EMAGs in the real world?

[Nobody]

i could say that we could continue this elsewhere, but i have a bit o history with Gordon already. so the invitation is unneeded. whether its here or PBN, or any other number of forums, his words i do not fear. he likes facts, only when they serve him. when they are used against him, he "doesn't like it". so i will prove him wrong when he missteps. i just wished he did not assume, it would save him many a problem and go a long way to his credibility. for when a man thinks he learned all that he can, he is ignorant on what he still has to learn...

[cockerpunk]

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.

your unfamiliarity with the intricacies of paintball-gun board programing does not mean you have provided 3 examples. contrary to what you claim, none of those boards are switch filter free. switch filtering does not need to be adjustable, to be present. all of those boards, in fact, all paintball gun boards provide some kind of switch filtering, it is inherent in the design and usage of electrical switches to trigging paint guns. you can look back at my posts, i have not changed the criteria one bit. in fact, i just did the dirty work for you:

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.

Please cite a post of mine where i claim all boards have adjustable debounce. it is you who have changed the parameters of the challenge, in an attempt to win it.

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.

well the NPPL robot disagrees, as i have never seen a report of a gun that they could not make legal with that tool. not just including stock boards, but also aftermarket boards (this was int he middle of the aftermarket board era), tadao, virtue etc etc.

again, are you familiar with the robot? it was designed to catch exactly this thing. also, without having played around with the settings, how can you claim the boards cheat all the time? i am also still calling BS on the threatened to be sued thing, as this is a topic often discussed back then, and as i said, all the major gun and board companies, and the NPPL were well aware of it.

[Bunny]

I guess I came into this conversation a little too late.....

I'm pretty biased, but I do use an e-mag for my everyday gun. It doesn't make sense if I compare it to any other guns out there, but I really like the nostalgic feel of playing with an e-mag. At this years Tunaball I had a bunch of friends borrow my other e-mags and I think they had a tough time adjusting their play when they went up against any modern day electro.

[Patron God of Pirates]

all paintball gun boards provide some kind of switch filtering

^this is correct. Almost all momentary switches require some type of debounce or they will send multiple partial signals.

well the NPPL robot disagrees, as i have never seen a report of a gun that they could not make legal with that tool. not just including stock boards, but also aftermarket boards (this was int he middle of the aftermarket board era), tadao, virtue etc etc.

again, are you familiar with the robot? it was designed to catch exactly this thing. also, without having played around with the settings, how can you claim the boards cheat all the time? i am also still calling BS on the threatened to be sued thing, as this is a topic often discussed back then, and as i said, all the major gun and board companies, and the NPPL were well aware of it.

Sorry for not replying to the robot question earlier. No, I was not familiar with it. I'm not familiar with how it functioned (pushing the trigger with a solenoid? Rubber fingers on an rotary?). It's possible that it's method produced less or different switch noise than would a human walking the trigger. But that is just me me thinking out loud (er... in type). It's also possible, as a friend of mine pointed out after reading this thread, that my rig was somehow adding noise to the system. While unlikely because any added noise should have shown up at lower RoF, I'm still going to set up another test to attempt to rule that out.

With regards to playing with the settings, you are correct, I cannot claim that they cheat all the time. What I can claim is that they cheat on settings that their users believe they do not.

I'm not sure if you are calling BS on the threat of suit (i.e. they won't sue) or BS on it having happened. Makes no difference to me. I'm offering my observations on a take it or leave it basis.

Let me see if we can find some common ground here. For the sake of this point I will assume that you are correct and that all electronic markers can be set up for bounce free true semi that works as it is supposed to. Manufacturers could easily and at very low cost use hardware to debounce the trigger while still allowing for cycle speeds in the 30's. It seems to me that there are only two good reasons not to; 1) software debounce is easier which is why almost all systems that incorporate momentary switches use it. 2) To allow players to cheat.

With bounce being as big an issue as it evidently was, why did the manufacturers not use hardware debounce? My theory: In the eyes of the marketplace "Guaranteed not to bounce" and/or "no adjustable bounce" are not selling points. Players want to cheat and get away with it (or at least have the option to). They want a competitive edge. Markers are designed to be cheat capable because that is what the marketplace wants. So we can place the blame anywhere we like, there is enough to go around. Electronic markers (even if all of my results are wrong) are designed and sold with the cheater in mind.

That should be considerably easier to accept than my earlier statement that electro's were inherently cheatsy.

[cockerpunk]

^this is correct. Almost all momentary switches require some type of debounce or they will send multiple partial signals.



Sorry for not replying to the robot question earlier. No, I was not familiar with it. I'm not familiar with how it functioned (pushing the trigger with a solenoid? Rubber fingers on an rotary?). It's possible that it's method produced less or different switch noise than would a human walking the trigger. But that is just me me thinking out loud (er... in type). It's also possible, as a friend of mine pointed out after reading this thread, that my rig was somehow adding noise to the system. While unlikely because any added noise should have shown up at lower RoF, I'm still going to set up another test to attempt to rule that out.

With regards to playing with the settings, you are correct, I cannot claim that they cheat all the time. What I can claim is that they cheat on settings that their users believe they do not.

I'm not sure if you are calling BS on the threat of suit (i.e. they won't sue) or BS on it having happened. Makes no difference to me. I'm offering my observations on a take it or leave it basis.

Let me see if we can find some common ground here. For the sake of this point I will assume that you are correct and that all electronic markers can be set up for bounce free true semi that works as it is supposed to. Manufacturers could easily and at very low cost use hardware to debounce the trigger while still allowing for cycle speeds in the 30's. It seems to me that there are only two good reasons not to; 1) software debounce is easier which is why almost all systems that incorporate momentary switches use it. 2) To allow players to cheat.

With bounce being as big an issue as it evidently was, why did the manufacturers not use hardware debounce? My theory: In the eyes of the marketplace "Guaranteed not to bounce" and/or "no adjustable bounce" are not selling points. Players want to cheat and get away with it (or at least have the option to). They want a competitive edge. Markers are designed to be cheat capable because that is what the marketplace wants. So we can place the blame anywhere we like, there is enough to go around. Electronic markers (even if all of my results are wrong) are designed and sold with the cheater in mind.

That should be considerably easier to accept than my earlier statement that electro's were inherently cheatsy.

agreed, which is why i said its not a technical problem, its a user problem.

[2xFast]

Yeah, the conversation seems to have...drifted. :)

In any case I just picked up a project ULE e-mag. I'm planning on some weight reduction milling for the rail and grip frame...then anodizing. I actually sent you a PM regarding anodizing shops.

Then onto the electronics. I'll pickup one of Curt's new boards as soon as they are out and maybe mount a bottom breach bounce beam eye :)

As for real world play, I'm just hoping for entertaining. If the function side (play) is a total bust...hopefully I'll have a bit of a show piece by the time it's all send and done.

[cockerpunk]

Yeah, the conversation seems to have...drifted. :)

sorry, these things tend to happen when statements like "all electronic guns cheat" are made

emags are nothing if not entertaining to play with, you will enjoy it!

[Patron God of Pirates]

agreed, which is why i said its not a technical problem, its a user problem.

I'll take agreed, even if we disagree on were the fault lies.