Title: **Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 06, 2014, 12:17:55 AM**

Post by:

Hi there,

I'd assume most have read about the WEZ analysis Litz is now including as a feature in its PC software.

Would like to hear about opinions on its value as "hit probability" tool, if it's such, and mostly about the math behind it, if it makes sense. So far, I was only aware of Montecarlo simulations but apparently this feaure is not based off of it.

Any comments are greatly appreciated.

I'd assume most have read about the WEZ analysis Litz is now including as a feature in its PC software.

Would like to hear about opinions on its value as "hit probability" tool, if it's such, and mostly about the math behind it, if it makes sense. So far, I was only aware of Montecarlo simulations but apparently this feaure is not based off of it.

Any comments are greatly appreciated.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**admin** on **June 11, 2014, 01:16:00 AM**

Post by:

WEZ is a Monte Carlo simulation.

I find it hard to opinate about it - it does what it says.

Quite frequently I use a similar tool understand ballistic effects in a target shoot competition setting.

It is available as download on the BfX site. Look for the descriptive text:

"This workbook hosts a simulator with which you can estimate your results in a (multi distance, multi target) match, e.g. the NRA 90 shot full bore regional match course."

I find it hard to opinate about it - it does what it says.

Quite frequently I use a similar tool understand ballistic effects in a target shoot competition setting.

It is available as download on the BfX site. Look for the descriptive text:

"This workbook hosts a simulator with which you can estimate your results in a (multi distance, multi target) match, e.g. the NRA 90 shot full bore regional match course."

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 11, 2014, 07:32:53 PM**

Post by:

Quote from: admin on June 11, 2014, 01:16:00 AM

WEZ is a Monte Carlo simulation.

I find it hard to opinate about it - it does what it says.

Quite frequently I use a similar tool understand ballistic effects in a target shoot competition setting.

It is available as download on the BfX site. Look for the descriptive text:

"This workbook hosts a simulator with which you can estimate your results in a (multi distance, multi target) match, e.g. the NRA 90 shot full bore regional match course."

Robert,

Thanks for the answer, however how do you know WEZ is based off of Montecarlo? I've read all the available literature by Litz and that word is not present even once.

thanks!

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**admin** on **June 12, 2014, 01:38:37 PM**

Post by:

Maybe "Monte Carlo" is a definition issue. In this case, i imagined that input parameters are generated in such a way that they are consistent with a certain probability distribution. Then a trajectory calculated and evaluated. The process is repeated hundreds of times. This is what one might describe as Monte Carlo.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 14, 2014, 05:08:57 PM**

Post by:

Quote from: admin on June 12, 2014, 01:38:37 PM

Maybe "Monte Carlo" is a definition issue. In this case, i imagined that input parameters are generated in such a way that they are consistent with a certain probability distribution. Then a trajectory calculated and evaluated. The process is repeated hundreds of times. This is what one might describe as Monte Carlo.

Nice reply, much clear now. Will take a look to your workbook and for sure coming back with more questions, if you don't mind :)

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**admin** on **June 15, 2014, 11:36:12 AM**

Post by:

Ok,

I understand what you understand - nothing special meant here. Let me make things less abstract.

Basically what Monte Carlo does is to generate "outcomes", e.g. where a bullet ends, for, varying conditions - the input parameters. The input parameters are varied according to a certain probability distribution. If for example a shooter is able to aim with an accuracy of 1 MoA then people like me model that as a bell-shaped (Gaussian) probability distribution that averages to 1 MoA mean inaccuracy. With this we acknowledge the fact that in some cases the shooter aims very well and in others badly.

In a Monte Carlo simulation then, the computer draws a random number and converts that to an inital horizontal and vertical aiming angle. This is done in such a way that average inaccuracy is 1 MoA. After the horizontal and vertical launch angles are chosen, the bullets trajectory is calculated.

