Jump to content


Photo

"barracuda" accuracy and chrono testing


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
88 replies to this topic

#1 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:13 AM

Posted Image

accuracy compared to several benchmarks: https://docs.google....FwcU1nYmc#gid=0

chrono data compared to the best of the best: https://docs.google....dLNGpJX0E#gid=0

video will be up shortly!
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."


#2 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:26 AM

So, what can we know about this 'barracuda' barrel? Manufacturer? Bore? It looks like Flasc.

Are there claims of noise reduction associated with this barrel? My intuition causes me to suspect that this barrel will be louder than traditionally ported barrels of a similar bore/length.

Am I correct in assuming that off board / Chrono error shots are simply not included in the data?

#3 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:55 PM

i will leave it in the hands of the folks who made the barrel to say something about it.

interesting chrono results ....
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."


#4 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:37 PM

Bore was spec'd at 0.680", I don't know what it is after polishing.

interesting chrono results ....


Indeed. Although the chrono results from the accuracy testing tell a less impressive story.
eiπ = − 1

#5 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:18 PM

Bore was spec'd at 0.680", I don't know what it is after polishing.

interesting chrono results ....


Indeed. Although the chrono results from the accuracy testing tell a less impressive story.


we rechrono during accuracy testing. this is where we noticed it was not as much of a gas hog as we suspected it would be.
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."


#6 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:17 PM

Ah, makes sense.

"Maybe Lurker's new barrel?


I was just given the go-ahead to say yes, this was a collaboration between Lurker and myself to be sold as a new Lurker barrel. We will go over the test data and possibly make revisions/changes. Our original goal was to produce a statistically more accurate barrel, but if we're seeing increases in efficiency we'll take that into consideration during our design process. The velocity gains are not entirely unexpected, although more pronounced than we would have thought.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 21 September 2012 - 03:28 PM.

eiπ = − 1

#7 rntlee

rntlee

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:59 PM

13"-14" vectors at 100' are pretty mediocre...You were getting better results at 125' in your previous testing. Was the paint in good shape?

#8 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 22 September 2012 - 01:31 AM

So ... what ideas were supposedly used in this barrel? Are you still planning to produce it given the complexity vs lack of results?
Seems very crown point.

Edited by drg, 22 September 2012 - 01:35 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

#9 rntlee

rntlee

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts

Posted 22 September 2012 - 06:52 AM

It looks to me like they were hoping to mitigate any muzzle effects. I personally was never able to create any measurable improvement in shot spread via this approach. I couldn't even measure a difference between an un-ported "tube", and one with pretty elaborate porting and muzzle break.
The best bet for creating a statistically measurable, better-shooting apparatus is via spin-reduction. This would require a completely redesigning the paintball marker from the ground up, and still the result would be measurable only with the best performing paints.

#10 upriver

upriver

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 22 September 2012 - 10:51 AM

Do you have a detailed description of how you ran these tests? Also, can you explain the logic behind using a^2 + b^2 = c^2 on the standard deviations? What does vec. stand for?

thanks

#11 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:34 AM

Seems very crown point.


Hah yeah, the funny part is I didn't even see the crown point until after I had finished the design. I think Tom had different goals in mind with his design.

It looks to me like they were hoping to mitigate any muzzle effects. I personally was never able to create any measurable improvement in shot spread via this approach. I couldn't even measure a difference between an un-ported "tube", and one with pretty elaborate porting and muzzle break.


Pretty much.

The best bet for creating a statistically measurable, better-shooting apparatus is via spin-reduction. This would require a completely redesigning the paintball marker from the ground up, and still the result would be measurable only with the best performing paints.


We'll see.
eiπ = − 1

#12 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 September 2012 - 07:38 AM

Are there claims of noise reduction associated with this barrel? My intuition causes me to suspect that this barrel will be louder than traditionally ported barrels of a similar bore/length.


The barrel is louder than other Lurker barrels. It also "pings" like the crown point. We were shooting it on my Protege - I'm sure on an Epic or mag it would ring like crazy.

13"-14" vectors at 100' are pretty mediocre...You were getting better results at 125' in your previous testing. Was the paint in good shape?


