Jump to content


Photo

isnt consistency and accuracy the same?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#51 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 08 August 2012 - 01:29 AM

i call it using data effectively. we took it, its accurate, and it has clear conclusions, just because we didn't explicitly state we were testing it doesn't mean the data is suddenly less conclusive


Actually it is less conclusive due to the fewer data points. Your data is heavily skewed by outliers.

im fine with that, still doesn't make our data less conclusive on the topic.


Your data is mostly inconclusive on the topic, which is not surprising because it doesn't test the topic. The elephant in the room is the source of the fluctuation -- shots which amount to outliers on an otherwise consistent marker could be paint-based fluctuations, i.e. an oversized, undersized or out-of-round ball, situations which your and other peoples' testing has shown can induce spin. Whereas a marker-based fluctuation, say, from an inconsistent pulse, could see less spin-induced trajectory change. So no, your data is not conclusive by a long shot.

FWIW Troy's data actually comes closer and actually does show a correlation, however I'm not sure how valid that is at 30 feet. In the end though, it's mathematically conclusive and patently obvious to any player that velocity has a correlation to trajectory.

Edited by drg, 08 August 2012 - 01:50 AM.

Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#52 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,045 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:06 AM

i call it using data effectively. we took it, its accurate, and it has clear conclusions, just because we didn't explicitly state we were testing it doesn't mean the data is suddenly less conclusive


Actually it is less conclusive due to the fewer data points. Your data is heavily skewed by outliers.

im fine with that, still doesn't make our data less conclusive on the topic.


Your data is mostly inconclusive on the topic, which is not surprising because it doesn't test the topic. The elephant in the room is the source of the fluctuation -- shots which amount to outliers on an otherwise consistent marker could be paint-based fluctuations, i.e. an oversized, undersized or out-of-round ball, situations which your and other peoples' testing has shown can induce spin. Whereas a marker-based fluctuation, say, from an inconsistent pulse, could see less spin-induced trajectory change. So no, your data is not conclusive by a long shot.

FWIW Troy's data actually comes closer and actually does show a correlation, however I'm not sure how valid that is at 30 feet. In the end though, it's mathematically conclusive and patently obvious to any player that velocity has a correlation to trajectory.


we have the data on the topic, we don;t need to test it because we have nearly 100 patterns shot to grab data from. all with different averages, all with different SD .... its all there. again, just because we did not take the data with the express purpose of looking at the topic, doesn't make the data less applicable, or less conclusive.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#53 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:03 PM

we have the data on the topic, we don;t need to test it because we have nearly 100 patterns shot to grab data from. all with different averages, all with different SD .... its all there. again, just because we did not take the data with the express purpose of looking at the topic, doesn't make the data less applicable, or less conclusive.


I disagree, for the reasons stated above, but I suspect we aren't going to come any closer to agreeing on this one.

I'll still be trying to get the best consistency I can, personally.

Edited by drg, 08 August 2012 - 08:04 PM.

Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#54 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,045 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:08 PM

I disagree, for the reasons stated above, but I suspect we aren't going to come any closer to agreeing on this one.

and your stated reason makes no sense at all

I'll still be trying to get the best consistency I can, personally.

as will we all ... some of us for real reasons, and others for not real reasons


^^^^
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#55 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:26 AM

and your stated reason makes no sense at all


It makes perfect sense as long as one is thinking rather than being mindlessly defensive. You can't compare different patterns to each other absolutely without an aimpoint control, something your tests never have. You have simply never tested the claim, yet you are calling your data conclusive on it. Shame on you.

Edited by drg, 10 August 2012 - 02:46 AM.

Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#56 Troy

Troy

    What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma City

Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:43 AM

and your stated reason makes no sense at all


It makes perfect sense as long as one is thinking rather than being mindlessly defensive. You can't compare different patterns to each other absolutely without an aimpoint control, something your tests never have. You have simply never tested the claim, yet you are calling your data conclusive on it. Shame on you.


Their aim point is controlled. It's the statistical center of the data. Where the marker is ACTUALLY pointing is irrelevant (assuming it's static) as long as there is deviation in the velocity, they have the ability to test for correlation between Y positioning and velocity. No significant correlation has been found... ever, at any distance.

Who among us is being mindlessly defensive? The people that are unconvinced of your theory and can point to data that backs it up (even if the data isn't conclusive by your standards), or the person that is 100% sure of his theory, but can't find a shred of observational data to bolster his position? You are more then welcome to do your own test, but this armchair scientist approach that you are taking isn't working for you. Personally, I would LOVE to know how much velocity fluctuation it takes to influence the final shot position... that would be a cool experiment that you could tackle, or you could just sit back and continue to make unsupported claims.
\m/

#57 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 10 August 2012 - 06:07 PM

Their aim point is controlled. It's the statistical center of the data. Where the marker is ACTUALLY pointing is irrelevant (assuming it's static) as long as there is deviation in the velocity, they have the ability to test for correlation between Y positioning and velocity. No significant correlation has been found... ever, at any distance.


