Quote:

Originally Posted by **P0E** As far as basic calculations and mathematical proofs being nothing but tools ... Look at the __maximum number of shots from a 68/4500 calculation __ I post around the internet and Punkworks uses. It's wrong thanks to some pretty basic incorrect assumptions, but as far as anyone knows... it is an absolute certainty because it was proven with **MATH**. |

i know nothing about what calculation you were talking about, but if it's a theoretical maximum, then real life loss of energy will always be greater and so it wouldn't necessarily invalidate your math if that was the only problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **uv_halo** As far as the math goes, nobody has ever really posted any meaningful theories. A lot of folks attempt to theorize based on the size and velocity of the runner, the distance between shots, the velocity, and, in some cases, the average lateral and vertical spread of the rounds. Accounting for the trajectory factors seems to be fairly straightforward however, it's the target that is the bigger problem. It's not just a forward moving monolith but, a multi-jointed object with segments moving forward and rearward along the direction of travel. |

that also has to do with at which point does the tester want to deem those differences negligible. if the movement of the paintballer is oversimplified, then you might overestimate the required bps; on the other hand if you account for the joints and movements of the paintballer then your test result would only apply to when the paintballer runs in that exact way and posture. practically i think the former is better.