EMAGs in the real world?

[cockerpunk]

This would be true in a "dumb"system that transmitted the signal directly to the noid. In modern markers this is not the case. The switch signals are sent to the board logic which determines when the noid signals are sent. The filtering you are referring to (software debounce) is a number in milliseconds that the software is programmed to ignore additional signals after the first. Typically it looks like this:
delay(200);
where 200 is a fixed value. Variable debounce is one of the possible explanations for what I'm seeing (but not the most likely one IMO. Variable debounce looks like this:
int debounce = 200;
//elsewhere in the code we would find something like this
if((millis() - lastTriggerPullMillis) < bounceLoweringThreshhold){
debounce = 50;
}
//elsewhere we would find the debounce statement:
delay(debounce);
In my hastily typed example the software is checking to see how recently the last full switch signal occurred and is lowering the variable integer used to debounce the switch. It would not be much more complicated than than that.

I have reason to believe that (at least in most cases) it is signal thresholding that is the culprit variable. This is irrelevant to the results. BPS second limits actually allow the manufacturers to be more flagrant. What they aught to do is disregard any switch pull that exceeded the cap. What they do instead is say:
if(ROF > 12.5)
ROF = 12.5;

Now the sound signature that used to be a tell tale sign of cheater modes just sounds like the marker firing at the capped rate.

If the "profesional" leagues were serious about enforcing 1 shot 1 pull and the rof cap, they would insist on markers using hardware debounce.

i agree completely. esp about using a hardware low pass filter, not a software setting for debounce.

i was merely stating that all boards do use some kind of switch filtering, typically in the board logic, and typically a delay. and if they didn't, then you would have one of those "dumb" boards, but in reality those kind of boards do not exist because, the gun would not function, because it would attempt to start the firing cycle with each trigger event. you can imagine how this would end. depending on the operation of the gun, it would be like short stroking a gun 5 or 6 times in so many milliseconds ... ew. it might manifest in the best case as bad efficiency and consistency, at worst, as chopping, clipping etc etc. again, depends on the function of the gun as well.

this was actually a major problem in the first generation of electronic guns, and why all of them, and all guns today, use some form of switch filtering system.

[Patron God of Pirates]

i agree completely. esp about using a hardware low pass filter, not a software setting for debounce.

i was merely stating that all boards do use some kind of switch filtering, typically in the board logic, and typically a delay. and if they didn't, then you would have one of those "dumb" boards, but in reality those kind of boards do not exist because, the gun would not function, because it would attempt to start the firing cycle with each trigger event. you can imagine how this would end. depending on the operation of the gun, it would be like short stroking a gun 5 or 6 times in so many milliseconds ... ew. it might manifest in the best case as bad efficiency and consistency, at worst, as chopping, clipping etc etc. again, depends on the function of the gun as well.

this was actually a major problem in the first generation of electronic guns, and why all of them, and all guns today, use some form of switch filtering system.

Agreed again, but I don't have to imagine it, I built one. I had a working IC'less trigger system that used a hardware debounce configuration that actually worked quite well and had working eyes (well, a break beam eye out of an arcade ticket dispenser that would ultimately be replaced by eyes). Trouble was, it was utterly unwalkable above 7-8 bps. In theory It should be capable of a cycle speed in the 30's. The cycles were erratic, sounding very much like when someone "walks" a pneumag or ULT.

That is what started me on my little quest that ultimately led to this conversation. I have since removed the "eyes" and noid. I replaced the later with an led to prove to people that without the help of the software they could not "walk" the trigger with any kind of consistency.

[cockerpunk]

Agreed again, but I don't have to imagine it, I built one. I had a working IC'less trigger system that used a hardware debounce configuration that actually worked quite well and had working eyes (well, a break beam eye out of an arcade ticket dispenser that would ultimately be replaced by eyes). Trouble was, it was utterly unwalkable above 7-8 bps. In theory It should be capable of a cycle speed in the 30's. The cycles were erratic, sounding very much like when someone "walks" a pneumag or ULT.

That is what started me on my little quest that ultimately led to this conversation. I have since removed the "eyes" and noid. I replaced the later with an led to prove to people that without the help of the software they could not "walk" the trigger with any kind of consistency.

i was proposing imagining a gun without switch filtering

and i agree, most people can't walk the trigger for ****. the best way to show this, i think is high speed video. simon did some work on this a while back, posted a few videos.

but again, i don't think this is a problem with the gun, as much as a problem with the users, and the policing bodies. there is nothing inherently wrong with the technology, an electronic trigger, on any gun, can be made to be a true one shot per pull trigger. its that users dont want that, and fields/leagues don't care enough to force them to.

