ballistics ArmA III Ballistics Overhaul WIP

[Spartan0536 189]

@DarkWanderer

That's one of your interpretation and I don't insult anyone in the post.

I've seen you chasing me and harassing me in another post.

So from now forget speak with me ever.

---------- Post added at 01:08 ---------- Previous post was at 00:49 ----------

@Spartan

I've been reading the documentation on which ye made​​. As expected it is a complete fabrication.

For me it has no real validity beyond pure statistics.

The more weak points I see in these types of modifications are based on the absence of a mathematical model applied to the game.

They are using data and values ​​from "ARMA 2" may not serve in "ARMA · 3" and based on a real physical model. Without a simulation of materials, a wind model and a system to reflect the recoil of the gun. These values ​​are only a subtle way to upgrade weapons as valid as any other valid but not to improve the game from the point of view of its playability.

---------- Post added at 01:16 ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 ----------

Another very serious problem is the fact that the data are static. If you change some behavior of the weapons in the game the results can be adverse.

What I mean is that you need a complete modification of code along with the data. Create a statistical curve that reflects the behavior of the ammo you have and with the statistical model, create a mathematical model that joins the source code to create a playable model and integrate it all together.

The data right now - I think - in actual state is useless for the pourpose of the OP.

The ballistics information from arma 2 regarding airfriction is the exact same in arma 3, they did not re-write that code, they just added more features (no need to reinvent the wheel as it is said). My ballistics information is limited by ArmA's rather simplistic damage system, in fact I have briefly explained this before. Because there is not complex simulation of damage other than a hitpoint system and there is no synaptic or muscular system in place for personell I can not make anything completely accurate and this is not something I know how to enhance or add into ArmA, perhaps in time the XMed team may (I really like their mod). I am sorry my mod is not all encompassing as you would like, I can however state that my ballistics regarding AirFriction, Penetration, and Velocities are damn near 100% correct and RL videos can support this and that is irrefutable evidence. Again my only limitations on ballistics is the ArmA VBS engine, many people and many expert modders and even active and retired military members of the ArmA community seem to disagree with your insight. What perturbs me the most about your post is that the only valid subject you brought up would have been the ballistic calculator which I have answered, I am not even sure if you have seen what ballistic code in ArmA III looks like, its actually quite basic and I am working within that scope to provide realistic ballistics based on the actual bullets. Now if you feel inclined to do what no ArmA mod team has ever done even from the OFP days and completely re-write the ballistics system in ArmA and the medical system to include a muscular and synaptic system I would be grateful, I seriously doubt however that any one person would be able to accomplish all of that on their own before ArmA IV would be released. As for the data being static is it anything but static, the airfriction values cause the ballistics to be dynamic and the material penetration values are also another modifier which if used correctly with mazagine initspeed values based on the weapons platform using them can yield some very impressive realistic results. As for recoil, well ask any real shooter if recoil is the same for every person or if the accuracy is the same, they will tell you NO, its as unique as a thumbprint, while they will share similar characteristics no two guns, or bullets and in fact no single gun performs the same for every shooter. I will leave you with this, NO simulator or game in the history of humankind has ever been able to replicate life or a real battlefield, it can come close but RL is RL, and this is not subject to change.

[Spartan0536 189]

With the release of HLC's AK pack I will now finalize the 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm rounds, with these .45ACP, .40 S&W, and .357 Sig will be included as well. After this release I will finish work on 6x35mm KAC and 7.62x51mm NATO.

Again please note that my 6x35mm KAC ballistics are not entirely correct, I had to calculate the G1 ballistics coefficient on my own as there is no source of the information available and the munition manufacturer is no longer in business. As for the velocity, damage, and penetration values they are based off of claims made by Knights Armament Corporation.

6x35mm

Open Tip Match

65 Grain

2425 fps

848 ft/lbs

.263 Ballistics Coefficient (G1) "Calculated"

Edited March 21, 2014 by Spartan0536

[Spartan0536 189]

Update:

In the past few days I have been testing my ballistics in Multiplayer with a few friends using my new .357 Sig, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 5.45x39mm rounds. so far they are performing to spec and combat reports as well as ballistics data found on my sources from AR15.com and TheHighRoad.com

I will soon begin in game testing of 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R, once testing is completed on these rounds I will release a major update of code for all the ballistics provided including 6x35mm KAC.

