[Troy]

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Troy, on 24 September 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

what i am saying is the barrel isn't a useful product for the improvement of accuracy during typical paintball play.

I think this is understood, what he would like to see tested is the barrel under atypical conditions.

Troy, on 25 September 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

if it doesn't work with normal paint, then it isn't a useful product.

*whistle* Logical fallacy: begging the question... ten yard penalty.

mmmmmm self conflicting statements are a logical fallacy as well .....

No contradiction in my statements, but you were assuming the premise that only normal paint is useful in the last post (which was different from the other post I responded to). This is not true. I know you don't believe that, so I thought my, slightly funny (at least I thought it was funny), response was self evident enough.

I'm not sure what the disconnect is here, quite honestly. We know the biggest source of inaccuracy, that's great... DONE. Now what do we do, in regards to accuracy? Do we just sit on our hands now? This is like saying that a computer needs a better processor to go faster, but then saying more ram won't get the machine to go as fast as possible because it needs a new processor first. That may be correct, but after you upgrade the processor it won't be true. Just consider your audience, most of us use better paint, saying that there isn't anything else we can do to increase accuracy may or may not be true... we won't know until we start testing.

[cockerpunk]

Troy, on 25 September 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Troy, on 24 September 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

what i am saying is the barrel isn't a useful product for the improvement of accuracy during typical paintball play.

I think this is understood, what he would like to see tested is the barrel under atypical conditions.

Troy, on 25 September 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

if it doesn't work with normal paint, then it isn't a useful product.

*whistle* Logical fallacy: begging the question... ten yard penalty.

mmmmmm self conflicting statements are a logical fallacy as well .....

No contradiction in my statements, but you were assuming the premise that only normal paint is useful in the last post (which was different from the other post I responded to). This is not true. I know you don't believe that, so I thought my, slightly funny (at least I thought it was funny), response was self evident enough.

I'm not sure what the disconnect is here, quite honestly. We know the biggest source of inaccuracy, that's great... DONE. Now what do we do, in regards to accuracy? Do we just sit on our hands now? This is like saying that a computer needs a better processor to go faster, but then saying more ram won't get the machine to go as fast as possible because it needs a new processor first. That may be correct, but after you upgrade the processor it won't be true. Just consider your audience, most of us use better paint, saying that there isn't anything else we can do to increase accuracy may or may not be true... we won't know until we start testing.

my statements are functionally identical, and yet you protest one, and fully agree with the other. not sure why you think you can do that. you and ego keep doing that to me, i repeat the exact same thing, over and over again, and get vastly different responses from you guys. the barrel did not improve accuracy in this test, which is a reasonable model for typical paintball playing. this makes it unsuitable for a mainstream product with the claim to improve accuracy. to my knowledge, lurker himself, the guy who designed the barrel, and sent it to us for evaluation, agrees with that conclusion. so im not sure where the disconnect is, i keep saying a perfectly reasonable thing, and everyone keeps either agreeing or freaking out depending on the way the wind blows.

where did i say there isn't anything else we can do to increase accuracy?

and again, why are we all bitching about a barrel shooting like a barrel? wow, big news, a tube shoots like a tube. literally every single data points we have taken in 4 years points to a tube, just being a tube. what is way more interesting here is that a bigger tube, with more porting, shot as efficiently as a tighter tube with less porting. this is contrary to all of our testing to date. and yet, no one cares.

and yet people want to bitch and moan about a tube shooting like a tube. i hoped it would work too. i hoped accuracy was that easy to solve too. but you gotta know, we were betting the long shot with this barrel.

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 25 September 2012 - 10:27 AM

[Troy]

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

my statements are functionally identical, and yet you protest one, and fully agree with the other. not sure why you think you can do that. you and ego keep doing that to me, i repeat the exact same thing, over and over again, and get vastly different responses from you guys.

They weren't, but that's besides the point, really, I was attempting to add some levity and failed miserably.

