Bryan Litz Ballistics
Site $$ Sponsor
Some thoughts for consideration...
http://appliedballisticsllc.com/Articles/Etargets.pdf
-Bryan
http://appliedballisticsllc.com/Articles/Etargets.pdf
-Bryan
Accuracy of electronic targets
- Thread starter Bryan Litz Ballistics
- Start date
I think the right way to consider accuracy of electronic targets is in the point domain rather than the different spatial components.
Fire a bunch of 20 round matches and compare the paper scoring results with the electronic scoring results and report the percentage of the time there are differences in the point totals.
Fire a bunch of 20 round matches and compare the paper scoring results with the electronic scoring results and report the percentage of the time there are differences in the point totals.
Bryan,
Congrats on winning FCNC! And thanks for your thoughtful article.
I've been working with electronic equipment since 1975. If electronic targets were unquestionably accurate, precise, and reliable, there still would remain serious questions as to their adoption in competition. One of those principal questions of course is my inability to see the results of others' shots, and the opportunity to glean information from those. This in itself dramatically changes the nature of the game. Often I will wait during what I believe is a change, targets will come up and I will think to myself "uh huh, didn't you guys see that?". Or, almost as often, targets will come up and I will think "hmmm, not what I thought". I know it all depends on who is near to you, but it matters. During the Bridgeville regional match a guy named Bill shot during a really wicked change and I thought "Jeezus, you shot in that?" It came up a ten, and I was suitably impressed. For real. It makes me wonder what he saw that I didn't. And that's a learning opportunity which I'd be denied by the use of electronic targets.
But in relation to their individual use, I still have lots of questions regarding electronic targets.
It seems to me that the issues surrounding scoring on electronic targets are related to the difference between what you are shooting at and what the score result is. In essence, we are shooting at a visual image (a real target) but we are receiving a score based on an unseen and unseeable electronic image superimposed upon the real target. There is no way for us to assess the validity of this image in real time. We are forced to simply trust it.
Being electronic equipment, even if each set of equipment meets some calibration standard, some sets will be more precise than others. I can easily envision all sorts of scenarios where this is really bad, including the very real opportunity to change the outcome of a match deliberately merely by someone who is familiar with the performance of known equipment choosing which set of gear gets installed on which target. You have pointed out the very real variances in paper targets, a point which could and should be addressed by ensuring that each competitor fires on targets from the same batch. But with electronics, there is no way to verify this. The MD will simply say "it meets cal so it's good to go".
Do electronic targets continuously cal? Are they cal checked before and after each string? Can competitors request a cal check during a match? What is the known electronic drift over time? What is their performance variation due to temperature, rain, snow? How will a MD determine if a unit has suddenly gone out of cal during a match, say, the nationals?
I am not dead set against the use of electronic targets. The enhanced real-time visual appeal of the sport would be a boon to its popularity, and that would be awesome! But I have a lot of concerns which I'd love to see discussed and addressed in some public forum (like this one). Thanks for getting that discussion started! I am kind of assuming that was the purpose of your post.
Congrats on winning FCNC! And thanks for your thoughtful article.
I've been working with electronic equipment since 1975. If electronic targets were unquestionably accurate, precise, and reliable, there still would remain serious questions as to their adoption in competition. One of those principal questions of course is my inability to see the results of others' shots, and the opportunity to glean information from those. This in itself dramatically changes the nature of the game. Often I will wait during what I believe is a change, targets will come up and I will think to myself "uh huh, didn't you guys see that?". Or, almost as often, targets will come up and I will think "hmmm, not what I thought". I know it all depends on who is near to you, but it matters. During the Bridgeville regional match a guy named Bill shot during a really wicked change and I thought "Jeezus, you shot in that?" It came up a ten, and I was suitably impressed. For real. It makes me wonder what he saw that I didn't. And that's a learning opportunity which I'd be denied by the use of electronic targets.
But in relation to their individual use, I still have lots of questions regarding electronic targets.
It seems to me that the issues surrounding scoring on electronic targets are related to the difference between what you are shooting at and what the score result is. In essence, we are shooting at a visual image (a real target) but we are receiving a score based on an unseen and unseeable electronic image superimposed upon the real target. There is no way for us to assess the validity of this image in real time. We are forced to simply trust it.