The next round of ballistics to go WIP will be the following....

4.6x30mm H&K

5.7x29mm FN (I will try to get these differentiated between pistol velocities and SMG velocities)

.50AE

6.5x38mm Grendel

6.8x43mm SPC

.300 AAC Blackout

7.62x51mm NATO

.338 Lapua Magnum

Doing all these ballistics at once and ensuring their values are appropriate can be difficult and time consuming, I expect this to some time to compile from credible sources and test in game. Sometimes the extra wait is due to the ammunition manufacturers getting back to me on their time with accurate G1 ballistics coefficients (sometimes they can take up to 1 week).

Edited March 25, 2014 by Spartan0536

[LoupVrt 14]

KUTG! I intend to mod all the weapons in my team's private pack with your code (IDC about "fabrication", I choose to believe).

[Spartan0536 189]

MK318 Mod 0 SOST UPDATE!

I have been busy doing additional research on the 5.56x45mm rounds, the best info is actually on the AB49 round or MK318 Mod 0 SOST. I have managed to get real shooting info for it from a 20 inch barrel, a 14.5 inch Carbine barrel, and a 10.5 inch SBR. These numbers are as correct as possible thanks to some friends of mine at AR15.com

New MK318 Mod 0 SOST velocities....

BASE 20 inch barrel M16 - 3134 ft/s muzzle (up from 3118 ft/s muzzle)

Carbine 14.5 inch barrel M4 - 2927 ft/s muzzle

SBR 10.5 inch barrel M4 CQBR - 2812 ft/s muzzle

The penetration and damage values will remain unchanged, new velocities according to shorter barrel lengths will be added via MAGAZINE INIT where the appropriate muzzle velocity will calculate the rest automatically via a mathematical algorithm. Please keep in mind the USMC was looking for a cartridge to work well in shorter barrel rifles and have been using the MK318 Mod 0 over the M855A1 EPR.

MK318 Mod 0 Accuracy Testing Results (US Military claims under 2 MOA at 200 yards and under 3.9 MOA at 300 yards), the following is based on ACTUAL testing by members at AR15.com, the lower the MOA the better the accuracy.

20 inch barrel - 1.62 MOA @ 200 meters

14.5 inch barrel - 1.67 MOA @ 200 meters

10.5 inch barrel - 1.71 MOA @ 200 meters

Edited April 3, 2014 by Spartan0536
added ranges for MOA

[gatordev 219]

Out of curiosity, why are you using G1 models? Is it just easier to get data? The G7 is the more accurate model (assuming you have the data) for the boat tail round. I wonder if it really matters in A3. If it does, that's impressive that they wrote that in there.

[warlord554 2065]

Nice work on the Russian rounds. I see you have 762x51 NATO in the making. Will this include the M118LR?

[Spartan0536 189]

Out of curiosity, why are you using G1 models? Is it just easier to get data? The G7 is the more accurate model (assuming you have the data) for the boat tail round. I wonder if it really matters in A3. If it does, that's impressive that they wrote that in there.

The ballistics calculator I use to get the AirFriction data uses G1 Ballistics Coefficients, and most places have the G1 data available. I believe the engine for ArmA III uses ballistics based off of G1 models as they would be easier to code in the data.

Nice work on the Russian rounds. I see you have 762x51 NATO in the making. Will this include the M118LR?

Yes the M118LR will be available for 7.62x51mm NATO, among other high performance rounds.

[bakerman 247]

The ballistics calculator I use to get the AirFriction data uses G1 Ballistics Coefficients, and most places have the G1 data available. I believe the engine for ArmA III uses ballistics based off of G1 models as they would be easier to code in the data.

