Project Reality Forums

Chase are you sproge or zulu from charlie?

Oh yes I maybe should have explicitly added that when initially opening this thread but I thought its obvious that I am known as ZuluActual.

obvious to whom ?
and why ?
but thanks again for creating the program

To those who read the first post as well as take SBCS out for a spin simply because the link states ZuluActual and I am referring to myself shockingly enough in the first person. Also SBCS clearly states the author when fired up. But I don't see why the question was asked in the first place or is of any importance at all.

It spits out the angle in degrees. I adjust for milradians in my spreadsheet.

The formula does not exist between 45* and 0*, it comes very near 0* but stops at about 1.4* before going back up.

Once you go out of the bounds of the game and start going for values over 1500 you get some unrealistic phenomenon where to have a shot hit 1670 meters out you have the tube at 9*s.

ytman wrote: The formula does not exist between 45* and 0*, it comes very near 0* but stops at about 1.4* before going back up.

Thats actually the way its supposed to be.
As I pointed out in my previous post the equation should only have results in the interval of 45* to 90* which is converted to radians between pi/4 =< angle =< pi/2 for ranges 0m =< range =< 1500m which than converted to milliradians is a value between 800 and 1570. Since the latter would mean shooting straight in the air (right angle compared to the ground) the scale probably ends somewhere before it reaches 1570 (otherwise you could kill yourself).

I screwed up what I meant to say. The formula does exist between 45 and 0 degrees. It also exhibits really strange phenomenon when going for ranges less than 260 which explains why when the tube is positioned the highest angle it never gets closer than 200 odd meters.

Any idea how I could find the trajectory assuming their is no wind resistence and that gravity is 14.7 given the information we know? I stopped at Calc 2 .

Well my best bet is this equation is not the actual "natural" formula describing the range-elevation relation. It is probably an approximation that is not completely fit over the whole operating range.
I would actually resort to the formula that describes the angled launch of objects.
Google for it and see if you can find a formula that takes as parameters muzzle velocity, range and gravitation and results in an angle.