Tradiotional MEA proof

Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'm still sure that getting slightly away is better both with orbital and traditional one.

Dsekercioglu (talk)‎08:08, 26 September 2017

Better for what? It does not increase your MEA. Though it decreases the target angular size, so it reduces the probability to be hit. Calculating probability to be hit is yet another beast, which we probably should attempt to solve analytically.

There is another issue, the traditional MEA is good only for a single isolated wave, the real question is how to increase the MEA in a stream of constantly fired bullets.

Beaming (talk)‎18:59, 26 September 2017

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:User talk:Xor/Better MEA formula/Tradiotional MEA proof/reply (6).

The problem with your formula is that it does not match traditional MEA in the border cases.

The second problem that I not fully understand it. It looks like you are integrating angular velocity to an undefined time t.

Beaming (talk)‎03:11, 27 September 2017

it matches orbital MEA in border cases though, as always moving perpendicular is impossible, so you have to fallback to orbital ;)

I'm integrating angular velocity from fire time to hit time, which is obviously the escape angle ;) sorry for not saying that clearly in advance, the article is still not finished ;)

Xor (talk)‎05:49, 27 September 2017
 
 

It increases also. If the formula below is correct, it is true. 

asin(sin(a) / (v / 8 - cos(a) / 2))

You can try brute forcing.

Dsekercioglu (talk)‎10:42, 28 September 2017
 
 
Retrieved from "http://robowiki.net/wiki/Thread:User_talk:Xor/Better_MEA_formula/Tradiotional_MEA_proof/reply_(4)#Tradiotional_MEA_proof_5807"