EDIT: simons videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-L3WzTEDw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGBDgtXCaOo

[Patron God of Pirates]

i was proposing imagining a gun without switch filtering
its that users dont want that, and fields/leagues don't care enough to force them to.

Exactly! I totally understand that some (even most) people have no issue with this at all. I just kind of think it's a shame and takes a little integrity out of the game. There was a time when trigger skill was a factor in paintball. Now these things are "optimized" so a guy off the street can practice for 10-20 seconds and be rippin' with the best of them. (Yes I know I'm exaggerating).

[Spider-TW]

Agreed again, but I don't have to imagine it, I built one. I had a working IC'less trigger system that used a hardware debounce configuration that actually worked quite well and had working eyes (well, a break beam eye out of an arcade ticket dispenser that would ultimately be replaced by eyes). Trouble was, it was utterly unwalkable above 7-8 bps. In theory It should be capable of a cycle speed in the 30's. The cycles were erratic, sounding very much like when someone "walks" a pneumag or ULT.

That is what started me on my little quest that ultimately led to this conversation. I have since removed the "eyes" and noid. I replaced the later with an led to prove to people that without the help of the software they could not "walk" the trigger with any kind of consistency.

"IC'less"; is that no integrated circuits at all, or just no microprocessor? A pair of timers (556 chip) works fine and is not a microprocessor and only partially digital. It lacks something you two haven't addressed yet though, which is shot buffering.

When you actually "filter" switch response, you are throwing bounces and flailing finger pulls in the trash. That's where your poor trigger walking is exposed. Most boards will buffer any trigger "pulls" that occur during the filter window and apply them as a single pull at the end of the filter window, making your flailing fingers look quite professional. It's when you don't actually let the trigger up that you can flail away and still not see a shot. Buffering is the only way you ever maintain 13.5 bps with consistency, until you get your fingers trained for 13.49 bps.

[cockerpunk]

Exactly! I totally understand that some (even most) people have no issue with this at all. I just kind of think it's a shame and takes a little integrity out of the game. There was a time when trigger skill was a factor in paintball. Now these things are "optimized" so a guy off the street can practice for 10-20 seconds and be rippin' with the best of them. (Yes I know I'm exaggerating).

no, no, you first argument is that every electronic gun inherently cheats. that is not the case.

the problem as always is the human component

[Patron God of Pirates]

no, no, you first argument is that every electronic gun inherently cheats. that is not the case.
the problem as always is the human component

I'm not sure we are having a disconnect. They do not cheat unless programed to do so, which in my limited testing has been always. I define cheating for the purposes of this conversation as a marker producing more shots than the user produces trigger pulls. They are not cheating by virtue of being electronic. They are being programmed to cheat.

"IC'less"; is that no integrated circuits at all, or just no microprocessor? A pair of timers (556 chip) works fine and is not a microprocessor and only partially digital. It lacks something you two haven't addressed yet though, which is shot buffering.

When you actually "filter" switch response, you are throwing bounces and flailing finger pulls in the trash. That's where your poor trigger walking is exposed. Most boards will buffer any trigger "pulls" that occur during the filter window and apply them as a single pull at the end of the filter window, making your flailing fingers look quite professional. It's when you don't actually let the trigger up that you can flail away and still not see a shot. Buffering is the only way you ever maintain 13.5 bps with consistency, until you get your fingers trained for 13.49 bps.

Just a couple of resistors and a couple of Capacitors really. You'll have to forgive me if I get terminology wrong, I'm entirely self taught. I found a guide online to hardware debounce a switch in this fashion and I simply followed the instructions. It ignores additional switch pulls until a capacitor has recharged after the previous one. If I did my math right it should allow for up to 30.3- cps. I was able to get it into the 20's using an Arduino board to virtually pull the trigger, but with humans the result is rather pathetic.

I can't think of a reliable way to buffer shots without a microprocessor. But that goes to my point since the shots that require buffering would have been short strokes or chops in a mechanical system.

[cockerpunk]

They are being programmed to cheat by the operator

bolded the most important part.

as i stated in my third post:

the good news is that electronics still does not mean you an inherently cheating

[Patron God of Pirates]

They are being programmed to cheat by the operator

The modes which are not supposed to be cheating are still cheating. 15 markers set to the modes the operators believed to be tourney legal true semi. 15/15 were adding shots at higher rates of fire. The worst offender began this activity at 5cps (aftermarket board). The best at 9cps. All markers manufactured between 2003 and 2009. Something may have changed since then, but since players aren't complaining that the new stuff is harder to walk, I doubt it.

