We have never had a universal measurement of performance for our markers. I propose a measurement based on how consistently a marker shoots (f.p.s.) from shot to shot based on a simple math formula that can not be disputed when provided through a series of chrono readings.
-
-
Look up variance and standard deviation. -
Step 1: Find good paint.Last of the Salzburg ClanComment
-
This is old, but still relevant:
And those calculations are based on every paintball being the same size, shape & weight...Which isn't true.CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
The measurement for performance standards lies with the RT valve. 26 balls per second without shootdown. It has never been beat and never will. If you can beat that then show me the video.
Comment
-
Devil's advocate: Perhaps, but this is on a marker not universally allowed for play.
Step 1: Define rules of entry.
Step 2: Find good paint.Last of the Salzburg ClanComment
-
From shot to shot at different BPS. WHAT is the most consistent gun at 10 or 15 BPS?
I asked this before.
Here
http://automags.org/forums/showthrea...-Who-can-do-it
http://automags.org/forums/showthrea...-So-who-has-itComment
-
Calling goatboy.....
Comment
-
Sorry I missed your call. Please leave your message at the beep.
nak81783 pretty much pointed it out though: FPS variation will vary based on paint. In fact, I believe it actually dominates the shape of your distribution curve.
For instance, I ran the same batch of paint through the same barrel, same day, but on 2 different markers here:
Look at 2013-06-29, with Automag and Spyder. X is FPS, Y is frequency.
The center of the curves (the velocity setpoint) were different, but the shape of both curves appear very, similar. Standard deviation was 6.17 vs 6.19.
In that example, I was essentially holding the paint constant and varying the gun.
Doing so in a repeatable, verifiable way (such that many people can reproduce and validate the results) is tricky. You only have so many shots before you have to open another bag, and who knows what you'll be getting with that second bag.
You really need a reference sphere that everyone can obtain and agree on. And you need enough of them. And a reference barrel to go with that sphere.
I think this came up in the CCM SR1 development as well. Read the description in the video -- "it ain't the gun".
So you either have the reference sphere and reference barrel (which themselves require validation), or you find some way to measure and normalize results based on deviations from the reference. Uh... good luck with that, I guess?
But the sad fact is most guns in a "modern" (oh god I'm starting to use that word now) configuration can easily do this task pretty well. Well enough that the error from the gun is probably dwarfed by by the error from just the paint/barrel. Paint nowadays is way better than it used to be, but it is still (measurably) imperfect."Accuracy by aiming."
Definitely not on the A-Team.Comment
-
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Ball stream and shot sound looked good enough..lolComment
-
Video says modified DM8. Any idea what the mods are, if they're legal, etc.? Just gotta be fair since I played devil's advocate against the RT Valve as well.Last of the Salzburg ClanComment
-
Probably had a extra high LPR pressure with a low dwell and blueprinted o'rings on the fusebolt.
I'd still pick a 'mag over a DM (and i've owned them all bar the 11) any-day, mags are hassle free and always work once set up.Comment
Comment