If, for instance, in addition the effects of a non-constant wind is being studied, one might model that primitively as a wind distribution that is half of the time zero and the other half 1 m/s. In a Monte Carlo calculation then one first draws a random number that determines the launch angle, and an another random number is used to determine if there is wind or not in the trajectory calculation (with the afforementioned spreadsheet I deal on a more sophisticated way with non constant wind along a trajectory). Hence we end up with a set of bullet end coordinates that were affected by both wind and the shooters abilities.

In practise, the more inputs one generates according to a probability distribution, the less the details of a probability distribution matters. The distribution might as well be flat, meaning that the probability for a certain input value is constant in a certain range and zero elsewhere.

I understand what you understand - nothing special meant here. Let me make things less abstract.

Basically what Monte Carlo does is to generate "outcomes", e.g. where a bullet ends, for, varying conditions - the input parameters. The input parameters are varied according to a certain probability distribution. If for example a shooter is able to aim with an accuracy of 1 MoA then people like me model that as a bell-shaped (Gaussian) probability distribution that averages to 1 MoA mean inaccuracy. With this we acknowledge the fact that in some cases the shooter aims very well and in others badly.

In a Monte Carlo simulation then, the computer draws a random number and converts that to an inital horizontal and vertical aiming angle. This is done in such a way that average inaccuracy is 1 MoA. After the horizontal and vertical launch angles are chosen, the bullets trajectory is calculated.

If, for instance, in addition the effects of a non-constant wind is being studied, one might model that primitively as a wind distribution that is half of the time zero and the other half 1 m/s. In a Monte Carlo calculation then one first draws a random number that determines the launch angle, and an another random number is used to determine if there is wind or not in the trajectory calculation (with the afforementioned spreadsheet I deal on a more sophisticated way with non constant wind along a trajectory). Hence we end up with a set of bullet end coordinates that were affected by both wind and the shooters abilities.

In practise, the more inputs one generates according to a probability distribution, the less the details of a probability distribution matters. The distribution might as well be flat, meaning that the probability for a certain input value is constant in a certain range and zero elsewhere.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **June 22, 2014, 08:52:42 AM**

Post by:

See Hit probability thread as well. My tool is based on analytical formulas. I have compared the results with litz's tool and the difference is usually less than 5%. I have done some assumptions that are not mathematically exact. However it's still pretty close. In theory benefit is that calculation time is reduced significantly compared to monte carlo method. However I'm not an expert in programming and my code is not as effective as robert's. My program also includes more variables. That's why theoretical benefit in calculation time is not redeemed in practice.

The limitation also is that I can only calculate round targets while with monte carlo target shape is not limited.

Here (https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DAD0644106&ei=1numU77QHea6ygPOp4CoDQ&usg=AFQjCNFqPcIRwx2G1yGmdgBCdB4CTfGG7A) is as an article about circular probability error which I have used. It is also far better measure for gun accuracy than extreme spread when it comes to probability of hitting something.

Robert, how many iterations you need to do with monte carlo before you get hit probability say in accuracy of 1%? 99 % of the time?

The limitation also is that I can only calculate round targets while with monte carlo target shape is not limited.

Here (https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DAD0644106&ei=1numU77QHea6ygPOp4CoDQ&usg=AFQjCNFqPcIRwx2G1yGmdgBCdB4CTfGG7A) is as an article about circular probability error which I have used. It is also far better measure for gun accuracy than extreme spread when it comes to probability of hitting something.

Robert, how many iterations you need to do with monte carlo before you get hit probability say in accuracy of 1%? 99 % of the time?

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 24, 2014, 07:29:08 AM**

Post by:

Excellente discussion and insight! :D

Just a simple question, since I'm not that familiar with Excel programming (just the basics), do you think that using a random number generator (RNG), for using a common programming language, could do the same? I mean, assuming that the RNG is based on a Gaussian distribution?

On the other hand, what other kind of probability distribution do you guys thinks is worth exploring for a realistic scenario?

I find this subject very interesting for developing some sort of BfX simulator, besides the excellent work already done by Robert.

