MAX ROF setting on EMAG 2.4 board = INCORRECT!

Well, I did another one of my silly tests... all in the name of engineering curiosity...

Since I'm still a little green when it comes to EMAGS, I hope I'm not rehashing anything that has already been discussed in detail previously.

INTRO

After recently recording some demonstration videos, I noticed I was not able to rip as fast consistantly (without skipped shots) on the EMAG as my TIMMY.

Why couldn't I rake the emag as fast (consistant rhythm without skips) as I normally do?

Was it the trigger setup?

Was it the HES?

Was it the 2.4 board?

Knowing that I can rake a trigger faster than 15 bsp (as seen in my Tunamax and GZ Clammy videos), I wanted to test the MAX ROF settings on the EMAG 2.4 board to see what the results would be.

ASSUMPTION

If I can rake the trigger faster than 15 cps, then if the MAX ROF is set to 8, then I should be able to record a max rate of 8 cps. Like wise for ROF = 10, 12, 14.

For ROF=16, 18, and 20 I should be at my theorectical limit and not be able to reach top ROF.

The quesiton which drives me is:

Are the MAX ROF settings on the EMAG accurate?

TEST SETUP

ANYONE with and EMAG and a COMPUTER w/mic and sound analysis software can duplicate this test.

- I removed the left panel grip of my EMAG and placed my computer microphone next to the noid.

- After setting the MAX ROF at various limits (i.e. 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20), I raked the trigger as fast as I could.

- I recorded each session to a WAV file in order to analyze my true ROF (noid cycling rate). I isolated the fastest split times between noid clicks, which where represented be the peaks in the audio signature.

RESULTS

For each MAX ROF setting I was UNABLE to achieve the MAXIMUM SPEED!

When the ROF was set to 8, I could only average 6.6 cps. I should have topped out at 8! This doesn't make any sense since I know for a FACT that I can rake at least 15-17 cps.

In order to better understand the results, I conducted the same exact test for MAX ROF settings of 10, 12, 14, 16, 20.

ALL ACTUAL RECORDED ROF were about 18-20% SLOWER than the MAX ROF set in the gun.

CONCLUSION

If you set your 2.4 board to 20, be advised that you can only shoot a max 16-17 bps...

It is not you who can not shoot 18-20 on an EMAG, it's the gun.:(

(I have the sound file recordings saved, however, they are too large to post)

Please keep in mind I am NOT complaining about the SPEED of the EMAG and how it applies to in-game situations.

I am only sharing my test results which appear to indicate an anomally with the settings of the gun.

If you wish to debate the merits and significance of actaully shooting 18-20 bps during a game, please start your own thread.

This thread is about the software and engineering of the EMAG, and how it relates to the MAX ROF settings of the 2.4 board.

Thanks for your time and (hopefully) constructive comments...:)

Beautiful info. Lets hope the shot buffering in the new 3.0 software will help with this problem.
Looks like someone stayed up real late last night. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by the123
Beautiful info. Lets hope the shot buffering in the new 3.0 software will help with this problem.
Looks like someone stayed up real late last night. :)

---

My question would be why a shot buffer would be NEEDED to shoot at the stated Max Rates? If a person knows they can shoot at 10 BPS and when they are capped at 8, they should not be able to only shoot 6 BPS. If you need a shot buffer to allow a marker to shoot at 8 bps, there is a problem IMHO.

This is interesting information. I will be keeping track of this thread…

I owned an older emag with the 16bps cap. I never, over the course of two years, outshot my xboard revy. I borrow my friends Impulse one day and imediately outshoot his xboard revy. I buy an IR3 and imediately outshoot the same revy. Hardly scientific but it supports your findings considering that a revy will feed the 12.9 you got at 16cps. I just thought it was the difference in the triggers but I had my Emag's trigger set to a hair.

I knew it wasn't ME,keeping me from 20bps.:D

This is pretty interesting. I guess the question is,will this be addressed AS WELL as the buffer on 3.0 or are they somehow related?

I don't know Tom,AGD's fastest valve rep is under some serious attack here, an actuall 16-17bps MROF kinda takes the edge off a potential 34cpsmax system.

How come this stuff just gets discovered AFTER I have my XMAG on the way?


Jay.

when is 3.0 supposed to come out? was this a problem on the old boards as well?

Intresting,

Does any of this data have anything to do with trigger sweep?

Does anyone find it strang that AKA's w/ the eyes have a max rof of 30bps yet emags "fastest whopity doo whatever" is "set" at 20?

jb

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gtrsi
Intresting,

Does any of this data have anything to do with trigger sweep?

Does anyone find it strang that AKA's w/ the eyes have a max rof of 30bps yet emags "fastest whopity doo whatever" is "set" at 20?

jb

---

An apparently "unattainable" 20.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RRfireblade
I don't know Tom,AGD's fastest valve rep is under some serious attack here, an actuall 16-17bps MROF kinda takes the edge off a potential 34cpsmax system.

