You have a valid point about aim disruption especially with 6.8 being freakishly powerful.

And yeah it's basically a magic box doohickey as far as most people, to include me, are concerned.

The way I understand it is that the microcontroller that runs the levers and gears uses a "proprietary" algorithm that's similar to CNC error compensation to try to get you some fraction of the distance you have deviated from where your muzzle should be X times a second (x being the sampling rate of your microcontroller probably somewhere between 20 and 200 times a second)

So if you think of your starting muzzle position as a coordinate in x y z space, when you hit the button the microcontroller assigns a coordinate value to where the muzzle is at that moment. From that point onward the device tries to hold the muzzle onto that x,y,z reference coordinate by doing anywhere from a couple dozen to a couple hundred adjustments per second each of which is going to be a step that's some fraction of the distance between where your muzzle is and where it "should be" (your locked in xyz starting coordinate) each correction may be in all three axes or it may do a thing where it corrects I each axis sequentially depending on exactly how their algorithm handles it.

The reason it will only correct a fraction of the distance at each step has to do with what they're correcting for which is mostly human involuntary movement and because if you try to fully slam the gun back to your xyz reference point in a single motion 20 to 200 times a second the operator will start fighting the corrections resulting in overcorrection and the gun being more and more off it's xyz reference..

This is why I just call it the magic box for short hand.

I wish I had a better understanding of this stuff but this is basically as far as my knowledge goes.

Hopefully this is helpful.

An integrated bipod would be far more useful...like the current SA80.

also if they had a very fast round (4000+) it would remove the need for fancy optics.

Not necessarily.  A very fast round just allows you to miss at a higher velocity if your aim is not perfect when you pull the trigger.

I'd be lying if I said it was very helpful, but thank you for trying to teach an old dinosaur new tricks.  

Being honest, it's not super important anyway.

Magic box is close enough. 

I'd love to play with one to see how well they work and what their limits are though.

You'd actually want the fancy sighting system more with an extremely high velocity round if for no other reason than to make hits out even further.

I think one thing some people tend to miss here is that a lot of the stuff integrated Into the ngsw optic are things the military feels it's going to need In order to handle their most likely projected threats.

To a large degree we've given up the ability to be numerically superior against many potential foes making qualitative superiority a necessity.

That and I think that the army etc are justifiably concerned about how to make infantry at least semi survivable in the next fights.

Since we can't really add any more armor or etc because of weight and other restrictions we more of less have to make them faster and "smarter".

I agree completely.  It doesn't really matter if I don't comprehend how it works.

I'd like to try it, too.  As badly as my hands shake, I would be the ultimate tester.  

nincomp said...

Not necessarily.  A very fast round just allows you to miss at a higher velocity if your aim is not perfect when you pull the trigger.

It does reduce the impact of errors in ranging, windage and target movement.

Looking at the final version of textrons round, im sure it could take a SLAP, but this would be a telescoped SLAP....still using a booster charge to push the sabot in the bore. Never been done before

If textrons layout was applied to the .50 do you think it would reduce size, enough to allow more ammo...or does the increased width ruin things

40y later it seems we are not much further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKBJp9Ea8jg