This is not true. The engine uses airFriction to calculate drag (acceleration) at any given velocity. Thus if you know the velocity at any given distance / time in IRL ballistics you can determine the airFriction value. One cannot directly calculate the airFriction from the ballistics coefficient, if you've been using this method then your af values are most likely incorrect.

From the VBS wiki:

airFriction is used to reduce the velocity of ordinance.

The acceleration depends on how fast the ordinance is travelling.

At any given time, acceleration due to friction = (ordinance speed)*((ordinance speed)*airFriction)

_airFriction = accel / speed^2

using real world acceleration and speed of the bullet from balistic tables.

[Spartan0536 189]

This is not true. The engine uses airFriction to calculate drag (acceleration) at any given velocity. Thus if you know the velocity at any given distance / time in IRL ballistics you can determine the airFriction value. One cannot directly calculate the airFriction from the ballistics coefficient, if you've been using this method then your af values are most likely incorrect.

From the VBS wiki:

Bakerman if you read his readme he states in his ballistic calculator that you need to use G1 BC's to calculate the drag coefficient which then you plug into a secondary calculator which gives you the airfriction. His calculator does not use G7 BC's only G1 as this is how the ArmA engine reads them, I think you might have gotten confused there.

[bakerman 247]

Bakerman if you read his readme he states in his ballistic calculator that you need to use G1 BC's to calculate the drag coefficient which then you plug into a secondary calculator which gives you the airfriction. His calculator does not use G7 BC's only G1 as this is how the ArmA engine reads them, I think you might have gotten confused there.

This has nothing to do with the ballistics calculator, this is simply how arma simulates drag.

Just to prove the point let's put your values into the game and compare them with what's real and one I quickly made with the Baked Ballistics (BB) calculator.

Realistic Ballistics (RB) Mk262 Mod1:

typicalSpeed = 838.20;

airFriction = -0.0006541367;

hit = 9.50;

BB Mk262 Mod1 (calculated without ever touching the BC):

typicalSpeed = 794.92;

airFriction = -0.0009994;

hit = 11.024;

It looks like you have used a ballistics coefficient of 0.362 G1, that's good, because the ballistics tables also use this.

Here's what my calculator says the velocity (m/s) will be at range when fired at 800 m/s.

Range(m) --- BB ------- RB

100 --------- 724.31 --- 749.54

300 --------- 592.83 --- 657.57

500 --------- 485.47 --- 576.89

This is what the reported velocity was in game at the same ranges and also fired at 800m/s.

Range(m) --- BB ------- RB

100 --------- 723.58 --- 749.01

300 --------- 591.49 --- 656.72

500 --------- 483.62 --- 575.40

Now let's convert to imperial and fire the rounds at 2608 fps so that we can compare it to a real ballistics table.

Range(yd) ---- Real ----- BB ----- RB

100 ----------- 2369 ---- 2375 ---- 2454

300 ----------- 1929 ---- 1972 ---- 2152

500 ----------- 1547 ---- 1640 ---- 1886

1000 ---------- 994 ----- 1033 ---- 1427

Ok so we see something is wrong, now let's convert that into an error rating.

Range(yd) --- BB ------ RB

100 --------- 0.25% ---- 3.46%

300 --------- 2.18% ---- 10.36%

500 --------- 5.67% ---- 17.97%

1000 -------- 3.76% ---- 30.34%

As we can see the error rating is getting progressively worse as range increases. My values are a bit off and the airFriction can be increased, but your airFriction seems to be way off.

So we see that your airFriction has a margin of error of 15.54%, while my BB airFriction sits at 2.97%. Getting this down to under 1% will almost be impossible, because this is a game and not real life after all.

I've been helping you out from your very first post I saw regarding arma ballistics and I will continue to do so. I really like your level of enthusiasm, so please don't take any of this personally, this is my form of tough love via mathematics to help you get your values close to the 3-5% margin of error that you promise, but at the moment you are way off and misleading the community by making false claims.

So to recap this into something very short, which I actually already said in my last post, you cannot get the airFriction from the ballistic coefficient and/or drag coefficient. The only thing you can get airFriction from is the velocity or drop of a projectile at a certain range or time.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Bakerman

[Spartan0536 189]

This has nothing to do with the ballistics calculator, this is simply how arma simulates drag.

