- Active Posts:
- 159 (0.12 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Living Legends (67 posts)
- 11-September 09
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Aug 14 2011 06:43 PM
- Member Title:
- Age Unknown
- Birthday Unknown
- Madison, WI
Posts I've Made
04 July 2012 - 05:41 AMIn my 15 years of playing paintball, most unsafe unfair scenario ever.
After spending most of the day in one place on the field, wasting my money shooting at a clearly outnumbering force with a terrain advantage, I got kind of bored.
Sure, I shot lots of people, but what's the point when there's ten of them stacked behind each other at a bunker you need to take, and they're using each other as shields?
You can't gain ground or accomplish objectives that way. I didn't really care for the bounce rule, a little odd but nothing to get upset over, but I'm sure players who missed orientation didn't get the memo.
ROF caps were not enforced, first pull Fully Auto was allowed or at least not enforced and I saw many players wandering around without chrono punches or zipties. That had me concerned.
I don't blame our rental players and walkons for not charging to the front, and I'm sure many of them just gave up which only made the push back situation even worse to the point of spiraling out of control.
I had hoped that after the lunch/storm break we would swap bases, so I could see the other side of the field, but that didn't happen.
My first time at PBE and I never saw anything but our spawn point and the close side of the Vietnam ravine, huge disappointment.
During the first spawn camping incident, I ran out of paint (8 pods) trying to defend the spawn point.
I was actually sitting in the spawn point bunker the refs told us we had to go to and touch once out, so I didn't really do anything when I got hit except tap the side of the bunker, laugh and keep shooting.
Then I realized when players can do something like that, the game is screwed, so after I ran out of paint I walked off (and got lit up doing so, even with my gun up and sock on.)
When I heard that the refs were doing NOTHING to re-balance the game, hearing stories about the overshooting, excessive close range shots and safe zone shooting, I got pissed, broke my gear down and packed it up.
I heard that some Axis teams got moved over to the Allies side, but by then it was too little too late. I didn't stick around for the 'final battle', don't know the score, don't know who won, and don't care.
I am surprised that no one got more seriously hurt. I do hope the field's insurance provider has been notified of this situation.
While I'm against shutting down paintball fields, this kind of event is the sort of thing that reinforces the notions that paintball is unsafe, spurs fears of lawsuits, and causes insurers to raise rates EVERYWHERE or flat out prohibit scenario games.
I've seen this type of thing happen before in my line of work, one of those disasters/situations that is the result of a comedy of errors that 'could have been avoided' if only one person took their job seriously and did it correctly, but no one wanted to be a whistle-blower due to fear of repercussions from management.
It's the sort of management failure that people get seriously hurt over, or worse, that ends the business forever.
So I don't blame the refs either, most of them were not qualified / mature / paid enough to effectively deal with what was going on.
18 June 2012 - 11:23 PMUVhalo has something like this ....
Yeah I'm using his calculated ballistic coefficient value for First Strikes.
While the FS round calculations look 'ballpark', I get really weird angular values for paintballs, which suggest to me the formulas aren't quite right yet.
I'll have to make some field measurements.
17 June 2012 - 09:27 PMProps to you man, this looks like it could really help out with sighting and actually looks reasonable to me. I think something you could do in the future is how many clicks for both FS rounds and a regular paintball.
This is totally do-able, but so much depends on the weight and diameter of the paintball, they have really, really low ballistic coefficients too. (Most ballistic software can't handle them! ChairGun does a respectable job.)
What I want to do is come up with a scope adjustment 'range' using known variances. So instead of exactly 280fps it would be something like:
"If your chrono shots are between 275 to 285, you should be able to hit a 50 yard target 99% of the time using 6 clicks and between 1 mildot holdunder and 3 mildot hold over."
As for range finding, I'm working on calculating some mildot ranging for various paintball-related items and incorporating that into the calculations. Ultimately I want a table that says something like:
"An 8" paintball mask that occupies 3 mildots in your scope is 74 yards away which is... 8 clicks and 2.4 mildots of holdover @ 280fps"
14 June 2012 - 12:53 PMI've registered! I'll be running a FS sniper platform.
10 June 2012 - 04:10 PMYou probably started writing this post after I posted some of my number crunching crap...
There was a relative drop in accuracy from Valken to Karnage, BUT that difference wasn't significantly correlated to the roudness of the paintball. However, it was significantly correlated to the offseam dimension.
Right, I found that the 'roundness' didn't impact the results as much as the overall size. Did you find that the difference was related to the absolute offseam size or the variation (SD) between offseam sizes in one brand of paint?
Maybe the Karnage, despite it being less perfect than the Valken, is a better match for the barrel?
This is a possibility. The valken is big enough to where it's additional size COULD have messed with the marker if most of our data came from a poppet marker... but that was one of the reasons we wanted to use a spoolie instead of a poppet based marker for most of our data. It should be less effected by the pressure in the barral.
The valken paint will not go through the .682 SS freak bore that I have. The Karnage paint will blow through there (with a good amount of effort). The valken free falls most of the way through a .687 SS freak bore (which is my next biggest size)... so I expect it is around .685ish.
Maybe I am not being precise enough with unit conversions or you squeezed the balls a little (lol) when measuring them. I took your measurements in mm and divided them by 25.4 to come up with inches.
(FWIW: I regularly shoot valken redemption through a .682 freak, it blows through my .684 and rolls through the .687 and occasionally breaks in the .679)
In any case, the exact diameters may be off, but how you measured it and how I converted it, the Valken is consistently larger.
AVG D1, AVG D2
Valken: .667in, .679in
Karnage: .645in, .671in
There has got to be something wrong here... either with your conversion, or my instrument. Those numbers do not illustrate how much bigger both of the balls are when compared to the Lurker barrel.
Yeah I was thinking that the measured sizes were a little too small, but as long as you measured them consistently with the same method and device, some conclusions can be drawn when comparing various brands.
So perhaps the overall conclusion is this, sort of what we already knew:
1. The size of the paint relative to the size of the bore it is shot through is more important than the roundness.
The data seems to back up a slightly modified version of that statement:
The minimum dimension of the paint in this case is more important than the roundness.
(I didn't test several different bores, so I don't think that we have the data to say that the minimum dimension relative to the bore is important... if we could correlate several different paint sizes with several different bores, THEN I think that theory could get off the ground)
One other thing that I will mention is that the Karnage paint shell felt more "traditional," like the soft gelatin shell I am used to. The valken had a more, slick, plastic feeling shell. I'm not sure if that effected the shot pattern, The karnage could have deformed better and made a better seal (note how much faster the Karnage was then the Valken).
I would agree with that, a relatively small minimum dimension would affect the seal. So do you think there are other variables here we're not accounting for, such as the friction and malleability of the shell?
supertux1 hasn't added any friends yet.