12 replies to this topic

[Griever 2112]

Hey All,

I recently did a little experiment that has been in the back of my mind for a while. With the N-Strike Elite Line if full bloom now. I wanted to see how well it stacked against some home done modding and purchased mods. So I pitted a Retaliator against my Alpha Trooper and another Alpha Trooper with a full OMW kit.

Video of the Range Testing.


The results were interesting. The Retaliator had the best grouping but the worst performance and 40-50 feet. My Alpha Trooper did second best grouping was erratic but ranged 60-70 feet. The OMW kit did the best despite priming issues* and hit 60-80 feet.

Testing conditions:
All - 6 Shots from a 6 round clip. All Elite Darts.**
Retaliator - Stock except for removed A/R, and extended barrel attached.
My A.T. - A/R removed and 5kg OMW Spring.
OMW A.T. - Complete OMW Massacre Kit.

* Priming issue discovered with Elite Darts and OMW polycarb breech. Due to difference in (assuming foam density) The Elite Darts formed too much suction in the breech causing the priming bar to pull back causing the system to not fire. This is ONLY with the Elite Darts, I tested off camera with normal streamlines and they worked fine.

** While only 1 clipped fired from each blaster was filmed, we did testing prior to filming of 3 full clips in each blaster. So in total 24 shots were taken with each blaster. And the results that I have posted were on par with the prior results. And therefore what both me and John/Caboose felt was accurate data.

Let me know what you think, questions, comments, suggestions.

I am looking to revisit this test with a proper Elite Alpha Trooper once I get my hands on one and will probably only test against the OMW kit.

Edited by Griever 2112, 03 May 2013 - 07:48 AM.

[Meaker VI]

Would have been better to compare a non-elite retaliator rather than an AT; different blasters have different performance anyway so it's not a valid test of elite vs. non-elite.

Most of the difference in Elite blasters is also the darts, so I'm not surprised. If you compared elite/non-elite same-model blaster with the darts they came with, the results would favor the elite. I imagine that giving both blasters elite darts would still favor the elite slightly, since they are supposed to have minor upgrades over the non-elite versions.

[azrael]

80 feet with the an AT? I dunno...Shouldn't be possible with a reverse plunger with just a stronger spring. Who knows how wind or bouncing is affecting measurement.


TBH, I'm a bit over ranges. I don't really trust people's measurements anymore. I feel like the only accurate and universal measure of performance is the use a chronometer.

Would have been better to compare a non-elite retaliator rather than an AT; different blasters have different performance anyway so it's not a valid test of elite vs. non-elite.

Most of the difference in Elite blasters is also the darts, so I'm not surprised. If you compared elite/non-elite same-model blaster with the darts they came with, the results would favor the elite. I imagine that giving both blasters elite darts would still favor the elite slightly, since they are supposed to have minor upgrades over the non-elite versions.

lolwut. The direct plungers make a fairly significant difference, it's not just darts.
I think it's an okay test, since most of the reverse plunger blasters have nearly identical internals/plunger volumes.

Edited by azrael, 01 May 2013 - 12:13 PM.

[Griever 2112]

@ Meaker, I am going to redo this test with a Elite A.T. vs, the OMW A.T. The main reasons I used the Retaliator is 1) it was the only clip fed Elite blaster in my possession. 2) When Psyk did his own E.A.T. he used the retaliator internals in that, so I know that there are a similar match, and in my opinion a suitable substitute.

@azrael, the high with the OMW kit was 83 feet. which I'm sure had a bounce, but it was also the highest marked one, of the six shots most landed around the 60 mark, with one around 40 feet short and 83 feet long.

[Joe Espinoza]

No offense, this really didn't prove anything. You have too many variables that really messed with your results. May I suggest your next one being a recon and a retaliator, or something along those lines, then testing those. Following that applying the same springs, then following that, omw kits in both of them. You get the point. But overall, it did open my eyes toward the performance obtain through the reg alpha trooper.

[andtheherois]

TBH, I'm a bit over ranges. I don't really trust people's measurements anymore. I feel like the only accurate and universal measure of performance is the use a chronometer.

Chrony is decent, but it's not an accurate and/or universal measure either. You can still hit 100ft with 180fps, or 250fps... There's more to it than just how fast the dart is going.

Edited by andtheherois, 01 May 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Griever 2112]

No offense, this really didn't prove anything. You have too many variables that really messed with your results. May I suggest your next one being a recon and a retaliator, or something along those lines, then testing those. Following that applying the same springs, then following that, omw kits in both of them. You get the point. But overall, it did open my eyes toward the performance obtain through the reg alpha trooper.

