Jump to content


Photo

comparing chronograph results


31 replies to this topic

#26 Meaker VI

Meaker VI

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,060 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 30 July 2017 - 10:49 PM

 I'll keep iterating on the design, so feedback is welcome!

 

I mean, the way the data is presented looks pretty good to me. I like that the full info is there for those who want to delve into it, I like that the quick-glance is right there and obvious. The bigger image is easier to read - even on my desktop rigged with a decent screen - but that's probably something you haven't fixed on.

 

I really liked the accuracy information along side this, shooting through a line of chronos (or moving one out and shooting another 100 rounds :P ) seemed a good way to understand how accurate/inaccurate the blaster is.


  • 0

#27 joneill809

joneill809

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Location:Austin
  • State:Texas

Posted 31 July 2017 - 11:12 AM

 

I mean, the way the data is presented looks pretty good to me. I like that the full info is there for those who want to delve into it, I like that the quick-glance is right there and obvious. The bigger image is easier to read - even on my desktop rigged with a decent screen - but that's probably something you haven't fixed on.

 

really liked the accuracy information along side this, shooting through a line of chronos (or moving one out and shooting another 100 rounds  :P ) seemed a good way to understand how accurate/inaccurate the blaster is.

 

 

I should have been more clear in what I was up to. My supply of ACC gen 2 hard tip short darts is dwindling, and I was exploring an easier source for darts from Amazon that I could cut down for testing. I was taking a look at the two full length darts from above as a first pass to see how they held up before cutting. After that I was going to move into the accuracy profiling you mentioned using the Caliburn (after my elbow recovers haha). The accuracy run will likely be 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 ft - nine total sets or 900 shots (maybe more depending on the population size read by the chronograph at a distance - if it falls below 30/100, I'll have to fire more rounds to get a decent population of readings). Factor in a couple reference blaster runs and I'll be at 1,100 rounds minimum, maybe higher if I break up the collection into multiple events. So I've been taking my time with the setup testing, debugging and dart profiling to make sure I don't have to run this again. So the accuracy stuff is coming...honest.

 

In terms of the full size graphic, I didn't eliminate it. I just grabbed the summary at the top where I have been spending most of my time. Here's a view of the full Excel sheet for the Caliburn with Apollo reference sessions, with my latest ideas on formatting. I think this is the view you were talking about?

caliburn-fps-2017-07-31-full-5ksm.png

 

Here's a look at the original formatting before my tinkering this weekend for the older Apollo runs:

apollo-fps-2017-07-29-full-4ksm.png

 

I can switch back to the darker fonts if that is easier to read, but I was trying to be more selective in the use of dark colors to call your attention to the more important bits. I can go a shade darker on the new gray if it's too hard to read on some of your monitors. Right now, I prefer the new layout of information in the summary. That may change in a day or two.


  • 0

#28 Meaker VI

Meaker VI

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,060 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 31 July 2017 - 03:35 PM

I'd use full-length darts, that's what most people use ATM. I don't really have a dart preference, at some point you'd probably test darts this scientifically out of a single platform (or two, if you start doing flywheels). Everyone has elites, but no one uses them; FVJ's are nice, but not everyone allows/uses them, USC's and USCS's are a favorite around here, Waffles are good for accuracy but don't always fit tight-bore barrels like Caliburn's, and Koosh are the old-favorite flywheel blaster standard but seem to be falling off. I hear good things about the new Buzz Bee accuracy darts, no idea how readily available those are though.

 

So, going through your posts again:

 

I like your first image for comparing blasters quickly side-by-side. If you had a giant side-scrolling (or top-scrolling, just with the bar-chart transposed sideways) page with all blasters tested on it, I'd have that as the list view. For detailed data, which I'd reserve for delving into a specific blaster (e.g.: Click on the blaster's data in a giant scrolling list) your new post is great. The values (latest post) should be available but collapsed under that.


  • 0

#29 joneill809

joneill809

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Location:Austin
  • State:Texas

Posted 31 July 2017 - 05:50 PM

It may be interesting to use the same dart type for full length and cut down, but I don't think the long darts make it to 18 ft. Ten test full length rounds at 18 ft were scattered all around the chronograph catch bin, with none coming close to registering a reading (in fact only 1 hit the bin, and I am fearing for my walls, blinds and house decorations as this full lengths are veering off in all kinds of directions). Compare that to 15 worker short darts from the same distance - all hit my catch bin. I will need significantly more than 100 full length shots to get to my floor of 30 readings at greater distances. I can start with the full lengths and increase the range until I start seeing a significant drop-off in readings with 100 shot samples, but from what I can see so far, I think that will stop at 12 ft. 

