[minimag13]

Hi, I'm a FNG on the techpb forums. I used the search button but did not see any testing done to establish the best brand of paint. This was surprising to me because reviewing the results of all the past work on this forum seems to suggest that paint is by far the number one factor affecting both accuracy and in-gun/loader breaks. I am just getting back into paintball after 10+ years and it would be a huge help to get some recommendations for what paint to buy. Actual test results would be even better.

Suggested factors in establishing good vs bad paint
not in any logical order
1) seam size and smoothness/roughness
2) shell thickness and brittleness/elasticity
3) weight
4) diameter
5) roundness vs oblongness
6) consistency between balls and batches
7) price
8) resistance to heat/cold/humidity
9) dimpling vs uniform surface

Apologies if this has already been tested or discussed and my noobness made me miss it. Thanks in advance for any advice or contributions.

[mr.satire]

As far as I know none has done anything with paint testing, other than a few tests with dimpling (Rap 4 had something) and a few tests looking at the effect of dimples, and seams.


Funny thing though, I am planning on doing testing on different brands of paint as my college senior project, looking at accuracy, and the factors that contribute to a paintballl's accuracy.

I am planning to do most of what you suggest along with a wind tunnel and computer simulation to look at the aerodynamic affects

This post has been edited by mr.satire: 16 April 2013 - 12:49 PM

[UV Halo]

Cockerpunk or Bryce will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong but, there are several reasons why Punkworks doesn't publish 'brand' ratings or conduct head to head brand testing.

1. Batches within a brand vary significantly from batch to batch, by handling in shipment, and weather.
2. Punkworks isn't intended to be a product review/testing organization, they aim to test specific claims from manufacturers and investigate phenomenon.

For example, they would test something like: "How much does dimpling effect accuracy?" or, "How much do seams affect accuracy?".

They did in fact test First Strike Rounds because there were specific claims made by Tiberius Arms (longer range, higher accuracy).

[Panda Man]

Yeah I really don't want to see "the best paint" I just stay away from White Box stuff unless I'm completely broke. I just try to buy paint from the manufacturer that is closest to my field.

[Sin_Ister611]

To add to previously stated answers, check to see what kind of climate you're going to be playing in and find paint made in he same climate. Paintballs made in the north cold is not going to fair so well with Florida's humid heat.

Kansas sucks because we have what seems like 5 seasons in 1 day but our local fields gi sports 3 star is at a very fair price for quality. Also I'm hearing rps premium might be one of your better all around paints.

[minimag13]

UV Halo, on 16 April 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Cockerpunk or Bryce will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong but, there are several reasons why Punkworks doesn't publish 'brand' ratings or conduct head to head brand testing.

1. Batches within a brand vary significantly from batch to batch, by handling in shipment, and weather.
2. Punkworks isn't intended to be a product review/testing organization, they aim to test specific claims from manufacturers and investigate phenomenon.

For example, they would test something like: "How much does dimpling effect accuracy?" or, "How much do seams affect accuracy?".

They did in fact test First Strike Rounds because there were specific claims made by Tiberius Arms (longer range, higher accuracy).

I hear what you are saying here. I get that the purpose of punkworks isn't to endorse specific brands. I do think that all of the factors I listed are valid phenomena to test though. Consistency between balls and batches, dimpling, and seams were some of the factors I suggested.

Perhaps instead of "what brand is best" the study could be structured as 1) effect of each factor on breaks and accuracy; 2) relative importance of each factor to breaks and accuracy. You would end up with a multi factor model with different betas/loading on each factor that would predict number of breaks and shot grouping of any paint given measurements of the factors for that paint.

The end result will still be what brand of paint is best, but the intention of the study would not be to endorse a specific brand.

Science can have commercial applications while remaining totally unbiased and legitimate.

[UV Halo]

minimag13, on 16 April 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

UV Halo, on 16 April 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Cockerpunk or Bryce will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong but, there are several reasons why Punkworks doesn't publish 'brand' ratings or conduct head to head brand testing.