Being electronic equipment, even if each set of equipment meets some calibration standard, some sets will be more precise than others. I can easily envision all sorts of scenarios where this is really bad, including the very real opportunity to change the outcome of a match deliberately merely by someone who is familiar with the performance of known equipment choosing which set of gear gets installed on which target. You have pointed out the very real variances in paper targets, a point which could and should be addressed by ensuring that each competitor fires on targets from the same batch. But with electronics, there is no way to verify this. The MD will simply say "it meets cal so it's good to go".
Do electronic targets continuously cal? Are they cal checked before and after each string? Can competitors request a cal check during a match? What is the known electronic drift over time? What is their performance variation due to temperature, rain, snow? How will a MD determine if a unit has suddenly gone out of cal during a match, say, the nationals?
I am not dead set against the use of electronic targets. The enhanced real-time visual appeal of the sport would be a boon to its popularity, and that would be awesome! But I have a lot of concerns which I'd love to see discussed and addressed in some public forum (like this one). Thanks for getting that discussion started! I am kind of assuming that was the purpose of your post.
Jay Christopherson
Not An Admin
I agree to some degree with SWRichmond in regards to feedback from other shooters. As I've gotten more experienced and come to know my fellow shooters better, I often get good feedback from the targets around me.
If I'm not certain of something I'm seeing it's often helpful to hold for a second and see what the others around me are coming up with. That being said, I love cool technology, so I'm always happy to give it a try.
Maybe they could hang the monitors within view of the shooters, so that they can still see what's going on around them, as it were.
If I'm not certain of something I'm seeing it's often helpful to hold for a second and see what the others around me are coming up with. That being said, I love cool technology, so I'm always happy to give it a try.
Maybe they could hang the monitors within view of the shooters, so that they can still see what's going on around them, as it were.
Re: seeing shots on the other e-targets on the range, some e-target systems show this, for example have a look at the screenshot in this post in the thread "Survey Manatee Gun & Archery 600 yard Electronic target/Scoring proposal"
Bryan,
Also, a big congratulations to you for your big win at the Nationals. Berger power
I have been investigating the possible use of e-targets since late last year. There were 2 possible candidates:
http://www.kongsberg-ts.no/en/ and http://www.silvermountaintargets.com/
I was originally waiting to see what the CMP was putting into the Talladega range. They went with the Konksberg. They seem to be on the high end both in accuracy and price. The costs to install 10, quickly eliminated that option. My focus was then on the Silver Mountain e-targets. They were demonstrated at out range at 600 and 1000 yards and performed without a fault. Later this year a friend and I had the opportunity to shoot a 1000 yard match in Blakely, GA. Again, there also there were no complaints or problems.
I do not believe the accuracy issue is the main concern. To me, the wide spread adoption of this type or target system will open many new shooting opportunities at ranges that do not have or can not afford actives pits. As you pointed out the obvious safety issues are undeniable. The Silver Mountain system does allow for you to see at least 2 adjacent targets on the left and right displayed across the bottom of the screen. They call them cheaters, I call them "do not shoot a 9 like your neighbor just did". Takes care of the Oh s--t you hear at the line with a sudden wind shift.
Not an advertisement for Silver Mountain, just offering the results from my investigations.
Steve
Also, a big congratulations to you for your big win at the Nationals. Berger power
I have been investigating the possible use of e-targets since late last year. There were 2 possible candidates:
http://www.kongsberg-ts.no/en/ and http://www.silvermountaintargets.com/
I was originally waiting to see what the CMP was putting into the Talladega range. They went with the Konksberg. They seem to be on the high end both in accuracy and price. The costs to install 10, quickly eliminated that option. My focus was then on the Silver Mountain e-targets. They were demonstrated at out range at 600 and 1000 yards and performed without a fault. Later this year a friend and I had the opportunity to shoot a 1000 yard match in Blakely, GA. Again, there also there were no complaints or problems.
