Anybody have experience with the WAS turborev board

[Dude]

I don't want to spend the money on a warp feed and I would like to not have to buy a HALO. I'd like to know if anyone has one of these and how well it works.

thanks,
Michael

[manike]

I don't have one, but did spend quite a lot of time putting paint through one at the cup on an Aardvark Matrix. (between myself and several others we put over a case of paint through it easily).

We could get the gun to shoot very fast and so were trying different hoppers to see what would feed it the best.

In my opinion there was only a very slight difference when shooting the matrix with the Turborev board than with a standard 12V rev. They were both skipping a lot of shots. My perception and opinion was that the Turbo Rev was slightly better but not significantly so.

We also tried a Richochet and that appeared to feed better again, although there were still quite a few skipped shots.

We didn't get to try a Halo

I've also read posts about the claims made by the manufacturer of the Turbo Rev and I do not believe them or the theory he tries to present behind how his system works. I think much of his claims are hype and as my sig below says 'Don't believe the hype' It is still only a gravity based system. A little better than the 12V rev but not enough to warrant the money in my opinion.

I'd wait for the Halo, which looks impressive or get the free (is it still? it was at the World Cup I believe, but may be $10 now) X-board upgrade for your 12v Rev. If you don't have a loader already and want to buy one urgently I'd go for the Richochet. I was pleasantly suprised by how well it worked

manike

[Russ]

I have Revy's with the WAS TurboRev board, X boards and standard boards. The TurboRev board works no better than the X boards (BTW, the X boards now come in all new revys, and can be purchased as an upgrade for $15) The TurboRev and X boards both eliminate the slight delay that occurs in revy's.

TurboRev has those crappy 9v "pads" that you have to clip onto each battery. IMO not very durable. The paddles spin a bit longer than an X-boarded revy, but I don't know if that's a good thing. The TurboRev has all kinds of blinky lights and "modes", all which really don't help my game out any. Once you turn it on, it will stop spinning after 2 seconds when it detects that there are no balls left. It will automatically shut off after being idle for 15min, and that feature can be disabled, if you should so choose (one of the "modes")

X-board revy's are very good, and cost around $60 complete.
The TurboRev board costs over $40, and just isn't worth it, IMO.

What's cool about revy's is that if you crack a shell, or break the cover, etc, spare parts are readily available.

[ah137]

I do not recommend the T-rev board; I purchased one and sold it. Basically because of the same reasons as listed above.
I had the battery wires pull out on me to.

[Gecko]

Turbo Rev
would not keep up with the emag at 12 bps........
it's just okay on my excal at 13 bps still miss shots in long streams
Gecko

[WickedAirSportz]

There are a lot of doubters out there, but all of the independant testing has shown a significant improvement in feeding when using the TurboRev, and nobody can deny this.

How the TurboRev really works is quite simple:

The computer monitors the balls as they fall and counts the time between balls and builds a pattern recognition table based on changes made to the motor's speed and torque.

Basically, what we are trying to accomplish here is to cause the cycling of the bolt to match when an impeller blade strikes the balls at the top of the stack, causing the stack to be accelerated downward as the bolt returns. This process takes between 16 and 32 balls, with a space duration of 100ms or less (constant trigger pull of 10bps or more) in order to achieve maximum performance. Full auto is easy to achieve this as it is always the same time between "pulls".

By causing the stack to be accelerated, you can exceed the speed of gravity. It is interesting that the drop testing shows a little bit of the benefit, but computer can not syncronize to random falling, so it attempts to do the best it can.

If the blades are not bent flat, the top ball(s) of the stack are missed (not touched) and the stack is sometimes accelerated or not at all! Having the blades bent flat is the key!

The Evolution impeller works well in drop tests for many people, but it will NOT work well with the on-gun testing as the blades are not long enough to hit the top ball(s).

It's not "hype" if it works. Above is an exact explanation of how the product works. It took 3 months to get the software to work properly, so have at it if you want to make one yourself! ;-)

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
There are a lot of doubters out there, but all of the independant testing has shown a significant improvement in feeding when using the TurboRev, and nobody can deny this.

That is very true, and I will not deny it is an improvement over the standard rev. What it does not do is acheive the rates of feed that you claim it does. It is very good for a reliable feed rate but the rate is not 18, or 16bps if that is what you have brought your claims down to now. If you are still selling the product on the basis that is will allow you to shoot at 16bps with any gun (which is what you were claiming) then you are selling hype in my opinion and many others also.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
How the TurboRev really works is quite simple:

It appears to be It appears to slow the paddle down when it notices lots of balls going past the eye. Nice idea that works as the remaining balls are less likely to be 'pingponged around'. If it does more than that I'm impressed but I think your coding time was wasted...

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Basically, what we are trying to accomplish here is to cause the cycling of the bolt to match when an impeller blade strikes the balls at the top of the stack, causing the stack to be accelerated downward as the bolt returns. This process takes between 16 and 32 balls, with a space duration of 100ms or less (constant trigger pull of 10bps or more) in order to achieve maximum performance. Full auto is easy to achieve this as it is always the same time between "pulls".