---

Doesn't change that fact that the valve can do it if allowed by the board to do so. I am not questioning the data but just pointing out that yes 3.0 versions will correct anything like this (assuming its correct) and realy a few others things that it was designed to tweek. I am not at liberty to say what all it can do. Its almost bebugged. Just wait. You will be a happy camper.

It's been tested and proven (e.g. halo and level 10 videos) that the EMAG can shoot 20+ BPS. However, this is only during full auto tests.

Is the processing of the firing routine (i.e. HES detection, board processing code, etc) differentbetween FA and SA?

What would happen if you shot the EMAG FA but capped at 8? Would a sound analysis of this test result in a true max ROF of 8 BPS?

Anyone with a FA EMAG (stock AGD board) care to help us out?

I wonder if the Morlock has this kind of problem?

Also, I understand it's a "MAX" ROF... however, is it a true MAX ROF? or is there something wrong with the EMAG electronic firing system which retards the maximum performance of our beloved MAG?

I know there are set points on the Morlock that we at this point cannot set on the Emag board. So I suspect that the answer is yes it can be made to shoot faster between balls. In fact I am certain of it. So any dwell can be adjusted with that board. But some of the inherent set points on the Emag board are in the fixed software and designed to delay to make sure of sear lock up and such things as that. More programed for durability and security than they are for performance "on the edge" so to speak. Tom has always leaned to the safe and reliable side on all his designs. And that is true of the software end of it too. Tom has taken the road that he wants his guns to shoot reliably first and last long next. And let the other chips fall were they may on the others.

part of the reason you are not hitting the max rof of whatever you are capped at is because any shots on the emag board that occur in a faster period of time then the cap is set for is ignored (e.g. 10bps, 100ms between pulls, if you pull 3 times in 299ms, only 2 shots come out.) Jack if you try to get a rhythm of exactly 8cps instead of going all out, you will notice you will go faster because you arent getting the majority of your shots ignored by the board. I discovered this a long time ago when I had my first mag. Im expecting 3.0 covers this issue as well.

edit: the person above me said basically the exact same thing i did but a little bit clearer

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaiser Bob
part of the reason you are not hitting the max rof of whatever you are capped at is because any shots on the emag board that occur in a faster period of time then the cap is set for is ignored (e.g. 10bps, 100ms between pulls, if you pull 3 times in 299ms, only 2 shots come out.) Jack if you try to get a rhythm of exactly 8cps instead of going all out, you will notice you will go faster because you arent getting the majority of your shots ignored by the board. I discovered this a long time ago when I had my first mag. Im expecting 3.0 covers this issue as well.

---

Mmmmmmmmmxactly! Human interaction going on here. Can't program that part out can we? Which is why you can see it change when going full auto. because they are perfectly placed when they need to be where as you finger ones are not. But then again in the real world test Jack shows you can pull faster (or at least some of your pulls are in the wrong exact time) than the elecronics can accomidate for. So I do not doubt he got what he saw. But then again if you could perfectly pull at a 8 bps rate with your finger when set at 8 bps you can achieve it as well. But they have to be exactly at the right time. Both things can happen and do. But if you pull at 12 bps while set at 8 bps and it misses 4 or five of them because they occur at the wrong time you get a different result. Resulting in a actual balls shot of less than your setting. As we know there are boards that can "cue" these missed pulls and spout them out later. But then we get into the debate as to wether that should be legal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cphilip


I know there are set points on the Morlock that we at this point cannot set on the Emag board. So I suspect that the answer is yes it can be made to shoot faster between balls. In fact I am certain of it. So any dwell can be adjusted with that board.

---

Hi cphilip,

Hmmm... I just may have to pick up a Morlock board one of these days... Muhahahaha ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cphilip


But some of the inherent set points on the Emag board are in the fixed software and designed to delay to make sure of sear lock up and such things as that. More programed for durability and security than they are for performance "on the edge" so to speak. Tom has always leaned to the safe and reliable side on all his designs. And that is true of the software end of it too. Tom has taken the road that he wants his guns to shoot reliably first and last long next. And let the other chips fall were they may on the others.

---

That's strange...

If the minimum delay time for a MAX ROF of 8 = only 125 ms, then why would there be any concern for reliability pragrammed into the board at this slow speed?

Since the EMAG is rated to handle at least 16-20 bps (minimum delay times of 62 ms and 50 ms respectively), surely there should not be any problems with sear lock-up at 125 ms...:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaiser Bob


Jack if you try to get a rhythm of exactly 8cps instead of going all out, you will notice you will go faster because you arent getting the majority of your shots ignored by the board. I discovered this a long time ago when I had my first mag. Im expecting 3.0 covers this issue as well.

