[Jack Wood]

So, obviously time to re-visit back-spin bolts then, heh?

If these rounds only show an improvement of a fraction of an inch over normal balls at 75ft, then that is virtually identical to the results you got from the backspin bolt tests IIRC..............

This post has been edited by Jack Wood: 15 February 2009 - 09:02 AM

[brycelarson]

Jack Wood, on Feb 15 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

So, obviously time to re-visit back-spin bolts then, heh?

If these rounds only show an improvement of a fraction of an inch over normal balls at 75ft, then that is virtually identical to the results you got from the backspin bolt tests IIRC..............

yes, the backspin was about an inch higher on average. I hesitate to compare this to that test until I have a larger sample size of regular paint to first strike rounds. having a sample size of only 8 means that one high flyer on the regular paint could skew the results to a much greater degree than at a higher sample size.

However, there is a big difference - and that was the apparent velocity at range. I may shoot the paint again today to get video of the time to impact - but the first strike seemed to arrive at the target much more quickly - while the backspin didn't.

I think I'll just go shoot my garage - then I can look at the audio track of the first strike and the paint - and see how much faster the first strike was going at impact.

[Jack Wood]

brycelarson, on Feb 15 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

Jack Wood, on Feb 15 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

So, obviously time to re-visit back-spin bolts then, heh?

If these rounds only show an improvement of a fraction of an inch over normal balls at 75ft, then that is virtually identical to the results you got from the backspin bolt tests IIRC..............

yes, the backspin was about an inch higher on average. I hesitate to compare this to that test until I have a larger sample size of regular paint to first strike rounds. having a sample size of only 8 means that one high flyer on the regular paint could skew the results to a much greater degree than at a higher sample size.

However, there is a big difference - and that was the apparent velocity at range. I may shoot the paint again today to get video of the time to impact - but the first strike seemed to arrive at the target much more quickly - while the backspin didn't.

I think I'll just go shoot my garage - then I can look at the audio track of the first strike and the paint - and see how much faster the first strike was going at impact.

Do you have a copy of Goldwave? If not, there is a free download of it. That should give you a highly accurate way of measuring the time between fire and strike.. I might be tempted to put the mic (camera) near the target so you can get the bang of the gun and thwack of the round on target.

And these are two completley different modes of operation here. They can't be compared by the same method of time-to target.

This post has been edited by Jack Wood: 15 February 2009 - 11:30 AM

[brycelarson]

Jack Wood, on Feb 15 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Do you have a copy of Goldwave? If not, there is a free download of it. That should give you a highly accurate way of measuring the time between fire and strike.. I might be tempted to put the mic (camera) near the target so you can get the bang of the gun and thwack of the round on target.

And these are two completley different modes of operation here. They can't be compared by the same method of time-to target.

If I do it I'll set the rig up to match the shots that I got yesterday. I suppose if I get really crazy I can even account for the speed of sound at 30 deg. F to shorten the time to target.

I've got plenty of audio editing software - I work in theatre and live event production - I spend way too much time in front of my computer with my headphones on.

and yes, trying to draw parallels between these rounds and backspin is a dangerous thing. These rounds are obviously a superior projectile to a ball - regardless of what you do to that ball as you fire it. There's a very good reason that bullets gained the shape they did - and rifled barrels took over from smooth-bore guns shooting balls. They just work better.

The real question with these rounds - as CockerPunk said in his video - isn't if they really work - it's how they'll be used and allowed in games.

I'm one of those guys that after 10+ years playing paintball has a really good sense of when they other guys can actually hit me. I had to re-adjust a bit when the flatline came out - but not too much since they're going so slow at range. I'll be the guy standing in the open just outside of reliable shooting range in a game yelling at the other team - because it's fun. Mix in two guys on that other team hauling Tiberius guns and I'll have to start to re-think that.

I dunno if they'll catch on and the FPO thing is going to be a big stumbling block - but they're certainly fun to shoot.

[Crome]

a little off topic but I watched the vid that CP just did on his opinion on these and he said they are plastic? how is that going to work out in the woods? gelatin breaks down over time and after a while is completely absorbed into the woods, these will be laying around in little fragments for who knows how long... I think they are going to find resistance from land owners if they cant find a solution to that.... or maybe Im way off base here

anyone have an opinion on that?

[brycelarson]

they're UV / biodegradable plastic. Dunno how long they're going to last - but they will break down.

[jb512]

Can someone link to a dual chrono test on regular paintballs? I would like to see the numbers on that.

[csskiller]

Cockerpunk, I'm just wondering, it being 30 ish degrees where you are (that's WARM! ) Do you think that there could be some contraction of the barrel due to the temperature?

I'm not sure what the magnitude of the contraction would be though.

I'm just saying this as you were testing the bore of the paintballs.

[cockerpunk]

csskiller, on Feb 15 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Cockerpunk, I'm just wondering, it being 30 ish degrees where you are (that's WARM! ) Do you think that there could be some contraction of the barrel due to the temperature?

I'm not sure what the magnitude of the contraction would be though.