Mman, if you don't me asking, why you state your work is not mathematically exact?

Just a simple question, since I'm not that familiar with Excel programming (just the basics), do you think that using a random number generator (RNG), for using a common programming language, could do the same? I mean, assuming that the RNG is based on a Gaussian distribution?

On the other hand, what other kind of probability distribution do you guys thinks is worth exploring for a realistic scenario?

I find this subject very interesting for developing some sort of BfX simulator, besides the excellent work already done by Robert.

Mman, if you don't me asking, why you state your work is not mathematically exact?

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **June 24, 2014, 09:19:39 AM**

Post by:

I'll let robert answer the programming stuff...

If you look into commercial programs gaussian distribution is the most common for gun accuracy. To apply anything else you would need really extensive testing and fitting.

I have done a shooting diary as well (see Group and velocity statistics thread) and I have now around 500 groups in my database. When it comes to statistics it's not much but it is something. In avarage all the real world group measures I have saved fit very well to gaussian distribution. So I would say it really is pretty good probability distribution for the application.

If you accept that holes distribute according to gaussian distribution you can calculate lot's of things. For example I have done extensive testing with monte carlo comparing different group size measures. There are lots of them. To mention few: radial extreme spread (the most common and worst), ES X and Y directions, radial standard deviation, SD X and Y directions, diagonal, Circular error probability (which is best I have found). There are at least two important things which define the best measure: 1. effectivenes which means that how many rounds you have to shoot for two different loads to define which is more accurate. 2. independence which means how number of shots or group shape affects to measure in question.

The best feature in SD based group measures is that they are not depended on number of shots in the group like extreme spread measures. For example with monte carlo you can calculate that 10-shot group is around 1,6x (if my memory serves me right) larger than 3-shot group. And that's only true if groups are round in average. While CEP is in average approx. the same for both 3- or 10-shot groups. If group ellipcity factor is not higher than 4.

If you look into commercial programs gaussian distribution is the most common for gun accuracy. To apply anything else you would need really extensive testing and fitting.

I have done a shooting diary as well (see Group and velocity statistics thread) and I have now around 500 groups in my database. When it comes to statistics it's not much but it is something. In avarage all the real world group measures I have saved fit very well to gaussian distribution. So I would say it really is pretty good probability distribution for the application.

If you accept that holes distribute according to gaussian distribution you can calculate lot's of things. For example I have done extensive testing with monte carlo comparing different group size measures. There are lots of them. To mention few: radial extreme spread (the most common and worst), ES X and Y directions, radial standard deviation, SD X and Y directions, diagonal, Circular error probability (which is best I have found). There are at least two important things which define the best measure: 1. effectivenes which means that how many rounds you have to shoot for two different loads to define which is more accurate. 2. independence which means how number of shots or group shape affects to measure in question.

The best feature in SD based group measures is that they are not depended on number of shots in the group like extreme spread measures. For example with monte carlo you can calculate that 10-shot group is around 1,6x (if my memory serves me right) larger than 3-shot group. And that's only true if groups are round in average. While CEP is in average approx. the same for both 3- or 10-shot groups. If group ellipcity factor is not higher than 4.

Quote from: 375CT on June 24, 2014, 07:29:08 AMRead the article about CEP. Derivation includes few approximations at least on ellipcity and bias. Then again I have assumed that all the dispersion factors are independed. This is pretty good approximation but not exactly true as roberts states on Hit probability thread.

Mman, if you don't me asking, why you state your work is not mathematically exact?

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**admin** on **June 25, 2014, 01:47:55 PM**

Post by:

In visual basic and as an Excel function I have published random number generators, two of them generate numbers with a constant probability ("flat").

The other one. =bfx_rang(....) generates numbers according to a gaussian distribution.

The properties of Excels random generators did not suit my purpose.

The "flat" distribution is the basis for generating numbers distributed according to another distribution.

For gaussian distributions efficient algorithms can be googled.

