Simple version of GGDT, is it worth it?

[potatoflinger]

Do you guys (or girls) think that it would be worth it to make a simpler version of GGDT? My dad has taught me quite a bit about computer programing (mainly Visual Basic) and lately I have been thinking about making an easier-to-use version of GGDT. I know that this would be quite difficult, but I'm thinking I could improve the ballistics calculator, make it easier to figure out the valve information (such as flow coefficient), and add different types of valves for the pilot valve (such as blowgun, ball valve, etc.). My only question is, do you guys think it would be worth it? I would probably need a lot of help finding all of the formulas and such, but I am fairly confident that I could do the programing, or even get my dad to help me with it. Any suggestions are very much appreciated!

[spudy buddy]

ya i would use it cause ggdt dosent work on my comp and has a lot if info that is needed. i say go for it.

[DYI]

I fail to see how one could possibly make GGDT simpler to use. If someone doesn't have the brainpower to use it, then they shouldn't be working with pneumatics.

It is one of the most user friendly simulation programs I've encountered, and is also incredibly accurate. I'm led to believe that the maths involved are exceedingly complex as well. As far as ballistics calculators go, I think the one that Rag is working on should solve all our problems in that field.

As far as GGDT not working, I have doubts as to whether a different version would work on any higher a percentage of computers as the existing one does.

[potatoflinger]

ya i would use it cause ggdt dosent work on my comp and has a lot if info that is needed. i say go for it.

Another reason it might be good to have another version! If I do decide to make it, it will probably take me at least a month (I don't have too much time to work on it) so don't expect anything too soon

Edit, I just saw DYI's post, it is true that GGDT is simple, but it could be made a lot easier to use (or at least faster to find the information).

[SpudBlaster15]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

[mark.f]

I was actually just thinking the same thing. I'm pretty sure that unless you were pretty solid on your integration and (partial) differentiation, AS WELL as getting a program written in vBasic, (probably one of the greatest accomplishments of D_Halls), to do this, you're pretty SOL.

I know he wrote the original in Excel, so I'm pretty sure he used some sort of approximation process for evaluating aforementioned calculus.

[potatoflinger]

I was actually just thinking the same thing. I'm pretty sure that unless you were pretty solid on your integration and (partial) differentiation, AS WELL as getting a program written in vBasic, (probably one of the greatest accomplishments of D_Halls), to do this, you're pretty SOL.

I know he wrote the original in Excel, so I'm pretty sure he used some sort of approximation process for evaluating aforementioned calculus.

I'm confident that I can do the programing, I just need help with the formulas.

[Ragnarok]

Damn and blast! I keep forgetting I need to send the very equations you're talking about to Gepard/Himszy - I'm proving to be pretty unreliable at this.

Well, in spite of that consistent failure of mine, I do actually know all the equations you'll need for this, the problem is, as SB15 said, they take a lot of understanding. It's not as simple as you might initially think.
I was considering writing such a simulator myself at some point to handle some of the problems GGDT suffers from with high velocities and light projectiles - however my downfall is my lack of programming experience.
I'd really need to be directly involved with creating such a thing, and that's not really possible here.

As for external ballistics, I am currently working on that myself - in Excel, because I can't do VB that well, and I've got a macro to write which is mainly what's slowing me down. If you've ever used the old LRC V2.2, you'll know it's main downfalls are it's not particularly user friendly (bit fiddly and it only handled SI units), it has problems with vertical drag, a 15 second limit on hang time, it couldn't cope with supersonics properly, and a few other things.
It was quite accurate with some things, but it was probably too complicated for most people.

I'm working hard to correct these problems. It's going to do all common units, it should handle drag correctly, it should have the option of using a basic transonic/supersonic model as well, and there are almost no hang time limits.
When I'm done, there won't be much it won't do with respect to external ballistics.

Along with GGDT, EVBEC and maybe the Spudtool, it should help make a very complete package of simulators and aids. I'll personally have a Coilgun simulator tagged on there myself instead of the Spudtool, but that may just be me.

[MrCrowley]

@Rag

Did Joanna finish V3 of LRC before she left?

What country is she in at the moment?

[clide]

As others have said, without intimate knowledge of the equations, writing a program would be very hard. In such a complicated simulation program the actual coding would be relatively easy I imagine.

The only downfall of GGDT in my opinion is that issue that Rag mentioned of the high velocities. It was actually better with dealing with them in previous versions, but his modification of the code to try to account for supersonic precharged pneumatic guns threw it out of whack.

If you want to make it easier to find inputs and stuff then maybe you could make an application to do specifically that and output a GGDT file that they then just have to open in GGDT and run.


Rag. I'm pretty handy with VBA and I'm most of the way through a mechanical engineering degree. If you need help with something I would be happy to give it a shot.

[Ragnarok]

@MrC: Clearly not, I've been left with it, and it's absolute rubbish - I had to completely rebuild it from scratch.
Or rather, I've got loads of ideas for improvements to it, and that meant I had to "tear down" some old bits to rebuild them to fit better with the new stuff.

And the other answer is your one.

@clide: Thanks for the offer, I may take you up on that.

[potatoflinger]

If you want to make it easier to find inputs and stuff then maybe you could make an application to do specifically that and output a GGDT file that they then just have to open in GGDT and run.

Great idea! That would be much easier to do than write a whole new program!

[PCGUY]

I think the question is, why doesn't GGDT run on your computer?

Don't forget that the writer of GGDT (D_Hall) is an actual rocket scientist... he sorta knows his stuff for a living so no offence to you, but writing a similar program with the same accuracy as GGDT has would be a near impossible task unless you know exactly what you were doing.

Where has D_Hall been anyways? Has anyone heard from him?

[potatoflinger]

True, I hadn't exactly thought out the entire thing when I made the decision to try it I think I will do what clide said to do, it makes a lot more sense than writing a whole new program.