No, the real aimpoint is significant if you want to compare absolute y between two different patterns. Tests may find similar levels of deviation at each chrono point but that does not measure the trajectory difference between chrono points, in fact the trajectory is factored out deliberately.

Your test data actually comes the closest to testing this, and even at 30 feet your data shows a correlation between chrono velocity and y position.

But of course anyone who has done much shooting with a paintball gun, particularly with a 12g powering it, knows that velocity absolutely has a correlation to trajectory.

Edited by drg, 10 August 2012 - 06:19 PM.

Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#58 rntlee

rntlee

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:08 PM

It's not as obvious as you seem to think, drg.
The reason being that in order to hit a level target 100' away with a paintball gun, you need to tilt the gun on an angle somewhere around 3 dgrees. The balls traverse a ballistic arc, so accelleration from gravity begins at the top of the arc (or over halfway to the target). This makes the difference in drop betwwen a 300 fps shot and a 270 fps drop quite small at 100' actually. Using a free ballistic app on my ipad (not great, I know), I calculated the difference to be less than a paintball diameter at 100'. Sure, the calculated difference is greater at 150' (22"), but it's still far smaller than the shot spread and hitting something at that range is shit luck anyway.
If you go out and record some shot locations vs. velocity with your marker, it will very quickly become obvious that paintballs have many large forces affecting their shot spread. You'll notice that the lower velocity shots will not "follow the rules" and are just as often higher than the faster balls as they are lower on the target.

Edited by rntlee, 10 August 2012 - 08:26 PM.


#59 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:23 PM

I'm coming up with a much larger number (between 5 and 10 inches), even assuming completely flat terrain and a target at equal height as the muzzle (big assumptions indeed). As I mentioned earlier, it's not simply a question of firing a bunch of shots and looking at the velocities and impact location of each. There is a difference between measuring the performance of outliers and normal shots (i.e. chrono speed shots). You can't just take the low shots and high shots from a given string of shots, with no marker tuning change, and compare them as if they were normal shots at the target velocity.

Regardless, the presence of the calculated difference indicates that there does exist a force differential between balls traveling at different velocities, and I just can't think of a reason it would not be a good idea to reduce or eliminate that differential. That force HAS to be affecting the flight of the balls, if we accept the physics as valid.

Edited by drg, 10 August 2012 - 09:24 PM.

Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#60 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,045 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:23 PM

and your stated reason makes no sense at all


It makes perfect sense as long as one is thinking rather than being mindlessly defensive. You can't compare different patterns to each other absolutely without an aimpoint control, something your tests never have. You have simply never tested the claim, yet you are calling your data conclusive on it. Shame on you.


aim point is irrelevant in this analysis.

Edited by cockerpunk, 10 August 2012 - 11:23 PM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#61 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 11 August 2012 - 01:08 AM

DRG,

Shot to Shot velocity fluctuations do have the potential to increase vertical axis spread. Assuming a flat and level shot here's how the same paintball looks at varying velocities between 280 and 300
Posted Image

#62 rntlee

rntlee

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 01:38 PM

Regardless, the presence of the calculated difference indicates that there does exist a force differential between balls traveling at different velocities, and I just can't think of a reason it would not be a good idea to reduce or eliminate that differential. That force HAS to be affecting the flight of the balls, if we accept the physics as valid.


In a vacuum, yes velocity inconsistencies =<12fps would translate into noticeable trajectory deviations at 100'. In the real-world, asymmetric boundary layer tripping, from spin and/or surface defects, causes force to be applied to the balls in random directions as they fly to the target. The smaller velocity-induced y-axis deviations are lost in the noise of the larger forces.

It's pretty simple to prove otherwise to us. Just run an experiment of your own. If you're not willing to do this, then everything you've posted is simply armchair speculation and not worth the time it takes for you to type it out.

Edited by rntlee, 11 August 2012 - 01:39 PM.


#63 tyronejk

tyronejk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 29 August 2012 - 06:20 PM

I would just like to add, for future reference, that, by definition, accuracy and consistency are unrelated, ie a gun can be accurate, but inconsistent, or a gun can be consistent, but inaccurate.

Accuracy is how far the center of your bullet/paintball spread is from your target. If you're shooting a 5-foot spread perfectly centered around a 3-inch target painted on a wall, then your gun is accurate, but inconsistent.

