Thread re gun bounce

[stongle]

Noop

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Gotta disagree with you there.

You can get a true semiautomatic to "appear" to be full auto, if the trigger is tuned finely enough..... the movement required to activate the switch is just so minute, that the naked eye cannot see it, and often - if you hold the gun correctly - the recoil of the gun wil be all it requires to bring about the movement needed to re-activate the switch.

But, it IS still semiauto, because it requires the trigger to be activated once per shot..... and as such is not a cheat mode, a faulty switch, or something similar.

My point is, that the current testing method outlaws guns that really ARE true semiautos, but that are set up really, really well...... which is also the reason we hear stories that some kid in Germany could get 80 % of the guns to "bounce".

People are confusing trigger bounce (which IS semi) and switch bounce (switch noise with or without buffering......which is not).... and the rules do not make a distinction between the two..... which they SHOULD.

For a more technical explanation, you'll have to talk to someone like Simon

Nick

Amen!!!

Amazingly you managed to articulate that in 800 characters excluding spaces and the first and last lines which aren't strictly definition.

Must be a sign, smarty-pants.

Now, in no more than 600 letters explain the necessity of the XSF chip in my Dm4. (this is a jk btw way incase any trigger bounce fascists are lurking)

 

[MrPink]

Re: Noop

Originally posted by stongle

Now, in no more than 600 letters explain the necessity of the XSF chip in my Dm4. (this is a jk btw way incase any trigger bounce fascists are lurking)

You need an XSF chip in your DM4 because:

1. You can't shoot fast 'legally'

2. You feel inadequete because of this.

3. In order to compensate, instead of training, you frequent Strip Clubs

 

[Gadget]

I wouldn't classify a "well" setup trigger as one that can attain mechanical bounce - I would say that it has been poorly setup.

If the end results are the same (i.e for one trigger pull multiple balls are fired) then regardless of why that has occured (be it mechanical bounce caused by having an overly light/short trigger, electronic switch bounce with too low a debounce setting, or dedicated code written to achieve it) then I don't think we should differentiate between them.

I would argue that having a 'well' setup semi trigger as defined by Nick is actually more dangerous than having a proper full-auto marker with a heavier/longer trigger pull. The FA marker is less likely to fire unexpectedly than the 'semi' is.

I think that there are two problems which should be tackled:

1. We should have some minimum safe weight and travel for trigger pull to prevent uber-light setups which a) promote mechanical bounce and b) are more likely to be discharged accidentally when dropped/knocked.

2. We need some way to ensure that both the electronics and the code used on boards does not allow either intentional FA or unintentional switch-bounce.

It's only a matter of time before the selfish people in this sport whose only thoughts are for results and gaining a competetive edge, regardless of consequences, cause us all a lot of grief by causing an injury or attracting the attention of the authorities (who won't give a monkey's whether it's bounce or actual FA - if it looks like FA it will be classed as such).

 

[stongle]

Originally posted by Gadget
I wouldn't classify a "well" setup trigger as one that can attain mechanical bounce - I would say that it has been poorly setup.

If the end results are the same (i.e for one trigger pull multiple balls are fired) then regardless of why that has occured (be it mechanical bounce caused by having an overly light/short trigger, electronic switch bounce with too low a debounce setting, or dedicated code written to achieve it) then I don't think we should differentiate between them.

I would argue that having a 'well' setup semi trigger as defined by Nick is actually more dangerous than having a proper full-auto marker with a heavier/longer trigger pull. The FA marker is less likely to fire unexpectedly than the 'semi' is.

I think that there are two problems which should be tackled:

1. We should have some minimum safe weight and travel for trigger pull to prevent uber-light setups which a) promote mechanical bounce and b) are more likely to be discharged accidentally when dropped/knocked.

2. We need some way to ensure that both the electronics and the code used on boards does not allow either intentional FA or unintentional switch-bounce.

It's only a matter of time before the selfish people in this sport whose only thoughts are for results and gaining a competetive edge, regardless of consequences, cause us all a lot of grief by causing an injury or attracting the attention of the authorities (who won't give a monkey's whether it's bounce or actual FA - if it looks like FA it will be classed as such).

hmmm Gadget,

Haven't you also advocated chroning guns at 280FPS to stay within the 300 FPS limit, Having bigger back bunkers and shorter run outs so some of your team mates don't get shot on the break every time??

