Nope.Never said anything against that Mike, I agree. Since it is "a thing" now, I also plan to collect data and educate myself on something that I was ignorant about a month ago. Actually I just asked for more data a couple posts ago. Shall we suppress the facts as we learn them too?
Tom
I appreciate you sharing, Tom. How do the groups compare? There is clear translation that would affect the score, but group shape and size still seems well represented.Never said anything against that Mike, I agree. Since it is "a thing" now, I also plan to collect data and educate myself on something that I was ignorant about a month ago. Actually I just asked for more data a couple posts ago. Shall we suppress the facts as we learn them too?
Tom
Are you sure, I don't want to hurt any feelers?Nope.
I saw a difference of .18 between 3&4,or am I missing something elseAre you sure, I don't want to hurt any feelers?
Evan, that data is there on my ballistic x app. Right or wrong I used the same scale reference, so the numbers are "comparable". Look at photo 1 vs 2, and 3 vs 4 and you'll see it.
Tom
.189 lol, but you're on itI saw a difference of .18 between 3&4,or am I missing something else
thanks, haha. Don’t mind me, my toddler has scrambled my brains and my reading comprehension seems to have been affected.Are you sure, I don't want to hurt any feelers?
Evan, that data is there on my ballistic x app. Right or wrong I used the same scale reference, so the numbers are "comparable". Look at photo 1 vs 2, and 3 vs 4 and you'll see it.
Tom
Tom are these examples from the same person? I don't have a lot of experience with SM but it almost looks like the measurements from sensor to sensor is off. SM pulled the high, right shots down and left and the low, left shots up and right. If that's the case, it will no doubt make the group size incorrect too.
Educating yourself includes really understanding how electronic targets work so any conclusions you're coming too are sound. Analyzing data from electronic targets would include for any data submitted; information such as initial set up calibration such as TZaun posted regarding sensors, target frames (rigidity, square to firing point...), weather conditions, etc. If you're going to analyze targets you need to have a clear understanding of how it was collected and ask important questions of those submitting data. Last and just as important is that those submitting data and yourself are being totally objective and unbiased throughout the process! If you conduct your analysis with a preconceived notion against the use of etargets you're building in bias to the process and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You're already showing a biased with "lol" comments...Since it is "a thing" now, I also plan to collect data and educate myself on something that I was ignorant about a month ago
No one is telling them what to decide Mike. They need information to decide though so shouldn’t information be posted about real world results? I guess I don’t see the problem unless someone is wanting to see things go electronic so they don’t like what Tom has pointed out.Damn guys, it’s a chance for clubs that WANT to give it a try to do so!! Let them decide
Mike
The photos don’t lie. Who may be biased here?Educating yourself includes really understanding how electronic targets work so any conclusions you're coming too are sound. Analyzing data from electronic targets would include for any data submitted; information such as initial set up calibration such as TZaun posted regarding sensors, target frames (rigidity, square to firing point...), weather conditions, etc. If you're going to analyze targets you need to have a clear understanding of how it was collected and ask important questions of those submitting data. Last and just as important is that those submitting data and yourself are being totally objective and unbiased throughout the process! If you conduct your analysis with a preconceived notion against the use of etargets you're building in bias to the process and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You're already showing a biased with "lol" comments...
We have a local shooter building a rigid frame for testing the system with a ppc at short range.I think this should be a challenge to someone to build as perfect an E Target setup that can be made. Like a brick sh*t house strong. Eliminate any frame variable that alters the group. Set it at 100 yards and measure and compare just like Tom is doing and post the results.