IMO buffering, eyes, ramping, intent listening (my term for the type of cheating I have discribed), these are all electronic band aids for the limitations of the player and the platform.

[cockerpunk]

The modes which are not supposed to be cheating are still cheating. 15 markers set to the modes the operators believed to be tourney legal true semi. 15/15 were adding shots at higher rates of fire. The worst offender began this activity at 5cps (aftermarket board). The best at 9cps. All markers manufactured between 2003 and 2009. Something may have changed since then, but since players aren't complaining that the new stuff is harder to walk, I doubt it.

IMO buffering, eyes, ramping, intent listening (my term for the type of cheating I have discribed), these are all electronic band aids for the limitations of the player and the platform.

but again, there is a setting that will give you a true legal semi auto. again, its an operator error, not an inherent thing with electronics in guns.

are you familiar with the old "robot" from the old NPPL? it would check guns using electronic fingers to insure they were running a true semi-auto at high speed. for example: http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=622557

[Patron God of Pirates]

15 markers set to the modes the operators believed to be tourney legal true semi.
~Your assumption against their word. Doesn't leave me much to go on. I'll just leave it where it is.

[cockerpunk]

15 markers set to the modes the operators believed to be tourney legal true semi.
~Your assumption against their word. Doesn't leave me much to go on. I'll just leave it where it is.

it has nothing to do with my word vs theres. only that the settings were not legal, while it was possible for the settings to be legal. that makes it operator error, not technological error.

you also have not posted the testing methods, nor the equipment and settings being tested, i'd like to see that.

[Patron God of Pirates]

it has nothing to do with my word vs theres. only that the settings were not legal, while it was possible for the settings to be legal. that makes it operator error, not technological error.

you also have not posted the testing methods, nor the equipment and settings being tested, i'd like to see that.

You are working under the assumption that the "legal" setting performs legally (1 pull 1 shot). This is contrary to my findings. As far as sharing my results, I have already stated that I won't and why. I didn't have altruistic motives when I did the testing. Myself, and the gentleman who arranged the markers to be tested saw it as an opportunity to make money. While I could probably sell a dozen or so "idiot" trigger systems to people here, if frames with microprocessors were deemed against the rules, we could make some actual money.

It will likely never happen for scads of reasons (several of them outlined here). You don't take the threat of litigation seriously, I have a business, a wife, and children, I cannot afford to take those kinds of chances.

As for my equipment and methods, sure:

http://arduino.cc/

http://processing.org/

A few alligator clips and a USB cable.
I set up a passive switch listener for both the trigger switch and solenoid. Was surprised that this proved adequate for almost every setup. I programmed the Arduino to report over virtual serial (USB) to my processing app which formatted the data into readable console lines. The first version worked a bit differently but the version we ultimately used printed the data like this:
1 Second starting at (startmillis) and ending at (endmillis)
x switch / x noid

That's it. When the RoF increased we started to see the number on the right consistently exceeding the number on the left. I can't speak to the settings because none of the markers tested were mine, nor did I alter the settings in any way. We only asked that those who would let us test their guns set them to "tourney legal semi". Three of the guns tested belonged to the gentleman I mentioned earlier and there is absolutely no way he does not know how to set his equipment properly.

[Nobody]

who does not produce a board without switch filtering, name names please.

because a board without switch filtering will not make a paintball gun work. period. this was actually a problem with getting the original electronic paintball guns work.

so what, you don't believe me and yet i prove at least 3 examples. so change the rules when you are proven wrong but not because of semantics, cause you can't admit when you are wrong?

there was no adjustment on the bounce, as there was none. couldn't tell you if it was built in, as ICD had a system crash that all their programming was lost, so i can't get a copy of the actual software. so there might be a filtering of sorts or maybe a delay, but the electronics gives nothing for that adjustment, which was your argument. show me a board without that adjustments in filtering or bounce. i did and yet i'm wrong. good one Gordon. admittedly, i don't know electronics, the programming nor the hardware, but sometimes you do have to believe that anonymous person that disagrees with you, cause you never know what they actually might know.

[Frizzle Fry]

so what, you don't believe me and yet i prove at least 3 examples. so change the rules when you are proven wrong but not because of semantics, cause you can't admit when you are wrong?

Why don't you ask him to pop over to PBN with you and discuss it there LOL