Nevertheless, the more random variables involved in a simulation, the less details of a certain random variable matter.

The other one. =bfx_rang(....) generates numbers according to a gaussian distribution.

The properties of Excels random generators did not suit my purpose.

The "flat" distribution is the basis for generating numbers distributed according to another distribution.

For gaussian distributions efficient algorithms can be googled.

Nevertheless, the more random variables involved in a simulation, the less details of a certain random variable matter.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **June 25, 2014, 02:09:55 PM**

Post by:

What's wrong with excel's RAND ( ) ? My monte carlo is based on that and I got same averages as some references I used...

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 26, 2014, 06:02:50 AM**

Post by:

Quote from: admin on June 25, 2014, 01:47:55 PM

In visual basic and as an Excel function I have published random number generators, two of them generate numbers with a constant probability ("flat").

The other one. =bfx_rang(....) generates numbers according to a gaussian distribution.

The properties of Excels random generators did not suit my purpose.

The "flat" distribution is the basis for generating numbers distributed according to another distribution.

For gaussian distributions efficient algorithms can be googled.

Nevertheless, the more random variables involved in a simulation, the less details of a certain random variable matter.

Understood the last part, but it's not clear why RANDOM in VB is not good enough. I got the point on Gaussian but I read somewhere that random() is indeed gaussian, so more confussion for me at least :(

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **June 26, 2014, 06:27:50 AM**

Post by:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/excel-help/rand-function-HP010342816.aspx

This is flat. You can convert it into gaussian if you want.

There is discussion about it:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=22358

There seems to be an agreement what robert said about it. It would be interesting to hear why and how bad rand() actually is.

This is flat. You can convert it into gaussian if you want.

There is discussion about it:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=22358

There seems to be an agreement what robert said about it. It would be interesting to hear why and how bad rand() actually is.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 26, 2014, 11:44:10 PM**

Post by:

Confirmed here

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2dx6wyd4(v=vs.110).aspx

Random in VB.net yields an uniform distribution...now, I need to figure out how bad this could be for creating something akin a WEZ run.

Anyway, like Robert pointed out, a RNG can be easily programmed if such need ever arises with for instance the Ziggurat algorithm.

Mman, thanks for the links, they just confirmed my suspicions on this too.

Now will also review CEP. Well, so far the original questions remains, is Litz's WEZ (a term taken from Air Combat for budget error analysis) flat or not? :-\ :-\

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2dx6wyd4(v=vs.110).aspx

Random in VB.net yields an uniform distribution...now, I need to figure out how bad this could be for creating something akin a WEZ run.

Anyway, like Robert pointed out, a RNG can be easily programmed if such need ever arises with for instance the Ziggurat algorithm.

Mman, thanks for the links, they just confirmed my suspicions on this too.

Now will also review CEP. Well, so far the original questions remains, is Litz's WEZ (a term taken from Air Combat for budget error analysis) flat or not? :-\ :-\

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **June 27, 2014, 06:20:11 AM**

Post by:

Quote from: 375CT on June 26, 2014, 11:44:10 PMThat's easy one. It must be normal distribution. No sense to use flat distribution, that would lead to strange results.

Well, so far the original questions remains, is Litz's WEZ (a term taken from Air Combat for budget error analysis) flat or not? :-\ :-\

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 27, 2014, 08:36:48 AM**

Post by:

Quote from: mman on June 27, 2014, 06:20:11 AMQuote from: 375CT on June 26, 2014, 11:44:10 PMThat's easy one. It must be normal distribution. No sense to use flat distribution, that would lead to strange results.

Well, so far the original questions remains, is Litz's WEZ (a term taken from Air Combat for budget error analysis) flat or not? :-\ :-\

Makes sense, but how to be sure? I get and agree to the point you made, but making no sense, well, that's the hard part out of this, because we are not dealing with any way to test the actual implementation.

http://ballistipedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Useful link for further discussion.

I understand you are recomending going CEP for a more realistic simulation, am I right on my assumption?

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **June 27, 2014, 09:20:58 AM**

Post by:

Quote from: 375CT on June 27, 2014, 08:36:48 AM

Makes sense, but how to be sure? I get and agree to the point you made, but making no sense, well, that's the hard part out of this, because we are not dealing with any way to test the actual implementation.

Litz speaks about standard deviations when he mentions distribution factors. This alone tells us that probability distribution can't be flat. Another proof is that litz's tool gives approx. same results as mine. And mine is based on normal distributions.

Quote from: 375CT on June 27, 2014, 08:36:48 AMNo, I'm only recommending CEP for group size measuring. For wez tool you can use monte carlo or CEP depending which properties you value. I decided to go with CEP because for me it was more important to compare different calibers, bullets and conditions than get absolutely accurate results in hitting probability. Problem with monte carlo is that you get slightly different results for every calculation. That's not desirable if you try to compare something.

I understand you are recomending going CEP for a more realistic simulation, am I right on my assumption?

In practise you can never accurately calculate hitting probability anyway. That's simply because you don't know exact standard daviations for distribution factors. WEZ tool is always at it's best for comparing not for absolute probabilities.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 27, 2014, 05:10:39 PM**

Post by:

Quote from: mman on June 27, 2014, 09:20:58 AMQuote from: 375CT on June 27, 2014, 08:36:48 AM

Makes sense, but how to be sure? I get and agree to the point you made, but making no sense, well, that's the hard part out of this, because we are not dealing with any way to test the actual implementation.

Litz speaks about standard deviations when he mentions distribution factors. This alone tells us that probability distribution can't be flat. Another proof is that litz's tool gives approx. same results as mine. And mine is based on normal distributions.Quote from: 375CT on June 27, 2014, 08:36:48 AMNo, I'm only recommending CEP for group size measuring. For wez tool you can use monte carlo or CEP depending which properties you value. I decided to go with CEP because for me it was more important to compare different calibers, bullets and conditions than get absolutely accurate results in hitting probability. Problem with monte carlo is that you get slightly different results for every calculation. That's not desirable if you try to compare something.

I understand you are recomending going CEP for a more realistic simulation, am I right on my assumption?

In practise you can never accurately calculate hitting probability anyway. That's simply because you don't know exact standard daviations for distribution factors. WEZ tool is always at it's best for comparing not for absolute probabilities.

Mman, thanks for the tips, they are much appreciated for sure.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**admin** on **June 28, 2014, 12:05:12 AM**

Post by:

1) My random number generator generates the same output sequence for the same seed.

2) My random number generator is not recalculated if somewhere else on the spreadsheet an (unlinked) cell is recalculated.

2) My random number generator is not recalculated if somewhere else on the spreadsheet an (unlinked) cell is recalculated.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **June 28, 2014, 09:24:37 AM**

Post by:

Robert can you explain input values of your random number generators?

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**admin** on **June 29, 2014, 02:40:13 PM**

Post by:

From Bfx_help(...)

90 ==========================Non volatile random numbers===========================

91 i is a positive integer number, b is the bottom value, t (>b) is the top value

92 <r> is an optional range

93 random_number = BfX_Ran(i; <r>) 0 <= random_number <= 1]

94 b <= random_number <= t = BfX_Ranb(i; b; t; <r>)

95 c and s are center and width of normal distribution

96 normal distribution b <= random_number <= t= BfX_Rang(i; c; s; b; t; <r>)

97 use <r> to link cells to guide Excels calculation order

i is the seed.

<r> is a cell or a range

B C D

2 seed 1234567

3

4 0,051118901 =BfX_Ran(seed)

5 0,207298019 =BfX_Ran(seed;C4)

6 0,529684412 =BfX_Ran(seed;C5)

7 0,164931189 =BfX_Ran(seed;C6)

8 0,760708209 =BfX_Ran(seed;C7)

9 0,711878956 =BfX_Ran(seed;C8)

10 0,434484066 =BfX_Ran(seed;C9)

11 0,032066679 =BfX_Ran(seed;C10)

12 0,018770791 =BfX_Ran(seed;C11)

13 0,197369616 =BfX_Ran(seed;C12)

14

15 bfx_ran refers to the previous cell in order to force

16 a specific order of random number (cell) processing

My random number is non volatile.

