Help with drag coefficient calculated from ballistic coefficient

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the drag coefficient (Cd) from the ballistic coefficient (BC) for bullets in the context of developing a video game that simulates sniper bullet physics. Participants explore the relationship between these coefficients, the impact of Mach number on drag, and the use of lookup tables to improve trajectory accuracy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to implement a trajectory solver that accounts for gravity and turbulent air drag, noting the ambiguity in available drag coefficient values for bullets.
  • Another participant suggests using published bullet velocity data to adjust Cd values until calculated velocities match observed data, indicating that errors from assuming a constant Cd are minimal for credible results.
  • A participant expresses concern that using a constant Cd is inadequate due to its significant variation with Mach number, especially for high-velocity projectiles, and proposes using a lookup table for improved accuracy.
  • One participant acknowledges the intuition about the relationship between Cd and BC but points to an external link for a more detailed explanation of their connection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to calculate Cd from BC, with differing opinions on the adequacy of using a constant Cd versus a variable Cd based on Mach number. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the most effective method for implementation.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various definitions and tables related to drag coefficients and ballistic coefficients, indicating potential limitations in the clarity and availability of standardized formulas. The discussion also highlights the dependency on specific bullet characteristics and external resources for accurate calculations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for game developers interested in realistic physics simulations, enthusiasts of ballistics and external ballistics, and those seeking to understand the relationship between drag and ballistic coefficients in projectile motion.

programador
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I want to make a video game about snipers and I would like it to have proper bullet physics, not something very accurate, but with "credible" bullet physics. So I need to implement a simple trajectory solver.

I thought of taking into account just the gravity and turbulent air drag. The equations for the air drag according to Wikipedia are:
F = 1/2*ρ*v²*Cd*A, where Cd is the drag coefficient (0.47 for a sphere), so given a Cd value (or function of the velocity) I can already estimate the trajectory.
On the internet, these Cd values for bullets are not available, one can find just the "ballistic coefficients" --BC-- of some bullets if we search a bit. The thing is that I need a standardized formula to obtain the Cd values to determine the actual trajectories, most websites explain these concepts in a non "scientific way" and rather suggest to use some free tools to get the bullet drops. On wikipedia I find the formulas to be very ambiguous for what seem to be several BC definitions (BC-physics, BC-projectile and BC-smallarms).

What I understand so far is that the drag coefficient varies with the Mach number (in this case v/340 in the SI units) and bullet manufacturers give a BC value using the G-model as the reference (how? what is the formula linking both things). I was lucky enough to find the G1 drag coefficient table that is mentioned everywhere but not shown. What I need now is how to use this table, the given BCs values and of course the mass and velocities to estimate a bullet's trajectory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you search exterior ballistics? The Hornady hit has a good discussion, and the Wikipedia hit has a nice chart of drag vs Mach number.

Since you only want "good enough to be credible", you could use published information for bullet velocity at various ranges to find a drag coefficient. Use the air drag equation you listed, and adjust the Cd until the calculated velocity matches the published velocity at the various ranges. Then solve for bullet drop. The errors from assuming constant Cd will be relatively small, so the results should be good enough to be credible. You will need to find a separate Cd for each bullet at its muzzle velocity.
 
jrmichler said:
Did you search exterior ballistics? The Hornady hit has a good discussion, and the Wikipedia hit has a nice chart of drag vs Mach number.

Since you only want "good enough to be credible", you could use published information for bullet velocity at various ranges to find a drag coefficient. Use the air drag equation you listed, and adjust the Cd until the calculated velocity matches the published velocity at the various ranges. Then solve for bullet drop. The errors from assuming constant Cd will be relatively small, so the results should be good enough to be credible. You will need to find a separate Cd for each bullet at its muzzle velocity.
That's what I have been doing, using a constant Cd, but as you can see from the figure you are referring, the Cd varies dramatically as a function of the Mach number in the range shown. So approximating the trajectory with a constant value doesn't seem right, specially with high velocity rifle projectiles.
Okay, I said "credible", but I think it takes almost zero additional effort to use a lookup table for the Cd parameter to improve the accuracy.
I have the feeling that it might be like this Cd(M) = G1(M)/BC, where G1 is the table I linked or the figure you referred, from
wikipedia said:
The deceleration due to drag that a projectile with mass m, velocity v, and diameter d will experience is proportional to 1/BC, 1/m, and .
(it doesn't give an actual formula, just a wordy explanation of the term OMG)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K