1. Batches within a brand vary significantly from batch to batch, by handling in shipment, and weather.
2. Punkworks isn't intended to be a product review/testing organization, they aim to test specific claims from manufacturers and investigate phenomenon.

For example, they would test something like: "How much does dimpling effect accuracy?" or, "How much do seams affect accuracy?".

They did in fact test First Strike Rounds because there were specific claims made by Tiberius Arms (longer range, higher accuracy).

I hear what you are saying here. I get that the purpose of punkworks isn't to endorse specific brands. I do think that all of the factors I listed are valid phenomena to test though. Consistency between balls and batches, dimpling, and seams were some of the factors I suggested.

Perhaps instead of "what brand is best" the study could be structured as 1) effect of each factor on breaks and accuracy; 2) relative importance of each factor to breaks and accuracy. You would end up with a multi factor model with different betas/loading on each factor that would predict number of breaks and shot grouping of any paint given measurements of the factors for that paint.

The end result will still be what brand of paint is best, but the intention of the study would not be to endorse a specific brand.

Science can have commercial applications while remaining totally unbiased and legitimate.

I agree, there's loads of valid factors to test. But, there could be problems in ranking the factors as it's extremely difficult to isolate just one variable. For example, if you were to try and just isolate the impact of the seam, you'd need to get balls with the same eccentricity, weight, average diameter, etc, then you could assess the differences in performance based on the sizes of the seam. If memory serves me correctly, rntlee tested the influence of seams on trajectory. His method: manually smooth the seams and compare it to non-modified balls from the same box.

Weight and Diameter influences can be calculated (see my External Ballistics thread for more info)

What you may or may not realize is that manufacturers continuously tweak the production and quality control limits for each and every line of paint they produce. Here's my anecdotal experience with just one brand- Marballizer: For years, I bought and used Marballizer through my local stores without problem however, in those same years, every box of Marballizer bought and used at a Big Game (in custom fill/shell colors) suffered severe bounce or breach/barrel breaks, even in mild climates.

The problem with such a series of testing (all of the factors) is that it would be extremely time and money consuming. If one were to apply that for ranking the individual product lines, the data would only be valid for the period of the testing. For example, GI MilSim, after having several months of good paint in terms of seam size during the testing period, fails in the later part of the year when they tweak the production process to keep up with demand.

[minimag13]

UV Halo, on 16 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

minimag13, on 16 April 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

UV Halo, on 16 April 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Cockerpunk or Bryce will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong but, there are several reasons why Punkworks doesn't publish 'brand' ratings or conduct head to head brand testing.

1. Batches within a brand vary significantly from batch to batch, by handling in shipment, and weather.
2. Punkworks isn't intended to be a product review/testing organization, they aim to test specific claims from manufacturers and investigate phenomenon.

For example, they would test something like: "How much does dimpling effect accuracy?" or, "How much do seams affect accuracy?".

They did in fact test First Strike Rounds because there were specific claims made by Tiberius Arms (longer range, higher accuracy).

I hear what you are saying here. I get that the purpose of punkworks isn't to endorse specific brands. I do think that all of the factors I listed are valid phenomena to test though. Consistency between balls and batches, dimpling, and seams were some of the factors I suggested.

Perhaps instead of "what brand is best" the study could be structured as 1) effect of each factor on breaks and accuracy; 2) relative importance of each factor to breaks and accuracy. You would end up with a multi factor model with different betas/loading on each factor that would predict number of breaks and shot grouping of any paint given measurements of the factors for that paint.

The end result will still be what brand of paint is best, but the intention of the study would not be to endorse a specific brand.

Science can have commercial applications while remaining totally unbiased and legitimate.

I agree, there's loads of valid factors to test. But, there could be problems in ranking the factors as it's extremely difficult to isolate just one variable. For example, if you were to try and just isolate the impact of the seam, you'd need to get balls with the same eccentricity, weight, average diameter, etc, then you could assess the differences in performance based on the sizes of the seam. If memory serves me correctly, rntlee tested the influence of seams on trajectory. His method: manually smooth the seams and compare it to non-modified balls from the same box.