Just to prove the point let's put your values into the game and compare them with what's real and one I quickly made with the Baked Ballistics (BB) calculator.

Realistic Ballistics (RB) Mk262 Mod1:

BB Mk262 Mod1 (calculated without ever touching the BC):

It looks like you have used a ballistics coefficient of 0.362 G1, that's good, because the ballistics tables also use this.

Here's what my calculator says the velocity (m/s) will be at range when fired at 800 m/s.

Range(m) --- BB ------- RB

100 --------- 724.31 --- 749.54

300 --------- 592.83 --- 657.57

500 --------- 485.47 --- 576.89

This is what the reported velocity was in game at the same ranges and also fired at 800m/s.

Range(m) --- BB ------- RB

100 --------- 723.58 --- 749.01

300 --------- 591.49 --- 656.72

500 --------- 483.62 --- 575.40

Now let's convert to imperial and fire the rounds at 2608 fps so that we can compare it to a real ballistics table.

Range(yd) ---- Real ----- BB ----- RB

100 ----------- 2369 ---- 2375 ---- 2454

300 ----------- 1929 ---- 1972 ---- 2152

500 ----------- 1547 ---- 1640 ---- 1886

1000 ---------- 994 ----- 1033 ---- 1427

Ok so we see something is wrong, now let's convert that into an error rating.

Range(yd) --- BB ------ RB

100 --------- 0.25% ---- 3.46%

300 --------- 2.18% ---- 10.36%

500 --------- 5.67% ---- 17.97%

1000 -------- 3.76% ---- 30.34%

As we can see the error rating is getting progressively worse as range increases. My values are a bit off and the airFriction can be increased, but your airFriction seems to be way off.

So we see that your airFriction has a margin of error of 15.54%, while my BB airFriction sits at 2.97%. Getting this down to under 1% will almost be impossible, because this is a game and not real life after all.

I've been helping you out from your very first post I saw regarding arma ballistics and I will continue to do so. I really like your level of enthusiasm, so please don't take any of this personally, this is my form of tough love via mathematics to help you get your values close to the 3-5% margin of error that you promise, but at the moment you are way off and misleading the community by making false claims.

So to recap this into something very short, which I actually already said in my last post, you cannot get the airFriction from the ballistic coefficient and/or drag coefficient. The only thing you can get airFriction from is the velocity or drop of a projectile at a certain range or time.

So what you are implying is that the ballistics calculator I have been using to calculate AirFriction is all wrong, if this is true then we have serious problems and I have to re-do all 10 of my ballistics configs, which eerily enough with in game testing seem to be matching combat and range reports.

What I do is I use the G1 BC, the Bullet Head Diameter, and the projectiles mass, that gives me the drag coefficient (this is how that is calculated in RL), from there I plug the drag coefficient, projectile mass, and head diameter into a separate calculator and that gives me the AirFriction. This all seems to mathematically add up correctly. Just so you are aware BC's in RL are VERY VERY VERY important, so important in fact that we have gone from G1 coefficients to G7 now in 60 years to help develop better ballistics for our firearms, I find it troubling not to use a BC, hell Snipers live by their bullets extremely high BC's.

I have a question for you as well, what was the barrel length that you used to get your base info from, and what kind of MK262 Mod 1 ammo did you use for your tests (note there are 3 different loads and only 1 of them is correct for military use).

Edited April 5, 2014 by Spartan0536

[bakerman 247]

_airFriction = accel / speed^2

using real world acceleration and speed of the bullet from balistic tables

You're still not getting it so I'm posting this quote for a third time. That's from the VBS wiki and as I've clearly just showed in my previous post it holds true on paper and in game. This may be something of a matrix moment for you, but it seems that everything you thought you knew about airFriction is wrong. In about 24 hours I will post an explanation of all the config values, tools and scripts needed to import real world data into arma.

