boltsniper

I definitely agree that the FAR (and the SCAR for that matter) are not very practical at all. No argument there. I tried to fix a lot of the deficiencies in my last rifle.

I definitely wasn't trying to shoot holes in your judging methodology. It's your contest so you are free to run it however you please, and I do think it's setup quite well as is. I was just making some observations and offering some experience. I deal with specifications and requirements provided by the military which in turn we use to develop concepts and downselect. Being the military, the requirements are very specific and mostly quantitative, but even so, there is always subjectiveness and personal bias that has to be dealt with when selecting the true superior design.

I think this could simply be handled by including an example of the judges definition of an "ideal" blaster in the contest definition

I think this a great idea.

It is going to be tough to remain objective while judging the entries. The categories have the potential to be vary subjective and personal biases could creep in very easily. You have multiple judges which is great to reduce that effect. I'm slightly worried though because a lot of the comments to this thread have a lot of personal bias associated with them. I work in R&D and conept design for a living and you really have to distance your personal opinions from the facts when deciding on a superior design. It is hard sometimes. I would suggest developing as many quantitative ways to judge the categories as possible.

"War effectiveness" is almost purely subjective and will vary widely from person to person based on their style of play. The types of play can be so different and something that is effective in one is not in another.

I'm surprised to see no stand alone "performance" category. I see that you have rolled that into "war effectiveness" but to me they can be two independent entities. IT can surely be accomplished the way you have it setup though.

'Daniel Beaver', on 12 May 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

The FAR and Abp5k were awesome sights to behold. And they had about zero practical impact on the Nerf scene.

The +bow and SNAP were not nearly as "awesome" in comparison. But they revolutionized Nerf. Because they were simple enough that people could fucking replicate them.

If you remove the Difficulty/Repeatablity and Cost/Labor incentives of the contest, you effectively shit all over amateur homemade builders who don't have access to kickass tools and materials.

I built the FAR and GNS (and SCAR-N and NTS minus the SLA parts) on top of my dryer in my apartment with nothing more than a dremel and other extremely cheap, available, and [i]non-kickass tools. And I wouldn't call PVC and balsa kickass materials either. They are mechancically complex and not quickly reproducible, but they don't take anything more than skill and dedication to pull off.

'LotusNerf', on 12 May 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

But you're making a write-up on how to make the blaster. The Abp5k, FAR, and all of the blasters of the like had no impact because they had no write-up

I did some relatively extensive plans for the FAR, but no step-by-step instruction manual. Do people really need something so detailed that it tells them to pick up the knife with their right hand or to stop at certain points and take shits? Come on...

I personally don't see the desire in replicating someone else's work to a tee. To me it seems much more desirable to take the design elements of something and implement it in a way that you personally are able to and want to. Because I am using an SLA machine or a lathe to make parts doesn't mean they couldn't be accomplished to the same effect through different means. Too many people have the mindset that if they don't have access to those same tools so there is no way I could attempt that. I claim complete bullshit on that.

I look forward to seeing what comes of this. Should be interesting.

Model available for download.

DOWNLOAD

IGES Format
No Springs Modeled
No Fasteners Modeled

jhalek90, on Mar 18 2011, 11:05 PM, said:

I for one have pushed a nerf dart past mach 1. The result is a shower of nerf dart confetti after about 10 feet.
This was accomplished by using a lighter than air gas, at around 2500 psi. The sound was insane.

Yeah, I wouldn't really expect a dart to survive it.

Just noticed this thread. Nicely designed and prototyped gun there.

It's pretty awesome you are allowed to churn out kits at what seems like a reasonable price.

The stereolithography machine I used to manufacture the BS-8 and BS-9 magwells ran about $100 per hour of build time. Those 2 parts took about 8-10 hours a piece to complete so if I didn't have unlimited access to the machine then they would have cost around $1000 each. Far out of the question for a Nerf gun.

My experience with FDM never created parts that were worthy of actual use. The SLA and SLS methods both produced parts that were much more homogeneous and fit for actual use....but they cost much more mainly due to laser time rather than material cost.