Weight and Diameter influences can be calculated (see my External Ballistics thread for more info)

What you may or may not realize is that manufacturers continuously tweak the production and quality control limits for each and every line of paint they produce. Here's my anecdotal experience with just one brand- Marballizer: For years, I bought and used Marballizer through my local stores without problem however, in those same years, every box of Marballizer bought and used at a Big Game (in custom fill/shell colors) suffered severe bounce or breach/barrel breaks, even in mild climates.

The problem with such a series of testing (all of the factors) is that it would be extremely time and money consuming. If one were to apply that for ranking the individual product lines, the data would only be valid for the period of the testing. For example, GI MilSim, after having several months of good paint in terms of seam size during the testing period, fails in the later part of the year when they tweak the production process to keep up with demand.

This would definitely be a labor of love in terms of time and money. Hopefully Mr. Satire will make a solid stab at the testing for his college project and be kind enough to post his work here.

In terms of manufacturing paintballs I know shockingly little about the subject, other than that it is similar in concept to making gelcap tylenols. I was not aware that manufacturers tweaked their production parameters on such a regular basis. I had assumed that most of the variation between batches of the same paint was due to shipping and storage conditions and quality control at the manufacturing plant.

I will bet that some of the bigger or smarter paint companies have tested many of these variables internally and a lot of this data already exists somewhere. Whether they would share their toys is another story...

[Troy]

UV Halo, on 16 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

I agree, there's loads of valid factors to test. But, there could be problems in ranking the factors as it's extremely difficult to isolate just one variable. For example, if you were to try and just isolate the impact of the seam, you'd need to get balls with the same eccentricity, weight, average diameter, etc, then you could assess the differences in performance based on the sizes of the seam. If memory serves me correctly, rntlee tested the influence of seams on trajectory. His method: manually smooth the seams and compare it to non-modified balls from the same box.

This isn't, necessarily, true (it's just difficult). If you get me the data I'll have someone run an ANOVA on it. It's a statistical test that can isolate variables in multi variable tests... assuming there is enough data available.

[brycelarson]

minimag13, on 16 April 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

I was not aware that manufacturers tweaked their production parameters on such a regular basis. I had assumed that most of the variation between batches of the same paint was due to shipping and storage conditions and quality control at the manufacturing plant.

From what I have gathered in conversation with industry types and some paint manufacturers the recipe for fill and shell varies based on expected conditions of use. That might mean that a company has a summer formula, a winter formula and possible some formulas in-between - in each line.

This, along with unknown storage and age on paint makes the proposed tests interesting - but not necessarily helpful in actually picking what paint you buy. I simply go by the theory of buying above white box and trying to determine of the paint is relatively fresh.

[UV Halo]

minimag13, on 16 April 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

...In terms of manufacturing paintballs I know shockingly little about the subject, other than that it is similar in concept to making gelcap tylenols. I was not aware that manufacturers tweaked their production parameters on such a regular basis. I had assumed that most of the variation between batches of the same paint was due to shipping and storage conditions and quality control at the manufacturing plant.

I will bet that some of the bigger or smarter paint companies have tested many of these variables internally and a lot of this data already exists somewhere. Whether they would share their toys is another story...

It's been awhile since I've seen the process described in paintball media (or even the "How it's Made" Episode covering the process) but, to in short I've heard it described as more of an art than a science largely because they have to respond to the dynamic properties of gelatin and atmospheric conditions at production. This also applies to the drying process. This doesn't even account for intentional pecification changes like the reduction in diameter/bore size that manufacturers make without notifying the consumers.

Troy, on 17 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

This isn't, necessarily, true (it's just difficult). If you get me the data I'll have someone run an ANOVA on it. It's a statistical test that can isolate variables in multi variable tests... assuming there is enough data available.

