free aerial/topo maps from something like terraserver, use the GPS to find my location, and use the maps to find unique features for range estimation.
3. The whole custom turret revolution setup. I'm not sure why the calc cares if it is a one or two turn turret, etc. It is so many mils/moa or clicks once I define what a click is. Did I miss something here?
4. How would FFS manage something like a DTA SRS with multiple calibers?
Thanks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have both and I find them both equally accurate...
the Loadbase 3.0 has a ton of features not found in the FFS, but at the same time, as Lindy mentioned FFS is more for the military shooter.
If you want to tinker with your program Loadbase has more of what you are looking for, a deeper library and just tons and tons of features, pretty much the kitchen sink. But I like the fact I can put in my rifle and it stays front and center in FFS and it loads up faster and easier for me. Once I have what I need, I don't need to be tinkering anymore so I want it up and running from the start like FFS.
I use Loadbase for things I don't know and FFS to shoot with more often.... As far as output I have found most are within 2/10ths of a mil of each other with the same data. </div></div>
I have LB3 and like it a lot, but FFS does seem to be more tactical focused. I was contemplating the idea of using LB3 as my default for most guns, but setting up profiles in FFS for only my tactical competition guns. $350 for FFS IV seems steep though.
I have read through the FFS manual and website, but I still really wish they had demo. Would you mind discussing your experience with FFS in a little more detail? I have a few specific questions if you don't mind. The manual covers these, but it can be easy to read more functionality into the descriptions then actually exists.
1. I am curious about the program speed and interface layout. LB3 is fast once it starts up and only within a particular module. Not unexpected though since you are getting the kitchen sink. The shear amount of data presented can be overwhelming in the mobile edition too (for a tactical gun comp). However, LB3 does a simplified field solution page. The interface pics are nice, but not the same as using it.
2. Map/GPS ranging feature. Mind providing an example of how you use it? Ideally, I would want to download free aerial/topo maps from something like terraserver, use the GPS to find my location, and use the maps to find unique features for range estimation.
3. The whole custom turret revolution setup. I'm not sure why the calc cares if it is a one or two turn turret, etc. It is so many mils/moa or clicks once I define what a click is. Did I miss something here?
4. How would FFS manage something like a DTA SRS with multiple calibers?
Thanks.
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a ps to my above, I like the fact I can get a Chip now from FFS, that makes it much easier especially since I tend to be hard on PDAs, and reloading the data on a new one is not easy as I would like. </div></div>
Have you ever dislodged the SD card in a Nomad while the unit was still sealed? I doubt I'm as hard on them as you though...I've seen the videos.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a ps to my above, I like the fact I can get a Chip now from FFS, that makes it much easier especially since I tend to be hard on PDAs, and reloading the data on a new one is not easy as I would like. </div></div>
Have you ever dislodged the SD card in a Nomad while the unit was still sealed? I doubt I'm as hard on them as you though...I've seen the videos.
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000y
FFS is just like LB3.0 in you can build and store any rifles and bullet combinations and you would pull them in a similar fashion. So, if you had a rifle build and then added the bullet data you can save that, to be used.
An example of the ranging, I know Lindy has all the berms on Rifles Only GPSd and stored in FFS, you can place him anywhere on the property or off, and he can get a location of where he is standing and then it will give him a range to every single berm . It uses his current location as the Final Firing Position and then his targeted coordinates are ranged via that data. As well you can use the data from stuff like the Vector 21, etc, and it can be remotely linked via bluetooth to certain laser rangefinders.
But like any program you have to build the data you are going to use. For example I have the Delta V and Tactical versions from Ashbury they have the Marine Corps rifle and bullet setups included, so for the USMC Scout Sniper everything in his inventory is in there so there is no need to build it. But you can build it like in LB3.0
While they are very similar in a lot of ways, and they do reach similar conclusions in the end, how you get there is different. Loadbase as I stated is more for those who are using different cartridges like wildcat stuff, as well you have reloading data, stuff not found in FFS. But FFS is geared towards the military and the shot logs are different, the tools are set up in different places, that in my opinion is a bit easier to navigate. Loadbase updates constantly and uses all the latest buzzwords, G7, Density Alt, while FFS doesn't, it uses the established norms to great effect, and success. Heck the "Tactical" by request from the military has stuff taken out of that is found in Delta V, as an example the USMC wasn't interested in SD and removed it. They want the meat and potatoes with none of the garnish.
