Page 239 of 418 FirstFirst ... 139189229237238239240241249289339 ... LastLast
Results 2,381 to 2,390 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #2381
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Weeeeeell I don't know about latest and greatest :P

    But yeah, I mean it's like saying a gun runs on a 9V or a LiPo or AA's. It's just one aspect of the marker but there's a difference. If we could get the market on board with characterizing the actuation/operator type along with the valve we'd really be in business. Doesn't seem so far out of the question, you already started that with the PCP.

    Morph Valve'd cocker: "hammer driven spool"
    Gen4'd cocker (superior implementation): "hammer driven poppet"
    Axe: "pressure controlled poppet"
    Matrix/shocker/clone: "ram driven spool"
    Timmy: "ram driven poppet"
    Ego: Jack's rammer is of substantial mass and momentum
    This schema is very good, IMO. If you standardize terms and call the axe a "Ram driven poppet" then that's exactly what I'd call the Nova. Hence my earlier statement they were similar.

  2. #2382
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #2383
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    But I think we're all agreed, a hammer driven spool, or whatever you want to call it, is a DUMB THING.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  4. #2384
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    No, because the morph valve is an idiotic application for a radial seal in the first place. It has NO practical benefit over a balanced poppet (lurker control freak). The rest of the autococker system doesn't constitute "greatest" by any definition either.

    The ego also uses a spool to make the face seal release. The parts are decoupled...
    The application suddenly matters when you don't agree with the implementation?

    As much as you and I may agree that it's a shit valve, many people are very happy with them (while they work) and it fits your definition. It's a great example of why I think that there has to be a more holistic approach to it.

    And again with definitions... your idea of greatest may not be the same as someone elses. Ultimately in the market place perception is reality and they are the ones that will decide, not a bunch of engineers.

    One of the most interesting lessons I learnt in engineering is that the best engineering and solutions don't always equate to the best products or consumer experience.

    Back in 1997 Tom Kaye told me the RT was the pinnacle of engineering in paintball and that it was the best engineered product in paintball. For that point in time he was right. It was a shit paintball marker though. It cycled too fast, it broke paint, it leaked at the banjo bolt or one of six unneccessary npt threaded ports, it was heavy, it went over the set velocity when shot quickly (such that they had to come up with a special way to chrono them) and the feed system didn't work when tilted to one side. Great engineering, awful paintball gun.

    He had some beautiful engineering studies of it though showing how fast it recharged and would cycle and the gas pressure in the breech compared to other guns etc.

    Beautiful from his engineering perspective, awful from many people who tried to use them to play paintball.

    I once made the same mistake with the Faction. Dry cycling at 60cps, paint at 30bps was quite a machine to shoot over the chrono. Shit to play with and broke 1 in 300 paintballs if they were tournament paint.

    There's a reason why so many pro players have tried to trade me $1500+ guns for an Autococker, and many players if you told them they could only ever shoot one gun for the rest of their playing days would pick an Autococker. It certainly isn't the greatest gun from an Engineering point. Not even close. But from the experience of playing the game... it's one of the greatest without a doubt to many of the people that have played and still do play.

    Most "modern" spool valve guns all feel very similar. They are variations on a wet fart when you shoot them and from an engineering point they interest me, but from a playing perspective they bore the shit out of me. Now without a doubt the wet fart is the experience that many players think they want, but not all, and the number of people that tell me recently that they put down CS1's or M2's because they enjoy playing with the 25 year old design of an Autococker is pretty surprising. Do they care if it's the best engineered paintball gun? Not in the slightest.

    Again perception is reality to the market place. Why do these definitions even exist to describe paintball guns? For the consumer to have an idea of what they are getting. You'd find it impossible to tell the general player that a morph valve Autococker was a spool valve gun although it fits your definition and they'd find it hard to believe that one of Mike's guns is a poppet gun.

  5. #2385
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    That's a great post, Simon. 😀

  6. #2386
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Josh, every paintball gun uses exactly 1 valve to fire a ball. Period. They may use some secondary cut-off PORTS like the paragon, but it opens and closes radially on both sides because that's how (practical) geometry works. Try and skirt it and you end up with an odd characteristic like a A80 that has to traverse the radial cut off port and then jog the geometry backwards to actuate the face seal. I doubt you'd ever see an industial valve designed like this... I never have that I recall.

    Each port uses a single valve, hence the statement that it's "like calling a circuit a diode." Since you wouldn't call something a spool, spool, poppet (ego) you simply look at the exit port. Said again, the gun is a series of ports. Each port has a valve, but the final valve is the only label we place on the gun for marketing purposes. Calling the entire engine a "valve" is semantically incorrect. It is a series of valves with individual ports feeding a firing circuit, but one is final.

  7. #2387
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    A way more interesting conversation: What IS the "soul" of the gun (or car)?

    I think the short answer is that soul happens in the s-plane. How user inputs translate into outputs (response) is the real meat of experience. Certainly, something like efficiency (air for paintball, gas for cars) is almost entirely absent from the "soul".