One last thing. You can either trust in a spreadsheet without references and "combat reports", or you can trust in Bohemia's wiki and real data & mathematics.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Bakerman

[Spartan0536 189]

You're still not getting it so I'm posting this quote for a third time. That's from the VBS wiki and as I've clearly just showed in my previous post it holds true on paper and in game. This may be something of a matrix moment for you, but it seems that everything you thought you knew about airFriction is wrong. In about 24 hours I will post an explanation of all the config values, tools and scripts needed to import real world data into arma.

One last thing. You can either trust in a spreadsheet without references and "combat reports", or you can trust in Bohemia's wiki and real data & mathematics.

Again I am asking abut your ballistic tables, the data for the Mk262 mod 1, what kind of Mk262 Mod 1 did you use and what was the barrel length of the tested firearm to produce the velocity, both of these have huge impacts on ballistics in RL and in game (when coded right in the Magazine init).

ALSO.....

Bullet simulation is not kinematic (trajectory based), but dynamic (force based). Two basic forces are considered - drag (air friction) and gravity.

Vector3 accel=_speed*(_speed.Size()*_airFriction);

// add gravity

accel[1]-= _coefGravity * G_CONST;

Initial speed of the bullet degrades over distance, so HIT value.

Engine simulates even the penetration and deflection within individual parts, and the projectile causes damage in each parts it penetrates / deflects from, corresponding to the energy lost in the deflection / penetration. Indirect hits caused by explosions occlude with walls and floors.

Within the world of science Air Friction is calculated by an objects Surface Area (Head Diameter of a bullet and its Ballistic Coefficient), and Weight (projectile mass), guess what we get when we combine these properties... its called a DRAG COEFFICIENT, when that is plugged into a calculator that takes into effect the projectile mass and head diameter of the bullet you get air friction, this is scientifically proven, unless BIS seems to think the world operates differently then I could never claim any realism because their engine would be based on a mathematical and scientific fallacy.

Also I hope to God you are not using VBS's ballistic tables as they are not based on real tests but base representations from ideal situations in a perfect environment. While VBS is a decent program its like Lockheed Martin's P3D, its good but it is not like RL (I am a student pilot with hours and hours of flight time, and its entirely different).

Edited April 5, 2014 by Spartan0536

[bakerman 247]

I can understand that it must be difficult to accept, because you don't want to do everything all over again, but trust me it's not that bad. You have the information already so with the right tools it will take you no more than a hour or two. I know because I've done it, multiple times. I've been wrong, a lot, and the only way to get it completely right is to first be completely wrong. :butbut:

Now to answer your question, to which the answer holds no real value, I used a chart of a Sierra MatchKing Mk262 Mod1 with G1 BC of 0.362. That's the one you used.

MK262 Mod 1 SPR

Projectile Velocity decreased from 920m/s to 838.20m/s based on real ballistic calcualtions, this is a 77 grain Sierra MatchKing OTM round, it will be slower out the barrel.

It was fired from what appears to be a rather short barrel and not a Mk12 or something like that. This answer holds almost 0 value because you have the range and velocity table in my previous post, that's ALL you need to get airFriction. If you have any further questions then it will unfortunately have to wait until tomorrow when I make my big post, it will hopefully be worth the wait.

ALSO.....

Bullet simulation is not kinematic (trajectory based), but dynamic (force based). Two basic forces are considered - drag (air friction) and gravity.

Vector3 accel=_speed*(_speed.Size()*_airFriction);

// add gravity

accel[1]-= _coefGravity * G_CONST;

Initial speed of the bullet degrades over distance, so HIT value.

Engine simulates even the penetration and deflection within individual parts, and the projectile causes damage in each parts it penetrates / deflects from, corresponding to the energy lost in the deflection / penetration. Indirect hits caused by explosions occlude with walls and floors.

Within the world of science Air Friction is calculated by an objects Surface Area (Head Diameter of a bullet), Weight (projectile mass), and its resistance (Ballistic Coefficient), guess what we get when we combine all three... its called a DRAG COEFFICIENT, when that is plugged into a calculator that takes into effect the projectile mass and head diameter of the bullet you get air friction, this is scientifically proven, unless BIS seems to think the world operates differently then I could never claim any realism because their engine would be based on a mathematical and scientific fallacy.