 

The other option may be to back off to the [k25]. Dial back the velocity in the hopes of improving full length accuracy. But I am setup with the [k26] right now so I'll likely start with short darts. Is my thinking accurate here - if you want to run full lengths, back off to the [k25]? I defer to you guys on that question - I have limited experience here so it's possible I'm doing something else wrong when optimizing for long darts.

 

In terms of other darts, the ACC-like darts ("Phat Welt Wackers") look like VTN / FVN / Lily Arms. I do have some black ACC's on the way. Both of these seem to be close to the ACC Gen 2's I've been using from Monkee Mods which have held up well under higher fps rates and have been pretty accurate relative to other darts. My plan was to cut these darts down and give them a go. From what I read they hit too hard and are often banned, so I can bring in some USC's to give them a try as well. What is a USCS? A "short" USC like this? (I'm new and catching up!)

 

Plus I really want to give this a go since I sunk some time into designing and printing:

dartcutter.png

 

 


  • 0

#30 CaptainSlug

CaptainSlug

    Resident Mad Scientist

  • Administrators
  • 4,752 posts

Posted 31 July 2017 - 06:27 PM

if you want to run full lengths, back off to the k25? I defer to you guys on that question

Pretty much. Long darts of all types are pretty erratic at speeds above 170 fps.


  • 0
The little critters of nature, they don't know that they're ugly. That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumble bee. I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me?

#31 Meaker VI

Meaker VI

    Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,060 posts
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States
  • u/MeakerVI on Reddit

Posted 31 July 2017 - 10:57 PM

From what I read they hit too hard and are often banned, so I can bring in some USC's to give them a try as well. What is a USCS? A "short" USC like this? (I'm new and catching up!)

 

Plus I really want to give this a go since I sunk some time into designing and printing:

...

 

Trick with USC's is that they can get stuck in long barrels. I think Caliburn is ok, but I had a hard time with a brassed LS the other day. USCS's are USC-Slug's, just cut off the sucker and glue on a pad. Super easy, I've only made one since my group uses mostly FVJ's and I now like my darts mostly-disposable. If I need accuracy, I've got an M6 that'll hit a guy peeking out from behind a door at 60'.


  • 0

#32 joneill809

joneill809

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Location:Austin
  • State:Texas

Posted 06 August 2017 - 10:20 PM

I completed some distance profiling work with the Caliburn. I ran a set of VTN darts for 1, 6, 12 and 18 feet. At 18 feet the VTNs cratered in terms of being able to hit the chronograph consistently, so I truncated the run. I repeated 1, 6, 12, and 18 with the Worker stefans and got much better chronograph reading results so I continued that profiling out to 36 feet.

 

First up is the summary from the VTN run:

caliburn-distanceProfile-VTN-summary.png

 

And the summary from the worker run:

caliburn-distanceProfile-worker-summary.png

 

You may notice the date / time stamps for the runs are not in order as presented. I did jump around in terms of how I profiled, so the distances were not collected in sequence. I sorted them in the plots so the presentation of the data made sense flowing from short to long, left to right. I presented three numbers related to the chronograph reading results - the total number of darts fired (100 in these tests), the number of readings registered (these include "errors" on the chronograph where only 1 sensor registered a reading) and recorded values where I got an actual, valid result recorded by the chronograph. For the purposes of the accuracy data, I used the registered reading values, since the dart was recorded by at least one sensor which essentially required the dart to pass through a target with a diameter of less than 6 inches to register a reading. I probably should have kept track visually as to how many darts flew through the chronograph light kit; my feeling was I only recorded values for about half of the darts that actually passed through the light kit bars. Overall I was impressed with the accuracy and consistency of the Caliburn during these tests.

 

If you compare the VTNs against workers in a summary view, you get a better idea of the drop-off in reading counts with the VTNs (note the velocities recorded were on average slightly lower for worker, but there was not a significant delta):

caliburn-workerVvtns.png

 

So I'm continuing to see the same characteristics from the worker darts that I saw with my Retaliator tests from earlier in the year - I get slightly lower velocities with these darts, but they seem to be more accurate. I'll try to get to additional dart types over time with the Caliburn (I have ACC and accustrike knockoffs that I'm cutting down and testing). I'm testing cut down darts at this time, as full length accuracy was horrible with the [k26], and the cutdown darts showed marked improvement.

 

I'm also contemplating a second methodology for better analyzing spread. The main focus here was on the velocity of the darts as a function of distance with a yes/no "did the chronograph read anything?" result with each round. I will likely drop the velocity aspect of testing for the spread profiling and try a set of concentric catch bins of different diameters, possibly split in half or quarters. I have some design and fabrication work to do there, but that may be an interesting approach to better characterizing spread. I'll post some design ideas here in the future.

 

For those that are interested in the eye charts I'm including the full graphics below.

caliburn-distanceProfile-VTN-detailed-sm.png

 

caliburn-distanceProfile-worker-detailed-sm.png


  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users