• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

E-Targets for F-Class

Hi Ned,

Yes I agree. People should not cross fire. But they do.

Today I spoke to one of Australia's top shooters (and arguably one of the world's top shooters) about this. Only yesterday he was at a practice shoot somewhere when another shooter - one of the best F-class shooters in Australia - cross fired onto his target.

At a practice shoot this doesn't mean much. Results in some ribbing! But he did make the point that when it occurs in a high stakes competition, while no-one [generally] "disputes" any cross fire, it does interrupt the flow and is undesirable.

Cross firing happens a lot and it needs to be accommodated, or more accurately resolved, with minimal fuss in a competition environment. Without dispute or argument.

With the shot throttling delay in action, manual resolution of cross fires will become more difficult. Since the ET system does, or should, know all about what's going on within the current shooting environment - specifically in regards to timing relationships between discharges and target impacts - detection and management becomes possible within the computer environment. This means having knowledge of a shot being fired, from where, at what time, at what target, and ultimately on which target eventually ended up and the impact time at that target. The alternative is to simply rely on human timing perceptions.


if you have gone to the trouble to implement electronic targets (by definition computer systems) does it not make sense to utilise what all this can give you without necessarily detracting from the "manual target" experience? Of course, if you want to shoot on manual targets then none of this will apply at all. Only the time it takes to lower, score, and raise targets, and of course the indication of the last shot position. And is this all you want for your money?

Geoff.

I agree completely. I was simply responding to the notion that another uninvolved shooter had been done an injustice simply by explicitly following the long-standing crossfire rule. If your E-target system (or any other) can consistently identify not only the actual crossfire shot score, but also the shooter from which it originated, then that is a real improvement.
 
I agree completely. I was simply responding to the notion that another uninvolved shooter had been done an injustice simply by explicitly following the long-standing crossfire rule. If your E-target system (or any other) can consistently identify not only the actual crossfire shot score, but also the shooter from which it originated, then that is a real improvement.
My system has been accurately detecting and managing crossfires for many years. It is able to do this because of the muzzle blast detection system (MBDS) that starts a timeline with millisecond (mSec) resolution encompassing various milestones culminating with impact at the target. I utilise a sophisticated algorithm that keeps all the mound [shooter] display clocks within 1 mSec of each other. There is a "master controller" in the system that is the "master clock" and all system components are locked to within 1 mSec of it. The target computer system is also locked to the master clock, but due to known communications latencies, may lag behind (about 52 mSecs actually but the point is it is known). From this I can determine the Time of Flight (TOF) and with this I can figure out what's going on across multiple firing points and targets.

For those that might be interested, when a wired LAN is used TCP/IP is not used (a different communications protocol is used instead). It is when the wireless LAN is employed and as a result timing latencies range from 4 mSecs to in excess of 30 mSecs, depending on what is happening within the wireless environment at any particular time. With the wired LAN latencies are always below 1 mSec and that is why I encourage its use. I mention this as I know there are people reading this who will understand what I am talking about.

In a multiple firing point per target scenario there are two caveats: one being the possibility of shot collisions at the target and the second the possibility of a faster bullet overtaking a slower bullet down range. It is possible to mostly overcome the 2nd problem but while it happens from time to time (rarely) if it's a real problem then simply shoot one on one. Likewise, collisions. They do not occur as often as some might suggest, and that assertion can be backed up with solid data. One of the reasons for the rarity of target collisions is the stochastic nature of discharge times (events) by shooters and the essentially random flight characteristics of bullets. Especially hand loads. To date (after nearly ten years) no-one has bothered to do this (go one on one). In a serious competition I'd probably go one on one.

This system of multiple shooters per target has been proven over many years. I am not aware of anyone having any problems with it. Not worth complaining to me about anyway! Targets are expensive to build and maintain - this system saves a lot of effort and expense. Having said all that...

Invariably, initially, shooters dispute or disbelieve they cross fired. But I can present them with chronological proof that it is correct. That generally settles the argument. In fact, I can't remember when it didn't.

These days, while it happens somewhere on a weekly basis, no-one now questions it. And believe me - there were some hard nuts to crack with this! But it was sorted out years ago.

Of course, it is only relevant to systems that employ two or more physical targets. Most of my systems utilise the multiple shooter per target feature and use only one target anyway - so the problem doesn't exist. But some use more than one target. One site runs six firing points on to two targets and have done so for years. Even thought there are only two targets, as is the case elsewhere, as I said cross fires are a weekly event.

It's an important issue.
 