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

the barrel did not improve accuracy in this test, which is a reasonable model for typical paintball playing. this makes it unsuitable for a mainstream product with the claim to improve accuracy. to my knowledge, lurker himself, the guy who designed the barrel, and sent it to us for evaluation, agrees with that conclusion. so im not sure where the disconnect is, i keep saying a perfectly reasonable thing, and everyone keeps either agreeing or freaking out depending on the way the wind blows.

I DO think it was a reasonable test, but I would like to see additional testing to see if the noise created by lower quality paint was hiding a potential signal. I see how this could be confusing, but not THAT confusing. It's a great test, thanks for running it, but I would like to see some additional testing as well. You don't have to defend your test or your methodology, none of that is being critiqued. We are curious if, different, initial conditions would change the outcome.

Think about it this way. If I run an experiment and drop a ball and see where it lands, I can repeat this many times and see the same result. However, if I change the test and drop it from a different position, that may or may not change the outcome of the test. There isn't anything WRONG with the first test, we are just exploring different conditions.

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

where did i say there isn't anything else we can do to increase accuracy?

You didn't, I did. I think that we have enough evidence compiled to know that paint is by far the biggest, controllable, influencing factor on paintball trajectory (assuming a reasonably consistent mounted marker). Frankly, I'm tired of adding confirmation to that theory, as I suspect you are as well. We know it's true... so the question is "now what?"

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

and again, why are we all bitching about a barrel shooting like a barrel? wow, big news, a tube shoots like a tube. literally every single data points we have taken in 4 years points to a tube, just being a tube. what is way more interesting here is that a bigger tube, with more porting, shot as efficiently as a tighter tube with less porting. this is contrary to all of our testing to date. and yet, no one cares.

and yet people want to bitch and moan about a tube shooting like a tube. i hoped it would work too. i hoped accuracy was that easy to solve too. but you gotta know, we were betting the long shot with this barrel.

We aren't bitching about the test, we are interested in exploring different initial conditions. Now, we can CERTAINLY debate on the utility of running a test like that. I think that you have a reasonable argument saying that most people don't shoot better paint, therefore, such a test won't benefit most people. I also see that it might be confusing to tell someone that a barrel is only a benefit if using certain paint, but that's putting the cart before the horse. We, simply, don't know if it'll be any better using better paint would change the outcome.

This whole debate has become blown way out of proportion because you see it as an indictment of your methodology, which it isn't. Basically, we want to test a different hypothesis then the one you tested (Is that EVER a bad thing?). Ultimately, it's your call as to whether or not you see enough utility in conducting a test that might, potentially, not benefit the majority of players. Personally, my curiosity is getting the best of me, so I'm interested. I would be willing to test it, but I understand if you are unwilling... I, however, realize it would still be a long shot though. If we did see any difference though, we could, potentially, quantify the effect of a barrel's muzzle blast and PROVE it's effect to be lower then the threshold of noise created by ordinary paint (which I think would be interesting... but maybe that's just me).

Basically, our argument is about the bar you set for a useful experiment. Personally, I could care less about what benefit's "most" players. I'm more into the science then the, actual, practical benefit. That's why we are having this conversation.

This post has been edited by Troy: 25 September 2012 - 11:29 AM

[cockerpunk]

Troy, on 25 September 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

my statements are functionally identical, and yet you protest one, and fully agree with the other. not sure why you think you can do that. you and ego keep doing that to me, i repeat the exact same thing, over and over again, and get vastly different responses from you guys.

They weren't, but that's besides the point, really, I was attempting to add some levity and failed miserably.

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

the barrel did not improve accuracy in this test, which is a reasonable model for typical paintball playing. this makes it unsuitable for a mainstream product with the claim to improve accuracy. to my knowledge, lurker himself, the guy who designed the barrel, and sent it to us for evaluation, agrees with that conclusion. so im not sure where the disconnect is, i keep saying a perfectly reasonable thing, and everyone keeps either agreeing or freaking out depending on the way the wind blows.

