[Egomaniacal]

brycelarson, on 23 September 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

The paint was medium-poor

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

this was med-good field grade paint

So which is it gentlemen, and how are you quantifying it?

[Troy]

I'm interested in it's effects on premium paint.

I think we've exhausted all the possible accuracy gains that we can get with mid-poor paint. If we don't move on, then this project (Punkworks) is, pretty much, done. Personally, I don't care if 75% of the population doesn't use good paint, nor do I care if 75% of the population knows that it's better to underbore or not either. I think that if you consider your audience, we've changed our perceptions about paintball accuracy, and it may be time to reconsider the shift in beliefs that you guys have caused, and reconsider the paint choices that you make going forward. We've figured out what works for 75% of the population, maybe it's time to think about what works for the .1% of the population that actually listens to you guys.

[cockerpunk]

Egomaniacal, on 24 September 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

brycelarson, on 23 September 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

The paint was medium-poor

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

this was med-good field grade paint

So which is it gentlemen, and how are you quantifying it?

field grade paint is always worse then even decent stuff you can buy on your own.

[cockerpunk]

Troy, on 24 September 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I'm interested in it's effects on premium paint.

I think we've exhausted all the possible accuracy gains that we can get with mid-poor paint. If we don't move on, then this project (Punkworks) is, pretty much, done. Personally, I don't care if 75% of the population doesn't use good paint, nor do I care if 75% of the population knows that it's better to underbore or not either. I think that if you consider your audience, we've changed our perceptions about paintball accuracy, and it may be time to reconsider the shift in beliefs that you guys have caused, and reconsider the paint choices that you make going forward. We've figured out what works for 75% of the population, maybe it's time to think about what works for the .1% of the population that actually listens to you guys.

i think from a scientific standpoint there certainly is merit to looking at this with really perfect paint. but functionally, as a product its a dead end (for accuracy anyways). until paint gets closer to perfection, i don't think we will have any real way to improve accuracy with the barrel. have to figure out a way a way to kill spin, like really kill spin. and that combined with better paint will give you the best accuracy one can achieve with a light round ball.

again, i wonder more about the chrono results then the accuracy ones. theres the mystery to me. we were all hoping against hope the barrel would shoot streigther, but it doesn't. and we knew that was a long shot going in.

im not a gambling man, but i'd have put money on that barrel being at least 10fps slower then the lurker v1. at least.

[brycelarson]

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Egomaniacal, on 24 September 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

brycelarson, on 23 September 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

The paint was medium-poor

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

this was med-good field grade paint

So which is it gentlemen, and how are you quantifying it?

field grade paint is always worse then even decent stuff you can buy on your own.

yup - I was calling it medium poor in the set of all paints - gordon was calling it medium good in the set of field paint. both are accurate.

The basic metric we're using it roundness (visible when bore size testing) and size consistency (same thing). It was variable in size and some balls were oblong.

[Egomaniacal]

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

if the barrel only provides better accuracy with perfect paint

I said nothing about perfect paint. We want to see tournament grade paint.

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

and is also equally useless to a product designer.

Don't tell me what would be useless to a product designer. I'll tell you what's useless, a lack of real information on the paint quality.

This post has been edited by Egomaniacal: 24 September 2012 - 10:01 AM

[cockerpunk]

Egomaniacal, on 24 September 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

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

if the barrel only provides better accuracy with perfect paint

I said nothing about perfect paint.

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

and is also equally useless to a product designer.

Don't tell me what would be useless. I'll tell you what's useless, a lack of real information on the paint quality.

its paint, decent field paint that thousands of people shoot every day. bored out at .683ish. this field carries mostly above average field paint, but in the grand scheme of all paints, that doesn't mean its great. no dimples that i saw, no bleeding, but like all paint, not fully round (but can only tell when put into a barrel), and with a bit of seam you can feel. unlike the best paints, which are rare, that are very round and you cannot feel the seam.

no need to be defensive dude. we all should have known from our previous testing that improving accuracy with the barrel was going to be a long shot. i wish it weren't true either, but here it is.

again, the only mystery here to me is the chrono. i suspect its the fluting, but would be very interested in details on the overall design in general. you say its 680 control bore? how about

[Troy]

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

im not a gambling man, but i'd have put money on that barrel being at least 10fps slower then the lurker v1. at least.

I went back and read the thread again, and am I correct in seeing that the bore was .680?

It's cool that it shoots so fast, but I really, still don't know much about the barrel (so I don't know why it's cool, or why it's so unexpected that it shoots faster). Maybe these questions are more for Ego, but I would like to know things like: What does the inside of the barrel look like? How far does the fluting go? How long is the control bore? What's the length of the barrel? Etc...

[Egomaniacal]

Yes, the bore was spec'd to .680. I have not had the opportunity to measure the bore on the prototype.

