View Single Post
Old 11-15-2012, 04:56 PM   #47 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: P0E

Originally Posted by uv_halo View Post
... Unfortunately, I can't find the data so I can't comment on findings and I can't find any discussions of the data. I suspect that the forum might have lost some posts because it's unusual that in the actual post-test thread, there's no significant discussion and, in the previously linked thread, the topic ends with the posting of the video.

As far as the math goes, nobody has ever really posted any meaningful theories.
Did you check the experiment vault?

If I recall correctly the thread was locked because Cockerpunk was getting butt hurt. Wouldn't surprise me if he edited or deleted it.

Is he still stating spin effects on walking vortecies is the main cause of inaccuracies with no data to back that up? Shame they never measured accuracy while recording that HSV footage of spinning balls.

Originally Posted by heinous View Post
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.
The calculation ignores efficiency of the marker by simply comparing total energy in the tank to total energy expelled. This is noted up-front so it's not an issue. The incorrect assumption is in regards to the formula PV=E and the circumstances where it holds true.

Originally Posted by heinous View Post
that also has to do with at which point does the tester want to deem those differences negligible.
This is a similar issue with their accuracy test. Measuring accuracy is IMPOSSIBLE without knowing the shape and size of your target. Since you can't measure these factors for every scenario, you can't measure the accuracy of a marker for every scenario.

Punkworks instead attempts the next best thing, assume all targets are circular and the pattern is always evenly distributed. That allows them to measure the probability of hitting an object... so long as the target is large enough to encompass the entire circular area created by a high probability vector. Big assumption in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Slipknot666 View Post
someone calculated the the myth that 15 bps is better then 12 bps, and did the times that no matter if it's 12 bps or 15 bps the time that it took to run through the paint you'd still get hit.
As hard as that is to read, I think the OP is asking if 15pbs is better than 12bps. A second question appears to be if either rate could be impenetrable.

The Punkworks tests were useful in that they show under certain circumstances you could get through a 15bps lane. Might require a 100' range, might only happen on sunny days, might only happen with those finely tuned athletes, but it happened.

Does any sane person question whether 15bps gives you a higher probability of hitting someone crossing a lane?
P0E is offline   Reply With Quote