I'm definitely not going to do this test but, what would a hypothetical satisfactory dataset look like? XXX rounds from each product line, without each round meticulously measured (average diameter, eccentricity, seam condition, weight, etc)?

[PBphilosopher]

UV Halo, on 17 April 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

minimag13, on 16 April 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

...In terms of manufacturing paintballs I know shockingly little about the subject, other than that it is similar in concept to making gelcap tylenols. I was not aware that manufacturers tweaked their production parameters on such a regular basis. I had assumed that most of the variation between batches of the same paint was due to shipping and storage conditions and quality control at the manufacturing plant.

I will bet that some of the bigger or smarter paint companies have tested many of these variables internally and a lot of this data already exists somewhere. Whether they would share their toys is another story...

It's been awhile since I've seen the process described in paintball media (or even the "How it's Made" Episode covering the process) but, to in short I've heard it described as more of an art than a science largely because they have to respond to the dynamic properties of gelatin and atmospheric conditions at production. This also applies to the drying process. This doesn't even account for intentional pecification changes like the reduction in diameter/bore size that manufacturers make without notifying the consumers.

Troy, on 17 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

This isn't, necessarily, true (it's just difficult). If you get me the data I'll have someone run an ANOVA on it. It's a statistical test that can isolate variables in multi variable tests... assuming there is enough data available.

I'm definitely not going to do this test but, what would a hypothetical satisfactory dataset look like? XXX rounds from each product line, without each round meticulously measured (average diameter, eccentricity, seam condition, weight, etc)?

Maybe the best test would be the simplest: Shoot x amount of each paint at a target, y feet away and measure standard deviation.

[Troy]

UV Halo, on 17 April 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Troy, on 17 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

This isn't, necessarily, true (it's just difficult). If you get me the data I'll have someone run an ANOVA on it. It's a statistical test that can isolate variables in multi variable tests... assuming there is enough data available.

I'm definitely not going to do this test but, what would a hypothetical satisfactory dataset look like? XXX rounds from each product line, without each round meticulously measured (average diameter, eccentricity, seam condition, weight, etc)?

I think we could do a test with somewhere between 20-50 shots should do the trick (more is always better though), but your right, we would need data on average diameter, eccentricity, seam condition, weight, shell texture, etc... if you don't measure it, we can't analyze it.

I will point to my, previous, test that showed a significant correlation between a difference in seam to offseam measurement ratios and accuracy (slightly, oblong balls flew straighter)... we were fortunate enough to have measured all the balls before shooting them, and only in the analysis phase did we notice a trend. Just as an example, our dataset was around 80 per different kind of paint tested (but we only had 2 kinds).

[Troy]

PBphilosopher, on 17 April 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

UV Halo, on 17 April 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

minimag13, on 16 April 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

...In terms of manufacturing paintballs I know shockingly little about the subject, other than that it is similar in concept to making gelcap tylenols. I was not aware that manufacturers tweaked their production parameters on such a regular basis. I had assumed that most of the variation between batches of the same paint was due to shipping and storage conditions and quality control at the manufacturing plant.

I will bet that some of the bigger or smarter paint companies have tested many of these variables internally and a lot of this data already exists somewhere. Whether they would share their toys is another story...

It's been awhile since I've seen the process described in paintball media (or even the "How it's Made" Episode covering the process) but, to in short I've heard it described as more of an art than a science largely because they have to respond to the dynamic properties of gelatin and atmospheric conditions at production. This also applies to the drying process. This doesn't even account for intentional pecification changes like the reduction in diameter/bore size that manufacturers make without notifying the consumers.

Troy, on 17 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

This isn't, necessarily, true (it's just difficult). If you get me the data I'll have someone run an ANOVA on it. It's a statistical test that can isolate variables in multi variable tests... assuming there is enough data available.

I'm definitely not going to do this test but, what would a hypothetical satisfactory dataset look like? XXX rounds from each product line, without each round meticulously measured (average diameter, eccentricity, seam condition, weight, etc)?

Maybe the best test would be the simplest: Shoot x amount of each paint at a target, y feet away and measure standard deviation.

