ROFCALC(TM), PACT timer for your PC, calculates rof by sound

[starboarder2001]

Checkout http://www.rofcalc.com, its only in its beta version but looks very promising.

http://www.rofcalc.com/images/screenshots/rofcalcscreenshott2.JPG

[evildead420]

pretty cool but i got pro tools, so alittle math would be all i need to calculate. ;)

[onedude36]

Very cool.

Edit: Time for more AO bps contests!

[buzzboy]

This looks pretty cool. Definately something I will take the time to download. I can't wait to see how slow I am really shooting. :p

[rx2]

I have said it before, and I will say it again: waveform analysis is imperfect without proper recording methods. Unless they have really, really good algorithms, I very much doubt that the software will give you an accurate result in many cases. There is simply too much slop to be able to get the bps from the waveform without careful analysis with a good graphical waveform editor. Chances are it counts peaks that hit a certain threshold for a certain duration, and adds them up. The proble is that echo, mechanical noise, and the natural compression and distortion (phase, harmonic, and digital clipping) imparted by low-cost camera mics could very easily confuse the softare. It seems very unlikely that this will be reliable, unless you have high-quality recording, which is something that I see very rarely from people asking for a BPS calculation. Not saying it can't work, but that I wouldn't put much faith in it. Beat calcutltion is harder than it seems for software.

[SCpoloRicker]

I have said it before, and I will say it again: waveform analysis is imperfect without proper recording methods. Unless they have really, really good algorithms, I very much doubt that the software will give you an accurate result in many cases. There is simply too much slop to be able to get the bps from the waveform without careful analysis with a good graphical waveform editor. Chances are it counts peaks that hit a certain threshold for a certain duration, and adds them up. The proble is that echo, mechanical noise, and the natural compression and distortion (phase, harmonic, and digital clipping) imparted by low-cost camera mics could very easily confuse the softare. It seems very unlikely that this will be reliable, unless you have high-quality recording, which is something that I see very rarely from people asking for a BPS calculation. Not saying it can't work, but that I wouldn't put much faith in it. Beat calcutltion is harder than it seems for software.

I'm thinking this guy may know what hes talking about. ;)

[evildead420]

I have said it before, and I will say it again: waveform analysis is imperfect without proper recording methods. Unless they have really, really good algorithms, I very much doubt that the software will give you an accurate result in many cases. There is simply too much slop to be able to get the bps from the waveform without careful analysis with a good graphical waveform editor. Chances are it counts peaks that hit a certain threshold for a certain duration, and adds them up. The proble is that echo, mechanical noise, and the natural compression and distortion (phase, harmonic, and digital clipping) imparted by low-cost camera mics could very easily confuse the softare. It seems very unlikely that this will be reliable, unless you have high-quality recording, which is something that I see very rarely from people asking for a BPS calculation. Not saying it can't work, but that I wouldn't put much faith in it. Beat calcutltion is harder than it seems for software.


Digidesign Pro Tools for example is a great audio recording program. I love to "plug" things i like and live for ;) and your totally right

[thefool]

well what you can always do is record and try to desypher the graphs by eye. THat is imperfect as well but it might be more reliable.

[Miscue]

Cool. I made the same thing a few years ago... but threw it away. :)

Except... it could do it real-time.

[MoeMag]

I have found that with the simple MS sound recorder program and a quality mic, that I can get fairly good bps readings.

What I do is make a recording of the gun firing. Then I will listen for a portion of the recording with a consistent burst, then isolate it and slow it down to around 16 to 1. At that speed I can count the shots. I know it is somewhat accurate, because my friend had his ion and I was able to count dead on 17 bps, which is what it was capped at. I have gotten my mag up to 23bps based on this method.

If someone could tell me how to post sound files on here, I think you all would get a kick out of some of the recordings I have done. In some of them I can hear the lvl 10 2 stage burst, the spring going under tension and the bolt resetting itself, it is really cool.

[BD_Paintball]

i should mess around with this and see what i can shoot. it looks cook

[nevtangle]

Digidesign Pro Tools for example is a great audio recording program. I love to "plug" things i like and live for ;) and your totally right
I second that. I just record a few seconds worth of shots then select a seconds worth of audio. Count the spikes in the selected waveform and there you go. You'll have a very accurate BPS.

http://www.jayloo.com/files/pics/33000/Classic_mag_11BPS_tn.jpg (http://www.jayloo.com/photo_gallery/show_pic.html?pIMAGE_ID=33234)

[Lohman446]

I'm thinking this guy may know what hes talking about. ;)

I'll bet he worked for wave form analysis :)