It is a good thing to try and achieve it but the eye detection and paddle system is not ever going to be able to achieve this in a regular enough pattern to allow a major improvement due to one ball falling and hitting the stack below and thus accelerating the balls below it faster! What you are looking for is an improvement in feed time over the 13bps that gravity can happily achieve.

That means that you are trying to feed a paintball in faster than 56ms (a time calculated with a fast cycling gun) now you are trying to use an eye to detect that there is a ball missing or balls moving by the eye. And then get this to make a paddle hit a ball into tube such that it will catch up with the stack below at just the right point (in that 56ms time period) so that it can impart some more energy on the ball stack and accelerate it... Well not very likely.

Firstly the paddle has no way of accurately locating a ball in the hopper to make fall into the tube in that 56ms. It is swinging around blindly trying to hit a ball, for your system to have any chance it would need to have a ball ready to be released into the tube at just the right moment. There is no way of telling where exactly the paddle arms are or where they are in relation to a ball to ensure it loads one down the tube at the correct point in time (and that is a small time window).

It's like someone spinning around on a turntable and trying to catch a bullet in their teeth as they hear the gun shot. They may not even be facing in the right direction...

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
By causing the stack to be accelerated, you can exceed the speed of gravity. It is interesting that the drop testing shows a little bit of the benefit, but computer can not syncronize to random falling, so it attempts to do the best it can.

This amuses me. "computer can not syncronize to random falling" You said it. When someone is pulling their trigger in semi auto this is a randomn pattern and thus the stack above the breech is falling in a randomn pattern. Since you just said your computer can not synchronise to a randomn pattern you are saying your system can not work...

How can your system work slower in a drop test than you claim it will work on a gun? A drop test would be exactly the same as if the gun was immediately shooting out the balls as they dropped. In this case you would have a fast firing gun and your system 'should' be working it's 'magic' to feed it with paint. This should mean that your system puts the paintballs out of the hopper as quickly as it possibly can. When this test is performed the average rate of feed is less than the rate you claim for it when on a gun and firing paint...

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
If the blades are not bent flat, the top ball(s) of the stack are missed (not touched) and the stack is sometimes accelerated or not at all! Having the blades bent flat is the key!

The Key? Please explain why? The key to having your system work would be a paddle like the evolutions that holds paintballs ready to be dropped and a system that knows where that paddle is in relation to the tube. Your system has neither.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
It's not "hype" if it works. Above is an exact explanation of how the product works. It took 3 months to get the software to work properly, so have at it if you want to make one yourself! ;-)

It is hype if it doesn't do what you claim it to. Your above explanation is severely lacking and in my opinion will not make a major benefit to feeding. This has been shown in Warpig's test and by my own unofficial tests at the World Cup where we shot a lot of paint through different loaders on the new LCD Matrix to see how they and the Matrix performed.

I'm afraid your 3 months of software testing would yield the same results as a board which just starts immediately and quickly and slows down a little if it notices lots of balls passing the eye. I don't see anything else special happening with your hopper. It certainly didn't seem to stop and start and change speed as each ball was fed in order to properly time the next ball...

Don't believe the hype!

manike

[ah137]

manike, that was nice.

[WickedAirSportz]

Firstly the paddle has no way of accurately locating a ball in the hopper to make fall into the tube in that 56ms. It is swinging around blindly trying to hit a ball, for your system to have any chance it would need to have a ball ready to be released into the tube at just the right moment. There is no way of telling where exactly the paddle arms are or where they are in relation to a ball to ensure it loads one down the tube at the correct point in time (and that is a small time window).

This is definitely where we disagree. By altering the motor speed and torque level (up or down, a little at a time based on the space between balls), you can determine if you are affecting the space (time) between balls. By varying the speed (which does occur constantly not just once as you seem to imply), you can adjust the paddle position to make a difference in the timing. This is not 100% accurate, that is, not every ball gets accelerated due to the nature of the hopper design, but it is definitely enough to make a substantial improvement in the feeding.

The computer relies on a certain window, like you describe, and when that window can not be achieved after 32 balls it sticks to one speed. I have changed the software (beta versions) so that when the time between balls has exceeded a long period, the motor speed is greatly reduced... this fixed Warpig's '15 balls in the hopper test', and does not affect the upper end performance.

I'm afraid your 3 months of software testing would yield the same results as a board which just starts immediately and quickly and slows down a little if it notices lots of balls passing the eye. I don't see anything else special happening with your hopper. It certainly didn't seem to stop and start and change speed as each ball was fed in order to properly time the next ball...

The speed does change, and is infinitely variable by the computer. The motor does get shut off longer periods than it is on (duty cycle is adjusted) to achieve the positioning.

Don't believe the hype - believe the results. :-)

[hardr0ck68]

hmmm i have 2 mags....after reading this i think one is goin to be intelli feed and the other is gettin a halo....

[mag59459]

I have the turbo rev that I put on my 9v, I did my own tests and got 13-14 bps everytime. This is a great deal for me because I got a nice hopper out of a 9v (7 bps). I recomend the turbo rev if you have a 9v and can't afford a halo because you aren't rich like everyone else around here. It may not be worth it if you have a 12v but it was a great deal for me.