I do not believe the accuracy issue is the main concern. To me, the wide spread adoption of this type or target system will open many new shooting opportunities at ranges that do not have or can not afford actives pits. As you pointed out the obvious safety issues are undeniable. The Silver Mountain system does allow for you to see at least 2 adjacent targets on the left and right displayed across the bottom of the screen. They call them cheaters, I call them "do not shoot a 9 like your neighbor just did". Takes care of the Oh s--t you hear at the line with a sudden wind shift.
Not an advertisement for Silver Mountain, just offering the results from my investigations.
Steve
Bryan Litz Ballistics
Site $$ Sponsor
SWRichmond (and others),
You bring up some good points. My paper was deliberately focused on 'accuracy' because the entirety of the e-target discussion is too big for one document; so it's the 'one bite at a time' approach. Public forums like this have a way of going 10 directions at once, and that's OK too.
Regarding your first, primary concern of only seeing one target, I agree! I use other targets a lot as well, it's a big part of my strategy. That strategy evolved because the information was available. If we no longer have access to that information, we can still shoot, still adapt a strategy, it just wouldn't include the info from other targets. It would be the same for everyone. By the way, the e-targets being considered for FCNC (silver mountain target) do have the ability to view several targets to either side of you on the computer/tablet read-out. I'm not sure how many targets, but it's several, probably similar to the field of view you get in your spotting scope without sweeping it up and down the line. In the end, it's not a vital part of the contest that we see other targets, so long as everyone has the same info.
Your point about shooting at a representation of scoring rings rather than actual scoring rings is also taken. We work hard to shoot the middle, and we trust paper to tell us what scoring ring we're in. It's hard to trust an invisible line when so much of our effort is at stake. Again, I'm with you. Consider that the developers of e-targets have been demonstrating their systems at matches for years with the objective of proving the accuracy of their systems in relation to paper targets. You can see them working time and again, when the e-target read-out is compared to the paper. These are 'demos', and performance in actual match conditions may vary, it's true. But consider what we're working with now! How many times have you got a 'new guy' on your target who doesn't know how to properly score? "Ummm, does it have to be all the way in the ring to be a 10, or just most of the way...? (as the target stays in the pits 90 seconds for each line-hit)" Meanwhile the target next door is operating with flawless 5-second service because it's got an experienced shooter on it. This example assumed an uneducated puller; but there's also incompetent and deliberately vindictive target pullers too. Electronics may have problems, but; education, dumb-assery, and vindictiveness aren't on the list (though anyone who's dealt with computer viruses may disagree!)
This gets into your next point which correctly states that someone could affect the system in a way that affects the score reporting, and hence the outcome of the match. It's true, this is possible. Sort of like altering a score-card, accepting a mis-marked shot by someone in the pits, or any other way in which humans alter scores. If humans get it in their mind to cheat, cheating will happen regardless if the targets are electronic or paper.
I don't know if e-targets continually calibrate, but it is possible to 'verify' a target that's suspect simply by putting up a new face, firing some shots on paper, and comparing to the computer read-out. This is part of the initial set up of e-targets; verifying center is center. After initial calibration, something would have to change for the calibration to change.
We both have many of the same concerns which I feel are valid concerns for e-targets. However, we can't hold e-targets to a higher standard than our current way of doing things. Current procedures for marking targets have a long list of problems, many of which would be eliminated by e-targets, but e-targets would have their own problems. I think as long as the pros outweigh the cons, it's something we should do.
You mentioned a guy named Bill at the Bridgeville match. Let me tell you another story about Bill shooting, this one took place last week in Phoenix at the FCNC. Bill was shooting the last match of the tournament in high wind. During his record string, he followed up an X with a quick shot, scorer saw the trace go right down the middle. Target was pulled, stayed down, then came up a miss. Challenge, still a miss. The target pullers pulled the target because they saw an impact in their impact area, how could it be a miss? Experienced shooters know exactly what happened; the shot slipped right down along the spindle of the shot marker, essentially into the same hole as the previous shot, but not enough to blow the spotter out. The spotter gets pulled, hole(s) get pasted, and... no hole. There's no hole because it got inadvertently pasted with the previous hole; it'll never be found, shooter will take a miss. This same scenario happened in Raton, NM while 4 shooters were setting a Palma team national record. This is a problem that simply isn't possible with electronic targets. Other problems are possible, but not this one, and it's a big one. Just ask Bill, who was in the hunt for the top 10 in a national tournament, and took a miss early in his last match due to a flaw in our current paper targetry.
