Electronic targets/ no hit

[Dmitri]

I would think you would need to be able to see it both at the target and on the shooter / scorer screen. What if someone shoots a cable or sensor during a match? Would that not require action?

NOT. Continue shooting. You'll fix it when you have a time. Not loss of performance. However you'll have a message that frame is hit. So RO should be called and shooter should be given Miss manually. Then he will came to the forum and bash the system and manufacturer for something we will think later...

If you would lower your defensive stance and look through some of these posts, I think you might see some ways to improve your product and make it easier to use in an actual match.

How many systems on the market can report sensors failure before shot has been fired? How many reporting sensor failure at all? How many can continue operating with sensor shot? I see that we are bashed is the result of having all these extras. So sorry I'm defensive trying to protect our baby.

 

[okshooter]

Yeah right... If some idiot gunned down people this is everyones faults - the society, NRA, gun seller and of course gun manufacturers.... And this is beta as gun did not shut itself done when used inappropriately not according to instruction and allowed it happened - manufacturers fault...

As Dos XX said, if you would slow down and not get so defensive, maybe you would see that myself and most others on this thread are wanting to see ETs succeed and are trying to suggest ideas that might make them more palatable to the masses.

I did not say it was the manufacturers fault, I said it was the systems fault. That includes you, the manufacturer, who didn't make the alerts clear enough for either the RO to not use the target or the scorer to understand it wasn't a mis but an error. The RO should have either not used a target that had half the sensors out and/or make sure the scorer and shooter understood how to interpret the error messages. If the scorer didn't understand the message, he should have asked questions instead of assuming the shot was a miss. So three people failed, but the forth, the shooter, paid for it.

Is it possible that your system has seen more success and fewer problems in Australia, since that is where you're company is based, and the idea started? Maybe the shooters and, more importantly, the ROs got more thorough training since you or your staff was more local and could spend more time at individual ranges making sure everything got off to a better start.

Again, I would really like to see ETs succeed whether they are yours and/or other manufacturers. As I've said, I think they will be a great help to draw new shooters, particularly the younger and older shooters that struggle in the pits.

 

[okshooter]

How many systems on the market can report sensors failure before shot has been fired? How many reporting sensor failure at all? How many can continue operating with sensor shot? I see that we are bashed is the result of having all these extras. So sorry I'm defensive trying to protect our baby.

Dmitri,

I am am an engineer and have designed a new machine for the company I worked for the company I worked for that was completely new with nothing even similar existing in the world. The hardest part of that process was building the first one and laying it on a conference room table for bosses, coworkers, and technicians that would end up using to tear it apart. At the end of that meeting we had a much better end product then what I carried in the room, but several in the room agreed that they never would have been able to get it to the point I did for there to be something to critique. I understand it hurts, but, if considered thoughtfully, will produce a better end product.

You're system is not getting bashed for having extra features that may make it stand out above others on the market. What's being discussed is that those features were not utilized to there upmost.

I remember when GPSs were first introduced to the public. They triangulated position based on 3 or 4 satellites and were only accurate to 50 or 100 feet. Today's units want to lock on to at least 8 or 10 and are accurate to 10 feet or less. Most won't even give a result if they can't lock on to at least 4 or 5.

If there are systems that only use 4 sensors, and you are marketing your system as an improvement because it has 8, why would you ever suggest that it is OK to proceed with a targets use in a match, when it only has 4 working? If that's OK, why not just use the system that has 4 to start with. If having 8 sensors gives more accuracy and fewer dropped shots (which I'm certain it does) then encourage ROs to only use targets that have say at least 6 operational. Then you will get shooters saying I'm only going to shoot ET matches that are using HEXTA because they are the most accurate and most reliable.

 

[Bindi2]

If you would lower your defensive stance and look through some of these posts, I think you might see some ways to improve your product and make it easier to use in an actual match.

I don't think his stance is wrong you are the one who needs to change the way you think about his product and the way you interact with it. You are the one having the problem. This is new tech learn to use it.

 

[Zilla]

I don't think his stance is wrong you are the one who needs to change the way you think about his product and the way you interact with it. You are the one having the problem. This is new tech learn to use it.

Yeah, that should win him over.

 

[FatBoy]

I get that 8 sensors is overkill. I doubt the resolution would be much, if any, better with 8 sensors over 5. They appear to be there to pad the data just in case someone does shoot a wire, etc. Wade's issues may have been a target issue, may have been ammo going trans sonic but certainly he should have been allowed a refire as the target could not resolve the shot.