The paint was medium-poor - but as with all our tests - the paint quality day to day isn't really too important. Since we always run comparative tests rather than universal tests it works fine.

Hah yeah, the funny part is I didn't even see the crown point until after I had finished the design. I think Tom had different goals in mind with his design.


TK's thought process behind the crown point was that he wanted to have a gradual introduction of the pressure / ball out of the barrel. He now knows that the air flow doesn't work that way - but his thought process was that the tapered opening would at first let the air out gradually - then increasingly as it progressed along the triangle shaped hole.

The big difference I see with this barrel is the "rail" system created by the combination of the tapered slots and the internal fluting.

#13 rntlee

rntlee

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts

Posted 23 September 2012 - 08:23 AM


13"-14" vectors at 100' are pretty mediocre...You were getting better results at 125' in your previous testing. Was the paint in good shape?


The paint was medium-poor - but as with all our tests - the paint quality day to day isn't really too important. Since we always run comparative tests rather than universal tests it works fine.


Ok, I thought that was probably so.

Not being critical here, but I don't understand your methodology regarding paint choice for tests. You fellows insist on indoor testing, yet are willing to use mediocre paint in your tests? Paint is always the biggest factor in accuracy, and poor shooting paint will obfuscate any meaningful results you might obtain regarding the barrel's effect on shot spread. The barrel's only large input into paintball shot spread is imparted spin. Yet, in order to be able to measure different spins via the shot spread, you HAVE to use excellent paint.
I know your argument about "practical" accuracy, but there are more factors involved in a test such as this. The ability to market a barrel that is demonstrably better-shooting than any other barrel would be a HUGE asset to the manufacturer, even if the difference was conditional on paint quality.

Edited by rntlee, 23 September 2012 - 08:25 AM.


#14 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 23 September 2012 - 09:48 AM



13"-14" vectors at 100' are pretty mediocre...You were getting better results at 125' in your previous testing. Was the paint in good shape?


The paint was medium-poor - but as with all our tests - the paint quality day to day isn't really too important. Since we always run comparative tests rather than universal tests it works fine.


Ok, I thought that was probably so.

Not being critical here, but I don't understand your methodology regarding paint choice for tests. You fellows insist on indoor testing, yet are willing to use mediocre paint in your tests? Paint is always the biggest factor in accuracy, and poor shooting paint will obfuscate any meaningful results you might obtain regarding the barrel's effect on shot spread. The barrel's only large input into paintball shot spread is imparted spin. Yet, in order to be able to measure different spins via the shot spread, you HAVE to use excellent paint.


I would agree with this, and while I appreciate that better paint is more $, by using medium-poor grade paint you're intentionally introducing noise to the system. No conclusions can be drawn about performance with good paint, because any potential signal might have been wiped out.

IMO we've learned about as much as we can with shitty paint, things like good bore sizes (for shitty paint) and appropriate barrel lengths. And really, we've learned that most barrels of the same bore and length perform pretty much equivalently under those conditions. But any finesse beyond the most blunt of effects - things like internal surface finish, gloss vs. matte paint, differences in porting patterns etc - will be drowned out by imperfections in the way the ball makes contact with the barrel, so we don't really have any information on how to achieve peak performance - which I think is what a lot of people are going for.

tl;dr - we've pretty much learned a barrel behaves like any other barrel of the same bore, length and # of pieces when you shoot shitty paint... but what happens if you're in a tournament situation shooting good tournament grade paint? Whose equipment gives you an edge then?

Edited by Egomaniacal, 23 September 2012 - 11:19 AM.

eiπ = − 1

#15 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 September 2012 - 05:36 PM

see new topic. :)

In which we prove that underboring creates accuracy problems. In this case well outside the noise introduced by the paint quality.

This shows that the barrel can cause measurable accuracy differences.

#16 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 23 September 2012 - 06:32 PM

see new topic. :)

In which we prove that underboring creates accuracy problems. In this case well outside the noise introduced by the paint quality.

This shows that the barrel can cause measurable accuracy differences.