Last edited:
Unjust? Really? What is with you? If someone cross-fired, they made the mistake and do not deserve any points for that shot. The person that crossfired will usually not earn a place with the winners, anyhow.

Generally, the person on whose target the crossfire actually occurred might receive at most a point or two extra, and often, will earn no extra points at all. If one point is enough to change the outcome of the match, so be it. The person whose target was crossfired on incurred all the inconvenience and disruption associated with a crossfire. You can't say with any knowledge whatsoever that the interruption in the flow of the match might not have actually caused them to drop MORE points than they would have otherwise. Receiving the higher of the two scores is recompense for the inconvenience. No one else is being "cheated" out of anything as long as the rules are followed explicitly. The easiest way to prevent this from ever happening is for people not to crossfire on someone else's target.

Ned I was the scorer for the target cross fired onto. I saw both shots . The rule as it stands awarded the shooter I was scoring for a place he had no right to and put several others down the list. So as I said he cheated by default and the others were cheated out of their rightful positions. The rule is wrong because ETs have exposed it.
 
My system has been accurately detecting and managing crossfires for many years. SNIP...

I'm not an F Class shooter ( Service Rifle / Sling Shooter - Love the challenge... ) but I am implementing E Targets at my club for the 1st full year this in all our matches and we shoot a good number of prone matches so this has been an interesting thread to try to follow along with to get feedback for our prone matches.

The posts / info that is getting posted and repeated from the match directors and shooters perspectives are very helpful

Other than that~ And maybe a little Off Topic,,, But
GeoffR,
You have me confused.
I can't figure out if you are trying to talk your self INTO or OUT OF Marketing the product you have developed and are selling to compete for sales with the current systems that are selling like hotcakes in the US.

George S.
 
Ned I was the scorer for the target cross fired onto. I saw both shots . The rule as it stands awarded the shooter I was scoring for a place he had no right to and put several others down the list. So as I said he cheated by default and the others were cheated out of their rightful positions. The rule is wrong because ETs have exposed it.

It seems in your case it wasn't impossible to determine which shot was the shooter's you were scoring for. So it should have been scored correctly. I'm not sure how your rule reads, but if our rule would have been followed, then there wouldn't be an issue here.

10.17.4 Cross Fire (c) If a competitor receives a confirmed cross-fire shot and it is impossible to determine which shot is his, he must be credited with the value of the highest undetermined shot
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSS
It seems in your case it wasn't impossible to determine which shot was the shooter's you were scoring for. So it should have been scored correctly. I'm not sure how your rule reads, but if our rule would have been followed, then there wouldn't be an issue here.

10.17.4 Cross Fire (c) If a competitor receives a confirmed cross-fire shot and it is impossible to determine which shot is his, he must be credited with the value of the highest undetermined shot
I was overruled by the RO the word Impossible is not in our wording just the highest score shall be awarded. Without a delay you can see this if the scorer is doing their job. If not why should the shooter receive a bonus. Matches are being won and lost on X count not points.
 
Ned I was the scorer for the target cross fired onto. I saw both shots . The rule as it stands awarded the shooter I was scoring for a place he had no right to and put several others down the list. So as I said he cheated by default and the others were cheated out of their rightful positions. The rule is wrong because ETs have exposed it.

How in the world did the shooter that got crossfired on cheat??? Come on man. In no way did he cheat. He didn’t intentionally go over to the guy and say “ hey, your shooting a lot of X’s and i’m only shooting 8’s and 9’s. Cross fire on mine so i can get an X.”
Good grief.
 
How in the world did the shooter that got crossfired on cheat??? Come on man. In no way did he cheat. He didn’t intentionally go over to the guy and say “ hey, your shooting a lot of X’s and i’m only shooting 8’s and 9’s. Cross fire on mine so i can get an X.”
Good grief.
I said cheating by default. The rule gave him something that wasn't his. How would you like to lose a wining place because of this which is what happened. He didn't shoot the points to win the place they were given to him. He dropped a bad shot and was saved by the crossfire.
 
I said cheating by default. The rule gave him something that wasn't his. How would you like to lose a wining place because of this which is what happened. He didn't shoot the points to win the place they were given to him. He dropped a bad shot and was saved by the crossfire.

It is what it is. Just like the luck of the relay. Get over it.
 
There have been other posts from Bindi where he has stated that a crossfire penalises the shooter who was crossfired on. I can see that it could go both ways. I suspect a lot of Bindis concern relates to being unable to "upgrade" so being left behind if systems are widely adopted that handle cross fires with a delay so I can see the constant fight against a delay (which is where the crossfire argument is seated).