    Functionally for a gun designer, soul is the combination of the ergonomics with the engine.

    I'm not sure how to weight things like:


    Ball acceleration profile (largely a function of valve flow rates)

    Internal component momentum

    Lock time

    Axis of rotation

    If you've read any Douglas Hofstadter, you'd know that soul's all about recursion - it lives in the feedback loop between gun and gunner, car and driver. . .
    This is huge for many people. It is for me in my cars. It is for me and my motorcycles, although in different ways. It is for my paintball guns.

    I hate V-twin motorcycles compared to Sports bikes. The Jeep Wrangler is arguably the worst car I have ever owned, and one of my favourites at the same time. I loved the Lotus Evora for it's connection to the road, but hated it for it's reliability.

    The only time something with surposedly more soul was less appealing was with my Sports tourer over my Chopper. Apparently the Chopper had more "Soul" but not for me. The VFR won out over it easily.

  8. #2388
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon View Post
    The application suddenly matters when you don't agree with the implementation?
    I am not arguing with the rest, but... the reason I said "no" was more on the "latest and greatest" claim. Which the rest of your post addresses. On the valve front, the morph is unequivocally a spool.

  9. #2389
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    YOU said it was a singular piece. My reply is that it is not, and couldn't be. Not sure you really have a solid position making comments about my goal posts.

    You also used limited definitions, and no illustrations. Yet you came to an illogical conclusion that really counters the defining position. So....

    As for seats, feel free to look at my comment above. The seat type doesn't define the valve entirely in other application.

    Take for example the new Zero Leak Ball Valves. They have a really clever cam feature - as they come all the way closed the entire ball tips back and makes a face seat contact point on the seat. It actually is hanging off of the seat until the last bit of travel, then the whole ball changes from a radial movement to a linear one, so it can make the better face seal.

    Is it now a poppet? Well, in the name, it is still a Ball Valve with a Face Seat.

    At worst, the Morph is a variant of a Poppet that uses a radial o-ring seal, like a spool. A poppet Valve with a Spool Seal. The valve body is the same, there is a valve stem, and a linear actuator. You have changed the seal, but not the rest. The operation is just the same, the shape is, the valve body and stem and actuator are the same. It is easy look at the seal, in our limited collection of paintball references, and thing that defines stuff.

    But when you go outside of the paintball industry, well.... the references make this argument moot. It still is what it is, in the whole.

    That is my background. Outside of this industry, besides being smart enough to not make a valve like the Morph (it works good enough for our applications), they still call it a poppet. Maybe for lack of a better definition - maybe because there is no need? (shrugs)

    Calling out the seal might be important, like in the Ball Valve example above. But the valve type isn't changing - just the seat. So, a Poppet Valve with a Spool style seat.

    Whereas the Axe is a Spool Valve with a Face Seat.

    Like I said, and gave examples of, the seal doesn't define the valve.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 10-04-2017 at 06:10 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #2390
    Coming back to this because we did a lot of work studying it when working on the E-volt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    A way more interesting conversation: What IS the "soul" of the gun (or car)?

    I think the short answer is that soul happens in the s-plane. How user inputs translate into outputs (response) is the real meat of experience. Certainly, something like efficiency (air for paintball, gas for cars) is almost entirely absent from the "soul".

    Functionally for a gun designer, soul is the combination of the ergonomics with the engine.

    I'm not sure how to weight things like:


    Ball acceleration profile (largely a function of valve flow rates)

    Internal component momentum

    Lock time

    Axis of rotation

    If you've read any Douglas Hofstadter, you'd know that soul's all about recursion - it lives in the feedback loop between gun and gunner, car and driver. . .
    Those are all really important points and the psychology of the shot and gun's sound signature plays hugely into how the consumer feels about a gun.

    I remember doing slow motion capture of the Ego which barely moved around on shooting compared to other guns, but because it was a loud crack, people said it kicked more... it didn't compared to the Luxe which everyone thought was smoother.

    Lock time was and is, in my opinion, a huge part of why people like shooting Autocockers and pump guns. I believe it's in part why those guns have the myth of accuracy. Measuring lock time on different gun and valve systems was quite an eye opener. It was a big issue for us with the E-Volt because it had such a long lock time. After about 100ms people started feeling that the gun was less accurate and blamed the feeling that it took a long time for it to fire for the perceived loss in accuracy. The lock time on that was around 100-125ms. People said they could tell the difference in that extra 25ms... Obviously all of this makes total sense and ties in with real firearms as well.

    Axis of rotation is a tough one, but people do tend to like lower bore axis's as they feel they point better, I have no idea why but the Autococker seems to the one exception to that rule.

    I always felt internal momentum to be a big issue but that hasn't played out in reality with many gun designs that have proven popular. I feel like it should be a big issue though.

    The interaction between the shot and mechanism of the Autococker with the trigger pull and user is what most people say they like about the guns, that and the perpetual belief that they are more accurate (which could be explained by the short lock time they have).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •