All of my ballistic applications seek to numerically solve the differential equations of motion evolved from Newtonian physics and are absolutely correct (well, very close anywayOriginally Posted by zephyr
). Like all such algorithms, my implementation depends strongly on the initial conditions so it's very much a case of mitigating the initial assumptions. The trick is avoiding the "Garbage In" so to minimise the "Garbage Out" or, on a practical level, knowing which parameters have the most potential to mess things up and concentrating on reducing/eliminating their uncertainty.
I have a 150 metre open range at my finca and seasonal access to a 120 metre covered range (poly tunnel) on an adjacent property. I used both for confirmation testing in the early days but now only for amusement. Does repeatedly batting a 330 mL beer can up the range until there's nothing left to shoot at - or until the remains fall out of sight into a rambla some 115 metres away - count as accuracy and repeatability testing?
MERO's been downloaded more than 5600 times from my website and, while I haven't had any negative comments that couldn't be satisfactorily resolved, I've had lots of positivity. I suppose that might say something.
As it states on my website, I run everything through VirusTotal as well as a couple of other on-line virus checkers. The macOS and Linux implementations are always clean but the Windoze version sometimes generates the odd false-positive ... but then generating false-positives is a big part of their Windows-focussed business model after all. I send the usual emails of complaint to the offending vendors but I rarely get a response, never an apology.
At the end of the day, you take it or leave it. It's as easy to uninstall as it is to install in the first place.
I found the concept useful and thought others might too. Simple as that.
George
Reply With Quote