Also I hope to God you are not using VBS's ballistic tables as they are not based on real tests but base representations from ideal situations in a perfect environment. While VBS is a decent program its like Lockheed Martin's P3D, its good but it is not like RL (I am a student pilot with hours and hours of flight time, and its entirely different).

You just posted information I gave you about a week ago in the Baked Ballistics V1.0 spreadsheet I made. Yes I gave you that and lots more, including the stuff about airFriction. :d:

I was about to say that it seems like you're just trying to grab any "new" info you can to disprove me, but after your edits it seems that you really are. This is really a shameful display. You had your chance to hold you head high and correct your work, but instead you take it personal and attack me. This is sad for me because I've been supporting you from day 1. You can argue all you want but in the end you're arguing with emotional words against Bohemia's formulas and proven data.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Bakerman

[Spartan0536 189]

I can understand that it must be difficult to accept, because you don't want to do everything all over again, but trust me it's not that bad. You have the information already so with the right tools it will take you no more than a hour or two. I know because I've done it, multiple times. I've been wrong, a lot, and the only way to get it completely right is to first be completely wrong. :butbut:

Now to answer your question, to which the answer holds no real value, I used a chart of a Sierra MatchKing Mk262 Mod1 with G1 BC of 0.362. That's the one you used. It was fired from what appears to be a rather short barrel and not a Mk12 or something like that. This answer holds almost 0 value because you have the range and velocity table in my previous post, that's ALL you need to get airFriction. If you have any further questions then it will unfortunately have to wait until tomorrow when I make my big post, it will hopefully be worth the wait.

I did not use a Sierra Match King round, I used an AA53 round from the US military which is based on the Sierra Match King Bullet, it uses a different powder and has different accuracy and velocity differences, there are many forums that support this. I am 99% positive in my projectile velocities and about 90% positive in my hit and penetration values, if all this is about airfriction rates then we have quite a bit to discuss if his ballistics calculator is incorrect. It also seems I can not download your baker ballistics program from the link provided and for the life of me I can not find it in my downloads folder (I am sure I downloaded it before), if you can provide that link I will run tests side by side and correlate them with my reports to see what the results are.

On another note it is NOT my intention to attack you or imply such action, it may seem that way due to the textual communication that forums are (when using voice its all about inflection which has a huge impact on a word), words in written form have no inflection and thus can me misconstrued.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Spartan0536

[gatordev 219]

I can't speak to the real world --> A3 conversion process, so maybe that's where some of the confusion is (on my part), but just a few thoughts...

- The G7 profile is much more accurate and assuming you have the correct data (and can transmorgrify it into A3), it will give some pretty accurate info.

- I'm not sure what the AA53 round is, but the COTS purchase for the MK12 (and then continued contract for everyone else) is the Black Hills OTM MK262 MOD 1, which uses the SMK 77 gr bullet. It's very possible I'm misunderstanding your post, but it seems like like you're saying you're basing it off of another round that isn't what is actually employed, despite the internet.

All that said, your values may be close enough that it's still in the "fun" category for a game. Just clarifying why I was asking.

[Spartan0536 189]

I can't speak to the real world --> A3 conversion process, so maybe that's where some of the confusion is (on my part), but just a few thoughts...

- The G7 profile is much more accurate and assuming you have the correct data (and can transmorgrify it into A3), it will give some pretty accurate info.

- I'm not sure what the AA53 round is, but the COTS purchase for the MK12 (and then continued contract for everyone else) is the Black Hills OTM MK262 MOD 1, which uses the SMK 77 gr bullet. It's very possible I'm misunderstanding your post, but it seems like like you're saying you're basing it off of another round that isn't what is actually employed, despite the internet.

All that said, your values may be close enough that it's still in the "fun" category for a game. Just clarifying why I was asking.

