Quote:
Originally Posted by Trbo323
your really going to criticize it for the size and weight when it was the first of its kind?! its not like the wright brothers built a 747 its taken decades to get where planes are same with cars or trains, anything that has been inovation did not start off better than what it eventually replaced. the first cars were by no means faster or more convienient than horses.
and how much was a co2 fill when painball first came around? or COURSE propane will be more expensive now, its a new concept and is not yet on the paintball market because nobody needs it, go look for a hydrogen fill to fill a fuel cell car, not only are there none anywhere close, where they are close its not going to be cheap. at least they are looking at the big picture whereas other companies are playing it safe and adding 1bps each year.
so your argument really doesnt make sence, your saying that a hybrid car is an inovation because it is using a different way to propel the car forward than what is commonly used but the c3 is NOT an inovation because it....well uses a different way to propel the ball out the barrel than what is commonly used
we are not looking at size/weight, those are improvements to a devise that is already around, we are looking at the basic function of the marker/car/whatever
|
co2 is a gas. propane is a gas. They're using the SAME thing...just in a different way. saying that it's innovative is like saying going from co2 to compressed air is innovative. It's not. It DOES happen to be better, but it's not innovative. I don't care what you're doing to the gas, you're STILL using a compressed gas to propel a paintball. So no, I'm not saying it's not innovative because it's doing it different. I'm saying it's not innovative because it's doing the EXACT SAME THING in the same manner. Both use a compressed gas to propell the paintball. You're lighting it first, big whoop...it's still a compressed gas.