"Open source" paintball marker? An interesting idea.
#21
Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:14 AM
#22
Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:06 AM
woodsballer414, on 03 March 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:
No skill in milling would really need to be done, unless you wanted to. That is what the CNC is for. Lots of CAD programmers, or hobbyists that dont know what to do for a project. Look at all the open source stuff out there. Lots of programmers that want to work on something in there spare time, and without getting paid. Why? Because it is a project they like. Same goes for the Raspberry Pi. Anyone could just buy various components and do it themselves with a computer WAY better than a Raspberry Pi. But the Raspberry Pi gives a cheap, easy platform to get started. It gives you a base. Who knows, paintball companies might even release plans for some old markers. Would be kind of cool to see BL release the design for the old Dragon, as an example. Or the internal dimensions of a DM 4. Even if they didnt release it, someone with time, skill, and the right equipment could just duplicate it.
Panda Man, on 03 March 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:
I am with RMI on this one. What would be the problem? If you put the stuff into production for sale, and you had directly taken the plans from a marker, then yes. That would be a problem. Someone milling their own gun wouldnt be a problem just like making your Ford Pinto look like a Lambo isnt a problem.
#23
Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:00 PM
#24
Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:30 PM
#25
Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:34 PM
Then you would release a base model for anyone ballsy enough to make their own.
#26
Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:56 PM
Seriously ISHIT you not eyes are $1 to make, and a micro controller can be had for $5 or less to make this shoot.
The difficult part is the solenoid. What to use, and think about before saying use an ego or whatever solenoid. I need data sheets and SHIT like that, so do the electronic designers.
At least if I helped I can put this on my resume, electronic engineer this SHIT.up
#27
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:21 AM
Solenoids are really rather simple valves that only needs to be told when to open and for hos long.
Regarding eyes, you're almost right except the photointerrupters..
I'd guess a total of 4$ a piece all incl, as you'd need the molex-crimped wires aswell ..
Regarding screen vs. LED, not all that much difference code-wise.. Costs more than leds though.
I understand that a lot of people instantly think of the obstacles one could crash into while trying to make something like this happen. This is what I was refering to above here when I talked about people willing to work on, collanorate and actually try to pull this off
#28
Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:18 AM
#29
Posted 04 March 2013 - 05:14 AM
Latsabb, on 04 March 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:
eyes wouldn't be hard to make. the board could also just be made to use Ego-eyes for breakbeam.. or a good old cocker-refelctive eye.
Just keep the molex-plug a standarized one and it'll be fine.
Eye-logic would be the main issue here (actual code), it can be hard to program. But should be doable if we got someone with decent codingskills onboard.
#30
Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:57 AM
And eye logic you be easiest to program it's the solenoid and the other components to get the noid working is the main concern. Heck I've dealt with IR break beam systems and its easy
This post has been edited by get.lit.up!: 04 March 2013 - 08:59 AM
#31
Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:50 AM
The programming itself there isn't hard at all.. It's when you want to implement several modes, user-programmability, parameter-changes and ofcourse add eye-logic it starts getting complicated..
Which is why this would be awesome to do as a collaboration between several programmers. So they can review eachothers code.
The design of the MSP430 is HUGE and unusable in this type of application. Same with regular arduino.
What I'd suggest if one were to just use something "off the shelf" would be this:

It is fully programmable, has a USB-port so programming via computer would be easy aswell as modifying the "firmware". and it looks to have enough IO\pins for the stuff we'd need
#32
Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:05 AM
#33
Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:34 PM
The key is SMALL form factor, enough memory, low power-consumption, enough io-pins. Programmability also needs to be fairly easy.
If all we need is to cycle a single-solenoid and have basic eyelogic I have that "completed" allready
This is with a PIC16F84A.
Microswitch-trigger, multicolor LED's for programming, etc.
#34
Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:33 PM
R-M-I, on 04 March 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:
I understand that a lot of people instantly think of the obstacles one could crash into while trying to make something like this happen. This is what I was refering to above here when I talked about people willing to work on, collanorate and actually try to pull this off
not sure if mod shens or typo
#35
Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:00 AM
Soldier of Fortune, on 05 March 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:
R-M-I, on 04 March 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:
I understand that a lot of people instantly think of the obstacles one could crash into while trying to make something like this happen. This is what I was refering to above here when I talked about people willing to work on, collanorate and actually try to pull this off
not sure if mod shens or typo
There will be NO need for defication at all.. DEDICATION is important though
#36
Posted 06 March 2013 - 04:31 AM

Help



















