[cockerpunk]

drg, on 02 August 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

The ironic thing about this is that by accepting this as a reason, you are also explicitly accepting that a higher velocity has a different trajectory than a lower velocity (and arguably far less than 30 fps lower).

not really .... its not trajectory at range that i want ... its velocity at range. range isn't a limit of flight path in paintball, range is limited by the velocity drop causing bounces. brittle paint is a range extender, higher muzzle velocity is a range extender ...

im not saying shooting it faster doesn't change the trajectory, but again ... lets talk about real reasons to do things, not imagined ones.

[Troy]

drg, on 02 August 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

No, the math shows it exists. Your observations didn't find it, but that doesn't mean the math says it doesn't exist.

No significant correlation. Your hypothesis flies in the face of measured data... that is the definition of insanity. If your math shows it exists, but you can't measure it, then there is something that you aren't accounting for in your model.

[itsme123]

Molybdenum, on 03 August 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

ok so really there is no point in worrying about boring and one piece vs two piece barrels?

Not from an accuracy standpoint, no.

so than from what standpoint?

[The_Economist]

itsme123, on 03 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Molybdenum, on 03 August 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

ok so really there is no point in worrying about boring and one piece vs two piece barrels?

Not from an accuracy standpoint, no.

so than from what standpoint?

Aesthetics, price, personal taste. If a two piece barrel looks better / makes you happy / is cheaper and is the same bore as a one piece barrel, then get it. It won't make a difference on the field.

This post has been edited by The_Economist: 03 August 2012 - 11:11 AM

[Troy]

itsme123, on 03 August 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Molybdenum, on 03 August 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

itsme123, on 02 August 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

ok so really there is no point in worrying about boring and one piece vs two piece barrels?

Not from an accuracy standpoint, no.

so than from what standpoint?

By narrowing down the possible velocity spread to as small a window as possible, you are ensuring that you are hitting the target with as much force as is possible, thereby giving your paint the maximal chance of breaking possible.

Case in point: if the max you are allowed to shoot is 280fps and you have a 30fps velocity spread, some of your shots will start out at 250fps and some 280fps. If I have a marker that has a spread of 6 fps, and the minimum velocity I shoot at is 274fps. Who do you think is more likely to hit their intended target and have their paint break on it?

This post has been edited by Troy: 03 August 2012 - 11:17 AM

[brycelarson]

efficiency too. If I can squeeze 5% or 7% more shots out of a tank my mag becomes much more useful.

[drg]

cockerpunk, on 03 August 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

not really .... its not trajectory at range that i want ... its velocity at range. range isn't a limit of flight path in paintball, range is limited by the velocity drop causing bounces. brittle paint is a range extender, higher muzzle velocity is a range extender ...

im not saying shooting it faster doesn't change the trajectory, but again ... lets talk about real reasons to do things, not imagined ones.

Gonna have to call BS on this one, the physical characteristics of the ball's trajectory is more what we consider "range," we generally are not talking about effective paintbreaking range when we talk about the range of a marker. Not the least reason for this is that the surface the paintball strikes has a large effect on whether it breaks, and that can range from very hard to very soft on any given target. No one would consider a switch from, say, Infinity to Ultra Evil as an increase in "range."

Troy, on 03 August 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

No significant correlation. Your hypothesis flies in the face of measured data... that is the definition of insanity. If your math shows it exists, but you can't measure it, then there is something that you aren't accounting for in your model.

It squares with calculations though, that is undeniable. It's not my model that isn't accounting for something; I am 100% confident that velocity variability is best eliminated. It is mathematically proven as one of the variables in a paintball's flight. Your interpretation of your observation is what is missing something -- you need to explain why your results don't square with the math. And it's not because the math doesn't exist or is wrong.