It depends on what you want to test. If you want to test the batches of paint sitting in front of you at the time, then that would work great, however, if you want to find anything useful out about accuracy, then you need to record more variables so we can generalize your results.

[drg]

One factor you didn't list but is key to paint effectiveness is fill color/opacity/quality. Nothing about paint matters if the fill is too dark or thin to see.
The other factors are often dependent on batch and storage, i.e. they are not things you can tell in advance of buying a case. Fill color, however, you can.
For this reason I find pro orange-fill ultra evil to be the all around best paint.

This post has been edited by drg: 17 April 2013 - 03:52 PM

[mr.satire]

On a related topic, I will be doing testing, on different paints, but the goal will not be to determine the best brand of paint but rather the best qualities for a paintball.

Im doing this as my senior project for college, and the hope will be to design a theoretical ball, that has a lower drag, better lift..and possibly better accuracy.

If anything I should be able to get a computerized flow model, and determine what causes the inaccuracies in a paintball.

I will be posting the data and results here, but I wont be testing until the Fall

This post has been edited by mr.satire: 17 April 2013 - 07:29 PM

[bigx]

Fresh Marbs make the grass grow green.

[drg]

mr.satire, on 17 April 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

On a related topic, I will be doing testing, on different paints, but the goal will not be to determine the best brand of paint but rather the best qualities for a paintball.

Im doing this as my senior project for college, and the hope will be to design a theoretical ball, that has a lower drag, better lift..and possibly better accuracy.

If anything I should be able to get a computerized flow model, and determine what causes the inaccuracies in a paintball.

I will be posting the data and results here, but I wont be testing until the Fall

I would caution not to lose sight of the fact that the ultimate measure of a paintball's "quality" is its ability to eliminate other players. A rock-hard perfect sphere that shot extremely accurately but only broke 1/10 times would make a poor paintball. A paintball with clear fill would also make a poor paintball (under normal field conditions).

[mr.satire]

drg, on 18 April 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

mr.satire, on 17 April 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

On a related topic, I will be doing testing, on different paints, but the goal will not be to determine the best brand of paint but rather the best qualities for a paintball.

Im doing this as my senior project for college, and the hope will be to design a theoretical ball, that has a lower drag, better lift..and possibly better accuracy.

If anything I should be able to get a computerized flow model, and determine what causes the inaccuracies in a paintball.

I will be posting the data and results here, but I wont be testing until the Fall

I would caution not to lose sight of the fact that the ultimate measure of a paintball's "quality" is its ability to eliminate other players. A rock-hard perfect sphere that shot extremely accurately but only broke 1/10 times would make a poor paintball. A paintball with clear fill would also make a poor paintball (under normal field conditions).

The focus is on the shape of the ball rather than all of its qualities, basically the goal will be to figure out what is the ideal spherical single seam object, in terms of flight dynamics.

[drg]

mr.satire, on 18 April 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

drg, on 18 April 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

mr.satire, on 17 April 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

On a related topic, I will be doing testing, on different paints, but the goal will not be to determine the best brand of paint but rather the best qualities for a paintball.

Im doing this as my senior project for college, and the hope will be to design a theoretical ball, that has a lower drag, better lift..and possibly better accuracy.

If anything I should be able to get a computerized flow model, and determine what causes the inaccuracies in a paintball.

I will be posting the data and results here, but I wont be testing until the Fall

I would caution not to lose sight of the fact that the ultimate measure of a paintball's "quality" is its ability to eliminate other players. A rock-hard perfect sphere that shot extremely accurately but only broke 1/10 times would make a poor paintball. A paintball with clear fill would also make a poor paintball (under normal field conditions).

The focus is on the shape of the ball rather than all of its qualities, basically the goal will be to figure out what is the ideal spherical single seam object, in terms of flight dynamics.

Yes that has traditionally been the focus and it has not been very fruitful. When there are much greater differences in paintball effectiveness that IMO people are overlooking.