FFS is just like LB3.0 in you can build and store any rifles and bullet combinations and you would pull them in a similar fashion. So, if you had a rifle build and then added the bullet data you can save that, to be used.
An example of the ranging, I know Lindy has all the berms on Rifles Only GPSd and stored in FFS, you can place him anywhere on the property or off, and he can get a location of where he is standing and then it will give him a range to every single berm . It uses his current location as the Final Firing Position and then his targeted coordinates are ranged via that data. As well you can use the data from stuff like the Vector 21, etc, and it can be remotely linked via bluetooth to certain laser rangefinders.
But like any program you have to build the data you are going to use. For example I have the Delta V and Tactical versions from Ashbury they have the Marine Corps rifle and bullet setups included, so for the USMC Scout Sniper everything in his inventory is in there so there is no need to build it. But you can build it like in LB3.0
While they are very similar in a lot of ways, and they do reach similar conclusions in the end, how you get there is different. Loadbase as I stated is more for those who are using different cartridges like wildcat stuff, as well you have reloading data, stuff not found in FFS. But FFS is geared towards the military and the shot logs are different, the tools are set up in different places, that in my opinion is a bit easier to navigate. Loadbase updates constantly and uses all the latest buzzwords, G7, Density Alt, while FFS doesn't, it uses the established norms to great effect, and success. Heck the "Tactical" by request from the military has stuff taken out of that is found in Delta V, as an example the USMC wasn't interested in SD and removed it. They want the meat and potatoes with none of the garnish.
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000yrds
I have pulled the chips in and out and you don't lose your data with the FFS chips. You just pop it back in and your right back to where you were. No need to do any formal shut down, and no there is no risk.
They are not coded to an individual or PDA, so they can be swapped and moved around without issue. The tight licensing codes of LB would make this impossible and if you are in the field, it is a no go. You can simply move the chip over to another PDA and you are back up and running. If it pops out, just put it back and restart the program, done.
I have pulled the chips in and out and you don't lose your data with the FFS chips. You just pop it back in and your right back to where you were. No need to do any formal shut down, and no there is no risk.
They are not coded to an individual or PDA, so they can be swapped and moved around without issue. The tight licensing codes of LB would make this impossible and if you are in the field, it is a no go. You can simply move the chip over to another PDA and you are back up and running. If it pops out, just put it back and restart the program, done.
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000y
Thank you for the info. One last question. Would you consider FFS and its "tactical" derivatives to be the best tactical field calc?
Thank you for the info. One last question. Would you consider FFS and its "tactical" derivatives to be the best tactical field calc?
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000y
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunderwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank you for the info. One last question. Would you consider FFS and its "tactical" derivatives to be the best tactical field calc?</div></div>
Hard to say, the new AIMEE from AI is pretty sweet, with a lot of features for snipers in a very unique way, but it's 3X more expensive. As well I think Fieldcraft from Aquilo is really good, and they have new versions that are cheaper than the old ABC program it started as. Fieldcraft is similar in the opening interface, with very similar features, so it's a tough call between the 3 without more use with the other two.
I think right now at the cost FFS is the one to beat, but that is without using the AIMEE beyond seeing it at SHOT or seeing what the other versions of Fieldcraft are doing. I have used the full blown Fieldcraft and it too is very geared towards the sniper, but again, more expensive. When you put everything in context its not as cut and dry as saying which is the best.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunderwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank you for the info. One last question. Would you consider FFS and its "tactical" derivatives to be the best tactical field calc?</div></div>
Hard to say, the new AIMEE from AI is pretty sweet, with a lot of features for snipers in a very unique way, but it's 3X more expensive. As well I think Fieldcraft from Aquilo is really good, and they have new versions that are cheaper than the old ABC program it started as. Fieldcraft is similar in the opening interface, with very similar features, so it's a tough call between the 3 without more use with the other two.
I think right now at the cost FFS is the one to beat, but that is without using the AIMEE beyond seeing it at SHOT or seeing what the other versions of Fieldcraft are doing. I have used the full blown Fieldcraft and it too is very geared towards the sniper, but again, more expensive. When you put everything in context its not as cut and dry as saying which is the best.
