18 replies to this topic

[GunnedDown]

I think I have found out a pretty general equation for the efficiency of a nerf gun. It is:

Range x Shots per pump set
Pumps per pump set

Range is measured by the standard range measurements. Level surface, gun parallel, and held at a shoulder firing stance (get the jist?), etc. Pumps means pumps required for the preceeding range. Pumps per pump set is how many pumps you have to pump consecutivey for the preceeding amount of shots, as long as you do not repump. Maximum barrel modifications, and standard pump amounts, assuming the barrel mod is completed well and you are using good darts.

Efficiencies:

Brass BF:

70*5= 350. 350/ (5 to 7 pumps) is 70-50, or averege of 60.

1500:

120*1= 120 120/5 is 24.

Well, after some thinking, 24 for a 1500 doesn't seem right. I also will include a minus a percent for every barrel there is. Since the BF has 5 barrels, you subtract 5% from 60 because of the reload for each barrel on a multibarrel gun with multi shots, not including single barrels (you don't subtract 1%). That would give the BF a 57. But, if you think, a BF is much better than a 1500. However, look at this:

Sven:

80*1= 80/1= 80. Sven has an efficiency of eighty...

I think this needs some perfecting...

[Mantis]

Shouldnt you include something for the number of pumps per set?

[GunnedDown]

Yes, I did. Whoops, this site has no BB code. Range muliplied by Shots PPS over PPS. It should have an underline below it to dignify the division. Sorry, I'll correct that.

[Famine]

You guys are asses.... you really are.
So you want to try and make an equation to rate the total efficiency of a Nerf gun? So right now you're factoring in range, shots fired per pump set?, number of pumps needed...... what about accuracy? I can have a uber-modded Supermaxx gun that fires 140' with 3 pumps but if I can't hit a target 30' away how fuckin efficient is that? Also, if a gun holds multiple shots such as an AT3k, that has 6 darts loaded ready to go versus, a single barrel mod 1500, do you count the total time to load all 6 darts and pump versus firing 6 shots out of a 1500? Technically the time should be the same for both but many would consider the 3k to be more efficient because it has a faster refire time versus reload time. And what about those faggoty guns the LCM use that have secondary guns built into them? Do both barrels have to be fired and reloaded? What if one barrel is only an emergency close range back up? If it's range drags down the average range of the whole gun wouldn't that make it appear to be inefficient even though the purpose of the second barrel is perfectly served?

Asses.

[MysticFalcon182]

Well, there are many things you haven't considered. My way of finding the efficiency is to test it out. If it works, its good. If it doesn't, it sucks.

Example:
I use a PC. It works. That means it's good.
I use a Slingshot. It doesn't work. That means it's work one cent on eBay.

~Mystic~

[Famine]

Well, there are many things you haven't considered. My way of finding the efficiency is to test it out. If it works, its good. If it doesn't, it sucks.

Ya know, I'm not quite sure where you sit with me yet Mystic. Should I like you, or hate you? I just don't know yet. I don't really recognize your name, I have no idea who you are, what you're Nerf background is, or what your history is. None the less, that was a fuckin intelligent remark. I'm not bein sarcastic.... it was.

As hard as we might try, Nerf will never be a perfect science. Sure there are some basic engineering principles (and Isaac fuckin Newton's gravitagia) that govern our sport, but alot of it still just boils down to the preferences of the player and their own skill. Even if you could calculate out the total efficiency of a gun, what if I just don't like the way it fits in my hand and it fucks my aim up? That renders the gun pretty fuckin ineffective.... I'm gonna toss it.

I guess it's 2am, I'm fuckin tired, and I'm just trying to say that there will never be any substitute for hard earned expierence, and time-proven trial and error.

[Silivrenion]

I've come up with an equation that measures the efficiency of shot distance versus the work you put into achieving that distance, and work to the ideal perfect world values. The concept is that the closer your gun is to a perfection point, the more efficient it should be.

For all purposes, this measures an individual firing mechanism for both air and spring models. If you're using an integrated gun, you MUST compute the two sections separately.

PLEASE check the prenotes directly below. They contain two rules you must follow when using this formula. If you enter something that's not making sense, make sure your numbers are entered right with these areas:

Pre-notes:

Pumps >= 1
Range >= 1

*120 Range is expected as the defacto perfect range or expected range for that particular gun. This can be changed to the ideal "perfect range" that the gun of that class can get under the highest conditions possible. I suggest moving it around if you want!

Equation:

( Range / 120) / ( Pumps x Pounds of Force Required / 100 + 1 )

Proving the Extremes:
Here's a scenario:

A gun with 120/120 perfect range with 1 pump required with no pounds of force has an efficiency of 1.00 (impossible to achieve)

A gun with 1/120 range with 100 pumps required with 20 pounds of force has an efficiency of 0.03%

Realistic Examples

A big blast with 110 range, 4 pumps with 3 lbs force has an efficiency of 0.818452381, or 81%
Equation: ( 110 / 120) / ( 4 x 3 / 100 + 1)

The guts behind the math

The formula relies on the ration of the "perfect range" to the ratio of the "perfect loading". /100 is required at the end to rationalize the answers into the same base as the top of the fraction. The +1 prevents the user from entering something dumb and breaking the formula.

