Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CapnScurvy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
If even CapnScurvy is getting confused about how RFB works, maybe it would be better to rethink the whole process
|
Yep, my mistake to lead anyone down the wrong path. Lash me to the yard arm Double R, I feel a whoopin' is in order. I must be feeling full of piss and vinegar today to start this. |
Except that in this case, Capn, I'm not whoopin' on you. I'm using you as the supreme example of someone who is incredibly familiar with manual targeting, but was confused by the RFB stadimeter procedure. I'm suggesting that shows RFB needs to think about returning to a single standard for all targets.
Here's the question for you. If the top of the tallest stack is half the height of the tallest mast (probably it is more like 2/3), doesn't that have implications for the range accuracy? For instance, if at 1000 yards a one pixel error made a 50 yard error in range at the masthead, wouldn't that be proportionally greater for the lower elevation of the tallest stack, yielding a range error of 75 to 100 yards with the same one pixel measurement error? There doesn't seem to be a free lunch anywhere around here.