The problem with a standardized board and standardized software is that every marker behaves differently. They have unique solenoid dwell times or even multiple solenoids.
The one thing that is universally the same is that there is a trigger switch of some kind that plugs into the board.
My idea is this: An external board with a small rechargeable battery, in a small enclosure that can be easily mounted somewhere. The trigger switch wire plugs into the auditing board, and the auditing board plugs into the marker's board where the trigger switch originally went to.
No modifications need to be made to the marker besides being able to route the wires outside.
This auditing board can be programmed to limit ROF, have its own shot-buffering system that basically overrides whatever is in the marker's board, and be hard-set to a conservative debounce. There is no effect on how an ACE works or how the marker functions. Say the NXL had something like this auditing board, it could implement NXL FA features on a marker set to semi-auto.
It would need a sound and/or vibration sensor to tell when the marker is firing. I think there are other schemes to determine when a shot was actually fired, but let's leave it at this.
How to defeat this system:
Well, if you have a "cheater" board it does you no good if the auditing board is keeping track of trigger pulls versus shots fired. There would not be a purely software approach to breaking this auditing system. You would need a physical means of defeating it - like fooling with the wiring somehow and give the auditing board false trigger pulls.
Regardless, this is MUCH easier for a scrutinizer to check for - than something hidden in software. He can look at the switch, look at the wire - and say, "Yup, nothing funky going on here," or "How come this trigger switch has an extra wire?"
Tourny's can enforce new rules instantly - like a ROF cap. They want to let you use enhanced firing modes - they can implement it on the auditing board if they choose.
What are the practicality, cost, technical, political, and convenience issues that could prevent such an auditing system? I'm trying to come up with some.
The one thing that is universally the same is that there is a trigger switch of some kind that plugs into the board.
My idea is this: An external board with a small rechargeable battery, in a small enclosure that can be easily mounted somewhere. The trigger switch wire plugs into the auditing board, and the auditing board plugs into the marker's board where the trigger switch originally went to.
No modifications need to be made to the marker besides being able to route the wires outside.
This auditing board can be programmed to limit ROF, have its own shot-buffering system that basically overrides whatever is in the marker's board, and be hard-set to a conservative debounce. There is no effect on how an ACE works or how the marker functions. Say the NXL had something like this auditing board, it could implement NXL FA features on a marker set to semi-auto.
It would need a sound and/or vibration sensor to tell when the marker is firing. I think there are other schemes to determine when a shot was actually fired, but let's leave it at this.
How to defeat this system:
Well, if you have a "cheater" board it does you no good if the auditing board is keeping track of trigger pulls versus shots fired. There would not be a purely software approach to breaking this auditing system. You would need a physical means of defeating it - like fooling with the wiring somehow and give the auditing board false trigger pulls.
Regardless, this is MUCH easier for a scrutinizer to check for - than something hidden in software. He can look at the switch, look at the wire - and say, "Yup, nothing funky going on here," or "How come this trigger switch has an extra wire?"
Tourny's can enforce new rules instantly - like a ROF cap. They want to let you use enhanced firing modes - they can implement it on the auditing board if they choose.
What are the practicality, cost, technical, political, and convenience issues that could prevent such an auditing system? I'm trying to come up with some.






Comment