I'm just saying this as you were testing the bore of the paintballs.

well that was bryce doing the outdoor test ... but ...

thermal coefficient of aluminum is .000012 in/in*f so no, there really isn't a huge thermal shrink going on there. .685(.000012)(72-30) = .0003 inches.

and he wasn't testing the bore of the barrel or anything, just comparing accuracy.

[themonkman]

Just a non-technical comment: I would be very surprised if field owners that have FPO rules disallowed them for use. People who use these rounds aren't going to be using a lot of them due to the price and the projected profit margin loss from allowing their use would be so negligible that it wouldn't be worth pissing off players by banning their use on FPO fields.

I'm sure scenario producers that only allow event paint would not care much.

[jb512]

the FPO solution is fields will start selling this.

I dont really see this becoming a primarily used round, just a "sniper round" if it is living up to Mike has said

[csskiller]

cockerpunk, on Feb 15 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

csskiller, on Feb 15 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Cockerpunk, I'm just wondering, it being 30 ish degrees where you are (that's WARM! ) Do you think that there could be some contraction of the barrel due to the temperature?

I'm not sure what the magnitude of the contraction would be though.

I'm just saying this as you were testing the bore of the paintballs.

well that was bryce doing the outdoor test ... but ...

thermal coefficient of aluminum is .000012 in/in*f so no, there really isn't a huge thermal shrink going on there. .685(.000012)(72-30) = .0003 inches.

and he wasn't testing the bore of the barrel or anything, just comparing accuracy.

Sorry, I confuse the two of you a lot..

But yeah, I didn't have a table nearby, but I guessed it would have been very small

[cockerpunk]

csskiller, on Feb 15 2009, 09:13 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on Feb 15 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

csskiller, on Feb 15 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Cockerpunk, I'm just wondering, it being 30 ish degrees where you are (that's WARM! ) Do you think that there could be some contraction of the barrel due to the temperature?

I'm not sure what the magnitude of the contraction would be though.

I'm just saying this as you were testing the bore of the paintballs.

well that was bryce doing the outdoor test ... but ...

thermal coefficient of aluminum is .000012 in/in*f so no, there really isn't a huge thermal shrink going on there. .685(.000012)(72-30) = .0003 inches.

and he wasn't testing the bore of the barrel or anything, just comparing accuracy.

Sorry, I confuse the two of you a lot..

But yeah, I didn't have a table nearby, but I guessed it would have been very small

last summer my internship was about super high tolerances boring and other machining. were talking hitting .000005 targets with machining operations. so i practically have all the thermal coefficients memorized.

[jb512]

Anyone think tiberius do anything special at phoenix as in start selling them or something of that nature?

[vijil]

There are so many tests that could be done with this... suddenly I'm wishing I had a wind tunnel.

In any case it seems clear that these have less drag than a regular ball.

I wonder if the comparative results change much at 100 feet, or 150 feet... also wondering whether it would be possible to demonstrate that it's less affected by wind.

[cockerpunk]

vijil, on Feb 16 2009, 02:01 AM, said:

There are so many tests that could be done with this... suddenly I'm wishing I had a wind tunnel.

In any case it seems clear that these have less drag than a regular ball.

I wonder if the comparative results change much at 100 feet, or 150 feet... also wondering whether it would be possible to demonstrate that it's less affected by wind.

its pretty safe to say that we arn't done testing these bad boys.

[Jack Wood]

Gordon, what are your thoughts now on going back and looking at backspin bolts at longer ranges? Considering that at 75 foot the FS round yielded almost identical longituninal gains as the backsping bolts which you condemned as "statistically insignificant"?

This post has been edited by Jack Wood: 16 February 2009 - 06:07 AM

[Spitlebug]

Bryce, how does your coordinate system work? I assume that 0,0 is dead center and positive X values go to the right, negative X values to the left. The same with positive Y values being up and negative values being down? Is this just an assumed coordinate system and what is the unit of measure (inches)?

I think these are important if one wanted to plot out each trajectory. Looking at these in a three dimensional view may also be important factors considering that the Tiberius paintballs may fly in a different manner than a conventional paintball.

[Troy]

brycelarson, on Feb 15 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

I'm one of those guys that after 10+ years playing paintball has a really good sense of when they other guys can actually hit me. I had to re-adjust a bit when the flatline came out - but not too much since they're going so slow at range. I'll be the guy standing in the open just outside of reliable shooting range in a game yelling at the other team - because it's fun. Mix in two guys on that other team hauling Tiberius guns and I'll have to start to re-think that.

My thoughts exactly. I've found one of the best ways to inspire enough confidence in bunch of new players is to be bold and stand out in the open so they can see it CAN be done.

I count one of my finest moments jumping out into the open and creating a skirmish line that squashed an enemy charge into our position at the D-Day field. They had to go straight through MY valley, and I was damned sure that I wasn't going to let that happen.

[Snipez4664]

Jack Wood, on Feb 16 2009, 06:06 AM, said:

Gordon, what are your thoughts now on going back and looking at backspin bolts at longer ranges? Considering that at 75 foot the FS round yielded almost identical longituninal gains as the backsping bolts which you condemned as "statistically insignificant"?

I'd also like to see that compared to the "trajectory calculator"...the backspin doesn't tend to affect drop too much until later in flight.

I believe they'll be revisiting that with the alien test, though.