Hey, this looks like a necrobump, but i didn't find any newer info on this. Is it still correct with 1.1?
[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Sniperdog;1350445']Yep
Adding devation is very easy and its really up to the devs. You have a good point, IRL the M252 is actually extremely accurate, but then again IRL it is no where near as easy to get range with an accuracy of 1m, not to mention things like wind.
The actual physics equation came out to:
Angle = 90 - sin^-1 (-14.70235*Range/(projectile velocity)^2)/2.
Where -14.7 is the acceleration due to gravity in BF2 (with the gravity modifier set to 1)
This allowed me to compute the maximum range just fine but for some reason it didn't work correctly with some of the other angles.
The equation I modeled after doing some measurements is:
Range = -8.869232072*10^(-22)*x^8 + 5.863078464*10^(-1

*x^7 - 1.645660969*10^(-14)*x^6 + 2.552955503*10^(-11)*x^5 - 2.385872722*10^(-

*x^4 + 1.370373343*10^(-5)*x^3 - 4.712480004*10^(-3)*x^2 + 8.691949397*10^(-1)*x + 19.70789909
where x is the range. This equation worked to an accuracy of within about 2 meters.
This equation is only really useful to angles for this weapon though

[/quote]
[quote="Wilkinson""]Range = -8.869232072*10^(-22)*x^8 + 5.863078464*10^(-1

*x^7 - 1.645660969*10^(-14)*x^6 + 2.552955503*10^(-11)*x^5 - 2.385872722*10^(-

*x^4 + 1.370373343*10^(-5)*x^3 - 4.712480004*10^(-3)*x^2 + 8.691949397*10^(-1)*x + 19.70789909 WHICH Equals....
swoop da woop.
Still amazing stuff done. A gary variant would be amazing. As well as a Stryker Varient

[/quote]
'[R-DEV wrote:Sniperdog;1351094']The problem is for some reason the equations don't correlate
precisely with the in game results. The eqation to use should be
θ = asin(Rg/v^2)/2
But for some reason it doesn't give me perfect results. I at first thought It might be that my hud was off or that I wasn't being precise enough, but that was until I noticed there was even a pattern to the error between the measured and ballistics equation results.
R-------θ (meas)---θ(calc)------error
As you can see for some reason the angles in the middle between 45 and 90 seem to have a higher degree of inaccuracy. I basically have already fixed this problem (as you can see in the vid) by simply measuring the major values and then using regression.
I made an table with this formula:
Rincewind The Wizzard, post: 73169, member: 145 wrote:
velocity = 121.306;
gravity = 9.81;
winkeltan = (Math.pow(velocity,2) + Math.sqrt(Math.pow(velocity,4) - gravity * (gravity * Math.pow(range,2)+ 2 * height_difference * Math.pow(velocity,2))))/(gravity * range);
winkel = Math.atan(winkeltan) * 180/Math.PI;
mils = winkel / 0.05625;
mils = mils.toFixed(0);
angle = winkel.toFixed(2);
smth like that. There is also mortarcalc based on ImageJ scripts somewhere on the PR forums (search for SkyJumpy) you can look at it's code
Here's my table:
The formula is:
Code: Select all
=(POWER(121,306;2) + SQRT(POWER(121,306;4) - 9,81 * (9,81 * POWER(A2;2) + 2 * B2 * POWER(121,306;2)))) / (9,81 * A2)
Here's hidden columns showing calculation steps:
And the "old" table (we used that in eg. in PRWC):
As one can see, there's some deviation with calculated range when compared with the "old" table (which i have no idea how calculated). Moreover small deviation with ingame calculator giving 1481 for 350m and this calculation gives 1480,0599...
Would be nice to know, if this calculation gives just more exact output? Is this confirmed as the formula PR 1.1 uses? And does this amount of deviation have any significance at all?