However I really like what GeoffR is proposing as it does take out some of the "unfairness" that occurs with crossfires...my undies get ripped in difficult conditions my condition comes back and my target goes down and comes back up after ages because it was a 2 and I've no shot fired...and you take a risk of asking for the target to be put back up too soon as later on they'll find that 2 and give it to you mid string ;) that can really take you out of contention.

An ET system that genuinely moves the sport forward and handles crossfire situations like that better than manual targets is a good thing IMO and is a worthwhile advancement.

@GeoffR - I'll PM you with some questions if that is ok. I appreciate your time and constructive input.
 
I'm not an F Class shooter ( Service Rifle / Sling Shooter - Love the challenge... ) but I am implementing E Targets at my club for the 1st full year this in all our matches and we shoot a good number of prone matches so this has been an interesting thread to try to follow along with to get feedback for our prone matches.

The posts / info that is getting posted and repeated from the match directors and shooters perspectives are very helpful

Other than that~ And maybe a little Off Topic,,, But
GeoffR,
You have me confused.
I can't figure out if you are trying to talk your self INTO or OUT OF Marketing the product you have developed and are selling to compete for sales with the current systems that are selling like hotcakes in the US.

George S.

A good question.

I think it is unrealistic for me at this point in time to seriously consider the prospect of being able to produce any more of my target systems, here (in Australia), or anywhere else. I simply cannot compete against the two Canadian systems - pure and simple - and some might say that is simply commercial reality. Maybe this is so. For me I think teh ship has left port.

However, somewhere earlier in this thread Bindi2 said:

"Not all ETs have the same features as the Shotmarker which are a new addition to the ET market."

Then someone said:

"It is too bad that the others haven’t kept up with the times! Evolution!"

That sort of lit me up. I decided to correct that statement as it simply is not true. The only way I could really do that (politely) was to again refer to my system and what it can do, and has done, for many years. I wasn't sure who the "others" were that were referred to, but I figured Ozscore was included in this general statement. Along with Hexta and Kongsberg, and maybe Intarso in Europe - there are not many of us.

Somewhere else, perhaps more than a year ago, someone referred to one of the Canadian systems as "state of the art" electronic target systems. Well, I would have to disagree.

I have posted a number of long explanations about my ET system over the last few days. Not because I think someone is going to feel sorry for me and offer me some kind of magic leg up. Rather, to point out that there is, or was, an alternative to the basic Canadian systems on offer, one that addressed some issues such as shot throttling, last shot only display, and crossfire detection - along with lots of others.

But I suspect that now, in the quest for the cheapest ET system possible, none of what I have done, or what Dmitri (HEXTA) has done with his targets, means diddly squat. Contrary to what we were both told ten or more years ago about desirable features of an ET system - such as accuracy, reliability, robustness, ease of use, spectator support, and more - it was all rubbish. Correct me if I'm wrong but why should I not take the view that none of this matters at all, at the end of the day!

I think very soon you all may have only the two Canadian system to choose from. The rest of us [with arguably superior technology especially for competition scenarios] may well be gone (I can't speak for any other ET systems - only my own). And is this what you want?

Geoff.
 
@GeoffR. There are two levels to this.

1./ What clubs can afford
2./ What is needed from a system at a regional/national/world level.

Something that is arising - as clubs move to ETs, experienced markers get harder to find. This in turn drives the need for an ET system to be acceptable at Regional/National level as manual marking degrades significantly with inexperienced markers.

From what I have seen there is generally not a lot of due diligence put in at club level on selecting an ET system/vendor. I get this as a lot of time members don't have experience in this sort of thing and technology is well technology...not understood, generally confusing and well...yawn...
 
In between two hourly toilet breaks for my [sick] dog, I have been thinking a bit about this delay thing that is the primary thrust of this thread. I suspect that it is going to become an issue here in Australia again (please don't ask me why!) so such thought might not be wasted. I can see you are grappling with in in America! I don't see any consensus.

I personally, and as an ET designer, don't have a position on this one way or the other. I have provided the delay as an option to anyone who wants it (none have here that I am aware of!). But some comments a few pages back got me thinking a bit more about it - possible refinements if you like.

If one takes the view that from a shooter's point of view (NOT a technological point of view) the ET experience should emulate the manual target experience (including some limitations) as much as possible. Am I reading this correctly?

Right now I provide an optional delay of from 0 seconds to 15 seconds. 0 means no delay (of course) and the 15 was simply an arbitrary number I pulled out of the air - it could be anything.

