Why can't we? or don't we want too?

[Lucky]

It also requires someone to stand on the field and be able to see and hear every player on the field......even when their backs turned..........and if they can walk on water then i think we may have something

 

[John C]

Obviously I wasnt suggesting you use the device to test every player on the field simultaneously.


Although if you want to cover every player on field say at campaign (5 fields 130 teams).


My solution:
(14 mics per field to test every player on the field)
14 mics * 5 fields * ($150) = $14000


Your solution:
(one unit per player installed in their gun)
130 teams * 8 players(7 for the team and 1 spare) * $50 = $52000

 

[Equinox]

Originally posted by John C
Obviously I wasnt suggesting you use the device to test every player on the field simultaneously.


Although if you want to cover every player on field say at campaign (5 fields 130 teams).


My solution:
(14 mics per field to test every player on the field)
14 mics * 5 fields * ($150) = $14000


Your solution:
(one unit per player installed in their gun)
130 teams * 8 players(7 for the team and 1 spare) * $50 = $52000

thats a lot of extra marshals to be paid for though to use those mics... (and theyd need to be trained..)

 

[John C]

Yes but I think that would even out with the cost of properly installing and maintaining 1000 of these 'in gun units'.











I think maybe 4 'mics' per field would give a good balance between cost and effectiveness.

 

[Lucky]

5 fields 130 teams

So maybe if your maths were right that would be:

"5" fields X "2" teams of "7" players X "3" (one game coming off field, one game playing, one game waiting) =210 players @ $50 =$10500 leaving $3500 less than your $14000

I win

Assuming 130 teams thats $80.77 per team making it $11.54 per player if it was to be paid off in one event only. Over a season, thats about $1 per player per event, with no more staff than we already have on the field

You wouldn't equip every player at the tourney only the one's playing or due to play, because straight away someone would walk off with a "device" and straight away you'd lose the advantage over the cheats.

 

[Lucky]

Yes but I think that would even out with the cost of properly installing and maintaining 1000 of these 'in gun units'

i think we'd be aiming at "on" gun units as opposed to "in" gun units, john, that way they could be attatched at the chrono station as players enter or leave the field,
by attaching to the barrel this would take seconds

 

[ollytheosteo]

Technical peeps- if WDP can make a Sensi peizo-electric detector that can (allegedly hem hem) detect a ball falling from the feedneck into the breech, can the same technology be used to make an external widget that detects the impulse of a shot? A plastic Jubbly clip type arrangement could be used to attach to the barrel without harming the finish, and the same wireless tech that allows my bike's computer sensor to communicate with the computer could provide a hassle free link to a remote unit that the marshal can use on field. Given that a bike computer costs aboot £30, it needn't be too expensive, and any of the big firms could turn one out if they so chose.

Without trying to sound like too much of a smartarse, I posted the above in April 2004 and never got a satisfactory answer then as to why it wasn't feasable. One possible setup would be as follows; each player gets issued with a short plastic rail with an adhesive back that will stick to the barrel etc and cost about 5p, and at the beginning of the game the judges will attach a little unit to each rail that screams/lights up/obtains critical mass when a set ROF is exceeded. If the idea catches on the rails could become part of the body from the factory and if one of the big companies started churning them out the individual units could be made very cheaply. It only takes the will to do it......

 

[Gyroscope]

How would a vibration sensor, a simple board, and an LED in a durable housing come to $50? Not to mention that we have been talking all along about something as easily attached and removed as a barrel condom or armband. You set up a hell of a straw man, John. I'd argue against equiping each player with something like that, too, when all you need is the players on the field to be monitored.

 

[John C]

A vibration device would need to be tightly attached to the gun and calibrated to that gun.

The sensor would need to be pretty good, probably with some hardware filters to get rid of general sounds and interference.
(Gyro thats why it would cost a bit)



Something that went on the end of the barrel, with a breakbeam eye would be nice. It would cost more like $20.

If it wasnt for the uphill gardener brothers' sad quest for intellectual property, you could link it to the guns hardware and if you know the length of the barrel, you know the speed of the paintball and could stop velocity ramping overnight!

But an eye is more prone to failing due to where you have to put it.



I still think monitoring the players is better, just having one mic per field makes the situation better, without a big change in routine for anyone.

 

[Rabies]

IMO, a device like this could be built for about $15, at a guess (not allowing for development or manufacturer's markup.) Clip one to each gun as it goes on the field, much like armbands on players, and the LED will light up if it senses two shots less than 65ms apart. If it's attached to the gun correctly, it only needs to be secure enough that it can't fall off - it's easy enough to ensure a good acoustic connection to the body of the marker - so a bit of velcro would work, and I'd be surprised if it needed any particular calibration - the vibration caused by a shot is well above any other kind of interference, whether it's a DM5 or a sewing-machine cocker. The trick is in the correct design of the unit and the mount.

The end of the barrel would allow for breakbeam operation (easier) but would be vulnerable to damage/accidental removal, especially for front players. It's got to be vibration-activated, and located somewhere that minimizes chance of being knocked off. I think know where that is, but I'm not telling yet

This is all just off the top of my head, but I really think it's doable, and cheaply. But of course the only thing it can enforce is ROF cap - it won't do anything for trigger modes (FA, illegal ramping, breakout modes etc.) and can't catch velocity ramping. Because of that, one has to ask whether it's worth it or whether we should be pursuing a more all-encompassing solution (just as soon as one comes along.)