With current pit service, there's a huge variability in the speed and accuracy of target service, depending on who's pulling your target. I expect that whatever problems e-targets have, they'll be way more consistent than human service.
Now, one of the reservations I have about e-target operation is how they'll operate on a large scale. Most systems are demo'd one or five at a time and they work fine. I'm concerned with how they'll operate when you line up 20+ of them and start making all that noise. Everything may be just fine, but it's something we won't know until we have enough people together (in a big match) to test it. Not insurmountable, but IMO, it's a test we need to see it pass.
-Bryan
You bring up some good points. My paper was deliberately focused on 'accuracy' because the entirety of the e-target discussion is too big for one document; so it's the 'one bite at a time' approach. Public forums like this have a way of going 10 directions at once, and that's OK too.
Regarding your first, primary concern of only seeing one target, I agree! I use other targets a lot as well, it's a big part of my strategy. That strategy evolved because the information was available. If we no longer have access to that information, we can still shoot, still adapt a strategy, it just wouldn't include the info from other targets. It would be the same for everyone. By the way, the e-targets being considered for FCNC (silver mountain target) do have the ability to view several targets to either side of you on the computer/tablet read-out. I'm not sure how many targets, but it's several, probably similar to the field of view you get in your spotting scope without sweeping it up and down the line. In the end, it's not a vital part of the contest that we see other targets, so long as everyone has the same info.
Your point about shooting at a representation of scoring rings rather than actual scoring rings is also taken. We work hard to shoot the middle, and we trust paper to tell us what scoring ring we're in. It's hard to trust an invisible line when so much of our effort is at stake. Again, I'm with you. Consider that the developers of e-targets have been demonstrating their systems at matches for years with the objective of proving the accuracy of their systems in relation to paper targets. You can see them working time and again, when the e-target read-out is compared to the paper. These are 'demos', and performance in actual match conditions may vary, it's true. But consider what we're working with now! How many times have you got a 'new guy' on your target who doesn't know how to properly score? "Ummm, does it have to be all the way in the ring to be a 10, or just most of the way...? (as the target stays in the pits 90 seconds for each line-hit)" Meanwhile the target next door is operating with flawless 5-second service because it's got an experienced shooter on it. This example assumed an uneducated puller; but there's also incompetent and deliberately vindictive target pullers too. Electronics may have problems, but; education, dumb-assery, and vindictiveness aren't on the list (though anyone who's dealt with computer viruses may disagree!)
This gets into your next point which correctly states that someone could affect the system in a way that affects the score reporting, and hence the outcome of the match. It's true, this is possible. Sort of like altering a score-card, accepting a mis-marked shot by someone in the pits, or any other way in which humans alter scores. If humans get it in their mind to cheat, cheating will happen regardless if the targets are electronic or paper.
I don't know if e-targets continually calibrate, but it is possible to 'verify' a target that's suspect simply by putting up a new face, firing some shots on paper, and comparing to the computer read-out. This is part of the initial set up of e-targets; verifying center is center. After initial calibration, something would have to change for the calibration to change.
We both have many of the same concerns which I feel are valid concerns for e-targets. However, we can't hold e-targets to a higher standard than our current way of doing things. Current procedures for marking targets have a long list of problems, many of which would be eliminated by e-targets, but e-targets would have their own problems. I think as long as the pros outweigh the cons, it's something we should do.