This post has been edited by drg: 03 August 2012 - 08:27 PM

[cockerpunk]

drg, on 03 August 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on 03 August 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

not really .... its not trajectory at range that i want ... its velocity at range. range isn't a limit of flight path in paintball, range is limited by the velocity drop causing bounces. brittle paint is a range extender, higher muzzle velocity is a range extender ...

im not saying shooting it faster doesn't change the trajectory, but again ... lets talk about real reasons to do things, not imagined ones.

Gonna have to call BS on this one, the physical characteristics of the ball's trajectory is more what we consider "range," we generally are not talking about effective paintbreaking range when we talk about the range of a marker. Not the least reason for this is that the surface the paintball strikes has a large effect on whether it breaks, and that can range from very hard to very soft on any given target. No one would consider a switch from, say, Infinity to Ultra Evil as an increase in "range."

i dont know where you play, but a bounce is not an elimination where i play.

[drg]

cockerpunk, on 03 August 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

i dont know where you play, but a bounce is not an elimination where i play.

Whether I catch a bounce or a break, I consider myself in range of the player that shot the ball. I don't know anyone who wouldn't.

This post has been edited by drg: 04 August 2012 - 01:13 AM

[Troy]

drg, on 03 August 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

It squares with calculations though, that is undeniable. It's not my model that isn't accounting for something; I am 100% confident that velocity variability is best eliminated. It is mathematically proven as one of the variables in a paintball's flight. Your interpretation of your observation is what is missing something -- you need to explain why your results don't square with the math. And it's not because the math doesn't exist or is wrong.

Put up or shut up. Tell me what's wrong with my test and why my methodology doesn't show that velocity is correlated with final shot positions. If you are going to criticize my methodology, quit bring out this weak, speculative, BS and give me something I can actually respond to.

Every person on here, by now, knows why velocity fluctuations don't appear significant in the final shot position... so I have to explain nothing. Your simple model fails to capture very significant forces effecting the paintball's flight. It's not my problem that you can't model those, and it certainly isn't my problem that my test doesn't support a hypothesis you are "100% confident" in.

drg, on 04 August 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on 03 August 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

i dont know where you play, but a bounce is not an elimination where i play.

Whether I catch a bounce or a break, I consider myself in range of the player that shot the ball. I don't know anyone who wouldn't.

You are nothing but a contrarian. CP was talking about effective range. If you would quit trying to find things to disagree with in other people's posts, maybe we could go back to talking about important things again.

[slinkyaroo]

Accuracy is the player and not the marker. You can consistently lay 10 balls 1" apart but if it's 5' away from the opp then ....

[drg]

Troy, on 04 August 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Put up or shut up. Tell me what's wrong with my test and why my methodology doesn't show that velocity is correlated with final shot positions. If you are going to criticize my methodology, quit bring out this weak, speculative, BS and give me something I can actually respond to.

Every person on here, by now, knows why velocity fluctuations don't appear significant in the final shot position... so I have to explain nothing. Your simple model fails to capture very significant forces effecting the paintball's flight. It's not my problem that you can't model those, and it certainly isn't my problem that my test doesn't support a hypothesis you are "100% confident" in.

There's nothing inherently wrong with your methodology, it just doesn't show what you say it shows. There's nothing speculative about what I'm saying, paintballs do not defy the laws of physics. And it's not like this isn't common sense either, anyone who has chronoed the same gun 30 fps higher or lower knows it doesn't shoot the same.

Troy, on 04 August 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

You are nothing but a contrarian. CP was talking about effective range. If you would quit trying to find things to disagree with in other people's posts, maybe we could go back to talking about important things again.

I'm not the contrarian here. "Range" is not "effective range" in general paintball concepts. It's all about whether you can put a ball on someone else, and if you can, you are in range. That's pretty simple and anyone who has ever played paintball understands this concept. Effectiveness, breaks, etc. are a much more complicated question; you can be in a wide range of distances and be hit with a wide range of impact energies and receive a break or a bounce depending on many factors such as where you are hit, the angle you are hit, etc.

But if you're getting hit with a ball you absolutely are in range of someone. It's contrarian to assert otherwise.

