Nerf Dart Characterization Project: Equipment Tests Kickoff

Project Kickoff

Well, the project has begun. We decided from the outset to start off with equipment we already have and will progress to more specialized equipment as we continue. That being said, right off the bat, we purchased a chronograph and laser site as those two tools seemed important and were consistent with previously published literature. For those interested, I will begin the documentation and enumeration of startup equipment and costs in my next post, and continue the tally as we move forward for informational purpose, should others wish to replicate or extend our results. Unlike most projects in which I am involved, as this is a hobby, we have not hard budget. With that being said, however, I am looking at keeping the overall cost of the project to under $1000 with a stretch goal of under $500, not including darts, which we use in everyday practice anyway just blasting each other.

Chronograph Test

We started with a chronograph test and videotaped it but lost the footage due to equipment use error. It was actually kind of funny, and right off the bat, my youngest and middlest got to learn, from experience, the importance of backups, redundant copies, and how to use the cloud drives. As I also was chronicling it on my own, I do have the following still shots:

Green Sight Laser Test

We also purchased a green dot laser sight that came with an attachment for a Picatinny rail and attached it to two of our test pistols securely, specifically the Nerf Rival Kronos and the Nerf Mega Cycloneshock. Neither of these blasters has a Picatinny rail, as would be expected due to the fact that they are TOYS! What I did not expect, and was pleasantly surprised by, was that in both cases, we were able to use the attachment that came with the laser site to securely fasten the sight to both blasters. Here is the test footage of the sight on the CycloneShock:

   

Camera Test

Finally, we did a screen test with my camera phone to test the video hardware and start trying to find an angle at which to film the strike point of the ball with the target, as it was recommended to not to film it at a direct 90 degree angle from the target. In the test footage, my youngest held the camera at roughly a 70 angle and came up with the following results:

This footage, while not great, confirmed a number of things:

1. Something we knew but wanted to confirm, was that the camera will not work for purposes of marking ball strike points in post production. Our next test will be with my eldest's GoPro Hero 5 to see if that will work better and we will see if we can ramp up the shutter speed to at least 120 to 125. I do not need professional grade video but I do need it to be accurate enough so that marking strike points and adding an outline of my youngest's head and torso will be easier in post production. I am hesitant to spend money on an SLR camera for this project, as the cost is already so far hovering at 150 dollars.

2. We discovered that the video software my middlest is using does not have the functionality to place dots on the strike points or do layers. We are now looking at free Mac-compatible versions (or Linux or Windows if the Apple platform fails us) of software for this purpose before we move to more costly alternatives.

Solicitation of Feedback

For anyone who has constructive criticism, I would love to invite you to comment and hear what you have to say. I will respond in a timely matter to questions posted on this blog. If you want to suggest equipment, that would be great. If you really want to add value to such recommendations, please list the price and if you would consider any tools if they are the lowest level tools in the category, highest level tools in the category, or the minimum enough to accomplish our goals. 

For anyone who wishes to add negative criticism, use inappropriate language, recommend things out of scope, or tell me not to do this project, go elsewhere. Seriously. Go on Reddit and blast people with your negative opinions, reasons why you think this is stupid or useless, und so weiter. I don't want to hear it and you bring no value. Go away. This project is about scientific discovery. It is about process. It is about experimentation and learning what works so that me and my children can learn together how to create a multifaceted, technical project that piques our interest. Our ultimate goal is to spend time with one another and the people who share our interest in this hobby while creating documentation of useful data that people can use, not to fit some sort of market niche to gather subscribers or free swag.

A New Project: Nerf Dart Characterization

So as many of you may know, I have taken up "nerfing" over the past year or so. It is so much fun and infinitely hackable! I highly recommend the hobby to anyone who still has a bit of their spirit left.

In the process of learning the hobby, I came across the YouTube videos of Coop772, a YouTube personality who takes a similar view to chronicling the foam-flinging hobby that I do to designing roleplaying games: simple, clean, objective systematic approaches to maximize subjective enjoyment of a hobby. I prefer his approach  rather than those video makers who prefer to discuss and dish current hype, use flawed methodologies, listen to themselves talk, or focus on getting themselves seen. While I look forward to and regularly tune in for his video updates, however, I have recently decided to take a suggestion he made in one of his his videos and do some testing myself. 

