Speed Check/ W.A.S.

[cris8762]

yeah i'm sure he'd do that and have 100 13 year old kids decide that since they wont get the "uber 1337 ROF" they think comes with the was board they wont buy it.

Jim here's my question for u (NOT about damn shot queing or ROF):

You say the board will eliminate FSDO on all imps. Well, i think it will fix solenoid related fsdo, but what about ACTUAl stiction of the ram in the housing cause by dow33 or lack thereof? I'm just curious if this board will fix that type of FSDO (IMO there is solenoid related fsdo, and ram/hammer related FSDO)

Thanks
Cris Polilli

[WickedAirSportz]

I *am* doing the right thing.

Cricket board w/Vision - I shoot 14-16 bps.

Equalizer w/our vision system - I shoot 17-20 bps (as proven by the video).

No trigger bounce with either setup.

People have shot the Impulse from the video and remarked about how fast it was. JD from the Rat Factory used the Rat w/Equalizer and shot faster than he ever has before, and without any ball breaks.

Draw your own conclusions...

[WickedAirSportz]

I am currently shooting a bone dry ram assembly with zero FSDO. I think it fixes the problem completely... but more and more testing is being done right now with various ram setups. Remember, this product has not yet been released, and in fact, we haven't submitted circuit board for production yet. So, if/when we find things to improve, we will.

The problem with FSDO from what I can see on a logic analyzer is that the solenoid coil is not being fully grounded with the stock hardware. This results in a current slew. This is easy enough to see yourself using a DSO.

[Cristobal]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Ah... but the problem is this... with a mechanical marker, if the ball is mostly in the breech, the bolt face being rounded can "pull" the ball into place and it will shoot the ball without breaking. The electro with eyes would require that you released and repulled the trigger (with your logic).

Good point -- but at the same time, what's to stop someone from developing an eye that registers "ok to fire" as soon as the ball is far enough into the breech that the bolt will "pull" the ball in the rest of the way?

Of course we could also look at it the other way around and say that one of the advantages to having an eye rather than an anti-chop bolt is that in the case where the ball hasn't fully loaded you delay the firing of a shot for only a fraction of a cycle, rather than having to complete a full "pinch" cycle before you can actually fire the ball.


EDIT: Oh yeah, and I don't doubt the clip shows 18bps... I only wrote cps to be precise (because I was counting gun cycles rather than balls out the barrel). Although on thinking about it, I would imagine that the sonic signature of a dry-fire would be somewhat different than a shot signature, so maybe I should have written bps since the waveform was pretty consistent... whatever

[WickedAirSportz]

An anti-chop system actually slows down your cycling to match the feed rate. This technically increases your rate of fire by eliminating chops and pinches.

I don't think that holding off the cycle for a few hundred millseconds is some big cheat thing. It's technology allowing the marker to fire the same rate the trigger is pulled without chopping/pinching.

[Butterfingers]

Ahh I see the battle is still going in my absense.

Just to clear things up it is in fact shot buffering any way you look at it. Anything that delays the shot more than the physycal response time of the electronics is shot buffering.

The shocker Turbo used this type of technology years ago except instead of using the eye as a refrence it buffred to a preset bps. I am not sure of the rules on turbo guns nowadays.

Ill give Jim Credit when it is due. I think the technology of his board comes from the quality of the components he uses to make them. From what I have read the technology is pretty simple...

Wether or not it should be legal is a whole other debate.

Jim If I had a dollar for every time you said...

"You just can't comprehend what I say. I explain exactly how the product(s) work, and you disagree. That's funny, considering that *I* created these products and I obviously know how they work."

I would probably be pretty well off right now :)

We understand what you tell us but the problem with what you tell us is that it is surrounded by marketing hooplah.

For example: I have created a device that will revolutionize the way we carry ourselves in life. This tool is crafted out af high quality stainless steel. Its contours are computer designed to enhance comfort and volume to scoop ratio. Our device enables you to move matter quicker than other competitive devices. It is the latest technology available for this purpose. Because of the way it works, ease of use, and the efficency this device I can honestly say it has Artifical Intelegence.

I just described a spoon.

Gimme a break its a board with a beefed up power supply, a buffer system that uses the eye as a refrence, programmed to have greater resolution for trigger input.

[Jack & Coke]

"...be the spoon..."

[WickedAirSportz]

LOL!

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
An anti-chop system actually slows down your cycling to match the feed rate. This technically increases your rate of fire by eliminating chops and pinches.

I don't think that holding off the cycle for a few hundred millseconds is some big cheat thing. It's technology allowing the marker to fire the same rate the trigger is pulled without chopping/pinching.

I agree and think that is a good thing.

I don't think electronic guns should be limited to the technology level of mechanical guns. Next thing we will be saying air sources should be limited to the energy in 12g's and that hoppers should only be able to have 10 balls in them (like tubes) and let's face it, that just won't work. Technology is always moving forwards.

You know I used to think there was a lot more people 'cheating' using the bounce factor of the WAS boards until I got mine. Some people do and are, but many are not. I would like to know more of what is happening at speed though...

As long as there is no trigger bounce then the gun is abiding by the rules of one shot = one trigger pull.