There is a learning curve with all of these. If the issue was brought to the MD in a timely manner and the range ruling was to show a miss, just don't shoot there. If the score failed to understand what SOP was, that's not the fault of the target.

I do feel that all of the e-target software should integrate the ability to show when a sensor(s) goes down real time at the firing points.

 

[JohnKielly]

Maybe the shooters and, more importantly, the ROs got more thorough training since you or your staff was more local and could spend more time at individual ranges making sure everything got off to a better start.

Don't know about the rest of Australia, but here we started with an extended duty of care before we purchased & put the targets on the range. We trained ET specific staff to guide shooters on managing the equipment, lectured competitors on what "novelties" they might come across on the system & hung in there with them for the duration of the event, and that includes local club shoots each week. As misoperation/misjudgements are detected, then club or match users are given specific guidance on that issue and how it needs to be resolved.

Using ETs is just another phase of shooting rules; if shooters misunderstand or ignore them, then they're guided to do it correctly. Remember, though, we've had three years & five major events using our targets. ET smarts are learned just the same as the nuances of rules are.

 

[foxguy]

I don't think his stance is wrong you are the one who needs to change the way you think about his product and the way you interact with it. You are the one having the problem. This is new tech learn to use it.

It sounds to me like the Hexta Electronic Target product it an early to market Electronic Target.
It sounds like it works fairly well as long as the Match Director and his team who set up and Maintain the Target System understand all of the Setup, check's, and balances of the system and ensure the Range Master is aware of any Problems before the Match starts.

Electronic Targets Like Computers are getting better all the time and prices are coming down.
The Electronic Target Manufacturer who can develop a Target System that has real time Checks and Balances that can report to the Match Director in real time will have a system that serves the Range hosting a match and all of the shooters attending the match.

 

[Bar3Range]

Bar 3 Range in Laurel, MS has continued to better our facility within the short three years we have been operational. We continue to have an average number of shooters per match that we hold twice a month in comparable to ranges in neighboring states. We wanted to take the time to analyze the target situation at our past few matches and put a plan in action before we responded to our shooters.

First, we want to apologize to those shooters that were affected at our last few matches. We strive to better our facility by taken criticism and turn in it into “how can we do better and fix the complaints we receive.”

Our plan of Action:

1. Each target will be taken down and maintained before next match, September 22, 2018, whether it is a sensor issue or wire shot out issue; they will be fixed and tested.

2. During each match, depending on what “Error Message” the scorer receives, Match Director will read each “Error Message” to determine if the message is as follows:

a. Error: shot position cannot be resolved accurately

i. Shooter will be granted another shot

b. Error: shot outside scoring area. Probably hit frame

i. Scorer will record as “miss”

Depending on if sensors are shot out or wires are shot out (to be determined); then there is a reason for this issue. Some shooters do miss, otherwise these sensors or wires would not be shot out.

3. Each shooter will receive the “Error Messages” on their score cards so there is no confusion on what to do if and when an “Error Message” appears on computer screen.

4. During our safety briefing we will cover this in detail.

5. After each match, we will test each target to determine if targets are still working at 100% compacity.

The only way Bar 3 Range can be the best we can be is to continue to resolve issues. Over the course of three years, each recommendation or comment made, we have addressed and corrected to better our monthly matches and facility. Last year after our Mid-Range and Long-Range season, we only had 3 sensors not operational with our 12 electronic targets. Again, we are very sorry to those affected. We want to say Thank You to each one of our shooters and members at Bar 3 Range. Your support of our monthly matches has made our range successful! We hope to see you at our next match!

Thank you,

Bar 3 Range

 

[Keith Glasscock]

^^^^^^ This is the right way.

 

[FatBoy]

I agree with Keith. That is exactly how I would do it as well.

 

[Toejoe12]

This is a completely neutral post intended as a wake up call for both sides of this debate. I have one request and it starts with a word and definition I'm cutting and pasting here from Google (don't believe me "google it")

ig·no·rance
ˈiɡnərəns/
noun

lack of knowledge or information.
"he acted in ignorance of basic procedures"
synonyms: incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about;
informalcluelessness about
"a statement that shows a complete ignorance of the regulations"

The request: If this definition in any part fits any of us........please hold your tongue (or fingers)!!
As it's been stated many times from both sides of this argument "electronics is the future of our sport"! If that's the case then all this mis-information and back biting is hurting our sport on both sides of this discussion!