Sorry that's a born to lose and Luddite attitude. Every sport I can think off especially at a professional level, has technology pushing the boundaries of legality and performance.

Golf (Hexagon balls, ERC Drivers)
Motor sport (weight reduction, down force)
Swimming (full body suits).

etc etc

At the top end, your equipments ability to be as close as damnit to the rules is critical. Playing intentionally within the limits only disadvantages you and your team mates. The only valid reason for shooting low velocities is non-tournament ready and inconsistent equipment, where a greater tolerance is required. The safe FPS limit for Paintballs, is 300 FPS. Why sacrifice accuracy if you don't have to? Even Nexus who are ambassadors of good gamesmanship and fairplay, recommend chronoing as close to the 300 fps Limit as possible.

Nick is describing the reality of how top level guns are set-up, to allow the easiest way to shoot fast within the rules, not to intentionally cheat with ramping and full auto guns.

Shooting fast is not too intentionally wound or endanger your opposition, but to dominate Lanes, and deny your opposition effective use of the field, especially allowing the player to shoot on the move. Ker-plunck......ker-plunck....ker-plunck is not how the modern games is played, and I doubt would be that great to watch (although that is an opinion). Yep the by-product of shooting fast and getting shot up is a "occupational risk", but we take that choice each time we step-out on field.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Gadget
I wouldn't classify a "well" setup trigger as one that can attain mechanical bounce - I would say that it has been poorly setup.

If the end results are the same (i.e for one trigger pull multiple balls are fired) then regardless of why that has occured (be it mechanical bounce caused by having an overly light/short trigger, electronic switch bounce with too low a debounce setting, or dedicated code written to achieve it) then I don't think we should differentiate between them.

This problem reminds me of an old philosphical one I once encountered :-

A tadpole eventually turns into a frog, from day one of being a tadpole, a photograph is taken every day until well after it has turned into a frog.
So far so good you might think.
If we end up with say 100 photographs (nominal), and lay them out in a line from left (tapole) to right (frog), at which point, or rather which pair of adjacent photgraphs are we able to say, the one to the left is a tadpole and the one to the right is a frog ?
You see the problem !!

Having light and short triggers is bad but where do we draw the line in terms of what is acceptable in lightness and shortness?
And even worse, enforcement is even trickier

 

[shamu]

Noop

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
You can get a true semiautomatic to "appear" to be full auto, if the trigger is tuned finely enough..... the movement required to activate the switch is just so minute, that the naked eye cannot see it, and often - if you hold the gun correctly - the recoil of the gun wil be all it requires to bring about the movement needed to re-activate the switch.

Gotta disagree with you on this Nick. The line that does it for me is this:

"if you hold the gun correctly - the recoil of the gun wil be all it requires to bring about the movement needed to re-activate the switch."

If you're not moving your finger, you're not pulling the trigger. The only difference I see between this description and full auto is simply semantics. If it makes you feel better to say "I only have mechanical bounce" - fine. But the rules say the trigger has to be pulled, which indicates to me it requires some physical effort on your part (moving the finger) to activate the trigger.

And that's where the grey area starts. As Robbo pointed out, at what point do you go from a really well set up trigger to an illegal bouncy trigger?

Stongle - It's a good point about other sports pushing technogical bounderies, but keep in mind that some of those sports have outlawed the very technologies you're talking about. A good example is the new golf ball design that increased drive distance. Because of the design of the ball, and the changes it introduced to the sport, the PGA outlawed the ball. Every sport faces change from new technologies and new techniques. It's really a question of how the change is dealt with and how it affects the sport.

 

[Gadget]

Originally posted by stongle
Sorry that's a born to lose and Luddite attitude.

...and having the attitude that it's ok to bend rules put in place for safety reasons in order to get an edge is arrogant and plain daft.

I'd much rather have fun and lose than endanger others and win.

I don't accept that simply because the 'pros' do it we should immediately accept that as being the right direction to take the sport. Some pros would probably use whale harpoons if it meant getting on the podium - personally I play to enjoy myself, winning is a bonus but not the be-all and end-all - which is the reason I dropped out of playing pro years ago - the desperation to win at all costs spoiled my enjoyment of the game completely.

Yep the by-product of shooting fast and getting shot up is a "occupational risk", but we take that choice each time we step-out on field. [/B]

Yes I take that risk willingly when I step out onto the field - however I don't also willingly take the risk that some muppet with a hair trigger might drop his marker in the safe zone and take my eye out. How many balls will a barrel sock stop on a bouncing marker going FA at 300fps?

