> "George Dishman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> | Hexenmeister wrote:
> | > "George Dishman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > news:[email protected]
> | > |
> | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
History snipped to shorten the post.
> | > | "Pixels per frame" refers to consecutive frames in
> | > | the gif animation of course, not "pixels per frame
> | > | of reference".
> | >
> | > Ok, the bullets inside the guns (using the two frames 0 and 10) ...
> | The software I'm using numbers from 1 so they
> | are 1 and 11 in my diagram.
> How lovely for you, I used <alt><PrtSc>.
> Being a software engineer, naturally I number frames
> from 0.
So do I, but the guy wrote wrote the softare
I'm using didn't.
> | > ...travel at 72 pixels per frame, carried by the riflemen.
> | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/more_frames.png
> | Between those frames, the gun for rifleman 4 moves
> | 35 pixels in 10 frames or 3.5ppf.
> Between those frames, bullet 4 moves 97 pixels in 10 frames or 9.7ppf
> and the gun and riflemen are a red herrings.
Your measure of 97 pixels is from a point on the gun,
not an earlier position of the bullet so it isn't a measure
of the speed of bullet 4.
> So why can't Jef Rot be HONEST and say the velocity of the bullet
> is 9.7 pixels per frame, instead of DISHONET and say it is 8 ppf?
He is being honest, the speed of bullets 1 and 3 is 8ppf
and that of bullets 2 and 4 is 12ppf as he stated. You
got it wrong because you measured from the gun. This
You got it right where you wrote "(60-28)/8 = 4ppf faster".
You got it wrong again when you said "6 pixels in zero
frames", the bullet was still in the gun in the previous
> Why did you congratulate him on his lying?
> He's a cheat and a liar, isn't he, Dishwater?
No, you just got your sums wrong again.
> You are a cheat and liar too, are you not?
I have shown you clear diagrams to back up my
claims and I'll address anything you think is an
arror but so far you haven't found any. You said:
> | > ... Find me wrong and I'll admit to it,
> | > you won't catch me defending my own up in a futile
> | > attempt to save face, that's pointless.
Will you keep to that?