 

[Bindi2]

Sadly many who think they know don't know that they don't know and continue to think they know.

 

[Mozella]

This is a completely neutral post intended as a wake up call for both sides of this debate. I have one request and it starts with a word and definition I'm cutting and pasting here from Google (don't believe me "google it")

ig·no·rance
ˈiɡnərəns/
noun
lack of knowledge or information.
"he acted in ignorance of basic procedures"
synonyms: incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about;
informalcluelessness about
"a statement that shows a complete ignorance of the regulations"

The request: If this definition in any part fits any of us........please hold your tongue (or fingers)!!
As it's been stated many times from both sides of this argument "electronics is the future of our sport"! If that's the case then all this mis-information and back biting is hurting our sport on both sides of this discussion!

Nice try, but I think you're confusing ignorance with stupidity. We are all ignorant until we learn something and we won't learn much if everyone holds their tongues. The definition of ignorance you posted fits me to a T and I have no intention of holding my tongue.

Folks here are having (for the most part) a civil discussion about e-Targets. We're exchanging our views, relating our personal experiences, and asking questions in order to form a better understanding of e-Targets and how they work. In other words, we're trying to become more educated.

Some are more passionate than others, but if anyone is violating the terms of this forum, there is a mechanism to take care of those who are truly out of bounds.

Education and information are what reduce ignorance, and most educated people believe that reducing ignorance is a good thing. I say the more opinions voiced here, the better. Everyone is ignorant of certain aspects of e-Targets, even the folks who make them. A forum like this, where people can relate their experiences, both good and bad, should prove to be enlightening to the manufacturers, the owners/operators of e-Target systems, and those who are considering getting involved with them.

Although I know a lot of stuff, I'm not embarrassed to say that I'm ignorant about plenty of things in this wide world. There is no shame in ignorance and I, for one, intend to continue reducing my ignorance, especially when it comes to e-Targets.

Question: You are telling those who are ignorant, and that includes me, to "please hold your tongue". I want to know who died and made you arbiter of civil discourse when it comes to e-Targets?

If you're not having fun here, perhaps you should consider not reading this thread.

 

[Toejoe12]

Nice try, but I think you're confusing ignorance with stupidity. We are all ignorant until we learn something and we won't learn much if everyone holds their tongues. The definition of ignorance you posted fits me to a T and I have no intention of holding my tongue.

Folks here are having (for the most part) a civil discussion about e-Targets. We're exchanging our views, relating our personal experiences, and asking questions in order to form a better understanding of e-Targets and how they work. In other words, we're trying to become more educated.

Some are more passionate than others, but if anyone is violating the terms of this forum, there is a mechanism to take care of those who are truly out of bounds.

Education and information are what reduce ignorance, and most educated people believe that reducing ignorance is a good thing. I say the more opinions voiced here, the better. Everyone is ignorant of certain aspects of e-Targets, even the folks who make them. A forum like this, where people can relate their experiences, both good and bad, should prove to be enlightening to the manufacturers, the owners/operators of e-Target systems, and those who are considering getting involved with them.

Although I know a lot of stuff, I'm not embarrassed to say that I'm ignorant about plenty of things in this wide world. There is no shame in ignorance and I, for one, intend to continue reducing my ignorance, especially when it comes to e-Targets.

Question: You are telling those who are ignorant, and that includes me, to "please hold your tongue". I want to know who died and made you arbiter of civil discourse when it comes to e-Targets?

If you're not having fun here, perhaps you should consider not reading this thread.

You make some valid points, however I happen to disagree with you. A internet forum isn't the place (in my opinion) to spew mis-information which this thread is full of. Asking questions to learn is completely different from spewing comments out of "ignorance" If you want to learn......go to the range and shoot and ask questions and voice your concerns to the MD and target manufactures or do it it private. Get your experience and education from actually competing instead of being an internet hero. I've read on many of these threads several folks saying they will not shoot ranges with ET. That's a shame. Some may have experienced first hand problems, others may not for what they've read here. That hurts our sport period whether you like it or not! Lastly That's just my opinion. You have yours and that's good, but to cast a negative comment/question towards me for posting a completely neutral comment (re-read my original post)......loosen up dude!

