Jump to content


Kjimenez

Member Since 02 Jul 2010
Offline Last Active Feb 11 2014 11:22 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Lowering Playing Costs..

03 February 2014 - 07:58 PM

Ah. I know plenty of people from the Cambridge/Isanti/Princeton area. It's definitely a good area for paintball, and rural enough no one will bother you much.

 

I'd be happy to take part when the weather improves, so keep me in the loop.

 

Also, try using Google Maps on your property to get a different perspective, and map out your field ideas using a GPS. 

 

Once you have some good ideas of playing areas, make sure you do a detailed walk-through for safety hazards and unfriendly wildlife.You can't eliminate everything, but remember people will be running around in this area. If you stumble on a gopher hole or a rock in a trail when you walk through, someone will probably hurt themselves playing. And you definitely don't want to run across a hornet's nest or something while you're playing.


In Topic: Lowering Playing Costs..

02 February 2014 - 07:09 PM

It might be best to simply mark off some promising areas with surveyor's tape and play some private games with no artificial structures first. See where players naturally go, where extra cover might be needed, et cetera. You can really change how games go just by changing the shape of the field. Big square fields usually result in skirmish lines and whack-a-mole type play. Designs with major bottlenecks like bridges create stalemates. Fields that are too large are boring, but go too small and you'll frustrate players.

 

Get ahold of the original Survival Game manual, they have some great ideas about field design. Same with Bill Barnes' "Paintball Strategy and Tactics". This video (and any other FPS level design tutorial) may help as well.  

 

As far as structures go, I think the most important structures are netted safe areas (with tables and chairs), clearly marked chrono stations, field entrances with "Goggles On" signs and field exits with "Barrel Bags On" signs. The rest is pretty much optional.

 

Where in MN are you located? I happen to be in Fargo.


In Topic: Side Feed?

28 January 2014 - 01:06 AM

It looks like a bunch of older markers have feed tubes that are angled 45 degrees (rather than being vertical). And the accepted hack today is to get an angled feed tube that makes the final position vertical in order to use modern hoppers (at the cost of excessive height).

 

My question is, How were these markers supposed to be used when they came out? Did the makers expect everyone to get an angled feed tube? Or was there a different ball feed technology that works well with this angled feed system?

 

I am really asking because there are cool looking pumps that have this feed but I do not relish the idea of a hopper WAY above the marker...

It's not a hack... they were designed to be used with elbows. Everyone had them, the best are the APP Atomic Elbow and the Armson Pro Feed.  As cockerpunk said, they're designed so you can mount a sight to the top of the marker, or at least sight down the barrel. If you're looking at an old pump it's probably going to need a 1" elbow, fyi.


In Topic: 32 Degrees

24 January 2014 - 12:41 AM

I guess I'll be the dissenting opinion here. They're Spyder clones, so just about anything from an older Spyder should fit. O-rings *should* all be tank o-rings, if I remember correctly. But I have Spyders from the 1990's that have the original o-rings. These aren't that old, and are probably fine. Yes, you'll need a 7/8" elbow. Get an APP Atomic Elbow or Pro Team Products Pro Feed. 

 

You're correct that there is no gas-through grip, expansion chamber, or regulator. Just a standard bottomline. If you feel the need to add one, you can pick up a used one for a few dollars. Or you can hold onto that hose. It's stainless steel, you're not going to hurt it or "fray" it. It's better than macroline.

 

Yes, this is a discontinued marker, but it's exceedingly common and a clone of the most common gun out there. You won't have any trouble finding parts for a long time, and it's so simple that you shouldn't need to replace anything other than o-rings, springs, and maybe a ball detent.

 

This is leaps and bounds ahead of some poorly-maintained rental and would pay for itself in 2-3 trips to the field. At the very least, it's worth having as a backup or loaner. They don't get much simpler than this so it's a good backup.

 

If you're really adventurous, you can even turn it into a pump.


In Topic: Hush... Testing how loud different barrels are...

22 January 2014 - 09:23 PM

What Bryce showed regarding the sensitivity of the ear to specific frequencies is right on. Generally our ears respond poorly to very low and very high frequencies. https://en.wikipedia...

 

 

As Bryce noted, it is not only a matter of decibels, but also of the frequencies present in the sound. Spectral analysis like Bryce posted will help in this regard. Basically, if you have two sounds that are the same dB, but one has the most dB in the 4000 Hz range and the other has its peak at around 1000 Hz, the 4000 Hz will seem almost twice as loud.

 

You'll probably find that the different barrels don't change the overall dB so much as change the overall frequency spectrum. Porting should, for example, reduce the high frequencies, but it also depends on the marker and its system of operation. STBB's and Nelson-based markers tend to create a high-frequency "crack", for example. My guess is it's because of how quickly the valve opens, and the high pressure air rushing into areas of very small volume. I'm a musician, not an acoustician, so you'll have to take all this with a grain of salt of course.

 

One other thing I find interesting... some markers have a sort of "ploomp" sound, with a definite pitch (like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqQM64J2e84?t=39s ).

 

I wonder why that is.

 

Another thought: The wavelength of 4000 Hz is about 6.7 inches, so a barrel that length should really amplify that sound, shouldn't it? Might explain why pistols seem so loud.