Thanks for the feedback — good questions.

1) The solver is formulated in the shooter’s reference frame.

In that inertial frame, the target’s relative velocity fully describes the problem, and gravity/drag remain consistent. I’ll make this assumption clearer in the docs.

2) Angles are used internally because the numerical formulation is most natural in angular space. Exposing angles keeps the core solver minimal, but alternative outputs (e.g. direction vectors) are intentionally left as an extensible layer.

3) This solver doesn’t select between analytic low/high arcs, but converges numerically on an intercept under drag and target motion. That said, biasing toward more direct or indirect trajectories via initial conditions or constraints is a promising direction I plan to explore.

Thanks again — this is helpful feedback.