The timer starts at the time of discharge - NOT the time of target impact that can be 1 1/2 seconds later at 1000 yards). Currently if the shooter fires another shot during the timing window it is ignored. On reflection, and after discussing it with someone, maybe it should record a miss. After all a major premise is when a bullet passes the muzzle for any reason a result has to be recorded. One could argue that popping a shot off while inside a shot suppression timing window is an illegal shot - and therefore should cop a miss. No?

I considered the shooters' situation in this. On a manual target he/she is presumably looking through the sight waiting for the target to reappear. In the ET scenario this is obviously not the case as the target is always in view. So I place a prominent popup window on the display that shows the down count. I asked a very experienced scope shooter about this and he said placement of the monitor is up to the shooter, and he personally places it so that he can see and manage it (the touchscreen) in such a way that there is no requirement to get out of position. In his case it doesn't matter which side of the rifle the monitor is.

Someone a few pages back suggested a random variable delay, to emulate the variable times it takes for manual markers to find a shot, plug in a spotter, and raise the target again. Well, this can be done. But what would the limits be? A range between 7 and 20 seconds perhaps? What, by the way, is the maximum delay you guys are contemplating? I figure 7 seconds is the minimum (otehr than no delay).

Then another thought came by. Experience with human markers shows that the further the shot is away from the centre - especially if outside the black - the longer the target cycle period will be. So maybe the random variable delay could also be weighted (increased) according to the impact distance from centre - just a bit?

I could do that without too much fuss. The building blocks are in place.

In regards to crossfires, well, because of my shot discharge detection system (what I call the MBDS), these can be managed and dealt with completely under computer control. Due to the recording system with resolution of 1 millisecond disputes can be sorted out very easily. Without MBD, meaning impact on targets are all you have to work with, dispute resolution becomes problematic as human perceptions (like scorers behind the shooters) get introduced and this complicates things. I can't see any other way without knowing when a shot has been fired, from where, at what time, and at what intended target (and by whom also!). Maybe I'm having a seniors moment with this?

If this is what you guys are looking for then let's develop the ideas. Let's not worry about dollars right now - I am interested in developing the ideas to provide (if I can) what shooters want rather than telling them what they're going to get. Without some direction this thread is going to get to 30 pages with no conclusion in sight.

Right now I am confused about what is wanted by way of a shot delay and what that entails (with crossfires an obvious complication). I indicated that yesterday.

BTW, in regards to computer managed Bisley style shooting, I have had to think in a similar manner. Only there haven't been many people to discuss that one with... :) I don't think it will ever be possible to emulate exactly the manual experience with ET's but I think we can get close.

Geoff.
Geoff
We have written the rules with a required 7 sec delay. The monitor shows a countdown screen and any shot fired during the delay is scored a miss.
Jetjock
 
For the new comers to ET shooting. Sighter one is a 3 @ 10 oclock, sighter two is with a cross fire one a 5 @ 10 oclock the other is a 5@ 4oclock what do you do. or worse still one of them is an X. Both have happened to me. Just delete the two shots and carryon.
Geoff and 6BR make very valid points from their knowledge and use of ETs.
6BR I can live without upgrades if the rules are fair to all shooters on the mound regardless of system used Manual or ETs.
 
For the new comers to ET shooting. Sighter one is a 3 @ 10 oclock, sighter two is with a cross fire one a 5 @ 10 oclock the other is a 5@ 4oclock what do you do. or worse still one of them is an X. Both have happened to me. Just delete the two shots and carryon.
Geoff and 6BR make very valid points from their knowledge and use of ETs.
6BR I can live without upgrades if the rules are fair to all shooters on the mound regardless of system used Manual or ETs.

Thats where common sense kicks. If you’ve been mostly in the center or favoring the left side then the 5 at 10 oclock is yours and go by that if conditions haven’t changed. If your shooting a 1 1/2 - 2 moa group then it is what it is.
This same statement can be used about relays. You shoot in a relay with tons of switches and top score is 191. The next relay , which you are scoring for, the wind just dies down. There are many 200’s. How are you going to make this “ fair to all shooters” ( your words) ???
 
I’m sorry but the crossfire whining is dumb. If you want to use that excuse then i’m gonna start whining about getting a crappy relay while others got a perfect condition relay and moved up the leader board.

Unfortunately, that has been debated, and likely tried.
 

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.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,731
Messages
2,201,524
Members
79,067
Latest member
Nonesuch
Back
Top