The AA53 round is based on the Black Hills OTM bullet, however they use a different powder, pressure curve, and have different MOA ratings than civilian bought Black Hills 77 grain OTM rounds. AA53 is the OFFICIAL labeling for the Mk262 Mod 1

---------- Post added 04-06-2014 at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was 04-05-2014 at 11:42 PM ----------

This has nothing to do with the ballistics calculator, this is simply how arma simulates drag.

Just to prove the point let's put your values into the game and compare them with what's real and one I quickly made with the Baked Ballistics (BB) calculator.

Realistic Ballistics (RB) Mk262 Mod1:

BB Mk262 Mod1 (calculated without ever touching the BC):

It looks like you have used a ballistics coefficient of 0.362 G1, that's good, because the ballistics tables also use this.

Here's what my calculator says the velocity (m/s) will be at range when fired at 800 m/s.

Range(m) --- BB ------- RB

100 --------- 724.31 --- 749.54

300 --------- 592.83 --- 657.57

500 --------- 485.47 --- 576.89

This is what the reported velocity was in game at the same ranges and also fired at 800m/s.

Range(m) --- BB ------- RB

100 --------- 723.58 --- 749.01

300 --------- 591.49 --- 656.72

500 --------- 483.62 --- 575.40

Now let's convert to imperial and fire the rounds at 2608 fps so that we can compare it to a real ballistics table.

Range(yd) ---- Real ----- BB ----- RB

100 ----------- 2369 ---- 2375 ---- 2454

300 ----------- 1929 ---- 1972 ---- 2152

500 ----------- 1547 ---- 1640 ---- 1886

1000 ---------- 994 ----- 1033 ---- 1427

Ok so we see something is wrong, now let's convert that into an error rating.

Range(yd) --- BB ------ RB

100 --------- 0.25% ---- 3.46%

300 --------- 2.18% ---- 10.36%

500 --------- 5.67% ---- 17.97%

1000 -------- 3.76% ---- 30.34%

As we can see the error rating is getting progressively worse as range increases. My values are a bit off and the airFriction can be increased, but your airFriction seems to be way off.

So we see that your airFriction has a margin of error of 15.54%, while my BB airFriction sits at 2.97%. Getting this down to under 1% will almost be impossible, because this is a game and not real life after all.

I've been helping you out from your very first post I saw regarding arma ballistics and I will continue to do so. I really like your level of enthusiasm, so please don't take any of this personally, this is my form of tough love via mathematics to help you get your values close to the 3-5% margin of error that you promise, but at the moment you are way off and misleading the community by making false claims.

So to recap this into something very short, which I actually already said in my last post, you cannot get the airFriction from the ballistic coefficient and/or drag coefficient. The only thing you can get airFriction from is the velocity or drop of a projectile at a certain range or time.

Ok I have looked at range reports with some help with my friends at AR15.com, this was a very well documented and professional test of the AA53 round (Mk262 Mod 1). Your velocity is based out of a 16 inch SAAMI barrel which is rated for 2600 FPS at the muzzle, using that range card your calculator is more accurate than the one you originally linked me to. I would greatly appreciate it if you would send me a download link for your ballistics calculator at your nearest convenience so I may correlate more reports and post my findings, this information is very distressing to me, perhaps ArmA III and ArmA II ballistics code are different.

Shot from a SAAMI 16 inch barrel at ISA conditions:

In lieu of this information I ask that anyone who wishes to do their own ballistics calculations DO NOT USE the ballistics calculator for ArmA II! Also this information now makes me look incompetent, great....

Edited April 6, 2014 by Spartan0536

[gatordev 219]

The AA53 round is based on the Black Hills OTM bullet, however they use a different powder, pressure curve, and have different MOA ratings than civilian bought Black Hills 77 grain OTM rounds. AA53 is the OFFICIAL labeling for the Mk262 Mod 1

Gotcha. Thanks for the info. Warning...this has nothing to do with A3, but...

I've shot (out of my MK12) the BH MK262 and I've shot a commercially loaded 77gr SMK "copy" of MK262 MOD 1 from a group of guys out of AZ. Hands down, the AZ guys made a better round with a far more consistent velocity than the commercial Black Hills stuff (same with their 175 SMK 308). I know the AZ guys are using Varget powder. Any chance you know what the load of the AA53 is? I'll have to do some googling.