---

Hey KB, what's up... nice vids you put up in the other thread... :)

Ok.

I just recorded about a 1 minute sound clip of me pulling the trigger with the MAX ROF set to 8.

I varried the speed and cadence as you suggested.

I raked it fast, med and slow.

I walked it fast, med, and slow.

I pulled it fast, med and slow.

I registered approx. 400 shots including minor pauses for hand position changes.

When analyzing these 400 shots, I studied the minimum time interval between the peaks of the sound signature.

If the MAX ROF were truely set to 8 cps, then the minimum time interval should be 125 ms.

You would expect that after pulling 400 times with various rates, I should be able to find an interval somewhere close to 125, right?

Nope.

The smallest interval recorded in this test was 137 ms.

The MAJORITY of the "smallest" intervals recorded are 137 ms to 150 ms.

Since this same pattern of inconsistancy exists for ALL other MAX ROF settings at varried pulling speeds, I can confidently conclude that the problem is NOT whether I am pulling the trigger too fast or too slow.

Please, someone else do this same test so they can also verify, validate and substantiate my results and conclusions.

I don't think its measurable exactly "WHEN" you pulled that trigger. Thats an unkown in the process. And a variable that is key to the situation.

Yes it can lock up that quick but thats a whole nother discussion. I prolly shouldn't have even gone off into that. Its not realy germain to the central discussion.

Perhaps your magic smoke has leaked? :D

Quote:

---

Please, someone else do this same test so they can also verify, validate and substantiate my results and conclusions.

---

i was going to say, that your tests may apply only to your gun/trigger. and i was going to further it by adding that there's no way that you make such a broad assumption about all emags based on your own tests. obviously you knew that, and asking for others to perform the same test was right on.

unfortunately, i dont have the equipment to do the tests:(

what it is is you have to pull consistantly over and over every 8 times per second or whatever you aim for. thats probably why my emag goes so slow when i walk it yet when i sorta rake/fan it i get it faster because its more even.

It is virtually impossible to hit the max ROF setting. If you set it to 8bps, and want to hit it at 8bps... you have shoot at EXACTLY 0.125s intervals. 7.9x bps is as close as you can get over some duration... and as J&C observed, you'll usually get much less.

The fix for this is: Raising the bps cap and/or shot buffering. I personally think raising the cap is a more elegant solution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Miscue


The fix for this is: Raising the bps cap and/or shot buffering. I personally think raising the cap is a more elegant solution.

---

I think AGD needs to shoehorn a few extra elves into the gun.;)

Yea! They calling that 3.0. For the 0.6 more Elves factor! :eek:

Actually if you think in terms of relating MAX ROF to SMALLEST ALLOWED INTERVAL TIME, then you will see the problem more clearly.

At ROF set to 8, you can see from the data that the smallest interval I was able to achieve was around 135 ms.

I'm trying to get as close to 125 ms, right?

Well according to the test where the ROF was set at 10, I was consistanly hitting 125 ms.

So you see, the problem of me not reaching 8 bps is not governed by how well I time the trigger while raking or walking.

The limitation (flaw) is with the electronics (software) not allowing me to approach the set Max rate.

But at 10bps, your window is 100ms, right? So hitting 125ms consistantly would be wrong the wrong time.

Atleast, that's how I see it.

*edit*

It would seem to me that if you're doing 125ms and the window is 100ms you'd get a 25% loss on the shots. The table shows 20%. That's pretty close.


*edit again*

I misunderstood what you were doing, The previous comments might not make sense.

Has anyone ever tried hooking up a pulse generator to the HES input, that would be the best way to go. I might have to try that when I get back to school.

this isnt limited to Emags by the way. most guns with ROF caps will do this. for example .. i know my revy will not feed higher then say 12pbs, so i set my ROF on my angel to 14. and that way when i am ripping i wont chop. when ROF set at 14 .. i never really get much abouve 11 bps.

im sure a simple raise of the ROF cap will probably help this issue. personally i like when guns have adjustable ROF.

i'll give this a whirl when i get back to school jack, maybe this is why its hard to walk :P

Hey J&C, does your timmy have programmable ROF? Why don't you try doing the same test with that too?

Lots of writing... couldn't read through it all. But I have an idea why your results seem messed up. You are raking the trigger faster than the cap (obviously). So what happens when you hit the cap is the board cancels out shots inbetween 8cps or 10cps (whatever it is set at). It's hard to explain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh
Hey J&C, does your timmy have programmable ROF? Why don't you try doing the same test with that too?

---

YeS!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xyxyll


Lots of writing... couldn't read through it all.

---

:rolleyes:

Why do people feel the need the jump in and POST when they couldn't even READ the whole thread?

Comments similar to yours have been asked and explained already.

Read. Think. THEN Post.... It's really not that long of a thread...