If a real world test were to occur...

[firebugs]

Before I waste collectible ammunition and a good bit of time, what parameters would one need to follow to make real-world testing influence the in-game world?

More specifically, rifle ballistics. If someone were to have a period correct rifle, period correct ammunition, a chronograph (measures bullet velocity), and laser range finder, what procedure would need to be followed in order to find a suitable G1 ballistic coefficient for said ammunition.

My thoughts are as follows:

50 rounds at 5m (0-3m and debris from burning powder interferes with the chronograph) to measure velocity. The 5m offset from the muzzle can be accounted for with good ballistic calculators. Take record of every shot, and create an average.

50 rounds at 200m, again, record every shot and create an average

50 rounds at 300, 400, or 500m. Closer is easier to test (getting bullet over the chronograph becomes harder as range increases, small target, and should a round hit the chrono, fun is over), but further away with 50 readings will be more accurate when calculating BC. Once again, create an average.

Take the average velocity from 5, 200, and 300-500m, and test BC's in a reputable ballistic calculator (I suggest www.jbmballistics.com <-- has proven extremely accurate for myself and many other long range shooters in the real world) until the calculator's numbers closest match test numbers.

What say you, rats?

[GOPHUR]

I'd say the bc for these rounds is pretty well defined already. Why would you waste time testing it again?

You don't ever really seem to have a clear objective with this so why don't you just say, in one sentence, what you are trying to prove? Bullet drop is off? Penetration or velocity is off? I mean seriously, what?

If you want me to test something. Say what it is. Otherwise I really can;t keep coming back to beat this dead horse with you.

[firebugs]

My one sentence: Based off of my experience in the military and civilian world of long-range shooting and weapons collecting, the ballistic coefficients for the vast majority of the small arms I have tested is significantly off.

The k98k, Mg34, Bren, no.4 mk1, 1886 Lebel, and possibly the FM 29 and MAS36 under-perform.

The Boyes ATR, .50BMG's, and especially the PzB39 significantly over-perform.

Nearly every light/medium machine gun round in this game is shedding energy faster than it should, dropping more than it should, and taking longer to get to the target than it should.

Edited July 8, 2011 by firebugs

[GOPHUR]

Tell me what you think a round (start with one or two) should be doing and I can contrast that against what it is doing. I can't give you the tools to accurately time rounds in the game but I'll devote some time to looking for a problem if you can define one for me.

Edited July 12, 2011 by GOPHUR

[firebugs]

Either you're plugging G7 BC's into a G1 computer, or the ballistic coefficients are just wrong.

the K98k has about a .21 BC. The MG34 has about a .31 BC, yet they're both the same round (BC is nearly entirely in the projectile, although minorly variable with velocity, 10 m/s is insignificant, and the hop from .21 to .31 is big).

Likewise, the mattilda mk2's COAX BESA 7.92x57mm MG fires Mk2z ball, which is a British copy of the 198 grain German s.S. Patrone. In-game it's BC is around .50.

So you have essentially 3 guns that fire the same round, with 3 different ballistic coefficients. if the hop from .21 to .31 was big, from those up to .50 is HUGE.

Now, mk2z Ball or s.S. patrone should have a BC of between .54 and .57, Based off of research I have done in the past and my personal experience shooting and reloading ammunition for my K98k rifles.

[firebugs]

If you need more persuasion, take a gander at this (scroll down to "ballistic coefficient").

That is a flat-base, blunt, round-nosed bullet of very similar mass (but NOT shape) to the MkIIz ball/s.S. patrone bullets, yet it's ballistic coefficient is higher than the K98k in WWIIOL, and similar to the Mg34 in WWIIOL. Obvious evidence something is out of whack.

[Sudden]

Interesting stuff. Sounds like you have already run some tests otherwise how can you say it is off?

I get from reading the reply this discussion has gone on before. If it's not too much trouble, please fire a couple rounds downrange (say 3 for each weapon) and show the comparison of real world impact point vs. your ingame result.

fwiw, I think it's a waste of ammo and cash to run the 50 round tests you proposed, unless you are that curious.

Would be cool to see some data from the real weapon and then see if Gophur can match it in some way.

I used to have a book on ballistics/reloading from a tank guy. I think it's still in print. He covers just about every bullet and gun combo out there.

My chronograph is gathering dust somewhere in the basement. Haven't reloaded in years.

[Sudden]

This book.

[firebugs]

Interesting stuff. Sounds like you have already run some tests otherwise how can you say it is off?

I get from reading the reply this discussion has gone on before. If it's not too much trouble, please fire a couple rounds downrange (say 3 for each weapon) and show the comparison of real world impact point vs. your ingame result.

fwiw, I think it's a waste of ammo and cash to run the 50 round tests you proposed, unless you are that curious.

Would be cool to see some data from the real weapon and then see if Gophur can match it in some way.

I used to have a book on ballistics/reloading from a tank guy. I think it's still in print. He covers just about every bullet and gun combo out there.

My chronograph is gathering dust somewhere in the basement. Haven't reloaded in years.

Here is some of my testing. I believe I have several screen shots to back up my data for the 100-round tests I did.

http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?t=363651

I also did extensive testing using similar methods several years ago, and reached pretty much exactly the same results. I believe the issue back then was that I couldn't provide any historical data to use as a comparison and/or correction, hence the interest in doing a realworld test.