I DO think it was a reasonable test, but I would like to see additional testing to see if the noise created by lower quality paint was hiding a potential signal. I see how this could be confusing, but not THAT confusing. It's a great test, thanks for running it, but I would like to see some additional testing as well. You don't have to defend your test or your methodology, none of that is being critiqued. We are curious if, different, initial conditions would change the outcome.

Think about it this way. If I run an experiment and drop a ball and see where it lands, I can repeat this many times and see the same result. However, if I change the test and drop it from a different position, that may or may not change the outcome of the test. There isn't anything WRONG with the first test, we are just exploring different conditions.

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

where did i say there isn't anything else we can do to increase accuracy?

You didn't, I did. I think that we have enough evidence compiled to know that paint is by far the biggest, controllable, influencing factor on paintball trajectory (assuming a reasonably consistent mounted marker). Frankly, I'm tired of adding confirmation to that theory, as I suspect you are as well. We know it's true... so the question is "now what?"

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

and again, why are we all bitching about a barrel shooting like a barrel? wow, big news, a tube shoots like a tube. literally every single data points we have taken in 4 years points to a tube, just being a tube. what is way more interesting here is that a bigger tube, with more porting, shot as efficiently as a tighter tube with less porting. this is contrary to all of our testing to date. and yet, no one cares.

and yet people want to bitch and moan about a tube shooting like a tube. i hoped it would work too. i hoped accuracy was that easy to solve too. but you gotta know, we were betting the long shot with this barrel.

We aren't bitching about the test, we are interested in exploring different initial conditions. Now, we can CERTAINLY debate on the utility of running a test like that. I think that you have a reasonable argument saying that most people don't shoot better paint, therefore, such a test won't benefit most people. I also see that it might be confusing to tell someone that a barrel is only a benefit if using certain paint, but that's putting the cart before the horse. We, simply, don't know if it'll be any better using better paint would change the outcome.

This whole debate has become blown way out of proportion because you see it as an indictment of your methodology, which it isn't. Basically, we want to test a different hypothesis then the one you tested (Is that EVER a bad thing?). Ultimately, it's your call as to whether or not you see enough utility in conducting a test that might, potentially, not benefit the majority of players. Personally, my curiosity is getting the best of me, so I'm interested. I would be willing to test it, but I understand if you are unwilling... I, however, realize it would still be a long shot though. If we did see any difference though, we could, potentially, quantify the effect of a barrel's muzzle blast and PROVE it's effect to be lower then the threshold of noise created by ordinary paint (which I think would be interesting... but maybe that's just me).

Basically, our argument is about the bar you set for a useful experiment. Personally, I could care less about what benefit's "most" players. I'm more into the science then the, actual, practical benefit. That's why we are having this conversation.

at no point have i said that additional testing would not be interesting or worthwhile. but even if hat testing shows it does work, that doesn't make this a viable product as it sits. even if better paint shows an improvement, nothing i have said changes in regards to this barrels performance as a product. doesnt mean we can't learn from it, but also doesn't mean its a viable product.

read what i say, and argue with that if you disagree. don't put words in my mouth, and try to make me defend them.

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 25 September 2012 - 12:09 PM

[Troy]

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

at no point have i said that additional testing would not be interesting or worthwhile. but even if hat testing shows it does work, that doesn't make this a viable product as it sits. even if better paint shows an improvement, nothing i have said changes in regards to this barrels performance as a product. doesnt mean we can't learn from it, but also doesn't mean its a viable product.

read what i say, and argue with that if you disagree. don't put words in my mouth, and try to make me defend them.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but It seems that I must have gathered a wrong impression of your thoughts on the matter, I apologize. THAT, explains why this last exchange is so damn confusing (at least to me)...