 

[TJ Lambini]

Shamu - he's got a whale harpoon, he's coming right for you!

 

[Baca Loco]

Nick and Glen,
I didn't realize crank was so popular in Euroland. Y'all must be tweaking on the good stuff. (How many times did you disaasemble then reassemble your marker?)

It's all well and good and even proper to suggest, as I think you do, that competitiors and equipment are and should be pushed to the limit. I have no problem with that conceptually but in current pball practice it is no end of trouble because we simply don't have the organization and oversight necessary to maintain control of the game. (Glen, you can't argue for the march of technology without the appropriate oversight otherwise you have no sport, period.) In other sports, even those where technology seems nearly irrelevant, very strict and precise rules are enforced without regard to who falls victim of them. Pro baseball doesn't allow aluminum bats. And the wooden ones are produced to strict limitations of barrel ciurcumference and weight, among other things. Same applies to how the ball is constructed. In football they test the inflation pressure and circumference of the kickers footballs. In pro golf they check the degree of reflex off the striking surface of the drivers. They even tear apart random balls to ensure legal manufacture. In motor racing they measure and test everything to the nth degree in order to maintain control.
In pball everyone spends all their time trying to figure literal or semantic ways to circumvent the rules and if there's a buck to be made we all know we're about to get a new definition of an old rule.

In any universe, except for the fantasy realm of pball, one pull one ball, wouldn't be all that hard to figure out. But here we have Brockdorff on Paintball claiming that if recoil is firing his marker it's acceptable semi-auto function as long as his finger is on the trigger. Slice that any way you like it doesn't come up one pull, one ball. There is no volitional intent on the user's part to move that trigger--it is simply occurring because of the vibration of the gun. Yet, Nick wants to distinguish that from switch bounce. Why? Switch bounce won't occur unless the trigger is sufficiently engaged to activate the initial firing, so where's the real difference? (Nor do I think Nick's recoil semi auto would survive the robot but I's could be wrong.)

Along comes Pete to point out the relative difficulty in making the necessary judgements but the fact remains, these judgements have got to be made and they have got to made sooner rather than later. If we aren't prepared to hold the line somewhere we're giving up on the notion of pball as sport. Simple as that.

EDIT: Good job, Whale. Faster and to the point.

 

[manike]

It sucks being so far behind the Euro time line... so it leaves me behind the debates sometimes.

Originally posted by Robbo
Not your bad at all Si, it's just that whatever happens in the land of the NXL will eventually leech into the very fabric of tourney ball elsewhere and infect us all leastwise all those with a propensity to designer cheat.

Fair point, but the NXL don't really check guns, nor do they look that hard at these kinds of issues. Possibly because higher rof does look far better for the spectators? For instance the NXL doesn't have or use a robot, but they spend tens of thousands on nice grand stands and scoreboards? I think they have different goals.

But the NPPL and PSP do check these things and are investing in ways to keep track of the equipment.

Originally posted by Robbo
The problem arises for me when I try to get Nexus to one of the final four places in the EXL so we can qualify for the finals in Orlando just so's we can be faced with playing NXL teams......well, I'm sure you know what I am talking about.
It makes a mockery of everything and knocks the bollocks out of any coach and / or team who want to succeed through hard work and skill.
Does it really come down to , 'if you can't beat them, join them' ?
If it does mate, then I'm gonna buy myself a pipe and slippers and put me feet up because my time is done.

But then again, if everybody cheats, doesn't this then reintroduce even competition?
Theoretically yes it does but the idea of it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth and as soon as the blind eye is turned toward ROF cheats, how long before some of those same people and teams turn their attention toward increasing velocity, designer style ?

As you well know Si, this is already happening on some markers.....

I see your concerns. I don't have answer. I do know some NXL NXL teams that do not have designer cheats though. I know of some players that just use normal boards set up to bounce and don't get checked or caught much. Different rule enforcement there. Other teams... well I've watched some very interesting NXL play too.

In all honesty, I think the higher rof in the NXL and people getting shot up IS better visually and for the spectators. There is a huge 'blood lust' over here which that satisfies. Having watched more and more sport in the USA it appears that is what the audiences here want... far more than fair play maybe?

There does seem to be different rules and regulations in the NXL.