How long is it OK for it to make that shot after the pull is registered? Well as long as it isn't a long enough period to be unsafe I don't think it matters. Let's face it, if I pull the trigger in any gun, there is a lock time before the shot is fired. With a cocker you have to wait for the hammer to come forwards (quite quick) and with a spyder you wait for the hammer and bolt etc to comne forwards (slower). So there is ALWAYS a delay between pulling the trigger and a ball being fired. What does it matter if it's a variable delay depending on wether a ball is present or not just as long as that delay doesn't become dangerous? (and I don't think it is).

With an intimidator the forward pulse of the solenoid can be anywhere from 6-15ms quite happily. Which is faster than most other guns currently. It may take up to 59ms for a ball to drop under gravity (not sure where you got your 76ms value from Jim? but it doesn't fit my maths nor many people's real tests with electro cockers etc.) So if you pull the trigger for a second time as the breech is completely blocked still from the first shot the longest it will wait to implement your shot is around 74ms (maybe that's where Jim got the 76ms?) with my gun and a 10ms dwell it would wait a maxium of 69ms with a gravity fed loader... I use a halo which I know from an electro cocker can feed balls reliably in 20ms so the maximum time until a ball is fired is 30ms... and that's if a ball wasn't already loaded! let alone if it was partly on the way. I don't believe that is far off how long it takes a spyder or many other guns to fire...

I do disagree with the idea that a rounded bolt face can pull the ball in if not fed properly, it can but only if the ball is almost completely into the breech, and the time left for the ball to drop is only very short. To time a gun to work that way is NOT going to do it reliably. I used to know exactly when you could start the bolt coming forwards but I will need to look through an old post/notes to find that. In the mean time you can see why it's not really true by these images. It's a nice idea but doesn't work that well in practice due to the shape of a sphere.

[WickedAirSportz]

(maybe that's where Jim got the 76ms?)

Yes, that was the worst case scenario I was giving.

[hitech]

Originally posted by manike
As long as there is no trigger bounce then the gun is abiding by the rules of one shot = one trigger pull.

Yes. However, I still firmly believe that the word when should be added to the rule. We could clarify the "when" to state that the firing cycle must start when the trigger is pulled. In addition I believe that the rules should also state that only one firing cycle definition is allowed. The timing of ANY component of the cycle may not change from one cycle to the next (no "ramping" of the dwell).

Also, on a somewhat different note, the current crop of "hair" triggers that will fire if the marker is bumped should be considered illegal under the current rules. NO trigger was pulled and the marker fired. Those things are dangerous.

[manike]

Originally posted by hitech
Yes. However, I still firmly believe that the word when should be added to the rule. We could clarify the "when" to state that the firing cycle must start when the trigger is pulled.

So what's a firing cycle?

With a cocker, the firing cycle is mechanical operations which start with the pull of a trigger and then the release of the hammer.

With a cocker if I pinch a ball my firing cycle is not going to start with releasing the hammer... it's going to start by recocking the gun to release that ball. This is changing the firing cycle... should it not be allowed?

Same goes with level 10... If there is a ball in the way my firing cycle is varied in it's operation.

With the Intimidator a firing cycle is an electronic controlled sequence of events which starts with the pull of a trigger.

The 'firing cycle' of the Timmy takes into account what to do with when the trigger pull was made, and wether a ball is loaded or not. All of those decisions are part of one firing cycle. It has less ability to make 'substantial changes' to the firing cycle than the cocker and level 10 mag...

Although saying that, just like the cocker and level 10 mag, if a ball isn't ready to fire it can stop that shot being made. :)

Originally posted by hitech
In addition I believe that the rules should also state that only one firing cycle definition is allowed. The timing of ANY component of the cycle may not change from one cycle to the next (no "ramping" of the dwell).

Agreed when it comes to the dwell.

But obviously the time between shots is allowed to be varied

[hitech]

Originally posted by manike
So what's a firing cycle?

What happens when a paintball is fired from a marker. I'm not trying to be funny, if the marker does not fire a paintball then it wasn't a firing cycle. I have no problem with fire interuptus. What I was saying is that the cycle that fires a paintball should ALWAYS be the same, within the confines of what is under the control of the marker. The marker does not have to fire if the trigger is pulled.

Manike, you are someone people in the industry listen to. Although I think the changes I have outlined are important, I think the issue of "hair" triggers is far more important. If you can fire a marker by bumping it shouldn't it be considered illegal under the current rules? Is that enforcement something you are willing to lobby for? I think those markers are dangerous. Do you agree?

Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

[manike]

Originally posted by hitech
Although I think the changes I have outlined are important, I think the issue of "hair" trigger is far more important. If you can fire a marker by bumping it shouldn't it be considered illegal under the current rules? Is that enforcement something you are willing to lobby for? I think those markers are dangerous. Do you agree?

I agree 100%... I was going to edit and quote you in the last post but forgot before I hit reply. :)

You will notice in the Millennium Tournament (European series) rules that a marker is illegal if you can make it fire by apply a force to it other than directly to the trigger.

11.4 Any marker which can be made to fire without applying a foce external to the marker directly to it's trigger is illegal

That means if you bump the gun and it goes bang then it is illegal. I expect this to be similar to NPPL rules since I know they are trying to sing off the same hymn sheet.

[hitech]

THANK YOU.

Any chance of getting you to push my other ideas?