[Egomaniacal]

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

if the barrel only provides better accuracy with perfect paint, then it is useless to me as a player, and consumer, and is also equally useless to a product designer.

this was med-good field grade paint, the exact paint that every weekend thousands of players take to the field with. if it doesn't work for them, its not very useful.

The bottom line is that this is an unqualified value statement that many people on this forum seem to disagree with.

An experimentalist presents the conditions of an experiment and the results, and lets people draw their own conclusions. Telling people what is useful or useless is not appropriate in a scientific setting, as is declaring what defines everyone's "typical paintball play". Failing to thoroughly quantify your conditions is not an excuse to make blanket opinion statements about what is useful for people.

Most people here know that quality paint is the #1 factor to better accuracy, so they make every effort for quality paint to be a part of their typical paintball play. Telling them that this barrel is ineffective in typical paintball play is inappropriate since you have not tested it under the conditions that they might consider typical paintball play.

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

/end topic

[cockerpunk]

Egomaniacal, on 25 September 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

if the barrel only provides better accuracy with perfect paint, then it is useless to me as a player, and consumer, and is also equally useless to a product designer.

this was med-good field grade paint, the exact paint that every weekend thousands of players take to the field with. if it doesn't work for them, its not very useful.

The bottom line is that this is an unqualified value statement that many people on this forum seem to disagree with.

An experimentalist presents the conditions of an experiment and the results, and lets people draw their own conclusions. Telling people what is useful or useless is not appropriate in a scientific setting, as is declaring what defines everyone's "typical paintball play". Failing to thoroughly quantify your conditions is not an excuse to make blanket opinion statements about what is useful for people.

Most people here know that quality paint is the #1 factor to better accuracy, so they make every effort for quality paint to be a part of their typical paintball play. Telling them that this barrel is ineffective in typical paintball play is inappropriate since you have not tested it under the conditions that they might consider typical paintball play.

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

/end topic

what did we fail to clarify? we used the exact same rig as we always do, used the exact same methods we always do, and used the exact same metrics to judge performance as we always do. this was literally a rubber stamp test for us, nothing new at all. me and bryce seriously talk every time we shoot the exact same video, every fucking accuracy test we do. "do we have to do this again?" "yeah probably" "ok, well i did loose some weight so maybe i'll look better in this one then the last one" ":chuckles: idk, what do you want to talk about" "idk, just turn the camera on"

if lurker makes this barrel, and someone wants to buy it to make there gun shoot straighter, i'll laugh. they are free to do it, people do dumb things all the time, but we know it doesn't work under normal conditions. now the fact that lurker has decided to not even produce the barrel as the next generation of eigen barrel shows pretty convincingly that he doesn't think its a viable product either.

i mean you can't get a more powerful endorsement then that. usually we are ragging on manufactures to change there tune, and sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. but lurker has been nothing but reasonable about his decisions regarding the future of this barrel, which shows that even he understands the point we are making. as it sits, its not a viable product according to the definition we have used for EVERYTHING else we have tested.

sorry, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

as a research tool, to look at muzzle effects, it could still be very interesting.

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 25 September 2012 - 01:10 PM

[Troy]

Egomaniacal, on 25 September 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

if the barrel only provides better accuracy with perfect paint, then it is useless to me as a player, and consumer, and is also equally useless to a product designer.

this was med-good field grade paint, the exact paint that every weekend thousands of players take to the field with. if it doesn't work for them, its not very useful.

The bottom line is that this is an unqualified value statement that many people on this forum seem to disagree with.

An experimentalist presents the conditions of an experiment and the results, and lets people draw their own conclusions. Telling people what is useful or useless is not appropriate in a scientific setting, as is declaring what defines everyone's "typical paintball play". Failing to thoroughly quantify your conditions is not an excuse to make blanket opinion statements about what is useful for people.

Most people here know that quality paint is the #1 factor to better accuracy, so they make every effort for quality paint to be a part of their typical paintball play. Telling them that this barrel is ineffective in typical paintball play is inappropriate since you have not tested it under the conditions that they might consider typical paintball play.

