A must read - PA rule change for the 2005 season

[Rosie]

the tourney would have to supply them though, or else there might be a chance of people having a mess & altering it in some way.
would have to make a different one for each marker type

it would have to be connected to the eyes in some way, or else couldn't they just turn off the eyes & fire gas, (which would register on the trigger & not the barrel eye) to get rid of any +shots gained during cheating

edit: & also, if it was eyed, if paint or crap got onto the sensor in the barrel...then it would be useless
would need to be used in conjunction with a handheld device

good idea maybe

edit #2: i missed the bit about comparing trigger pulls to bolt movements, only saw the barrel/eye bit: thats a really good idea

 

[Rob - Nott'm Tremmor]

Originally posted by Ben Frain
What is to stop the player using the device cheating it?

You need an independant device surely (e.g. Ref held)?

Or am I missing something?

Nothing , but , if the difference for a cheat mode is indeed in the 100's over a game , to cheat the system , you'd have to turn off the gas , and fan the trigger until the trigger pulls matched the shots out. That should be easy for the dimest marshal to notice. PLUS , if the gas is turned off , then you incur penalties.

As long as the device could clip onto ( or be tie rapped onto ) the barrel , with a simple lead to the micro switch , and another to the ball counter , there should be room to make something reasonable universal. I dont know , but I would think it is in the realms of possibility.

I did n't say it was perfect.

 

[Ben Frain]

Ah, I understand a bit more now, you mean the devices would be administered by the event runners.

Hmm, perhaps it could work, you would need a magnetic backed membrane strip that could be fixed to the trigger to make it universal enough for all triggers and not just microswitches.
You could then just have a 'sensors on' call at the beginning of a game and the device is then left to measure the amount of hits on the trigger (measured by thew touch sensitive membrane) compared with the balls out the barrel (measured by the eye near barrel end).

10+ discrepancy could incur whatever punishment is deemed suitable.

Could even work with guns going down (people hitting trigger and nothing coming out the barrel for whatever reason) because that would be a minus discrepancy and therefore of no interest.

 

[TJ Lambini]

Originally posted by Rosie


instead of just putting down ideas try to come up with ways they could be improved, or even think of something yourself (Controversial)
.

Not controversial, just ill-informed.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Rob - Nott'm Tremmor
As long as the device could clip onto ( or be tie rapped onto ) the barrel , with a simple lead to the micro switch , and another to the ball counter , there should be room to make something reasonable universal. I dont know , but I would think it is in the realms of possibility.

Two modest problems with this--not all guns use microswitches (optical triggers) and you are assuming each engagement of the microswitch was caused by an independent pull of the trigger (which isn't necessarily true.)

Ben's version is more interesting but I wonder what the prospects are of achieving the appropriate sensitivity given that lots of players use extremely short pull and in reality don't ever "release" the trigger in actual playing conditions; so how much pressure equals 'a pull'? Especially as it isn't the pull of the trigger that fires the marker, is it?

And, of course no one is addressing the core issue--to my mind anyway. What EXACTLY is semi auto in the age of electropneumatic markers because it ain't one pull, one shot. And if you can't define the function you want to see in use it's pretty hard to get there from here.

 

[Rob - Nott'm Tremmor]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Two modest problems with this--not all guns use microswitches (optical triggers) and you are assuming each engagement of the microswitch was caused by an independent pull of the trigger (which isn't necessarily true.)

Ben's version is more interesting but I wonder what the prospects are of achieving the appropriate sensitivity given that lots of players use extremely short pull and in reality don't ever "release" the trigger in actual playing conditions; so how much pressure equals 'a pull'? Especially as it isn't the pull of the trigger that fires the marker, is it?

And, of course no one is addressing the core issue--to my mind anyway. What EXACTLY is semi auto in the age of electropneumatic markers because it ain't one pull, one shot. And if you can't define the function you want to see in use it's pretty hard to get there from here.

Baca , I was always talking about having a secondary micro switch as part of the device , rather than tapping into the markers hardware. ( if thats what you meant ). But if you use a secondary micro switch for mech markers , and if possible , highjack the signal from the markers firing 'wire' on electro markers would make it more reliable/acurate. However , that would probably mean several versions of the device being required to suit the different boards on different makes of marker. Not sure that would be a huge problem though. It may only mean a different lead to connect the device to the markers harness , rather than a completely different unit.

I had not considered the trouble that would be involved in lining up the actuation of the firing of the device to the same point as that of the marker. This would possibly take some fiddling with. But if you could get the micro switch to activate ( and therefore count ) at the same point as the marker activates ( and fires a ball ) , then it could work..?

Surely the true term of semi automatic ( or at least what every one is supposedly cruing out for ) is one pull and release = one shot fired.

Rob.

 

[mad dog]

Ok this could go on forever and ever; maybe some results could come from it maybe not.
Another way believe it or not could come from us all getting more spectators, thus more sponsorship and more filming of games.

More and more sports have moved towards film replays of games and in recent film footage of some games the cheats have been seen in one way or another. And even decisions made from them.

Watch this get knocked by the three persons who always have other things on there minds than listening to solutions and radical ideas

The game itself has a referee on field with random footage of players watching for moves and certain players firing or basically catches his eye towards looking for cheats.
The footage has two uses.

Number One
It can be analysed for potential cheats and then rules would be in place to either ban the player at the event or future events.
By counting the paintballs leaving the barrel, with the use of Pc software this could be then used to make a decision on the player, and prevent cheating but like anything else it would be one of those tiring, boring, jobs for the technical minded.

Number Two.
This footage could also be used for editing into a film for the event.
Maybe a camera could be locked in place at both breakout points showing a team breakout etc.

I know it’s radical again but it would work if properly managed.

Only thing I see problem wise would be the film capture rate, maybe someone else could answer that question.

Just a small edit:
Why can't a red Led be fitted to a device or counter on the ball detent into most marker's.
This would still do the job its supposed to do but have the added advantage of being some kind of device to read breach in balls per second rule.
Another idea to be swimming around in the goldfish bowl of Internet land.