Re: LoadBase 3.0 vs Precision Workbench past 1000y
This thread about the use of SD and the so-called “tactical” features is very stimulating, giving the chance to think about those features and how they make a program more valuable or not.
SD-cards (or similar removable storage devices) are cool, but since they can be lost and broken like the PDA/Phone I don’t think they are the final answer. On the other hand, PDA or phones with card readers are more expensive and scarce, thus limiting the options of what hardware to use. For the general market, SD makes more complex to distributing any program, having the locking code created from the SD device ID.
Since most commercial packages have some sort of locking-mechanism, it’s not that hard to figure out that any program can be had to run from a PC-based setup or directly from an SD card. I think that in the end, it’s just a matter of personal preference, since both methods have pros and cons, so no free lunch here. For some reason, as Lowlight pointed out the MARINES didn’t go with the SD option.
Regarding, the “tactical” features, I’ll like to check if FIELDCRAFT is just a new name for the old ABCM from Cheytac. From their website it seems exactly the same. No screenshots to make a final check.
If that’s the case, the only “tactical” feature I can think of is the “targets list”, and the UI (user interface) is quite similar to LoadBase Mobile design. Please explain more on this subject.
Having ranging from coordinates is not a real need, since every GPS units does that precisely, allowing the user to store waypoints into their databases. In short, I can hardly see this as a must for ballistics package.
I mean, I prefer to have a better ballistics engine, more features related to take a Long Range shot than a “targets list” which adds more complexity to any program, especially when GPS do that perfectly well since they were available.
I’ve checked FFS numbers and they are not within a few thousand MILS when range is way over 1000 yards, in fact, when subsonic the difference is greater, as well as the Spin Drift calculation always yields the same outcome for a different Zero Range, which cannot be right at all since SD is related to our LOS. In LB3D/M that’s not the case.
Anyway, I’d like to learn more about the use of “tactical” features to evaluate them more and see their value.
I guess I can contact Gus at Patagonia Ballistics to discuss the addition of “tactical” features if you think they are worth the effort. Since he was always very responsive I think he will listen to our requests.
This thread about the use of SD and the so-called “tactical” features is very stimulating, giving the chance to think about those features and how they make a program more valuable or not.
SD-cards (or similar removable storage devices) are cool, but since they can be lost and broken like the PDA/Phone I don’t think they are the final answer. On the other hand, PDA or phones with card readers are more expensive and scarce, thus limiting the options of what hardware to use. For the general market, SD makes more complex to distributing any program, having the locking code created from the SD device ID.
Since most commercial packages have some sort of locking-mechanism, it’s not that hard to figure out that any program can be had to run from a PC-based setup or directly from an SD card. I think that in the end, it’s just a matter of personal preference, since both methods have pros and cons, so no free lunch here. For some reason, as Lowlight pointed out the MARINES didn’t go with the SD option.
Regarding, the “tactical” features, I’ll like to check if FIELDCRAFT is just a new name for the old ABCM from Cheytac. From their website it seems exactly the same. No screenshots to make a final check.
If that’s the case, the only “tactical” feature I can think of is the “targets list”, and the UI (user interface) is quite similar to LoadBase Mobile design. Please explain more on this subject.
Having ranging from coordinates is not a real need, since every GPS units does that precisely, allowing the user to store waypoints into their databases. In short, I can hardly see this as a must for ballistics package.
I mean, I prefer to have a better ballistics engine, more features related to take a Long Range shot than a “targets list” which adds more complexity to any program, especially when GPS do that perfectly well since they were available.
I’ve checked FFS numbers and they are not within a few thousand MILS when range is way over 1000 yards, in fact, when subsonic the difference is greater, as well as the Spin Drift calculation always yields the same outcome for a different Zero Range, which cannot be right at all since SD is related to our LOS. In LB3D/M that’s not the case.
Anyway, I’d like to learn more about the use of “tactical” features to evaluate them more and see their value.
I guess I can contact Gus at Patagonia Ballistics to discuss the addition of “tactical” features if you think they are worth the effort. Since he was always very responsive I think he will listen to our requests.
Similar threads