[PB2011]

drg, on 04 August 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Troy, on 04 August 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Put up or shut up. Tell me what's wrong with my test and why my methodology doesn't show that velocity is correlated with final shot positions. If you are going to criticize my methodology, quit bring out this weak, speculative, BS and give me something I can actually respond to.

Every person on here, by now, knows why velocity fluctuations don't appear significant in the final shot position... so I have to explain nothing. Your simple model fails to capture very significant forces effecting the paintball's flight. It's not my problem that you can't model those, and it certainly isn't my problem that my test doesn't support a hypothesis you are "100% confident" in.

There's nothing inherently wrong with your methodology, it just doesn't show what you say it shows. There's nothing speculative about what I'm saying, paintballs do not defy the laws of physics. And it's not like this isn't common sense either, anyone who has chronoed the same gun 30 fps higher or lower knows it doesn't shoot the same.

Troy, on 04 August 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

You are nothing but a contrarian. CP was talking about effective range. If you would quit trying to find things to disagree with in other people's posts, maybe we could go back to talking about important things again.

I'm not the contrarian here. "Range" is not "effective range" in general paintball concepts. It's all about whether you can put a ball on someone else, and if you can, you are in range. That's pretty simple and anyone who has ever played paintball understands this concept. Effectiveness, breaks, etc. are a much more complicated question; you can be in a wide range of distances and be hit with a wide range of impact energies and receive a break or a bounce depending on many factors such as where you are hit, the angle you are hit, etc.

But if you're getting hit with a ball you absolutely are in range of someone. It's contrarian to assert otherwise.

I hate to be that random guy who jumps into conversations, but I've been in numerous situations where I was in a range where I was getting hit quite often, and never had to worry about the paint breaking on me because the velocity of the paintball had slowed down to a point where it was almost impossible for it to break.

[drg]

PB2011, on 05 August 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

I hate to be that random guy who jumps into conversations, but I've been in numerous situations where I was in a range where I was getting hit quite often, and never had to worry about the paint breaking on me because the velocity of the paintball had slowed down to a point where it was almost impossible for it to break.

Anyone who plays paintball has probably been in this situation many times. Yet if the ball hits you, you are in range of the shooter. While you may not be concerned about a body hit at that range, paint that strikes a hard target (mask, gun, loader, etc.) can and will break out to near the maximum range of the marker. If you're getting hit, you're going to take steps to not get hit, unless you are foolish.

This post has been edited by drg: 05 August 2012 - 03:52 PM

[cockerpunk]

drg, on 04 August 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on 03 August 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

i dont know where you play, but a bounce is not an elimination where i play.

Whether I catch a bounce or a break, I consider myself in range of the player that shot the ball. I don't know anyone who wouldn't.

take bouncers all the time in big games from the long ballers with no hope of a break. even been hit in the gun, and mask lens by long ballers ... means they are well out of range.

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 05 August 2012 - 07:48 PM

[Troy]

[drg]

Troy, can you specify which data you are basing your assertions on? Is it this? http://www.techpb.co...howtopic=195740

[Troy]

drg, on 06 August 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Troy, can you specify which data you are basing your assertions on? Is it this? http://www.techpb.co...howtopic=195740

That's it.

[drg]

I'm sorry but to make sweeping generalizations like there is no significant difference in trajectory between velocities from a 10-yard test is ... irresponsible, to be charitable.

[Troy]

drg, on 06 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

I'm sorry but to make sweeping generalizations like there is no significant difference in trajectory between velocities from a 10-yard test is ... irresponsible, to be charitable.

Meh, you have every right to be wrong. We proved that there was significant, detectable, differences at even less then that range. If you don't care about the statistical tests we used to prove my methods, then I could care less about your opinion. I'll wait till someone that has an actual complaint that wasn't addressed in the methodology submits a critique.

BTW, rntlee's test shows no significant correlation between speed and final height... I would link you to that, but... frankly, I don't give a shit.

This post has been edited by Troy: 06 August 2012 - 01:31 PM