Volatile means according to MS:

Excel supports the concept of a volatile function, that is, one whose value cannot be assumed to be the same from one moment to the next even if none of its arguments (if it takes any) has changed. Excel reevaluates cells that contain volatile functions, together with all dependents, every time that it recalculates. For this reason, too much reliance on volatile functions can make recalculation times slow. Use them sparingly.

The following Excel functions are volatile:

NOW

TODAY

RAND

OFFSET

INDIRECT

INFO (depending on its arguments)

CELL (depending on its arguments)

90 ==========================Non volatile random numbers===========================

91 i is a positive integer number, b is the bottom value, t (>b) is the top value

92 <r> is an optional range

93 random_number = BfX_Ran(i; <r>) 0 <= random_number <= 1]

94 b <= random_number <= t = BfX_Ranb(i; b; t; <r>)

95 c and s are center and width of normal distribution

96 normal distribution b <= random_number <= t= BfX_Rang(i; c; s; b; t; <r>)

97 use <r> to link cells to guide Excels calculation order

i is the seed.

<r> is a cell or a range

B C D

2 seed 1234567

3

4 0,051118901 =BfX_Ran(seed)

5 0,207298019 =BfX_Ran(seed;C4)

6 0,529684412 =BfX_Ran(seed;C5)

7 0,164931189 =BfX_Ran(seed;C6)

8 0,760708209 =BfX_Ran(seed;C7)

9 0,711878956 =BfX_Ran(seed;C8)

10 0,434484066 =BfX_Ran(seed;C9)

11 0,032066679 =BfX_Ran(seed;C10)

12 0,018770791 =BfX_Ran(seed;C11)

13 0,197369616 =BfX_Ran(seed;C12)

14

15 bfx_ran refers to the previous cell in order to force

16 a specific order of random number (cell) processing

My random number is non volatile.

Volatile means according to MS:

Excel supports the concept of a volatile function, that is, one whose value cannot be assumed to be the same from one moment to the next even if none of its arguments (if it takes any) has changed. Excel reevaluates cells that contain volatile functions, together with all dependents, every time that it recalculates. For this reason, too much reliance on volatile functions can make recalculation times slow. Use them sparingly.

The following Excel functions are volatile:

NOW

TODAY

RAND

OFFSET

INDIRECT

INFO (depending on its arguments)

CELL (depending on its arguments)

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **June 30, 2014, 05:16:20 PM**

Post by:

Thanks Robert! I made another WEZ tool based on monte carlo using your bfx_Rang random number.

Input values:

CEP based WEZ versus monte carlo based WEZ. Results for 4 different bullets/conditions.

+/- values for monte carlo are to show 95 % confidence interval which means that 95 % of the time error is less than that. To get that narrow confidence interval I had to calculate 100 000 simulations per bullet per range. It took 92 minutes while CEP tool did the same (and other calculations as well) in 7 sec. However CEP tool seems to give errors of 0 - 7 percentage points. As expected CEP tool is still most of the time good enough for comparison.

Input values:

CEP based WEZ versus monte carlo based WEZ. Results for 4 different bullets/conditions.

+/- values for monte carlo are to show 95 % confidence interval which means that 95 % of the time error is less than that. To get that narrow confidence interval I had to calculate 100 000 simulations per bullet per range. It took 92 minutes while CEP tool did the same (and other calculations as well) in 7 sec. However CEP tool seems to give errors of 0 - 7 percentage points. As expected CEP tool is still most of the time good enough for comparison.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**admin** on **June 30, 2014, 08:08:28 PM**

Post by:

Cool.

would it be possible to include the effects of a hold over/under (and the horizontal equivalent)? (in combination with cant)

would it be possible to include the effects of a hold over/under (and the horizontal equivalent)? (in combination with cant)

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **June 30, 2014, 08:55:22 PM**

Post by:

Mman,

Is this WEZ tool inlcuded in your Hit Prob spreadsheet? Asking because I'd like to ry it if you don't mind.