No. You missed the point entirely... If the goal was to test to see how an Elite blaster holds up against an OMW kit, and a somewhat modified blaster. For the love of God I know the A.T. and Recon/Retaliatory are desperate blasters. And I said once the Actual Elite Alpha Trooper is out I will retest against the OMW kit alone. I also took into consideration plenty of variables. We tested in the least amount of wind. I used the extended barrel on the Retaliatory to simulate the longer fixed barrel of the A.T. and each blaster had fresh darts. What else did I not account for huh?

[azrael]

Chrony is decent, but it's not an accurate and/or universal measure either. You can still hit 100ft with 180fps, or 250fps... There's more to it than just how fast the dart is going.

It's a very real and definite way to determine how much a modification has improved the efficiency of a blaster. I said nothing of hitting 100ft, unless I'm mistaken?
It's accurate if you do it correct. Not everyone does it correctly.

I've seen many range tests where people do not even have the gun PTG, and call it as PTG ranges.

[Hammy]

You need to conduct your tests with at least 100 shots, then take an average result, and measured spread, 6 measurements does not indicate much.

The the blaster needs to be attached to some rig, so it is always in the same position when making the shots.

[Griever 2112]

You need to conduct your tests with at least 100 shots, then take an average result, and measured spread, 6 measurements does not indicate much.

The the blaster needs to be attached to some rig, so it is always in the same position when making the shots.

Me and my friend did 4 rounds of pre-recorded firing of each one, and found that each blaster was consistent with each volley and decided that we can warrant filming as the results showed to be stable at said ranges.

I did not use a rig because A) I did not have the time, patience, foresight or materials to build one. and When using these blasters in HvZ or and NIC war, you're not firing them from a rig, your firing them from your shoulder.

[DX-Robert]

The problem with ranges is that we want the results to be statistically accurate, with controlled methods used, but at the same time, we want them to be "real". These goals are incompatible, as conditions on the field are usually quite variable and do not match ideal stats. For example, we like to say that our ranges are measured flat. But, and I forgot whose test this was (Beaver? Kane?), we rarely actually level our blasters when shooting in wars. There's almost always some slight angle used, consciously or not. So, if you do level it in a test, you'll get more accurate and less accurate results - more accurate because it's exactly PTG, less accurate because we don't shoot that way.

Thus, I think that the most useful range testing method is to grab a ballpark/average range and letting the conditions fall as they may. It could be colder and warm up, there might be wind that shits in direction and speed, some darts/foam may be better than others, but oh well. After many shots in differing conditions, you should see some kind of ballpark that is reliable. When someone says x gun shoots y feet, I don't think of y as its max range, I interpret y as its average range, the range you are more likely to see in battle and hit the most often. Its max range is understood to be something you will only hit in ideal or enhanced conditions, and thus is not useful enough to be cited as its primary range stat.

Chrony, as mentioned by Hero, is only good for speed and not range.

So basically, TL/DR: Testing should not aim to fulfill proper statistical standards, but should include enough shots that the results are statistically significant (this might take hundreds of shots?). That way, the resulting average, while scientifically flawed perhaps, is still the definitive range of your blaster.

[Daniel Beaver]

Chrony, as mentioned by Hero, is only good for speed and not range.

Given that we only want to test the variations in power between blasters, nothing else is relevant to the test besides velocity. Sure, variations in firing angles and darts will greatly effect range - but those are not the variables we're testing, we're only interested in the blasters. Given equivalent conditions, and varying only the blaster used, the velocity of the dart is the determining factor for ranges.

The problem with ranges is that we want the results to be statistically accurate, with controlled methods used, but at the same time, we want them to be "real". These goals are incompatible, as conditions on the field are usually quite variable and do not match ideal stats. For example, we like to say that our ranges are measured flat. But, and I forgot whose test this was (Beaver? Kane?), we rarely actually level our blasters when shooting in wars.

Reality is inconveniently complex. But you can draw useful conclusions from idealized tests like the ones I performed.


One thing I will add: we need a lot more than 6 data points to draw any conclusions here, but I think we can get away with far fewer than 100. Start with maybe 25 shots, and post that data - from that, we can apply some statistical tools to determine about how many trials are needed for the range of certainty that we want.

Edited by Daniel Beaver, 02 May 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[Griever 2112]

One thing I will add: we need a lot more than 6 data points to draw any conclusions here, but I think we can get away with far fewer than 100. Start with maybe 25 shots, and post that data - from that, we can apply some statistical tools to determine about how many trials are needed for the range of certainty that we want.

As I had mentioned, I only filmed one clip because prior to filming John/Caboose, wanted to to test rounds to see if we could get statistical equality and not get a random amount of data. Overall we fired 4 clips out of each blaster and filmed the last ones. Each of the prior 3 clips were on par with what was filmed, which is why I posted those results. I will adjust my original post to show that since this seems to be a issue everyone is taking up.