[Spartan0536 189]

Gotcha. Thanks for the info. Warning...this has nothing to do with A3, but...

I've shot (out of my MK12) the BH MK262 and I've shot a commercially loaded 77gr SMK "copy" of MK262 MOD 1 from a group of guys out of AZ. Hands down, the AZ guys made a better round with a far more consistent velocity than the commercial Black Hills stuff (same with their 175 SMK 308). I know the AZ guys are using Varget powder. Any chance you know what the load of the AA53 is? I'll have to do some googling.

I have no clue what powder the US Military uses, I know they have it set to a higher MPA curve over civilian loads.

[Spartan0536 189]

IMPORTANT UPDATE!

I am no longer using D2D's ballistic Calculator to get airFriction rates, I am now using Bakermans Community Ballistics Calculator. If you so feel inclined to create your own ballistics and are attempting to make them as real as possible make sure you get reliable trustworthy data from reputable sources, coming from experience this is what takes the most time, correlating factual information from the BS. Expect all my ballistics to be refined according to Bakermans previous posts, thanks again to Bakerman for finding a critical flaw in the calculator that I was using, this community is bad ass for stuff like this!

[LoupVrt 14]

Spartan, I'm sure you do have your own agenda and you can't make everyone happy but could you please post figures for 7.62x51mm NATO?

I've "tricked" the OPFOR use 5.56x45mm for their assault weapons (AK-108 and RPK-108) but now both our own and OPFOR 7.62 weapons are lacking "HD" ammos.

Then I'll make everyone use .50 for heavies.

[Spartan0536 189]

Spartan, I'm sure you do have your own agenda and you can't make everyone happy but could you please post figures for 7.62x51mm NATO?

I've "tricked" the OPFOR use 5.56x45mm for their assault weapons (AK-108 and RPK-108) but now both our own and OPFOR 7.62 weapons are lacking "HD" ammos.

Then I'll make everyone use .50 for heavies.

You sure you want 7.62x51mm NATO and not 7.62x39mm Russian?

[LoupVrt 14]

100% sure. :)

[Spartan0536 189]

Well I now have figured out the 99.99999% accurate way to calculate AirFriction, every single ballistics calculator agrees mathematically in my new formula which I will explain below.....

Step 1: gather reliable info on the rounds from credible sources.

Step 2: plug research into Hornady's ballistics calculator for handloads (Hornady makes some of the best bullets ever designed, or at least in my opinion)

Step 3: using my new ballistics chart I plug in my info into both Bakermans Community Ballistics Calculator for AirFriction and Dust 2 Dust's ballistics table (range only and using a gravity value of -9.8067) and try to match them up

Step 4: after numerous slight tweaks to velocities vs time stamps I finally get the tables to line up 99.9999999% correct

Step 5: check data against Hornady, and Federal ballistics tables to ensure accuracy, and if all matches up they are good 2 go!

This being said, my first new rounds to be released with this new error proof formula is (drum roll).........

4.6x30mm H&K!

for those of you not familiar with bullets the only weapon to use this round is the H&K MP7 PDW/MP7A1

3 all new rounds accuracy calculated with the help of H&K and the ammunition manufacturer RUAG Ammotec.

1. RUAG Ammotec 40 Grain Full Metal Jacket SX

2. RUAG Ammotec 31 Grain Action Law Enforcement Jacketed Hollow Point (non lead) SX

3. RUAG Ammotec 31 Grain Armor Piercing SX

These rounds are currently in testing with C1987's wonderful MP7 pack, once I get the ok to release an updated version of this gun ported to ArmA III, I will make it available to all. Before then once the values are finalized the ballistics code will be added to my COMPLETED Thread.

Once again I would like to thank Bakerman for his excellent and infallible ArmA III ballistics calculator, RUAG Ammotec and H&K for their support, and finally C1987 for the MP7 in ArmA III to test this on!