Modularity

[y0da900]

To not clutter the signup thread with it, this is for discussion of modularity as mentioned by rabid in the other thread

I'd also like to focus everyone's attention on the concept of 'modularity' and the concept of a self-contained feed system (eg, one built into the marker itself).

My thoughts on the matter:

Modularity has some real positives going for it, and a few potential drawbacks as well. It would require creation of, and adherence to, published mechanical/electrical specs (which I mentioned wanting to do before). These specs should allow for both a more compatible product, but it can also eventually lead to more competition, more choices, and lower prices. It allows someone to design a product that will instantly be compatible with a larger range of products, and products that may well work better than one designed around having reverse engineered a representative sample to test for fit and tolerances (both costly, time consuming, and a potential source of error).

Modularity allows for far greater customization in a product, as you are now shopping for an accessory or part, not a product X accessory or part. Sure, there will still be product specific everything, there is no avoiding that without alienating a ton of designs, but there are a lot of options that are open. How many times have you seen someone spouting off on the nation about how cool their gun is because it has XXX frame on it. With a modular spec that contains grip frame specs, they could all be interchangeable.

How about a single gun that can do it all. You get one of a variety of models or a base body kit, and modify it as you see fit. You love a body style, but aren't a fan of the operating system, get the base body and make it yours. Sort of like someone building a spimmy from a spyder, a cocker from a sniper. A one size fits all set of components that allows for almost complete customization of how you want to play that day. Easy no real modification required drop in conversions from blowback, to EP, to pump/stock class pump, to an Aedes like gun. Just an idea of something that can happen with a modular design concept.

One of the drawbacks of modularity: as mentioned above with the single do it all gun, there is a chance that a somewhat inferior design is pushed out for the sole purpose of it being modular. Like guns that are designed for the sole purpose to be small, some shortcuts may have been taken that shouldn't have all to save that 1/8 of an inch on the design. Some people have said in the past that the original Intimidators could have been a lot better had Bob Long not based them around the purpose of reusing Spyder bodies, but nobody (or very few people) but him knows for sure what he really sacrificed in the design by doing that.. There is a time and a place for modularity, but it could be really easy to sell yourself short by being preoccupied with complying to the specs that allow for the modularity to exist.

[questionful]

Does anyone have a good link to a list of paintball standards? I think that would be useful. And if there aren't any for a particular subject, maybe we can make some??

[y0da900]

Does anyone have a good link to a list of paintball standards? I think that would be useful. And if there aren't any for a particular subject, maybe we can make some??

There aren't many publically available standards. Cocker barrels for instance are usually accepted as being 15/16-20, but due to a toleranced spec never being released, there are compatibility issues with them. ASA threads are standardized across the industry, not much else is. Even the threading that goes between the tanks and the tank valves/regs have been deviated from on occasion. Most of them are consistent, but there are floaters out there. There are some safety standards that are adhered to for the most part, but I don't think there is much specific to the sport. Which is one of the goals of the group, or at least I strongly believe it should be.

Aside from that, a lot of technical information can be found on the Ratsnest (some of them company standards, but little is industry wide).
http://haveblue.org/tech/

[questionful]

Okay, besides following new standards ourselves, what can we do to make other people use our standards? Seems like it would be pretty hard for AO to do.

[rabidchihauhau]

well, without giving too much away, there is "modularity" so far as industry wide standards go and then there is "modularity" when it comes to a single product having a wide-open plan for accessorizing.

My thought-project for this group was (although I didn't say so) was directed towards a single product, specifically, a marker.

I'd like to see a marker that starts with a "base" component and which can then be morphed into different applications. Start with it bone stock. add a pump kit. add a (non-stock) feed. replace the pump kit with a semi-auto attachement. introduce electronics. slap the whole thing into an "M16" simulator body...

Now, so far as industry-wide modularity goes, there are some things that can't be addressed because of the proprietary nature of some designs. But it seems to me that one area that would benefit from our nascent group would be the design AND production of adapters.

Several companies have introduced different kinds of adapters for specific purposes; for example, pro-team brought out a spyder bottom line adapter that allowed standard, non-metric bottomlines to be used with the angled, metric arrangement on spyder grips. They did one for JT/BE/VL markers as well. LAPCO did a line of barrel thread adapters, this thread to that thread, etc.

There are opportunities with hose fittings, grips (in many cases a "rail" would allow, say, a kingman frame to be fitted to a matrix.)

A GOOD set of well-engineered adapters that adhere to their own open source standards, might provide an option for both moving the industry in the direction of standardizing and offer a viable product line.

[y0da900]

My thought-project for this group was (although I didn't say so) was directed towards a single product, specifically, a marker.

I'd like to see a marker that starts with a "base" component and which can then be morphed into different applications. Start with it bone stock. add a pump kit. add a (non-stock) feed. replace the pump kit with a semi-auto attachement. introduce electronics. slap the whole thing into an "M16" simulator body...

How about a single gun that can do it all. You get one of a variety of models or a base body kit, and modify it as you see fit. You love a body style, but aren't a fan of the operating system, get the base body and make it yours. Sort of like someone building a spimmy from a spyder, a cocker from a sniper. A one size fits all set of components that allows for almost complete customization of how you want to play that day. Easy no real modification required drop in conversions from blowback, to EP, to pump/stock class pump, to an Aedes like gun. Just an idea of something that can happen with a modular design concept.

Nice to see that we are on the same page without trying. I've got a file floating around on one of my drives somewhere that I have a bunch of ideas and hurdles for exactly this written down on, what I was calling my Core concept. Now I need to dig it up so I can share it.

[questionful]

I was kinda thinking about this too trying to design my dream marker mechanism. I got stuck because I didn't know which route to take. I was hoping this group could figure out what is the best route. Someone find a NDA fast!!