LIked the idea of going Monte Carlo for the random sequence then using CEP for hit prob. Nice touch.

I know, you guys are Excel experts, now I'm going to have to do some VB.net and see what I can come up with.

Not quite clear the difference in the MV fields errors, any more detail will be kindly grateful.

Is this WEZ tool inlcuded in your Hit Prob spreadsheet? Asking because I'd like to ry it if you don't mind.

LIked the idea of going Monte Carlo for the random sequence then using CEP for hit prob. Nice touch.

I know, you guys are Excel experts, now I'm going to have to do some VB.net and see what I can come up with.

Not quite clear the difference in the MV fields errors, any more detail will be kindly grateful.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **July 01, 2014, 09:12:33 AM**

Post by:

Quote from: admin on June 30, 2014, 08:08:28 PM

would it be possible to include the effects of a hold over/under (and the horizontal equivalent)? (in combination with cant)

This input field allows you to move group center in relation to target, if that is what you meant?

Quote from: 375CT on June 30, 2014, 08:55:22 PMYes, it is. I'll attach it later today.

Is this WEZ tool inlcuded in your Hit Prob spreadsheet? Asking because I'd like to ry it if you don't mind.

Quote from: 375CT on June 30, 2014, 08:55:22 PMThat's not the case. I calculated hit probability with two different methods:

LIked the idea of going Monte Carlo for the random sequence then using CEP for hit prob. Nice touch.

1. CEP which is nothing to do with random sequence. Basicly it is just analytical way to express hit probability on round target.

2. Monte carlo which is based on Robert's rang.

Quote from: 375CT on June 30, 2014, 08:55:22 PMOn dispersion factors field you define SD of group (all values are expressed in standard deviations). On group center bias field you define how far away in average group center is from target center.

Not quite clear the difference in the MV fields errors, any more detail will be kindly grateful.

e.g. "Muzzle velocity variation" of 3 m/s means that your MV SD is 3 m/s. "Wrong muzzle velocity" of 3 m/s means that you have assumed muzzle velocity to be 3 m/s higher than it actually is. --> Your ballistic calculation gives you wrong holdover/scope correction clicks which leads to group center shift downwards.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**admin** on **July 01, 2014, 10:44:34 AM**

Post by:

Quote from: mman on July 01, 2014, 09:12:33 AM

This input field allows you to move group center in relation to target, if that is what you meant?

Yes. I our case, at 300m, people aim with their telecopes at a white sticker 20cm below the electronic target center.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**mman** on **July 01, 2014, 11:28:38 AM**

Post by:

Quote from: admin on July 01, 2014, 10:44:34 AMBut I guess aiming error is compensated with equivalent scope correction so that group center is on correct place?Quote from: mman on July 01, 2014, 09:12:33 AM

This input field allows you to move group center in relation to target, if that is what you meant?

Yes. I our case, at 300m, people aim with their telecopes at a white sticker 20cm below the electronic target center.

You can download my wez tool from here:

http://wikisend.com/download/171348/WEZ CEP&MC eng.xlsm

Most of it is still in finnish, sorry.

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **July 01, 2014, 08:11:31 PM**

Post by:

Mman,

Great work, really liked the new sheet. Sorry if I miswrote my question, but I meant that MC was just for creating the random sampling, then applying CEP to yield the HP in one of the calcs you did. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Got it regarding the variations and SD inputs.

Any time later, english comments would be nice, my finnish is awful :(

Great work, really liked the new sheet. Sorry if I miswrote my question, but I meant that MC was just for creating the random sampling, then applying CEP to yield the HP in one of the calcs you did. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Got it regarding the variations and SD inputs.

