A must read - PA rule change for the 2005 season
- Thread starter Russell Smith
- Start date
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL Manike,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.
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.
From that anyone would think that you lived in the real world.
When we all know you dont
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.
Sorry!
/me wonders how many people are now running to weigh their tanks full and empty.