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

no need to be defensive dude. we all should have known from our previous testing that improving accuracy with the barrel was going to be a long shot. i wish it weren't true either, but here it is.

I'm not upset with the results. The fact that there's a suggestion of a velocity gain is very exciting, I'm looking forward to seeing what Lurker and I can do with that. I'm upset with you, the way you conducted the testing process, and the way you're treating the results and people's objections to your methods.

I'm upset that you guys revealed the barrel without our permission before testing. I'm upset that you missed several of your own deadlines to conduct the testing. I'm upset it took you three and a half months to get it done, AFTER you had gone public with it. I'm upset that you used what is clearly sub-par paint when comparing the vector data to previous tests. I'm upset that you seem to be backtracking on your own assessment of the paint quality. I'm upset that neither of you seem to be willing to acknowledge why people are calling for tests with high-quality paint, to identify and draw out potentially subtler effects on accuracy.

Punkworks is about the data, and this data doesn't say anything about quality tournament grade paint. To extend these results to that regime is inappropriate, and frankly I think that's the only regime anyone is going to see improvements in accuracy by modifications to a barrel.

This post has been edited by Egomaniacal: 24 September 2012 - 12:04 PM

[cockerpunk]

Egomaniacal, on 24 September 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Yes, the bore was spec'd to .680. I have not had the opportunity to measure the bore on the prototype.

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

no need to be defensive dude. we all should have known from our previous testing that improving accuracy with the barrel was going to be a long shot. i wish it weren't true either, but here it is.

I'm not upset with the results. The fact that there's a suggestion of a velocity gain is very exciting, I'm looking forward to seeing what Lurker and I can do with that. I'm upset with you, the way you conducted the testing process, and the way you're treating the results and people's objections to your methods.

I'm upset that you guys revealed the barrel without our permission before testing. I'm upset that you missed several of your own deadlines to conduct the testing. I'm upset it took you three and a half months to get it done, AFTER you had gone public with it. I'm upset that you used what is clearly sub-par paint when comparing the vector data to previous tests. I'm upset that you seem to be backtracking on your own assessment of the paint quality. I'm upset that neither of you seem to be willing to acknowledge why people are calling for tests with high-quality paint, to identify and draw out potentially subtler effects on accuracy.

Punkworks is about the data, and this data doesn't say anything about quality tournament grade paint. To extend these results to that regime is inappropriate, and frankly I think that's the only regime anyone is going to see improvements in accuracy by modifications to a barrel.

we compared vector data to previous tests? where did we do this?

backtracking? none was done. me and bryce both have provided the same description of the paint.

only one with an issue here is you. sorry it took so long, we tried to fit it in earlier (twice), but me and bryce do this at our own cost, on our own time. we both have been very busy this summer. my life kinda went crazy when my long time girlfriend and i broke up, among other issues. bryce has been very very busy as well. we are happy to get back to testing, but man, not excited to get back to argue about trivialities in testing over the internet.

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 24 September 2012 - 12:35 PM

[Egomaniacal]

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

only one with an issue here is you. sorry it took so long, we tried to fit it in earlier (twice), but me and bryce do this at our own cost, on our own time. we both have been very busy this summer. my life kinda went crazy when my long time girlfriend and i broke up, among other issues. bryce has been very very busy as well. we are happy to get back to testing, but man, not excited to get back to argue about trivialities in testing over the internet.

Wow.

I don't think I'm the only one who takes issue with the way you've dismissed points of concern in this thread. rntlee was actually the first to notice the issue of paint quality, based on his own experience.

Whatever.

This post has been edited by Egomaniacal: 24 September 2012 - 01:23 PM

[cockerpunk]

Egomaniacal, on 24 September 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

cockerpunk, on 24 September 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

only one with an issue here is you. sorry it took so long, we tried to fit it in earlier (twice), but me and bryce do this at our own cost, on our own time. we both have been very busy this summer. my life kinda went crazy when my long time girlfriend and i broke up, among other issues. bryce has been very very busy as well. we are happy to get back to testing, but man, not excited to get back to argue about trivialities in testing over the internet.

Wow.

I don't think I'm the only one who takes issue with the way you've dismissed points of concern in this thread. rntlee was actually the first to notice the issue of paint quality, based on his own experience.

Whatever.

he pointed out that our vectors are larger then we typically get at 100 feet, which is true. which is why we shoot benchmarks like the 14 .685 CP to give us a known value to compare against.

[Snipez4664]

Perhaps a useful concept
http://www.bia.ca/ar...reto-charts.htm


You must first address large factors (paint quality) before looking for the additional problems.

For the record I don't REALLY EXPECT to see improvement even with better paint, I just think it's a valid objection to the testing methodology. The control group defines the total effect size, but the factor of muzzle wasn't sufficiently isolated, which I think is Ego and Rntlee's objection (and mine as well). That said, it brackets the potential effect size of the muzzle blast down pretty well.

