Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

A must read - PA rule change for the 2005 season

Gadget

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
1,759
619
148
Essex, UK
Originally posted by matski
I don't see the relevance, who uses revvi's anymore?........
The relevance is that it's an easily verifiable method of imposing a cap on ROF.

It's not about revvys, as I said in my earlier post that's just used as an easy example - it's about limiting ROF by limiting the speed with which the marker can obtain paint - i.e. at the loader.

It would work, it would be easy for marshalling staff to check visually and it would remove the 'hidden' advantage of those who are currently cheating - people would know that they're limited to 'x' bps and base their marker choice on that informed decision.

Yes it would be nice to control this all at the marker, but we can't and to be honest I don't believe that they can actually enforce the 15bps limit that they're proposing.
 

Russell Smith

The Paintball Association
Originally posted by Wadidiz
Simon and Russell,

According to you, in a pinch, could I hand a player who is unsure about his maximum ROF a standard Revvy and tell him he's good to go?

Steve,

As I understand it a standard egg will not feed at more than 15bps.
I am sure they have some souper douper ones that will feed at daft rates but if you give him a standard one, all will be fine. :)

If he used a stadard revvie, he will be well under the 15bps cap.



Russ
 

Wadidiz

EnHaNcE tHa TrAnCe
Jul 9, 2002
1,619
0
0
72
Stockholm, EU
Visit site
Originally posted by Gadget
The relevance is that it's an easily verifiable method of imposing a cap on ROF.

It's not about revvys, as I said in my earlier post that's just used as an easy example - it's about limiting ROF by limiting the speed with which the marker can obtain paint - i.e. at the loader.

It would work, it would be easy for marshalling staff to check visually and it would remove the 'hidden' advantage of those who are currently cheating - people would know that they're limited to 'x' bps and base their marker choice on that informed decision.

Yes it would be nice to control this all at the marker, but we can't and to be honest I don't believe that they can actually enforce the 15bps limit that they're proposing.
Thanks Gadget.

That's obviously what I meant. My question dealt with a chrono-tent scenario where a player is afraid his set-up would allow him to slip above the 15 bps cap. Wouldn't it be a simple and effective solution for such situations to sell, rent or loan the player a Revvy?

Concerning ability to enforce, if we get the instruments needed and the rules and penalties that go with them, there will be enforcement. I don't understand why you question that.
 

manike

INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
Jul 9, 2001
3,064
10
63
Cloud 9
www.inceptiondesigns.com
Originally posted by Gadget
Simon- cheers for expanding on that, however I don't believe those figures are relevant to a realworld scenario.
Have you measured any of this?

I have and all of those are 'real world figures'.

Originally posted by Gadget
An agitated loader is likely to be hitting around 13bps/77ms peak - but would fluctuate wildly so it's impossible to accurately predict the cycle time for the loader. It also doesn't take into account any lag induced by ball detection systems on the markers.
It's extremely easy to predict the rof, and to measure how long loaders take.

Lag due to ball detection systems can be considered a constant across the two guns and thus irrelevant.

Originally posted by Gadget
If, in the realworld someone fancies taking the two markers you've used as examples and attaches a 12v revvy to them, sets em to full auto and empties the hopper I doubt we'd see much of a difference between the two.
Absolutely INCORRECT.

How do I know? Because I've done exactly what you say, in the real world. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Gadget
If, in practice, people did suddenly find that markers with a 50ms cycle time were hideously slow, then we'd be in exactly the same position that we are today - where people with slower markers would need to upgrade, however we'd have the benefit of an established ceiling for ROF which could not be broken regardless of how quickly markers cycle.



The difference is that it would be a measurable figure, out in the open. People would be able to run their markers over a pukka chronograph, get an accurate bps figure and KNOW how their marker compared to others. The cheater boards might induce a similar imbalance, but it's not one that we can measure - it's wrapped in secrets and lies and causes a great deal of ill feeling - we'd be far better off than we are today.
:rolleyes: I know this in practice because I've tested it and measured it. If you want to argue that, go and make your own tests and measurements. Make a thread in the tech forum and we can get into it.

I've also measured real human trigger activations and I know what can be achieved by cheater FA code. I have samples here.

You're argueing over a hypothetical point that is untrue. I'm not going to argue over something hypothetical If I know the real world situation.

Again, you can measure the BPS at the end of the gun. It's easy to do. If you want to have a level playing field with a set BPS limit, this is where you need to do it.

If you would like to "Prove" any of my data to be innacurate please do so.
 
Originally posted by Gadget
and to be honest I don't believe that they can actually enforce the 15bps limit that they're proposing.
Re my earlier post, with the piece of kit we were shown yesterday no problem at all. Easier to use than a hand held chronograph and not much larger. It's accurate to 1/1,000th of a second and inexpensive enough that we could potentially equip every single referee with one.

We're expecting to have one by the end of next week to start testing in an actual game environment and I know for a fact it'll be on test in the US before we get one over here. At the moment, based on what we've seen, a ref should in theory be able to obtain a reading just by standing close to a player.

So at this moment in time, we're pretty confident that we can enforce it. We're not so stupid or naive as to try and replace one rule that can't be enforced with another that's equally as bad.
 
Originally posted by manike
Have you measured any of this?

I have and all of those are 'real world figures'.



It's extremely easy to predict the rof, and to measure how long loaders take.

Lag due to ball detection systems can be considered a constant across the two guns and thus irrelevant.



Absolutely INCORRECT.

How do I know? Because I've done exactly what you say, in the real world. :rolleyes:



:rolleyes: I know this in practice because I've tested it and measured it. If you want to argue that, go and make your own tests and measurements. Make a thread in the tech forum and we can get into it.

I've also measured real human trigger activations and I know what can be achieved by cheater FA code. I have samples here.

You're argueing over a hypothetical point that is untrue. I'm not going to argue over something hypothetical If I know the real world situation.

Again, you can measure the BPS at the end of the gun. It's easy to do. If you want to have a level playing field with a set BPS limit, this is where you need to do it.

If you would like to "Prove" any of my data to be innacurate please do so.
LOL Manike,

From that anyone would think that you lived in the real world.

When we all know you dont :p :p :D ;)
 

manike

INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
Jul 9, 2001
3,064
10
63
Cloud 9
www.inceptiondesigns.com
Originally posted by Gadget
Perhaps just saying you'd tested it would have been nice, without the patronising, but thanks anyway.
Sorry didn't mean to be so patronising. I get frustrated some times. :(

You asked the question, I answered it, and then you came back to tell me my answer wasn't real or valid.

I just bet people here that compressed gas weighs a significant amount in a 4500psi 68ci tank.

They all called me a Liar (apart from Gino actually, he went with me because he trusts I know these things) and when I said I calculated it and tested it, they still didn't believe me.

We walked the lenght of the warehouse and back 3 times (that's a long way ;) ) to weigh and then fill a tank... and guess what. ;)

I don't tend to talk about things very often unless I have a decent knowledge on the subject. I don't 'like' being proven wrong. I'd usually just keep my mouth shut instead. :D

Sorry!

/me wonders how many people are now running to weigh their tanks full and empty. ;)
 

Gadget

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
1,759
619
148
Essex, UK
It's ok m8, I wasn't really offended - just checking that moving there hadn't turned you yankee :D Should have realised that you'd have probably done all the ground work on the subject :)