It's possible to achieve values larger than 1.00 Perfect Efficiency by inputting a range larger than the expected range set.

Technicalities
This is a work in progress, and I take no responsibility of you use it in a dumb fashion. If you sell your guns using this scale, that's your own business. Also, please feel free to improve on the equation if you see something that could change to make it work better. That's why I stumbled here and wrote this in the first place! (Thanks GunnedDown for the concept!) Please attribute me if you use my equation elsewhere for something. Call it the "Silver Scale" or something catchy if you'd like. This means don't go stealing things other people do. It's bad taste.


Alright, hit me with thoughts and suggestions!

Edited by Silivrenion, 03 August 2009 - 02:35 AM.

[Fome]

edit: Didn't realize this was a response to a necro.

Cool.
Begs the question though: necessary?

I'd like to see a formula that calculates the fun-factor of your blaster, or one that solves the eye-raping color scheme coefficient.

Edited by Fome, 03 August 2009 - 03:16 AM.

[Silivrenion]

edit: Didn't realize this was a response to a necro.

.. yeah, and? The rules say "Don't post in months-old topics unless you have something significant to add." I added significant information, so don't worry, no need to be afraid

Begs the question though: necessary?

Well, it's not completely necessary, but it's cool to statistically see the pros and cons of the guns. Personally, I just have fun playing the game. I don't worry about any of this, but there might be others out there who do. The problem is we're dealing with a science that we're creating ourselves. Nerf doesn't make these things to be modded, they make them to function as a children's toy. There's so many variables involving ammo weighting, barrel lengths and composition, humidity, atmospheric pressure, recoil, etc. that it makes it hard to identify anything really.

This formula might be useful for people who want to find a way to modify their guns to be just a little better but don't know how to start. By changing the numbers, you can simulate the effectiveness of the entire gun in one statement. I think it's a lot better to run the numbers on something before you tear apart your new $150 crossbow, right?

I do like the crazyness idea you posted Fome, but cosmetics are just for show and not competition.. at least until we have gun model shows

[durka durka]

Very interesting. I wouldn't really bother anymore with an efficiency formula because there are too many variables to be counted, Although I don't think recoil is one of them.

The biggest factor of all lies in the user of the nerf gun. Just because someone has a gun that is statistically better, doesn't mean that they will be better.

[chefdave]

Cool, but how do you determine the expected range? There will always be minuet variations in each of the stock guns, and it isn't really possible to determine the expected range of any modded gun considering that X modder can always do something a little bit different than Y modder to get a few more feet out of the gun. Everyone uses different darts, weights, springs, barrels, ect.

*edit* Forgot to mention how much weather effects guns, your spring might shoot 100ft in 90 degree weather, but if it is 60 outside you might only pull 80 ft. *edit*

Edited by chefdave, 03 August 2009 - 03:58 PM.

[TantumBull]

Oh, okay, so I guess you can't have a perfect nerf gun if it doesn't shoot 120 feet. Awesome equation. How useful.

[Bedhed117]

Oh, okay, so I guess you can't have a perfect nerf gun if it doesn't shoot 120 feet. Awesome equation. How useful.

I don't think that's there's such thing as a "perfect nerf gun." I think that we should have an equation for this because now we can rate guns. This would be very useful if it were to be adopted as the standard equation among all nerfers.

[VelveetaAvenger]

I withdraw my comments from earlier, if you're just going to guess the pounds of force needed to pump then this is indeed useless.

Edited by VelveetaAvenger, 03 August 2009 - 07:09 PM.

[Fome]

edit: Didn't realize this was a response to a necro.

.. yeah, and? The rules say "Don't post in months-old topics unless you have something significant to add." I added significant information, so don't worry, no need to be afraid

I know, much of my original post was to the stuff 6 years ago.

[wingd man]

Could this be applied to springers as in one pump, _force?

[Silivrenion]

Hey guys, so here we go!

VelveetaAvenger, the pounds per pump is really just a unit of force. You could measure it in any unit you want, really, but it needs to represent the amount of force you put into the pump/cocking mechanism. You could rig weights to the handle and attempt to drop them in order to pull the handle.. I really just estimated the force.

Because there's no agreed "perfect" nerf gun in existence, it's really hard to define what perfect efficiency is. I chose 120 as a good distance that would be perfect for a great gun. I'm sure someone will put a distance cap on the guns we use in games, which will become the standard for this value. Please, do change it to something else and see what happens. You could look at the highest value for all nerf guns in a category and set that as the perfect range value.

Again, this is really just a toy. I made a formula you guys can use, so have fun with it however you'd like.

[Silivrenion]

Could this be applied to springers as in one pump, _force?

Yes! Springs require more force to activate than an air powered gun. It works the same way. A crossbow would be 1 pump with 10-20 pounds of force at least.

[Groove]

For the love of God, please check the post date before replying to topics. This one is almost 6 years old.


-Groove