Strac,
My Dad likes to say, some guys are so smart they are stupid, that is how I felt talking to your DR.
I was given the pitch and get it, but lets face the Facts, programs like FFS have been doing the same thing for close to 10 years, reinventing the wheel and not offering particular features that are known to work should not be overlooked because the inventor has a resume. If you are not willing to understand the point of the man on the ground, well he will have very little use for your product.
The idea there is all this history, and nobody knows about it, but I knew exactly what you were talking about is telling in this industry. In that spec sheet where is the integration with lasers, kestrel, etc? Don't see it, and most guys shooting ELR want this first, not as an after thought. 10 years for the math, ok, sounds like a snow job. Adding Doppler alone to FFS has increased the accuracy, ask Ashbury. You have 3 sections on that spec on mil targeting and ranging you find SOCOM is doing a lot of mil ranging & targeting are you to put your focus there? You think 3000 yards with a mil reticle is gonna get you a hit hmm, would have thought a guy from MIT would skip the inaccurate legacy skill for a modern solution.
Old gun, not quite right software, new bullet that forgoes logistics, which, we should talk about these same guys when the PSR was happening, the claimed the 408 would win, then Ward was backing the 338Norma after the 408 was overlooked, so the talk has been going on for 2 years and never seemed to hit the nail on the head. Sure all the math was in their corner admittedly so, you couldn't argue with that, as you pointed out you can't. Doesn't mean they predicted or delivered winners.
Could I use his knowledge, I am sure, but if you can't explain it in a useable way, he is the only one who gets it. Maybe in the last 2 years he learned to dumb his sales pitch down for us little folks, can't say he left that impression.