Paintball

[cockerpunk]

i think on AO they kicked around a number like a paintball rotating something like 4-10 times durring its flight from a regular smooth bore barrel, and somethig like 400 plus times durring its flight from a flatline.

thats 2 full orders of 10 larger than anything TK found with typical guns.

[agentSmith]

Ah I see more of the issue.
In BryceLarsons post he referred to 'distance' when I only confirm these bolts for 'trajectory'.
Whether the ball theoretically travels further is moot to my way of thinking, since any gun can launch them so far they won't break on arrival.
The benefit of the underspin is pure trajectory.
If I can shoot on a flatter arc, under overhanging branches and other overhead obstructions I can reach further than someone whose gun produces a steeper arc of flight.
I have more range, regardless of whether my ball will actually fly further or not. In the woods this advantage FAR outweighs the loss of accuracy from spin. I see this so often at Hell Survivors that I lug my big ole P68SC around at big games instead of my lightweight semi TAG8.




For play in open areas with no overhead cover I would not recommend nor use myself anything that added spin.

Rob

[russc]

Don't forget that flat trajectories improve the usefulness of red dot sights, since the ball intersects with the aimed point longer.

[HP_Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by agentSmith

Whether the ball theoretically travels further is moot to my way of thinking, since any gun can launch them so far they won't break on arrival.

I agree 100%, despite my apparently love for backspin systems.

The one thing I've noticed about the CooperT, and Flatline systems is they seem less accurate. Specifically, the shape of the trajectory was always a bit inconsistent. Sometimes you would get a "flat" arc for 100 feet. Sometimes 150 feet. Sometimes the balls would curve at around 100 feet, or so.

My thoughts were that the cause of the inconsistency in trajectory was due to the random placement of the paintball. It is the seam that creates the turbulence that is responsible for the "lift" of the paintball. Since the orientation of the seam directly reflects how much turbilence it creates, then it has a direct impact on the shape, and direction of the trajectory, and thus the accuracy.

So I never actually found them usefull for "long range" paintball, such as typical woodsball.

I also never found them useful in tournaments because they tend to break more paint. Not much, but breaking a ball in a tournament game pretty much means your dead.

I also never found them much useful in speedball. Sometimes you wanted to lob over bunkers. (though the Apex could be useful here).

But the once placed I LOVED THEM was at "urban style" fields, like villages, and castles, etc. Places with lots of windows, and holes to shoot through.
I would look for places where you had to shoot through a series of windows, or holes BUT ONLY if you had a flat trajectory. A curved trajectory would not work.

That would mean I could shoot at a target, knowing they could not shoot back at me. There were places at the AGNH field where I was literally unstopable from a frontal attack. Unfortunetly, flanking is not a secret, but oh well.

[agentSmith]

They are definitely less accurate. If the spin is off the vertical(going with my theory) by even a few degrees, the spin will still try to cancel vortices in one direction and assist vortices in the opposite direction, causing it to veer in whatever direction that leads it. so it will veer far more than a non-spinning ball would be expected to for the same reason it flies flatter when the angle of spin is perfectly vertical.

Rob

[cockerpunk]

its good that this has calmed down abit. this thread and the huge one on PBN has me thinking alot about the nature of the beast we have created. it also has me and bryce kicking around some other ideas, some much better ones than simply filmind the test.

frankly, the main reason why we filmed the first test (the shocker test) was to show that indeed, we actually did use an honest to go shocker, over and real chrono, and acutally did the test. in all honesty that was enough for that test, to simply disprove seans story.

however, we have moved past that, and we need a better way to collect and report data, and we are working on it. we got a good idea IMO one that we can do some more complex tests and some fun stuff.

anyway, the copperT is on its way, and now we have back block to fit it, so we will test it with tiny bore paint (or reballs), massively overbore, and everything you have suggested.

thanks for your help, and im sorry i got a bit personal, or unprofessional. that is my flaw, i will certainly openly admit that. i will stand by the results we get, whatever they are.


the goal is the truth, how we get there is a much smaller matter.

[HP_Lovecraft]

I agree 100% on the need to quantify.

When the Flatline first came out, most players thought it was just a myth because... and lets be honest.... MOST stuff in paintball is junk science. IE rifled barrels, LP guns, closed-bolt, etc. The list is endless.

If you actually FIRE the Flatline, you instantly realize that the trajectory looks funny.

I noticed the same thing with the CooperT, but how do you quantify that? I've also tried later backspin bolts, and they did not have the same effect, but again, how do you measure that?

Unfortunetly, without access to high speed cameras, there is no easy way to measure the actual spin RPM. All we can do statistical, and emperical testing. Basically, shoot a ton of paint at a fixed target. Swap the bolt and/or barrel, while leaving the gun exactly in place, then repeat the testing.

Even this test fails for things like the APEX which actually requires the gun itself to be moved in order to utilize the effect

[cockerpunk]

the new method were kicking around should work great.

were think of getting out hands on a nice, large whiteboard. then, very carefully marking it with permemnet ink, a big grid. now the grid would probably be in 1 cm increments (knotches) and then with the full grid every ten centimeters.

this way, we can shoot the gun, have the ball hit the target, record the coordinates and FPS, then wipe the paint of the board. then the next shot do the same.

it will keep the target nice clean and fresh, as for provide easy measurment

it will give us numbers to play with instead of "umm, looks about right"

it will make sure we dont have a big goopy mess on our hands after the test.

i have done an accuracy test before and it just turned into a big, goopy mess with no idea where the center of each splat was becuase they were so close together. this should avoid all that.

[HurtCow]

Originally Posted by gunangel

Despite good/neutral intentions short responses imply a curt and possibly rude response (that is why I know HurtCow cares ).

Huh?

[brycelarson]

we're working on a grid system - so we can give the velocity and impact point for each shot. That'll make averaging the impact for centering pretty easy - it'll also mean we can compare shots of exactly the same velocity for height.

I would like to say one thing regarding trajectory. Attaining a higher impact point at 100' to me is indicative of achieving greater range. I understand the comments earlier about the trajectory being different for backspin systems - and this is certainly true - it's flatter. Where gravity normally takes over on a non-spinning ball the spinning ball will fly further w/o dropping.

However, that does account for a greater distance traveled. Assuming that both balls are moving at the same velocity - then the one that has increased lift due to back spin will travel further before the force of gravity pulls it to the ground.

Yes, I've stepped out of the way of hundreds of flatline shot balls moving at what looked to me like 100 fps - and no, they wouldn't break even if they hit me. I once slapped a ball out of the air lobbed by some dude way the hell across a field with a flat-line. I don't think that the maximum range for any paintball is very useful - but the backspin products are intended to acheive greater range - right?