Originally Posted by uv_halo
He tried. According to Tom Kaye, they didn't make enough of a difference for players to pay the .13/ball for them. I add that ROF and ammo capacity increases made the .02 ball that much more appealing.
I'm fairly certain the Perfect Circle
rounds were difficult to fill & assemble. Whereas these, due largely to the fill, are easily automated and therefore cheap to produce.
Originally Posted by ApoC_101
(this might already have been brought up) about the weight concern, which most of us serious guys have brought up in discussion: the 2.8 gram paint may not fly as far, but it will shoot higher velocities than heavier paint, so efficiency in stock class markers will be superior. Also, people are saying the paint will bounce on a drop test but breaks extremely well on target... I wonder if it will also be more resistant to breakage in a high pressure/SC gun chronoed at 300 FPS? Very interested to try this stuff for those two reasons. reduced range is a fair trade for excellent consistency and efficiency.
(also, it's very fair to assume that in time, Hydrotec may produce a heavier round by using higher density additives in the fill, I think that would be a popular next step along with the obvious move to a reduced cost product for field grade use)
edit: also... .686 size... glad to see they didn't try to go right down to .680.
I voiced concern the second day it was announced over on Punkworks and they still act as though paintball weight is only an issue with 50cal.
It's very similar to the 50 cal performance concerns actually.
Less weight not only equates to less range, but also makes the round more susceptible to cross winds and reduces potential break energy. Hopefully the 'new' shell is more fragile or the fill somehow compensates for the reduced break energy.
No one knows of Hydrotec's consistency or accuracy anymore than they know what it will cost. Based on my experiences with perfect circle rounds I'm betting it performs worse.
A lighter ball is NOT a more efficient ball. True, you'll get more shots shooing a 2.8
g ball at 290fps than a 3.0
g at 29
0fps. Although that's apples and oranges. A better comparison is 28
0fps with 3.0g. That's the SAME efficiency while getting BETTER performance (with 3.0g paint).
benefits of this paint have yet to be tested (accuracy, consistency).
The drawbacks are known from the light weight (more susceptible to cross winds, less break energy)
The field owner benefits are huge and obvious. (to those of us who own and inquired about the terms... even more so).
-If this is a boon for field owners like falling paint prices a few decades back.. Wouldn't the same thing happen? A sudden increase in poorly run fields?
-If the field owner benefits ALONE
cause it to become ubiquitous... doesn't that just encourage spray-n-pray techniques?