UPSB v3
Pens & Mods / [project][2.11] Pen Modifications Efficiency Rating Formula
-
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 22:42:24
Pen Modifications Efficiency Rating Formula
Project leader: To Be Determined
Project Description: To create a formula for rating the efficiency of a mod. Currently, there are two ideas of efficiency: usage of parts and ease of modification. We need to determine universal criterion to develop a formula for all mods. Also, there can be groupings of several mods to yield a group efficiency rating.
Why? To give a more solid understanding of what it takes to make a particular mod before actually starting. Also, this promotes critical thinking into creating mods to create a more efficient mod.
Example Topics: Usage of Parts Efficiency, Ease of Modification Efficiency, Definition of Criterion -
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 18:55:55
I have a couple concerns with this:
1. If we do release an article I'd bet that 8/10 new pen modders would not read it.
2. With the influx of these Japanese and Stick type mods, mods have no bounds anymore, some one could pay $40 for a mod no questions asked.
3. I figure this is something that more "pro" modders take into account already, K4S, iMatt, TEK, I don't really need to list them.
So I just felt I needed to say that but otherwise I would be glad to help. -
Date: Thu, Feb 5 2009 23:59:20
Instead of creating multiple topics, I think it would be a lot more efficient to keep all discussion of the formula(s) in this thread.
To begin, here's my rudimentary idea of how it should work. Efficiency is based on all the criteria that we can possibly collect and deem important. For the category of Usage of Parts, it makes sense that the number of removable (and possibly also usable parts, whatever that may mean) will be taken into account. But what about supplemental supplies and tools? Do they, and should they, play a role in the efficiency formula? The ratio of the total parts used of all pens to the total number of removable (and usable?) parts will yield the efficiency rating in terms of parts usage.
For example:
RSVP MX
RSVP - 5/5 (all parts used: barrel, cap, grip, back cap, and ink tube)
HGG - 2/5 (barrel, cap, grip, tip, ink tube)
(5 + 2) / (5+5) = 70% efficient
However, this does not state anything regarding the supplies used, such as teflon tape or glue, alcohol or olive oil, etc. It's possible that the use of these binding materials could hinder the, for lack of a better word, practicality in creating the RSVP MX. On the plus side, there is no cutting or sanding involved for the parts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This brings me to the Ease of Modification (name pending) category. The only criteria I see right now involve
1) how readily the parts of one pen can fit onto another part from a different pen without having to alter its original shape
2) how dependent each part is on binding materials
3) how many modifications need to be done and which categories each modification fall under
Criteria 1 and 2 are related but each can carry a different emphasis and nuance.
I have not yet created a formula since the criteria need to be sorted first then weighted. -
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 01:38:13
First post in the RD... um... I don't really like the idea considering the controversy now over stick mods. If this just applies to the ease of modification and part efficiency, then fine. Reviews on how you like it, then no.
Second of all, which mods does this apply to? Just the ones in the approved mod index? Ones in Ponkotu's blog?
Edit: I think the entire process has to be as objective as possible. Put away hates for Buster CYL's etc.
The results will slightly differ, but maybe average it out? -
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 03:18:05
1) This is called efficiency rating. It has nothing to do with which mod spins better, it's only about ease of modding and economy of parts.
2) The whole point is to determine an objective formula, which means there is no room for interpretation. It's all about punching numbers. The only potentially subjective part is ease of modding and even then we can base ourselves on facts (tools used, number of steps).
3) As a formula, it is applicable with any mod, as long as the necessary details are known (i.e.: a full tutorial and list of parts needed). -
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 07:03:41
You've also gotta consider mods that use spare parts, like an increasing number of mods are today. Penspinners now may just use one part of a pen for a mod, which is low efficiency but they may use other parts of that pen for another mod, aka spare part mods. Do mods like those have low efficiency just cuz they use one part from a pen, or can we also give regular pens efficiency potential based on how many mods they are used in.
Also, how do we factor in ease of modification? Some people find modding easier than others, there has to be a general scale to rank the ease of modification. -
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 11:38:23
ease of midfication should be called complexity
and look at tools used -
Date: Wed, Mar 25 2009 06:02:59QUOTE (hoiboy @ Mar 19 2009, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>First post in the RD... um... I don't really like the idea considering the controversy now over stick mods. If this just applies to the ease of modification and part efficiency, then fine. Reviews on how you like it, then no.
Second of all, which mods does this apply to? Just the ones in the approved mod index? Ones in Ponkotu's blog?
Edit: I think the entire process has to be as objective as possible. Put away hates for Buster CYL's etc.
The results will slightly differ, but maybe average it out?
1. You apparently didn't understand the objective of this project. It's to create a formula to rate the efficiency of a mod. The controversy of stick mods and whatnot has NO relevance to this project.
2. Applies to any mod a person wishes to evaluate.
3. It's a formula. Once we have it figured out, it will be the most objective thing to exist as far as efficiency ratings go.QUOTE (sankaku)You've also gotta consider mods that use spare parts, like an increasing number of mods are today. Penspinners now may just use one part of a pen for a mod, which is low efficiency but they may use other parts of that pen for another mod, aka spare part mods. Do mods like those have low efficiency just cuz they use one part from a pen, or can we also give regular pens efficiency potential based on how many mods they are used in.
Also, how do we factor in ease of modification? Some people find modding easier than others, there has to be a general scale to rank the ease of modification.
1. I was thinking that an efficiency rating could rate a single mod, or rate for an entire group of mods. For example,
RSVP MX (iMatt's version) + Cyon
HGG - 2/5
RSVP - 5/5
G2 - 2/6 (back barrel, front piece, grip, spring, clicker mechanism, ink tube)
RSVP Ret. - 5/6 (barrel, front tip, spring, ink tube, cap, grip)
--------------
14/22 = 63.63% efficiency
So for this example, there's a 63.63% efficiency rating for the combination of these 2 mods.
2. Complexity - I haven't figured it out. Any ideas, suggestions? -
Date: Wed, Feb 17 2010 05:17:05QUOTE (Eso @ Mar 24 2009, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>1. I was thinking that an efficiency rating could rate a single mod, or rate for an entire group of mods. For example,
RSVP MX (iMatt's version) + Cyon
HGG - 2/5
RSVP - 5/5
G2 - 2/6 (back barrel, front piece, grip, spring, clicker mechanism, ink tube)
RSVP Ret. - 5/6 (barrel, front tip, spring, ink tube, cap, grip)
--------------
14/22 = 63.63% efficiency
So for this example, there's a 63.63% efficiency rating for the combination of these 2 mods.
2. Complexity - I haven't figured it out. Any ideas, suggestions?
Complexity = difficulty right? Would the complexity rating be out of a constant number such as 10?
So complexity:
RSVP MX
2/10 (drilling a hole in the back cap)
Also, complexity is partially opinion based so you may need the input of multiple people from different modding levels or styles and then average the rating out?
Srry if I'm bumping an old topic.