EDIT:
I want to extend my thanks to Punkworks for taking their OWN TIME AND MONEY to do this test and be completely neutral observers, even though I consider Gordon a friend. (And Bryce a damn good guy!).

This post has been edited by Snipez4664: 24 September 2012 - 02:30 PM

[Cookybiscuit]

So, porting and FPS/efficiency related, but not necessarily by how much material is taken off?

[Egomaniacal]

It's going to be tough to determine where the velocity gains are coming from without further examination and more thorough isolation of relevant variables.

Basically, I have a few ideas but couldn't say anything definitive at this point.

[cockerpunk]

Snipez4664, on 24 September 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Perhaps a useful concept
http://www.bia.ca/ar...reto-charts.htm


You must first address large factors (paint quality) before looking for the additional problems.

For the record I don't REALLY EXPECT to see improvement even with better paint, I just think it's a valid objection to the testing methodology. The control group defines the total effect size, but the factor of muzzle wasn't sufficiently isolated, which I think is Ego and Rntlee's objection (and mine as well). That said, it brackets the potential effect size of the muzzle blast down pretty well.

EDIT:
I want to extend my thanks to Punkworks for taking their OWN TIME AND MONEY to do this test and be completely neutral observers, even though I consider Gordon a friend. (And Bryce a damn good guy!).

the problem is of course scale.

was there more error in this test then others? certainly. we also wanted to be damn sure there was no error, thats why we shot it twice, and we shot it next to not only our benchmark barrel, but more then a half dozen other barrels. id feel confident in our results if we just show those 2, 45 odd shots and out to say it didn't show improvement, but we took the extra steps of shooting everything we had against it, and shooting it twice.

but again, if you can't find it on our rig, below average paint or not, you have NO hope of seeing it, much less using it at the field. sorry, it just isnt useful as a player or a consumer. as a scientist i can see that improved paint hints at some things we are looking into like the fundamentals of accuracy itself, but again, as a product, as a useful product to a paintball player, this idea is dead. if it doesn't work with average field paint, then i, and most other paintball players out there, have no use for it. id be happy to try this again next time we are accuracy testing with hopefully better paint, but even then if it shows its an improvement, that still doesn't make it any more useful then a concept demo.

and unlike so many other accuracy test, this test round, below average paint or not, we actually found a real result, we showed without a doubt that extreme underbores do hurt accuracy. so there obviously wasn't too much error with the paint for that effect, which means the improvement here (if any) is substantially smaller then that.

heck, maybe there is an improvement that even our rig can't pic up, we run a resolution of 1 inch, maybe its improving accuracy better then that resolution ... but again, not useful on the field.

scale, as always, is very important.

[Egomaniacal]

Alright, time to bust out an analogy.

Say I have a car that is supposed to run on 93 octane. If I put 87 octane gas in it and put it on a test track, the thing backfires and runs like hell. If I were to follow your logic, this would lead me to conclude that there are no circumstances where the car could possibly run well, and I would certainly never be able to take advantage of those circumstances on the road.

Do you understand why this is so incredibly wrong?

Yes, scale is important. But you're thinking completely linearly, assuming any potential effect size is going to be the same over all conditions. This is almost NEVER the case.

This post has been edited by Egomaniacal: 24 September 2012 - 03:47 PM

[Troy]

Snipez4664, on 24 September 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

I want to extend my thanks to Punkworks for taking their OWN TIME AND MONEY to do this test and be completely neutral observers

Yeah me too.

Just because I wish you guys had used better paint doesn't mean I'm not grateful for the test you DID do.

[cockerpunk]

Egomaniacal, on 24 September 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Alright, time to bust out an analogy.

Say I have a car that is supposed to run on 93 octane. If I put 87 octane gas in it and put it on a test track, the thing backfires and runs like hell. If I were to follow your logic, this would lead me to conclude that there are no circumstances where the car could possibly run well, and I would certainly never be able to take advantage of those circumstances on the road.

Do you understand why this is so incredibly wrong?

again, scale.

the scale of the testing error reduction is relative to the usage the device will see. if i can't see it with a viced gun and normal field paint that i shoot every day, then as a consumer, it is useless to me. again, as a scientist, i can see value in further testing, as it might reveal more about the nature of the accuracy problem.

as a counter example, we have seen evidence that saboted rounds substantially improve performance, and we have seen that sanding down the seams of crappy paint can make it much much better ... but are these things we are seriously pursuing as solutions to accuracy as a PRODUCT? i would argue the very existence of this barrel shows that you and lurker are not. why? because this is not a practical solution for most players.

am i saying we shouldn't test it further with better paint in order to understand the accuracy problem? no.

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

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 24 September 2012 - 03:54 PM

[tallsmallboy44]

I feel like an idiot reading this thread.



Physics!

This post has been edited by tallsmallboy44: 24 September 2012 - 04:06 PM