 

[Mozella]

You make some valid points, however I happen to disagree with you. A internet forum isn't the place (in my opinion) to spew mis-information which this thread is full of. Asking questions to learn is completely different from spewing comments out of "ignorance" If you want to learn......go to the range and shoot and ask questions and voice your concerns to the MD and target manufactures or do it it private. Get your experience and education from actually competing instead of being an internet hero. I've read on many of these threads several folks saying they will not shoot ranges with ET. That's a shame. Some may have experienced first hand problems, others may not for what they've read here. That hurts our sport period whether you like it or not! Lastly That's just my opinion. You have yours and that's good, but to cast a negative comment/question towards me for posting a completely neutral comment (re-read my original post)......loosen up dude!

As one might expect, not everything posted in this thread is completely accurate, but I haven't noticed anyone "spewing misinformation" in an effort to intentionally mislead forum members. Do you really believe that some folks come here just to screw everything up according to your standards of what is the truth and what isn't? We're all adults here, more or less, and I suspect most of use love freedom and feel uncomfortable about someone trying to impose censorship. You Sir are not a school master intimidating a classroom full of seven year olds. I'd say what you call a "neutral comment" is just the opposite. I suggest you re-read your own post with that in mind, paying particular attention to your call for censorship.

I'd suggest that you not worry so much about who is damaging our sport by being ignorant and who is not. The shooting sports will survive just fine with or with this particular thread. I happen to believe that nearly everyone on this forum has good intentions and, for the most part, are smart enough to separate the fly s**t from the pepper without guidance from those who think they have a special understanding that others don't. Why not just stand back a little bit and let forum members enjoy themselves? If your opinion differs from someone else, go head and post a rebuttal if you like. But don't be surprised when you suggest that forum members shut up that you experience some push-back. Post-pubescent men usually don't like that sort of thing.

I also happen to believe that contrary to what you say, the Internet is a perfectly good place to learn and demanding that people stop posting because YOU don't like some of what is being said is pretty heavy handed. Last time I checked America is a free country and getting more free every day. And as for loosening up "dude", I'd say right back at 'ya.............. dude.

 

[Toejoe12]

Wow!

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

To answer a few comments and questions.

Missed shots by Hex Target at Bar 3 Range in Laurel Mississippi.

Let’s go through this one last time in simple logical point format.

1. Shot on HEXTA target #6 at Bar 3 Range in Laurel Mississippi on Sat Aug 25/18 was in question.
   
   
   
   
   
   This is the target report in question.
   
   
2. Fact: The target did an excellent job performing as designed with only 4 sensors. All competitors E-Targets run 4 sensors to provide independent data-points for point of impact. We will declare that the HEXTA target does a better job with 4 sensors that any others. Ask any physicist about the physics.
   1. Target 6 did not fail to register ANY shots.
      
   2. HEXTA MATCH GRADE targets do NOT become inoperative when or if a sensor fails totally. Target 6 did not fail to register ANY shots.
      
   3. HEXTA Targets work at least as well with 4, or better with 4 than any others.
      
   4. Remember the target DID NOT MISS any shot as erroneously reported. FALSE NEWS
3. All was going acceptably well until shot # 12.
   1. The software declared that there was not sufficient data to ensure the POINT of IMPACT was within the HEXTA standards of reliable reporting. Read Dimitri’s explanation above. The Patented software continually demands a minimum precision report from each sensor with each shot. If this report falls outside minimum parameters of clear precision, it is rejected. That is what happened with shot #12.
      
   2. So rather than reporting a guess, and a possible Gross Error, it leaves the decision to the Range Officer.
      
   3. At that point the software threw a flag at the SCORER which says
      “Error: Shot position cannot be resolved accurately” That’s NOT a miss!
      The software performed as designed and gave the Range Officer the option of how to deal with it. The RO acknowledged the ERROR message instructed the Scorer to award a MISS. Bar 3 RO concurred that this error message was new to them. And they first learned about it in this situation. In 1 full season and 40 matches, Bar 3 staff had never experienced this type of ERROR message, won’t happen again.
      
   4. The shooter was subsequently awarded a “MISS”.
      
   5. Our User Instructions are that the Shooter be given another shot.
      
   6. We don’t believe in dumbing down rules to meet out technology. This scenario is very rare, and the reason will be in points below. This is not a game of “Horse Shoes!”
      