Consistency is how small/large your bullet/paintball spread is. If you're shooting at the same target, but now you're shooting within a 1-inch circle 5-feet to the right of the target, your gun is consistent, but inaccurate.

[citation]

#64 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 29 August 2012 - 06:35 PM

I would just like to add, for future reference, that, by definition, accuracy and consistency are unrelated, ie a gun can be accurate, but inconsistent, or a gun can be consistent, but inaccurate.

Accuracy is how far the center of your bullet/paintball spread is from your target. If you're shooting a 5-foot spread perfectly centered around a 3-inch target painted on a wall, then your gun is accurate, but inconsistent.

Consistency is how small/large your bullet/paintball spread is. If you're shooting at the same target, but now you're shooting within a 1-inch circle 5-feet to the right of the target, your gun is consistent, but inaccurate.

[citation]


You should have read at least the first page of this thread. If you did you would see that "consistency" in this conversation is being used in the context of Velocity Consistency or, how much your FPS varies from shot to shot. Then, the following posts in this thread go on to question how much the balls may spread based on the changing velocities due to simple trajectory physics and theoretical differences due to vortex shedding at varying velocities, etc.

In regards to "accuracy and consistency are unrelated", on this sub forum, that has been discussed in regards to "Accuracy Vs Precision" as it has been discussed on that very same wiki you linked in the section "Accuracy versus precision: the target analogy".

#65 Eskimo

Eskimo

    Member #: 666 ( Seriously )

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Whitby

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:56 PM

So what everyone is trying to say is:

The more money you spend on a barrel, the more consistent And accurate it is.

Spoiler

Edited by Eskimo, 29 August 2012 - 08:57 PM.

Citrus Connection
Proudly Partnered With: PBL, TechPB, Pinokio Hoppers, HK·Army


#66 tyronejk

tyronejk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 04:58 PM


I would just like to add, for future reference, that, by definition, accuracy and consistency are unrelated, ie a gun can be accurate, but inconsistent, or a gun can be consistent, but inaccurate.

Accuracy is how far the center of your bullet/paintball spread is from your target. If you're shooting a 5-foot spread perfectly centered around a 3-inch target painted on a wall, then your gun is accurate, but inconsistent.

Consistency is how small/large your bullet/paintball spread is. If you're shooting at the same target, but now you're shooting within a 1-inch circle 5-feet to the right of the target, your gun is consistent, but inaccurate.

[citation]


You should have read at least the first page of this thread. If you did you would see that "consistency" in this conversation is being used in the context of Velocity Consistency or, how much your FPS varies from shot to shot. Then, the following posts in this thread go on to question how much the balls may spread based on the changing velocities due to simple trajectory physics and theoretical differences due to vortex shedding at varying velocities, etc.

In regards to "accuracy and consistency are unrelated", on this sub forum, that has been discussed in regards to "Accuracy Vs Precision" as it has been discussed on that very same wiki you linked in the section "Accuracy versus precision: the target analogy".


I would just like to add, for future reference, that, by definition, accuracy and consistency are unrelated, ie a gun can be accurate, but inconsistent, or a gun can be consistent, but inaccurate.

Accuracy is how far the center of your bullet/paintball spread is from your target. If you're shooting a 5-foot spread perfectly centered around a 3-inch target painted on a wall, then your gun is accurate, but inconsistent.

Consistency is how small/large your bullet/paintball spread is. If you're shooting at the same target, but now you're shooting within a 1-inch circle 5-feet to the right of the target, your gun is consistent, but inaccurate.

[citation]

#67 Troy

Troy

    What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma City

Posted 04 September 2012 - 09:20 AM

I would just like to add, for future reference, that, by definition, accuracy and consistency are unrelated, ie a gun can be accurate, but inconsistent, or a gun can be consistent, but inaccurate.

Accuracy is how far the center of your bullet/paintball spread is from your target. If you're shooting a 5-foot spread perfectly centered around a 3-inch target painted on a wall, then your gun is accurate, but inconsistent.

Consistency is how small/large your bullet/paintball spread is. If you're shooting at the same target, but now you're shooting within a 1-inch circle 5-feet to the right of the target, your gun is consistent, but inaccurate.


We are aware of this discrepancy... in here, we commonly refer to "accuracy" in regards to shot grouping on a target, and consistency as the amount of speed fluctuation over the chrono. It could be argued that both measures are REALLY just a measure of consistency, but there are good reasons for us to use such language. I would prefer not to open up that can of worms again, as it's been beaten to death, but let it suffice to say that we don't care about your ability to site in your marker (which would be "accuracy" in the sense you described above).
\m/




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users