The Impetus

Recently, I rewarded myself with a Nerf Mega CycloneShock blaster after passing a professional certification exam, because I liked the whistling of the Mega darts as they flew and the solid "whack" sound they made when they hit a target. While playing with it, I was double wielding it with my Nerf Rival Kronos and was dramatically impacted by the horrible shot groupings and lack of precision of the Mega whistling ammunition. I said to myself, "If only there were Mega darts that were as accurate as my Rival ammunition". 

Afterward. I reviewed not only several of Coop772's videos, where I found the one that talked about the superiority of the Rival rounds (which is why I bought the Kronos in the first place) and third party (non-Nerf manufactured) darts as well as one that compared Nerf Mega and Nerf Elite darts (the gold standard for the sport), but a number of other videos to see if there were any such comparisons to address my concerns of the Mega dart imprecision. In Coop772's videos, the data was compelling and robust but sparse, while in the other videos, all I found were flawed methodologies, biased suppositions, and dataless conjectures. I found myself left for wanting a more complete statistical treatment of the subject. Finally, in one of his videos, Coop772 said to do so would take more time than he wished to spend on the topic and if I wanted such data, to do a study myself. I figured right then and there, in classic Hujraad fashion, since I have the means and time, why not? I decided to take his advice and apply a "HiBRID-style" philosophy and "Johaansen-style" intensity to a new project with my kids in the interest of contributing to the literature of foamsports. 

The Question

In order to start my project, I decided I needed to define the question I wanted to answer. After discussing it with the kids, we decided we wanted to answer the following question:

What is the probability of hitting one of our family members in the head with a Nerf dart from a spring-based blaster using each of the four main foam ammunition platforms at 5, 10, and 20 meters?

Why test so many platforms?

We started with the most robust data we could find to start as our initial foundation and settled on Coop772s studies. In summary, he states with significant empirical evidence that a number of other darts that are more empirically more accurate than the Nerf Elite darts: Nerf Accustrike darts, a third party dart referred to as a "Koosh Gen 3" dart, a dart from Air Zone known as the Precision Pro dart, and a third party dart modeled on the Nerf Accustrike darts referred to as an "Accufake". In addition to these foam darts, the accuracy of a plastic and rubber dart known as the BoomCo dart has also been noted by not only Coop772 but several other YouTubers, though it is not compatible with blasters designed for any of the Nerf dart platforms. 

In addition to these baseline assertions, Nerf has expanded their Mega darts line to create "Mega Accustrike" darts and a third party "Mega Accufake" dart has come to market. In the foam ball market, the hobby has generally settled on Headshot brand rounds as the Rival Round third party "dart" of choice, and Dart Zone has also come out with a competitive and compatible foam sphere ammunition as well. As these are relatively newer developments, these have not been treated statistically treated in the media either.

Since we use all of these different types of darts, we thought that once we knew the methodology for how to test one type of dart, we could go through and test all of them just for completion's sake with the same methodology. This seemed especially interesting because we occasionally play game variants in which we only allow one type of dart platform or we asssign special abilities to specific platforms, such as shield breaking or double-hits to Mega darts.

Why these distances? 

Because in a foam-combat situations, we decided these three ranges most closely match the three ranges we think of strategically while we are playing, and they also match the general design philosophy in the HiBRID game. Specifically, the Point Blank Range (5 m) almost guarantees a hit regardless of the dart, the Effective Range (10 m) is where the dart will have the most effect on the outcome, and Extreme Range (20m), where regardless of the precision of the dart, the distance is so great that it becomes all but impossible to hit a target. (While darts can go further than 60 feet,  a natural 20 on your task roll or a point of Ite' are the only things that will allow you to strike an opponent at that range anyway).

Stay Tuned...

We are going to first start by assembling and learning to use our equipment and defining initial methodologies and procedures. Once these are complete, we will further refine our study design and discuss our methods as we go. So, like I said, stay tuned...it should be an incredibly HiBRiD-esque ride...