Any time later, english comments would be nice, my finnish is awful :(

Title: **Re: Weapon Employment Zone**

Post by:**375CT** on **July 02, 2014, 06:20:43 AM**

Post by:

In case you guys need to go VB.net some day here is a useful RNG (Gaussian) snippet I tested and works really well. The original code was written in C# which I later converted.

Public Class RandomGenerator

Private ReadOnly _random As Random

'indicates that an extra deviates was already calculated

Private _hasAnotherDeviate As Boolean

'The other deviate calculated using the Box-Muller transformation

Private _otherGaussianDeviate As Double

Public Sub New()

Me.New(New Random())

End Sub

Public Sub New(ByVal seed As Integer)

Me.New(New Random(seed))

End Sub

Public Sub New(ByVal random As Random)

_random = random

End Sub

' returns a normally distributed deviate with zero mean and unit variance.

' Adapted from Numerical Recipe page 289: Normal (Gaussian) Deviates

Public Function NormalDeviate() As Double

Dim rsq, v1, v2 As Double

If _hasAnotherDeviate Then

'we have an extra deviate handy. Reset the flag and return it

_hasAnotherDeviate = False

Return _otherGaussianDeviate

End If

Do

v1 = UniformDeviate(-1, 1) 'pick two uniform number

v2 = UniformDeviate(-1, 1) 'in the square extending from -1 to +1

rsq = v1 * v1 + v2 * v2 'see if they are in the unit circle

Loop While rsq >= 1.0 OrElse rsq = 0.0

'now make the box-muller transformation to get two normal deviates.

Dim fac As Double = Math.Sqrt(-2.0 * Math.Log(rsq) / rsq)

'Return one and save one for next time

_otherGaussianDeviate = v1 * fac

_hasAnotherDeviate = True

Return v2 * fac

End Function

' Returns a uniformly distributed random number between min and max.

Public Function UniformDeviate(ByVal min As Double, ByVal max As Double) As Double

Return (max - min) * _random.NextDouble() + min

End Function

' Returns a random number between 0 and 1

Public Function NextDouble() As Double

Return _random.NextDouble()

End Function

End Class

Public Class RandomGenerator

Private ReadOnly _random As Random

'indicates that an extra deviates was already calculated

Private _hasAnotherDeviate As Boolean

'The other deviate calculated using the Box-Muller transformation

Private _otherGaussianDeviate As Double

Public Sub New()

Me.New(New Random())

End Sub

Public Sub New(ByVal seed As Integer)

Me.New(New Random(seed))

End Sub

Public Sub New(ByVal random As Random)

_random = random

End Sub

' returns a normally distributed deviate with zero mean and unit variance.

' Adapted from Numerical Recipe page 289: Normal (Gaussian) Deviates

Public Function NormalDeviate() As Double

Dim rsq, v1, v2 As Double

If _hasAnotherDeviate Then

'we have an extra deviate handy. Reset the flag and return it

_hasAnotherDeviate = False

Return _otherGaussianDeviate

End If

Do

v1 = UniformDeviate(-1, 1) 'pick two uniform number

v2 = UniformDeviate(-1, 1) 'in the square extending from -1 to +1

rsq = v1 * v1 + v2 * v2 'see if they are in the unit circle

Loop While rsq >= 1.0 OrElse rsq = 0.0

'now make the box-muller transformation to get two normal deviates.

Dim fac As Double = Math.Sqrt(-2.0 * Math.Log(rsq) / rsq)

'Return one and save one for next time

_otherGaussianDeviate = v1 * fac

_hasAnotherDeviate = True

Return v2 * fac

End Function

' Returns a uniformly distributed random number between min and max.

Public Function UniformDeviate(ByVal min As Double, ByVal max As Double) As Double

Return (max - min) * _random.NextDouble() + min

End Function

' Returns a random number between 0 and 1

Public Function NextDouble() As Double

Return _random.NextDouble()

End Function

End Class