#1




Proposed change for range affect on damage
On page 88 of the 4th edition rules there is a section entitled "Range Effects on Damage" which outlines how Efactor diminishes with range. In short, the rule states that damage falls by 1 for every multiple of effective range. As is often the case, this didn't sound right, so I went to the spreadsheet and plotted the rule against the results from GNU Ballistics for three different rounds. The results are shown in the top picture entitled "Range vs EFactorCurrent". The rule results are plotted in green while the GNU Ballistics results are in blue. It is pretty obvious that they do not match up very well. Also, contrary to the rest of text in the "Range Effects on Damage" section of the rules, the heavier rounds were not necessarily affected more. The lightest round in the sample was the 5.56mm. If you look the 9mm is much flatter than the 5.56mm showing the exact opposite of the regarding mass of the round. Fortunately this rule has a relatively easy fix, but to understand it, the GNU Ballistic plots need to be looked at in more depth.
If you look at both the 5.56x45mm and 12.7.99mm rounds, the pattern of the blue dots in both cases is very much a hockey stick. The 9x19mm is pretty flat. That is because the speed of sound is about 1100 f/s. That almost the initial velocity of the 9x19mm round. Looking at the 5.56x45mm and 12.7x99mm rounds the point where the curve flattens out happens around a velocity of 1100 f/s as well. From this we can assume that it is the faster than sound velocity that dramatically increases the drag. Again, comparing the 5.56 and 12.7 we see that the velocity drops to subsonic after about 2 multiples of the effective range and that the damage drops by about 1/3 of the range zero EFactor. This is a good start. Looking at the 9x19mm plots, the rules drop off damage much too quickly. You get a much better fit if you drop the damage by 1 every 2 multiples of effective range. Combining these two new findings to the rules column and plotting them against the GNU Ballistics result gives the results you see in the bottom picture entitled "Range vs EFactorProposed". These curves match up much better and the rules are still easy to apply. 
#2




How does it work out for cartridges that start out as subsonic? .45, .300, .458 SOCOM, black powder muzzle loaders; for example.

#3




Quote:
Without running additional ballistic plots, I would assume it runs like the 9x19mm, where the EFactor would drop off by 1 for every 2 multiples of effective range. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 
#4




To "simplify" this, I started to provide range charts to the players for each of their weapons used.
I use a program called Ballistics Explorer v6.50 (an online site to use is http://www.shooterscalculator.com/). Since we know the muzzle velocity of each weapon, I just find a cartridge that is approximate to the issued ammunition in the DB and plot a chart out to 1000 m for rifles/LMG, 1500 m for MMG, 2000 m for HMG and 200 m for pistols/SMG's at 50 m intervals. They look similar to your Excel charts you show. I give distance, velocity, energy, time of flight and efactor. 
#5




Quote:

#6




What do you think of positive or negative to hit modifiers for range?
Bullet rise and the bullet drop haven't been incorporated into anyone's tables to my knowledge. 
#7




So something different than the current range modifiers. Not sure how to tie that to ballistics plots.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)  
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