I would like to clarify that "the barrel" you're referring to in this post is not the barrel which is the topic of this thread but any arbitrary barrel. The barracuda was not included in the new round of tests.


Also, that bore has an effect on the accuracy of mediocre paint was never in question and I said as much in my post. I have personally followed the rule of thumb of nothing more than .005" underbore based on your last large round of barrel testing.
eiπ = − 1

#17 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 23 September 2012 - 06:42 PM

Also, that bore has an effect on the accuracy of mediocre paint was never in question and I said as much in my post. I have personally followed the rule of thumb of nothing more than .005" underbore based on your last large round of barrel testing.


Just using it as a point. I'm showing that a known condition that causes poor accuracy will override the noise introduced by the paint.

#18 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 23 September 2012 - 10:24 PM

Just using it as a point. I'm showing that a known condition that causes poor accuracy will override the noise introduced by the paint.


But why is that relevant? All all that means is THAT known condition is strong enough to override the noise of bad paint, which is a huge amount of noise in this case - and suggests the two are relatively independent variables. That doesn't mean any arbitrary condition has to be strong enough to override paint quality in order to show an improvement in accuracy for people using good paint. And on top of that, I strongly suspect that if this barrel were to show an improvement, that improvement would depend on paint quality because of interactions with the rails.

People who care about accuracy already use an appropriate underbore and quality paint. What's going to improve accuracy from there? You're making the assumption that any improvement would not depend on paint quality and necessarily can drown out the noise of that signal, and it is a poor one.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 23 September 2012 - 10:29 PM.

eiπ = − 1

#19 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:31 AM

if the barrel only provides better accuracy with perfect paint, then it is useless to me as a player, and consumer, and is also equally useless to a product designer.

this was med-good field grade paint, the exact paint that every weekend thousands of players take to the field with. if it doesn't work for them, its not very useful.

/end topic

i wanna know why the barrel shoots so damn fast.

Edited by cockerpunk, 24 September 2012 - 08:33 AM.

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."


#20 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:38 AM

Right - this is the field paint at by far the larges indoor provider in the area. They'll have three fields operating in a month or so - which prob is 75% of the paintball being played in MN for 6 months of the year. They sold something like 120 skids of paint last year. This is the paint I will be playing with over the winter months - there's no other option.

If a system can't make it shoot better than the system has no value to me.

(*see same thoughts in the bore to accuracy thread)

#21 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:40 AM

The paint was medium-poor


this was med-good field grade paint


So which is it gentlemen, and how are you quantifying it?
eiπ = − 1

#22 Troy

Troy

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

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:48 AM

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.
\m/

#23 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:51 AM


The paint was medium-poor


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.
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."


#24 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:55 AM

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.
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."


#25 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:56 AM



The paint was medium-poor


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.

#26 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:58 AM

if the barrel only provides better accuracy with perfect paint


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

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.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 24 September 2012 - 10:01 AM.

eiπ = − 1

#27 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:05 AM


if the barrel only provides better accuracy with perfect paint



I said nothing about perfect paint.

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
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."


#28 Troy

Troy

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

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:25 AM

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...
\m/

#29 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 11:59 AM

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

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.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 24 September 2012 - 12:04 PM.

eiπ = − 1

#30 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:34 PM

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

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.

Edited by cockerpunk, 24 September 2012 - 12:35 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."


#31 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:22 PM

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.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 24 September 2012 - 01:23 PM.

eiπ = − 1

#32 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:32 PM

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.
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."


#33 Snipez4664

Snipez4664

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:17 PM

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!).

Edited by Snipez4664, 24 September 2012 - 02:30 PM.

Posted Image

This post brought to you by: Lurker
Owner/Operator/Lead Engineer - Lurker Paintball
Check out our products at Lurker Paintball

#34 Cookybiscuit

Cookybiscuit

    Schadenfreude Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,636 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mexico


Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:03 PM

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

Awarded: " the biggest dumbass on this forum" 2012


#35 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:09 PM

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.
eiπ = − 1

#36 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:20 PM

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.
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."


#37 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:41 PM

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.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 24 September 2012 - 03:47 PM.

eiπ = − 1

#38 Troy

Troy

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

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:52 PM

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. ;)
\m/

#39 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:53 PM

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.

