It is obvious that almost all current weapon data you had to implement in SBPro PE are kept secret.
Where we could, we documented the source of our data in the various documents that can be found in the Steel Beasts installation, partially also as chapters in the user's manual.
That we are bound by NDAs can be no surprise to anyone who has ever worked in a commercial/industrial environment, be it software development or something else. You can hold that against us, but then please do so against any other software developer who makes any kind of simulation of products that exist in the real world.
Anyway you stated before that you use open-source data.
Yes - where they are actually available (especially dispersion figures are particularly hard to come by), and we use open sources in the absence of anything better. Naturally, if we accept a development contract from an army and that army provides us with sources like firing tables to allow us to develop the parameters for our ballistic model, you surely do not expect us to withhold the results from the Personal Edition.
Yet later you claimed there are also some secret data that military customers disclosed to eSim Games. But now you tell us such data for 40 mm Bofors L/70 gun accuracy can be a hoax.
if someone wanted to believe in conspiracy theories, I have no actual proof that all these armies do not perform elaborate schemes to feed us with false data. I don't believe it, but the only way how we could possibly be sure would be to do our own ballistic test firings - something for which we do not have the opportunity, the time, the need, or the money (and I'm pretty sure that you as the customer wouldn't want to finance the costs of, say, firing 2000 rounds of 120mm tank cannon ammunition to establish a dispersion parameter estimate with mediocre confidence ... assuming that this would actually be permitted (which would never be the case, as much fun as it might be).
All that I did was to point out the rather academic (or paranoid) possibility
that we are just led to believe certain dispersion parameters. I do not want to suggest that I really believe that these parameters aren't to be trusted. I think that they are correct, and I think that SB Pro does a good job to visualize the actual effect, and I think that you simply overestimate the accuracy of these autocannons - but could I prove all this in court?
Is there "reasonable doubt" about our models? I don't think so, apparently you do, and I let the rest of our readers here draw their own conclusions.
So why do you so strongly believe in L27A1 penetration data?
I can't tell, and I told you so on several occasions before. You want to hear it again?
I can't tell you. Once more?
I can't tell you.
You either trust me on this one, or you don't. I don't care what you want to believe. I've been about as open and as forthcoming about the fundamentals of our work as I can be. Either you accept that there are limits to what I can tell, or you don't. If you want to score easy rhetorical victories over me in internet fora - fine, you win. You are aware however that this is like beating a one-legged opponent in an ass-kicking contest. If that makes you happy, keep going.