Y'know, I think you're right. That gray bit looks like the tank barrel. I mistook that as part of the projectile path, and I misinterpreted the overall design as a missile battery.
It's easier to just refer to "multiple round simultaneous impact" than to try to explain succinctly, especially since I already got the term kinda wrong (time on target is more of an umbrella category/earlier version)
Unless you use modern artillery. Then you want to aim even higher because at those ranges/heights it's beneficial to reach less dense air layers quickly.
Yeah, that's why try multiple times and aim higher every time until 45°
Once you reach that, if you are still falling short, you know you have no chance, unless you increase the launch speed.
Of course, you can try to properly calculate drag for each projectile and set that as the maximum, but it's fine for a one-off, assuming you have enough arrows to try again.
34 Comments
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 60 pts · 332d
Also if you need your arrows to land all at the same time so you can fool the enemy into thinking you are many archers fire like this.
NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de · 48 pts · 332d
bottom projectile traveling at mach 5
Tja@programming.dev · 12 pts · 332d
Bottom projectile is traveling at a normal speed, just fired last.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social · 29 pts · 332d
Then the distance must be almost zero, as it exhibits no drop over that range.
Cawifre@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 332d
That might have something to do with this being a chart for powered missiles.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social · 10 pts · 332d
However, the comment was talking about arrows...
HowAbt2day@futurology.today · 17 pts · 332d
I’m over here with some popcorn as nerds debate the project motion of a hypersonic missile named “arrow” and shit.
ulterno@programming.dev · 0 pts · 332d
Go with a fantasy arrow made of light, for the last one.
FishFace@piefed.social · 4 pts · 331d
The diagram is about normal unpowered shells. They use different amounts of propellant to achieve different projectile speeds
Cawifre@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 331d
Y'know, I think you're right. That gray bit looks like the tank barrel. I mistook that as part of the projectile path, and I misinterpreted the overall design as a missile battery.
FishFace@piefed.social · 2 pts · 330d
If you want to know more, look up Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact
Tja@programming.dev · 5 pts · 332d
I see a significant drop...
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social · 2 pts · 332d
Are we looking at the same image? DO I NEED TO GET A RULER?
FishFace@piefed.social · 1 pts · 331d
That is not how this concept, time on target, works
Tja@programming.dev · 1 pts · 331d
It works by firing at mach 5?
FishFace@piefed.social · 2 pts · 331d
It's easier to just refer to "multiple round simultaneous impact" than to try to explain succinctly, especially since I already got the term kinda wrong (time on target is more of an umbrella category/earlier version)
niktemadur@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 332d
I wanna see a reverse brachistochrone!
tyler@programming.dev · 52 pts · 332d
Did nobody else notice that they’re pointing the bow lower than 45° but the line is drawn slightly upwards up compensate?
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 25 pts · 332d
If you keep falling short, cheat. Or if you keep falling short, your rich parents will prop you up.
So inspiring.
OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 331d
Also, the arrow has some serious gliding effect on its way down.
zxqwas@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 332d
In a frictionless vaccuum 45° would be max range.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 12 pts · 332d
Yeah you actually want a bit less then that.
Ooops@feddit.org · 15 pts · 332d
Unless you use modern artillery. Then you want to aim even higher because at those ranges/heights it's beneficial to reach less dense air layers quickly.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 332d
The optimal launch angle would only be 45 in a vacuum. It'll be lower if you're on Earth where there's air resistance.
ulterno@programming.dev · 3 pts · 332d
Yeah, that's why try multiple times and aim higher every time until 45°
Once you reach that, if you are still falling short, you know you have no chance, unless you increase the launch speed.
Of course, you can try to properly calculate drag for each projectile and set that as the maximum, but it's fine for a one-off, assuming you have enough arrows to try again.
innermeerkat@piefed.social · 4 pts · 332d
Instructions unclear and took an arrow in the knee
Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 329d
It's supposed to end up in the butt.
niktemadur@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 332d
And if you still can't reach it, ask your god or gods for help,
as it's beyond the reach of Mr Newton or even Herr Leibniz.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 332d
CAN WE GET MUCH HIGHER?!?
ininewcrow@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 332d
Unless you can achieve a certain amount of force .... then you can get a stable orbit around the planet
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 332d
Not unless you have something to alter the trajectory in flight.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 332d
EEXXPLOSSIIOONSS??!
RedBauble@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 332d
CAN WE GET MUCH LIGHTER
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 332d
That’s only about 30 degrees.