E-Targets for F-Class

[GeoffR]

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

Yes, awarding a miss instead of simply ignoring the shot does seem logical.

 

[Bindi2]

Nothing assumed

Well you were wrong the 4 oclock shot was mine as it turned out which meant I had 3 sighters to hit the middle one being my first to count all because of the cross fire . I don't aim off I wind.

 

[Bindi2]

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

So does this mean the crossfire counts and the shooters shot is a miss

 

[MattPeetz]

Well you were wrong the 4 oclock shot was mine as it turned out which meant I had 3 sighters to hit the middle one being my first to count all because of the cross fire . I don't aim off I wind.

Re read what i wrote. I didn’t say anywhere what shot was yours.

 

[GSS]

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

Thank You Jetjock,
Can you tell us when will the Official New Rules in Full be publicly posted by the NRA for all to see?
Thanks again, George

 

[Crow]

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

Anything you can share regarding the ET certification process going into effect in 2020? Think that's a great idea if it can be done well.

Might also suggest that any national records submitted for acceptance and shot on ETs require their digital footprint to be submitted as well.

 

[GeoffR]

Anything you can share regarding the ET certification process going into effect in 2020? Think that's a great idea if it can be done well.

Might also suggest that any national records submitted for acceptance and shot on ETs require their digital footprint to be submitted as well.

Pardon me please, but what does "digital footprint" mean in this context?

Thanks, Geoff.

 

[Crow]

Pardon me please, but what does "digital footprint" mean in this context?

Hi Geoff,

ShotMarker produces a shot log file (.csv) that contains every recorded target event, exceptions included.

I was thinking, in the context of ShotMarker, that the shot log could be analyzed to verify that rules regarding delays were followed and that the recorded detail matches the official scorecard.

I'm presuming a shot log of some sort is a feature common to all ETs (?).

 

[Mudeat]

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.

It’s called a “paradigm shift” - happens all the time to lots of businesses. Adapt or parish.

 

[GeoffR]

It’s called a “paradigm shift” - happens all the time to lots of businesses. Adapt or parish.

I am not sure a race to the bottom qualifies as a "paradigm shift". It is simply a race to the bottom [standard] (acceptable or not). I choose to not enter that race. Why should I lower my standards, and product quality, for such a reason?

 

[Toejoe12]

I am not sure a race to the bottom qualifies as a "paradigm shift". It is simply a race to the bottom [standard] (acceptable or not). I choose to not enter that race. Why should I lower my standards, and product quality, for such a reason?

Bad mouthing the competition is never a good thing. Actually one of the cardinal rules not to do in successful business.This thread has become littered with inferences and innuendos suggesting your targets are far superior than all others but yet your business is withering (as typed by your own hand). It's called competition in a free enterprise economy. The consumers will make the choice on value for price and quality. The Canadian companies that have been referred to several times now in disparaging ways both produce a good quality product that can do everything listed as necessary for competition in this thread. I've shot on both and would not describe either as "bottom" or lower product quality. I think a better term is innovative! One of which, the creator and owner had a canopy set up at the Southwest Nationals this past Feb marketing and answering any questions. That's just plain ole good business sense.

 

[GSS]

Bad mouthing the competition is never a good thing.

Actually one of the cardinal rules not to do in successful business.

This thread has become littered with inferences and innuendos suggesting your targets are far superior than all others but yet your business is withering (as typed by your own hand). It's called competition in a free enterprise economy. The consumers will make the choice on value for price and quality. The Canadian companies that have been referred to several times now in disparaging ways both produce a good quality product that can do everything listed as necessary for competition in this thread. I've shot on both and would not describe either as "bottom" or lower product quality. I think a better term is innovative! One of which, the creator and owner had a canopy set up at the Southwest Nationals this past Feb marketing and answering any questions. That's just plain ole good business sense.

+ 1000

Others than just who the post was directed at above would do well to heed this advise.

Not intended to be negative in any way but,,,
If GeoffR wants to market or see if there is a market for whatever he has to offer (maybe I'm the only one but) it would be nice if he would start a new thread.

I would love to read about how great his product is,
all the features it has and
what it costs in US Dollars
with no bashing the competition.

Us consumers will decide from there what functionality and at what costs is most feasible for us or our clubs to purchase.

 

[Medic505]

it would be nice if he would start a new thread.

I'm pretty sure he could write a book about it.

 

[Matt P]

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.

Geoff
You have to remember if it's not designed and made in the northern hemisphere it's simply not as good as those that are !!
Matt P

 

[Bindi2]

[QUOTE="Toejoe12, post: 37470879, member: 1300470" I've shot on both and would not describe either as "bottom" or lower product quality. [/QUOTE]

If they are the only benchmark you have then then you cant compare them to anything else. Only those who have can. They are bargain basement specials. They work they have issues. As you get more time under your belt with them you may realize the short comings in the design. Enjoy shooting on them, beats pulling targets.

 

[GeoffR]

+ 1000

Others than just who the post was directed at above would do well to heed this advise.

Not intended to be negative in any way but,,,
If GeoffR wants to market or see if there is a market for whatever he has to offer (maybe I'm the only one but) it would be nice if he would start a new thread.

I would love to read about how great his product is,
all the features it has and
what it costs in US Dollars
with no bashing the competition.

Us consumers will decide from there what functionality and at what costs is most feasible for us or our clubs to purchase.

I was out of line and apologise. It was not my intention: the words sometime come out wrong. I will try to not let it happen again!

And if anyone remains interested in what I have to say in regards to ET technology generally, and how I have addressed it, then yes, I think perhaps a new thread be created. I am not sure what it should be called though.

Geoff.

 

[Bindi2]

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 ( your words) ???

This looks like you are telling me which shot is mine.

 

[MattPeetz]

This looks like you are telling me which shot is mine.

Ha. Nice try. Quit trying to be a grumpy old sling shooter and don’t make up what i DIDN’T say.
Go back and read that WHOLE quote.

 

[BP1]

I was out of line and apologise. It was not my intention: the words sometime come out wrong. I will try to not let it happen again!

And if anyone remains interested in what I have to say in regards to ET technology generally, and how I have addressed it, then yes, I think perhaps a new thread be created. I am not sure what it should be called though.

Geoff.

Sorry Jade but this just killed it..you not gonna make 20pages..

 

[Medic505]