|The Dead Zone Paintball Related Chat|
| ||Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|11-14-2012, 05:24 PM||#32 (permalink)|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in a van, by the river
is that assuming that the time between shots is constant? if so it must be board controlled because the spacing is affected by those minute differences !!!
all things considered if pure math was the only requirement (not aimpoint, timing, consistency, paint quality, wind, the average air speed of the common swallow) then sure why not 15 is better than 12
the question remains - does it really take more than 1?
|11-14-2012, 07:25 PM||#33 (permalink)|
Join Date: Oct 2006
|11-14-2012, 09:07 PM||#34 (permalink)|
Join Date: Sep 2010
I found the article I was thinking of. Facefull magazine, issue 79/September 2010. Page 68 there is a great speedball article called "reaching the back", it runs until page 78. It goes into detail about time, taking into account player speed, reaction time, field dimensions, and ball travel speed to crunch numbers and figure out how to move up the field smarter. The numbers are a bit off because field dimensions have changed, but it's still an excellent read. I'll see if I can track it down online
|11-14-2012, 10:35 PM||#35 (permalink)|
To save a Wiki look-up and to set a baseline:
1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
If the tests are believed to be erroneous, have people perform a basic peer review. State the issues with the test and attempt to see whether it was reproducible. If the test was flawed state why, what one would do to correct it, why that corrects it, and then perform the test. Multiple people doing the test being ideal.
I will be the first to admit that I would not likely be able to do so. A peer review implies being competent and an expert in said field. I do not know of a paintball ballistics expert or the standards to achieve such. I would, in all seriousness, be interested in what people think would constitute such. With apologies to the the OP and this going slightly off the rails, does anybody have any links to reputed firearms ballistic testing? Ie. methods, data, etc.? I would love to read up on that and compare it to the work of DeepBlue, Punkworks, Mann, etc.
As a gross generalization in regards to Punkworks, I believe people who have a problem with their work often have a larger problem with certain personas involved in the testing rather than the data itself. I think Schmitti summarized it best in this post.
For the TL : DR
I would love to see theoretical or applied data for any physics question in regards to paintball. At least with the data out there we can judge its merits, state improvements, and (hopefully) learn something new that we can apply.
|11-14-2012, 11:01 PM||#36 (permalink)|
Join Date: Oct 2006
instead of that whole cluster ****, he should have just gotten all variables in check in the first place. math would have at least made the cocker guys think, but the misleading experiment just gave them false confidence. that there is an example of what i just said.
and actually, i was a fan of punkworks in the beginning. what he did was closer to legitimate tests than most other people, until i kept reading more and more into his tests. it's like the discovery channel, the more i grew up and improved my scientific literacy, the more holes i see, and the less often i found them to be reliable, and the less i was awed by the tests as time went on, and that's depressing.
Last edited by heinous; 11-14-2012 at 11:09 PM.
|11-15-2012, 01:53 AM||#37 (permalink)|
Join Date: Apr 2006
This was not the conversation I was expecting under this title, but I have to chime in.
One of the reasons folks call me AgentSmith is that I'm hard to hit.
For instance in spite of being 47yrs and 6'2"-250lbs with 2 bad knees, I played as a Hell Survivors Mercenary through the GlobalConquest, Monster Game and Tippmann Challenge 2day big games this year without a single splat on my nice black sleeveless jersey. Not one. I get hit shooting, not moving, so everything was face and hands.
The explanation for that is 3 part.
1. I learned the real facts about paintball ballistics(Bless TechPB's confused little hearts) from DeepBlue on AO.org.
GO THERE FOR DATA. That's all the deep blue section is and it's the source.
2. I did my own objective experiments to verify certain oddball conclusions I made based on that data.
3. I did subjective experiments on myself for over a decade in every type of play. I studied what and why i did what I did and what and why other people did what they did.
The problem with figuring someone's odds of getting hit is that you're trying to use the wrong science. Using math to try and change a tire is a recipe for failure, a tire iron is a better tool.
Someone's odds of getting hit in the real world is a psychology problem, not a math problem. The gigantic swarm of undefined variables is math kryptonite.