You mentioned a guy named Bill at the Bridgeville match. Let me tell you another story about Bill shooting, this one took place last week in Phoenix at the FCNC. Bill was shooting the last match of the tournament in high wind. During his record string, he followed up an X with a quick shot, scorer saw the trace go right down the middle. Target was pulled, stayed down, then came up a miss. Challenge, still a miss. The target pullers pulled the target because they saw an impact in their impact area, how could it be a miss? Experienced shooters know exactly what happened; the shot slipped right down along the spindle of the shot marker, essentially into the same hole as the previous shot, but not enough to blow the spotter out. The spotter gets pulled, hole(s) get pasted, and... no hole. There's no hole because it got inadvertently pasted with the previous hole; it'll never be found, shooter will take a miss. This same scenario happened in Raton, NM while 4 shooters were setting a Palma team national record. This is a problem that simply isn't possible with electronic targets. Other problems are possible, but not this one, and it's a big one. Just ask Bill, who was in the hunt for the top 10 in a national tournament, and took a miss early in his last match due to a flaw in our current paper targetry.
With current pit service, there's a huge variability in the speed and accuracy of target service, depending on who's pulling your target. I expect that whatever problems e-targets have, they'll be way more consistent than human service.
Now, one of the reservations I have about e-target operation is how they'll operate on a large scale. Most systems are demo'd one or five at a time and they work fine. I'm concerned with how they'll operate when you line up 20+ of them and start making all that noise. Everything may be just fine, but it's something we won't know until we have enough people together (in a big match) to test it. Not insurmountable, but IMO, it's a test we need to see it pass.
-Bryan
I am not too familiar with the accuracy of the E-targets,but having shot on Silver Mountains I can tell you what I did like.
The fastest pit service ever!
The ability to view neighboring targets.
The ability to identify a crossfired shot (velocity is different than your rounds).
A down range velocity of your bullets impact at 1000 yrds,this was very helpfull with a high shot on target .Just look at the screen and check,high impact and 20fps faster.Hold center and send another.
Target never got pulled out from under me by mistake.
Match time cut way down.
Did I mention no pit duties +++
John
PS Great shooting Bryan
The fastest pit service ever!
The ability to view neighboring targets.
The ability to identify a crossfired shot (velocity is different than your rounds).
A down range velocity of your bullets impact at 1000 yrds,this was very helpfull with a high shot on target .Just look at the screen and check,high impact and 20fps faster.Hold center and send another.
Target never got pulled out from under me by mistake.
Match time cut way down.
Did I mention no pit duties +++
John
PS Great shooting Bryan
Bryan, did I understand corectly, that the bullet hole and accuracy recording of the hit to be +or- .25" at Mid range ? Even though the repair center is placed exactly on center ?
See a quote below from your article...
" Based on this existing standard, and the preceding discussion, an accuracy requirement of 0.25†seems like a reasonable accuracy standard for shot detection on mid and long range e-targets.
Finally, consider that whatever accuracy standard is decided upon would need to be actually measured and verified. If an accuracy standard on the order of 0.25†is established, it can be verified usin "
See a quote below from your article...
" Based on this existing standard, and the preceding discussion, an accuracy requirement of 0.25†seems like a reasonable accuracy standard for shot detection on mid and long range e-targets.
Finally, consider that whatever accuracy standard is decided upon would need to be actually measured and verified. If an accuracy standard on the order of 0.25†is established, it can be verified usin "
I've shot on them a few times, Wayne had them set up a couple times at Port Malabar, and at Blakley. One thing that was impressive to me, was getting someone on paper.
At Blakely, a shooter was off the paper, and the ET showed it was two foot over and left of the target. Not a big deal when you have an impact berm like Ben Avery or Lodi, but it is at Perry or Grayling where there isn't. Seems every match at Perry, Emil is running up and down the line trying to get someone on.
I also like that it takes the pit puller out of the equation. I had pullers where the shooter next to me would got off two or three shots before my target would re-appear.
On the down side, the screen can be hard to see in sunlight, not many ranges have covers.
At Blakely, a shooter was off the paper, and the ET showed it was two foot over and left of the target. Not a big deal when you have an impact berm like Ben Avery or Lodi, but it is at Perry or Grayling where there isn't. Seems every match at Perry, Emil is running up and down the line trying to get someone on.
I also like that it takes the pit puller out of the equation. I had pullers where the shooter next to me would got off two or three shots before my target would re-appear.
On the down side, the screen can be hard to see in sunlight, not many ranges have covers.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.