Edited by cockerpunk, 24 September 2012 - 03:54 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."


#40 tallsmallboy44

tallsmallboy44

    Space Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:55 PM

I feel like an idiot reading this thread.

Posted Image

Physics!

Edited by tallsmallboy44, 24 September 2012 - 04:06 PM.

fuck yolo
#carpediem

Feedback 2/0/0   Buy my shit here: http://www.techpb.co...-bob-long-vcom/


#41 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:59 PM

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.


Fucking NO! Scale is not an appropriate objection here! High quality paint is WIDELY available, especially in tournament and scenario conditions. If there were an effect, I would EXPECT it to be destroyed by low quality paint!

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.


Edited by Egomaniacal, 24 September 2012 - 04:00 PM.

eiπ = − 1

#42 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:01 PM

going with a cars counter example.

last weekend i dynoed the redhead.

she pushed a health 240 rwph, which i was very happy about it. sadly, after 3 pulls it almost overheated on the dyno. why was this, i never have overheating problems in real life driving, even autocross and hard street driving. its because during a dyno day, they are pushing cars in and out of the dyno at the rate of 2-3 per hour, and setting up fans and ducting and getting realistic airflow over the radiator and intercooler is just not something they are going to fuck with.

does this mean my dyno results are NOT indicative of the performance of my car?

dynos, even different dynos of the same make and model produce as much as 5% different horsepower. heck, a 10 degree reduction is temp of ambient is probably good for 3-5 extra rwhp. should i then claim the dyno results null and void?

THE SCALE OF THE ERROR REDUCTION NEED ONLY BE AS GOOD AS THE USAGE OF THE DEVICE BEING TESTED.
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."


#43 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,112 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:08 PM


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.


Fucking NO! Scale is not an appropriate objection here! High quality paint is WIDELY available, especially in tournament and scenario conditions. If there were an effect, I would EXPECT it to be destroyed by low quality paint!

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.


i have not been to BYOP field in ..... 4 years?

every scenario event (both nationally produced and locally produced) and national tournament (both NPPL and PSP) i have been to has been FPO. on a good day that is 2 choices of paint.

sorry, the vast majority of paintball play is done with very few options in paint. and most of the time, that paint is mediocre at best.

i wish that too wasn't the case, but it is.

and if the performance gain is destroyed by using widely available paint, then its not useful to me. i hate to bring it out as an example, but its the sweep system all over again. we did find it worked on some balls, some balls did have backspin ... but that doesn't make it a successful product. could an idea like the sweep system be refined into a useful product? maybe ... idk. someone should try and we'd be happy to test it out.

Edited by cockerpunk, 24 September 2012 - 04:09 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."


#44 Troy

Troy

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

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:15 PM

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


I think this is understood, what he would like to see tested is the barrel under atypical conditions. If we come to grips with the fact that using premium tourney level paint isn't what most of the populace does, then we can find if there are some performance gains that are interesting to US (and not the general population).

The best speedball field in my area allows off site paint... so, I am interested in tests using better than "normal" paint. However, I recognize that my situation is, certainly, an edge case.
\m/

#45 andrewthewookie

andrewthewookie

    Shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarks :(

  • Chat Coordinator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,876 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Your bedroom


Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:19 PM

I'll throw in my $.02: Now that we've seen the barrel under "normal" conditions, I'd like to see it pushed to the limits; to see what it's capable of in those scenarios where it may have an affect that's not hidden in the noise.

RebelSignaturejedicode-1.jpg
Hybrid SFT • 09 Impulse • HB REV-i • Macroless Mech Ion
Rotor • Grillz • PE 70/45 • Feedback - 23/0/0

Fear is the mind-killer


#46 Snipez4664

Snipez4664

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:20 PM

They did; the apex puts a pretty consistent spin on things, but it didn't produce more accuracy in your tests, right?