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

/end topic

The problem here is that you're equivocating on the term "typical." I know that Bryce has ran a poll showing "typical" paint buying habits on TechPb. So, we have some data on what the average player buys... but, seriously, who gives a fuck about what "typical" play is? CP has already said that he is interested in trying this barrel again with better paint for scientific reasons:

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

i think from a scientific standpoint there certainly is merit to looking at this with really perfect paint.

Why do you care what his opinion is about what is and what isn't market appropriate? If I designed a barrel that shot one kind of paint, only, and CP told me that it wasn't appropriate for the entire paintball market, I would look at him and say "duh." In other words, if your definition of "typical" is what is giving you so much heartburn, you need to let that go... those are just details. We can define the cases in which this barrel excels without freting over what IS typical, or what SHOULD be typical.

[cockerpunk]

again, lets bring up some other products.

what if the marketing line for the apex was "under the right conditions, with very high quality paint, this gives you extra range"

would you buy that? maybe. but if they went and said, "this gives you extra range" and we tested with this setup, and this paint, i'd say no, its not good for what they say its good for.

or aliens every moving target of with the right paint and paint to barrel match his system gives you extra range, does that make it a viable product?

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 25 September 2012 - 01:30 PM

[Egomaniacal]

The distance by which you are missing my point is flabbergasting. I will admit a shortcoming on my part, I am unable to explain what I take issue with any better.

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

what if the marketing line for the apex was "under the right conditions, with very high quality paint, this gives you extra range"

would you buy that? maybe.

That's not your decision to make. If we want to produce a barrel and say "marked increase in accuracy with high quality paint" (if such an improvement were to exist), that's our call not yours. And yet by making a blanket statement with "typical" playing conditions, you have not differentiated your claim from ours.

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

and we tested with this setup, and this paint, i'd say no, its not good for what they say its good for.

But you did not quantify your paint. When you say "this paint", people have no way of knowing what you're talking about. DSX silver can range from very good to very poor.

This post has been edited by Egomaniacal: 25 September 2012 - 01:47 PM

[cockerpunk]

Egomaniacal, on 25 September 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

The distance by which you are missing my point is flabbergasting. I will admit a shortcoming on my part, I am unable to explain what I take issue with any better.

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

what if the marketing line for the apex was "under the right conditions, with very high quality paint, this gives you extra range"

would you buy that? maybe.

That's not your decision to make. If we want to produce a barrel and say "marked increase in accuracy with high quality paint" (if such an improvement were to exist), that's our call not yours.

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

and we tested with this setup, and this paint, i'd say no, its not good for what they say its good for.

But you did not quantify your paint. When you say "this paint", people have no way of knowing what you're talking about.

sure, if you want to change claims to something we can verify and uphold, im happy to do that.

and we did talk very specifically about the paint.

i asked jack rice very specifically what paint and what paint to barrel match to use to best produce his backspin. so we could test it.

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 25 September 2012 - 01:49 PM

[Troy]

cockerpunk, on 25 September 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

sure, if you want to change claims to something we can verify and uphold, im happy to do that.

YAY! Hugs for everyone!!!

[upriver]

Hello and thank you for responding.

Your post on the vector method was well done and it sees to come close to representing the data it makes it difficult to perform statistics on the data sets. I'm in the process of putting together revised version of your accuracy results, but I'm also putting together some information on the methods I am using so it will take a bit longer to assemble. While I am at it I'll put some time into the velocity measurements as well. Before I do that I would like to know what type of chronograph you are using.

I'll start another thread when I am done.


[/quote]

welcome!

I'm a bit busy right now but I'll track down our previous discussions about the "vector" measurement. We found that it's a great quick and dirty way to compare accuracy.

