my statements are functionally identical, and yet you protest one, and fully agree with the other. not sure why you think you can do that. you and ego keep doing that to me, i repeat the exact same thing, over and over again, and get vastly different responses from you guys.
They weren't, but that's besides the point, really, I was attempting to add some levity and failed miserably.
the barrel did not improve accuracy in this test, which is a reasonable model for typical paintball playing. this makes it unsuitable for a mainstream product with the claim to improve accuracy. to my knowledge, lurker himself, the guy who designed the barrel, and sent it to us for evaluation, agrees with that conclusion. so im not sure where the disconnect is, i keep saying a perfectly reasonable thing, and everyone keeps either agreeing or freaking out depending on the way the wind blows.
I DO think it was a reasonable test, but I would like to see additional testing to see if the noise created by lower quality paint was hiding a potential signal. I see how this could be confusing, but not THAT confusing. It's a great test, thanks for running it, but I would like to see some additional testing as well. You don't have to defend your test or your methodology, none of that is being critiqued. We are curious if, different, initial conditions would change the outcome.
Think about it this way. If I run an experiment and drop a ball and see where it lands, I can repeat this many times and see the same result. However, if I change the test and drop it from a different position, that may or may not change the outcome of the test. There isn't anything WRONG with the first test, we are just exploring different conditions.
where did i say there isn't anything else we can do to increase accuracy?
You didn't, I did. I think that we have enough evidence compiled to know that paint is by far the biggest, controllable, influencing factor on paintball trajectory (assuming a reasonably consistent mounted marker). Frankly, I'm tired of adding confirmation to that theory, as I suspect you are as well. We know it's true... so the question is "now what?"
and again, why are we all bitching about a barrel shooting like a barrel? wow, big news, a tube shoots like a tube. literally every single data points we have taken in 4 years points to a tube, just being a tube. what is way more interesting here is that a bigger tube, with more porting, shot as efficiently as a tighter tube with less porting. this is contrary to all of our testing to date. and yet, no one cares.
and yet people want to bitch and moan about a tube shooting like a tube. i hoped it would work too. i hoped accuracy was that easy to solve too. but you gotta know, we were betting the long shot with this barrel.
We aren't bitching about the test, we are interested in exploring different initial conditions. Now, we can CERTAINLY debate on the utility of running a test like that. I think that you have a reasonable argument saying that most people don't shoot better paint, therefore, such a test won't benefit most people. I also see that it might be confusing to tell someone that a barrel is only a benefit if using certain paint, but that's putting the cart before the horse. We, simply, don't know if it'll be any better using better paint would change the outcome.
This whole debate has become blown way out of proportion because you see it as an indictment of your methodology, which it isn't. Basically, we want to test a different hypothesis then the one you tested (Is that EVER a bad thing?). Ultimately, it's your call as to whether or not you see enough utility in conducting a test that might, potentially, not benefit the majority of players. Personally, my curiosity is getting the best of me, so I'm interested. I would be willing to test it, but I understand if you are unwilling... I, however, realize it would still be a long shot though. If we did see any difference though, we could, potentially, quantify the effect of a barrel's muzzle blast and PROVE it's effect to be lower then the threshold of noise created by ordinary paint (which I think would be interesting... but maybe that's just me).
Basically, our argument is about the bar you set for a useful experiment. Personally, I could care less about what benefit's "most" players. I'm more into the science then the, actual, practical benefit. That's why we are having this conversation.
Edited by Troy, 25 September 2012 - 11:29 AM.