Some of which show a slight improvement, and all of which outperformed your control in the x dimension. (I get a P value of 0.49 though, so such a statement is completely worthless) https://spreadsheets...NvaGotX1E&gid=0

I don't have a good sense whether that vector represents better paint than in the 'cuda testing, since they were at different lengths. But, controlling spin didn't produce a big change either is my point









Posted Image

This post brought to you by: Lurker
Owner/Operator/Lead Engineer - Lurker Paintball
Check out our products at Lurker Paintball

#47 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:26 PM

Alright. Pause. Breathe..... okay.

Here's what I hear you saying. Noise in a measurement need only be reduced to the desired resolution of the effect size you're looking for (actually not even that far, but that's besides the point). I hear you, and I probably understand your point better than you realize.

What I'm saying is you need to be careful in generalizing your conclusions. Tournament grade paint is widely available. It is within the realm of day-to-day play to be shooting very good paint (as far as paint goes), and is desirable to most people on this forum. Furthermore, if an effect that might cause an increase in accuracy is dependent on the paint quality - meaning relative changes in accuracy increase or decrease as the paint quality changes, you may have missed it by using the grade of paint you seem to have used. You cannot know the strength of this dependence well enough to say there are no circumstances where you might see an improvement in accuracy on the field. To be using high quality fresh paint is not outside of the realm of possibility for daily play, but that condition has not been covered by this test. And in fact, because the rails make contact with the ball in a limited number of small areas, I would fully expect any possible gains in accuracy to quickly disappear as paint roundness decreases.

The bottom line is we already know bad paint shoots poorly. I think it's fair to say most of us buy the best paint we can afford/find. So in my opinion it makes sense to use the best quality of paint you can for tests like these.

Again I appreciate the time, effort and money you have put into these tests. Thank you, you have certainly put a constraint on accuracy improvements within the conditions they were tested.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 24 September 2012 - 04:32 PM.

eiπ = − 1

#48 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 04:40 PM

On a side note:

i hate to bring it out as an example, but its the sweep system all over again. we did find it worked on some balls, some balls did have backspin ... but that doesn't make it a successful product. could an idea like the sweep system be refined into a useful product? maybe ... idk. someone should try and we'd be happy to test it out.


How is someone who designs products supposed to do that if you're not more specific in the constraints of your test? Saying "this works on some paint [but we don't know which paint or why, and we can't tell you all the constraints in the system]" isn't useful information for someone trying to refine an idea.

Along those same lines, there may have been a breakdown in communication here. I was not going into this expecting much of anything. At least from my perspective this was not intended to be product testing, but rather proof of concept and prototype testing... as this is a prototype.

i have not been to BYOP field in ..... 4 years?


The field I frequent is BYOP, and if I play at PEV's they almost always have quality paint in stock (for a price). Your experiences are not the rule.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 24 September 2012 - 04:45 PM.

eiπ = − 1

#49 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:08 PM

Here's something I'm wondering given this whole discussion of paint quality effects on barrel testing.

How does this paint compare to the DXS silver that most of the previous barrel testing was conducted with? I'm under the impression that the answer is 'comparable'.

If this is the case, why should we strive to introduce a higher grade of paint? It seems to me, that if we're to compare barrels (or more specifically barrel characteristics like under/overbore, control length, porting, etc) then we should stay consistent. Unless that is in my opinion, we plan on revisiting all of the previous concepts with higher quality paint.

#50 Egomaniacal

Egomaniacal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:17 PM

Here's something I'm wondering given this whole discussion of paint quality effects on barrel testing.

How does this paint compare to the DXS silver that most of the previous barrel testing was conducted with? I'm under the impression that the answer is 'comparable'.

If this is the case, why should we strive to introduce a higher grade of paint? It seems to me, that if we're to compare barrels (or more specifically barrel characteristics like under/overbore, control length, porting, etc) then we should stay consistent. Unless that is in my opinion, we plan on revisiting all of the previous concepts with higher quality paint.


Since you can't really compare the two sets of data due to differing and unrecorded conditions, that's not really an issue. The two data sets stand on their own, you really shouldn't compare them.

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.



It is my guess that the increase in vector is due to lower quality paint being used in this test.

Edited by Egomaniacal, 24 September 2012 - 05:17 PM.

eiπ = − 1




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users