The laner experiences himself as holding the gun on one point of aim, he's not. The runner experiences himself as moving in a straight line at a constant speed, he's not. If you're trying to find out the odds for a bolted down realsteel gun hitting a velocity controlled target, that math's the way to go. Otherwise it's meaningless or worse yet misleading!
An equation with missing variables will be wrong.
Assuming it will be 'less' wrong with a couple fewer variables missing is wrong.
If anybody wants recognition for having done an experiment instead of an amusing pantomime of science, then all variables are required.
Even assuming the best case, that 'Johnny Laner' is pointing only to one spot, his paint lands randomly around the circumference of a circle. The diameter of this circle is controlled by the distance, barrel and the paint, the distribution of balls around the circle is affected by wind. Once a certain distance to target widens the circle enough, there's only a fraction of the paint fired that goes anywhere near the point of aim.
On the runner's side he has the ability, just doesn't know how to apply it. Learning to run through a string is a simple matter of pain and timing. Let's call the space the paintballs are going through 'the lane'.
Now if you had to run past a giant swinging axe like something out of an arcade game, you wouldn't just stand back and blast at it as fast as you can and hope you didn't die. You'd run at it at less than top speed and guage your timing as you got closer. This is easy because you can see the axe. You can't see paint in the lane, so how to time is the question.
Marker sound is the way. Getting someone with your paint(unfortunately) to shoot at you is easy. You have them put down a lane and carefully controlling your speed enter the edge of it right on a shot trying to cross. See what happens. Enter the lane fractionally later until you find the point for that marker/distance. Practice, practice, practice. Once you get this baseline, then let your game experience build up until you get a feeling for it, the same as you know if you can cross the street with an oncoming car approaching as you run towards it. Geometry by instinct.
It'll never be a sure thing, but you can get pretty good.
There's a whole raft of things Pshooters do without noticing when they're not laning that can be understood, predicted and taken advantage of. My own anti-laning work was long ago. Nowadays i don't see people trying it, our fields are too big. Putting down a lane is an invitation for us to take one of the other 4 routes to your doom.
The smarmy, smartass side of me can't help but point out that laning is a blunt admission that you have no chance whatsoever of shooting and hitting what you aim at. If you fire 500 down a lane and hit a guy with 3, then you might have well as shot 497 down into a garbage can in the morning when it wouldn't keep you from hearing the action, then during the game just shoot the 3 that did all the work anyway.
We play Pistol and we encourage the Few despite the discouragement of the Many.
|11-15-2012, 02:28 AM||#38 (permalink)|
Brass Monkey Customs
Physics, in reference to many paintballs, is spelled FIZYX... Trust me.
Brass Monkey Customs
Brass Freak compatible and Equation inserts in .665, .670, .675, .678, .680 and .685
Still selling brass tubing, with .678 barrel stock now available!
My feedback: MCB - eBay - AO
|11-15-2012, 07:16 AM||#39 (permalink)|
"Conformities are called for much more eagerly today than yesterday... skeptics, liberals, individuals with a taste for private life and their own inner standards of behavior, are objects of fear and derision and targets of persecution for either side... in the great ideological wars of our time."- Isaiah Berlin
"Freedom is not something that can be given. Freedom is something people take, and people are as free as they want to be."- James Baldwin
|11-15-2012, 02:50 PM||#40 (permalink)|
Join Date: Apr 2011
No test is 'incorrect' so long as it produces honest data. Even though we were not monitoring ball mass, the result disproved my original hypothesis that all balls travel the same distance, progress.
Once I figured it out, several months later we repeated the test with swapped paint. Done. Now they understood. But that's what it took.
Although we only had about four witnesses that day, you could hear echos of the result for months. "Dude, get the better stuff. It has better range."
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 too was hopeful with Punkworks. Plenty of smart players out there to contribute resources to cut through the hype this sport is built upon. Unfortunately Cockerpunk's ego and preconceptions are too pervasive.
Last edited by P0E; 11-15-2012 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Didn't like the wording.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|