Since we're using the standard deviation of x and y we are effectively comparing each to the average center of the shots. There are slightly more accurate ways to analyze the data but we have found no instances thus far where our method has failed to produce the same results as a fuller analysis.

here's my thread on vector. you're obviously a stats guy - so feel free to start another thread with questions if you have them.

http://www.techpb.co...=1
[/quote]

[brycelarson]

upriver, on 25 September 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Hello and thank you for responding.

Your post on the vector method was well done and it sees to come close to representing the data it makes it difficult to perform statistics on the data sets. I'm in the process of putting together revised version of your accuracy results, but I'm also putting together some information on the methods I am using so it will take a bit longer to assemble. While I am at it I'll put some time into the velocity measurements as well. Before I do that I would like to know what type of chronograph you are using.

I'll start another thread when I am done.

http://www.shootingchrony.com/

according to the published data it's +/- .5% and after talking to one of their product engineers he says that it's much likely better than that - but they want to be conservative on their published specifications.

[samthepainter]

Egomaniacal, on 25 September 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

The distance by which you are missing my point is flabbergasting.

+1

cockerpunk you are being surprisingly dense. just see the point and admit that good paint could bring about different results, and therefore a different conclusion about the product.

[andrewthewookie]

Just because they didn't test every grade of paint conceivable doesn't diminish the conclusion of the field grade. We can say that the barrel does not seem to provide any accuracy advantage over any other barrels with "standard" paint, that's just what it is. Nobody's made any conclusions about what this would do with high quality paint, only whether or not it's a useful product to the paintball masses. If we have to tailor the paint to the barrel, well then that's an entirely different matter.

[Jaccen]

*cough* remember this? *cough*

cockerpunk, on 01 September 2011 - 08:57 AM, said:

Troy, on 01 September 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

hmmm... I wonder if you could put a bunch of paintballs in a tumbler with some silicon beads and grind off the seems.

THAT, is a great idea

http://www.techpb.co...1

Troy, on 01 September 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

I'm thinking a 5 gallon bucket, with a lid, and a hole drilled in the top and the bottom for an axle. Then get a variable speed drill, chalk up a bolt in it, cut a thick wooden dowel pretty small (3-4 inches or so), drill a hole through the middle, mount it on the bolt in the drill, wrap the dowl in electrical tape (for friction), and mount the drill so the improvised wheel spins the 5 gallon bucket.

A little ghetto... but it would be cheap and easy.

http://www.techpb.co...5

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on the test recently performed. I, personally, do not see a reason that stops the rest of us doing the tests we wish to see aside from money and time. I can see both sides of the argument, but if the tests were done on PunkWorks own time and money it's their test to run IMHO. I'd still be interested in a high quality paint test, though.

If we all agree that improving paint is the best way to improve accuracy, perhaps that is the subject best to revisit. However, since my contributions to the forum have been largely of a "reading" nature, I will respectively back out of the conversation while leaving the comments above.

Oh, and.......

[cockerpunk]

samthepainter, on 26 September 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

Egomaniacal, on 25 September 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

The distance by which you are missing my point is flabbergasting.

+1

cockerpunk you are being surprisingly dense. just see the point and admit that good paint could bring about different results, and therefore a different conclusion about the product.

i never disagreed that better paint could yield better results, but that in no way changes my conclusion on the product.

how many times do i have to repeat the exact same thing?

its like no one here actually reads my posts ....

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 27 September 2012 - 09:45 PM

[LV Backpacker]

This issue is something people learn in middle school science. In an experiment there is an independent variable, a dependent variable, and every other variable is kept the same for all tests so that the differences in the dependent variable (accuracy in this case) can be attributed to the independent variable which is changed for each test (the barrel). Since the paint was controlled by being the same across the board it shouldn't effect the outcome. Were you to use a higher or lower grade paint, the results would be different but you should see the change in results across the board.

[Demon]

i like playing paint warz...




found it, really wanted to hear it shoot though, and what is up with that paint.. it runs weird.

This post has been edited by Demon: 28 September 2012 - 01:42 AM