   7. If the target frame is hit by a projectile the system has a different ERROR message, “ERROR: shot outside scoring area. Probably hit frame”, and a MISS will be awarded.
4. The CPU on the target displays the sensors condition, which should be checked after each match, and prior to the next one. As PER the User Interface.

If the patented software target was not designed to do what it did, it might have given the Shooter a Gross Error “¾” out and no-one would have been the wiser. IS THAT WHAT YOU SHOOTERS WANT?

FOR THOSE ARE DETERMINED TO DISPARAGE E-TARGETS. The HEXTA MATCH GRADE TARGET DID NOT MISS A SHOT. AS WE’VE SAID BEFORE WE DONT MISS SHOTS.

NOR ARE WE BETA. WE WOULD NOT AND HAVE NOT PUT ANYTHING ON THE MARKET PLACE THAT HAS NOT BEEN THROUGHLY TESTED!

HEXTA Match Grade targets have been in use for 7 years in Australia. The “Competitions” table and results was added to the data base in the fall of 2016 with 149 “Competitions” since then. Now let me be clear. A “Competition” in Australia are major events like our Regionals or Nationals. Beyond that they have “Club” matches every Friday night (our time). Follow that tonight at Hex Systems Real Time. These Club Matches have seen millions upon millions of rounds. With no missed shots.

The software is proven and patented. We are making small changes in user interface to accommodate the long-range competition culture in the United States.

Posted Questions: Q: Do the manufacturers have standards for performance? What are those standards?

RICK ANS: These targets have been designed with perfection as the goal. The patented Hexta software has delivered <3 mm standard deviation for years. I can’t speak for other “manufactures”. However, there is NO required standard. We have asked for one.

See sample target test below.



See many more published tests at goBallistic Hot Topics

Q: What is the accuracy standard which is guaranteed?

ANS: RICK There is buckets of information on Hex Systems and goBallistic web sites. Including 3rd party testing. There is no “guarantee”, to many humans involved. But if our “Best Practices” are followed there will be satisfaction.

Q: How many sensors are required to meet the accuracy standard?

RICK ANS: Read above posts. Which accuracy standard? Q: Does the shooter deserve to know, via a message clearly displayed on his screen, when his target is operating in a lesser-accuracy mode? ("Your target is utilizing 5 of 8 sensors")

RICK ANS: This should never be necessary. It could be done, just costs money, and we already are deemed too expensive. The expectation is, that at the beginning of each match your targets are all functioning at the recommended “Best Practices”. Your target should never be functioning below manufacture UI or Best Practices. Therefore, if a shooter gets warned of a “frame” hit, then a quick target examination of the target is possible which will report if a sensor is inoperative. Frames take many hits without hitting wires or sensors 99% of the timeQ: Does the shooter deserve to know, via a clear message, when the target is non-functional? Why are we finding out about this after the match?

ANS RICK: Of course, he deserves it. But better, we expect that every range’s maintenance program will always provide targets at 100%.

Q: Why does the system allow itself to be used when it is not capable of functioning? Why does it not tell THE COMPETITOR (and not just the MD, and apparently even then not very clearly) when a target is non-functional?

ANS RICK: Target functioned EXACTLY as designed and communicated damaged sensor communication. Range management has no interest in giving you less than a fair shake. It’s not in their best interest. When routine examination of the target start-up sequence indicated a sensor not functioning, it would get fixed. There should never be a need for shooters to ever wonder if their targets are sub-standard. During a match if the mentioned error messages show up, a very quick target check will tell if a wire or sensor is out of service. If a target in non-functional it will not operate. Q: Why does data need to the sent to the manufacturer after a match to figure out what is going on? Answer: because the product is in Beta.

ANSWER Rick: Sending the data to the manufacture is rarely necessary. But at least the server captures every little detail right from start up.

WE ARE NOT Beta. HEXTA Match Grade targets are 7 years old. Beta is long past.​

Watch  Duncan & QRA Queens Series 2018 Grand aggr

200 shooters over 1 week. 30 targets. We are not Beta

This is a HEX Systems “Competition”, similar to our Regionals.

Beyond that they have club matches EVERY Friday night USA time, where 40 plus clubs shoot on 150 plus targets by well over 100 shooters in Real Time.

The foundational problem is that there are no official guidelines governing the performance of E-Targets. There is no qualification or Certification process. It’s wide open.

In a precision sport, spending huge amounts of money chasing the line around the X ring, to accept subjective analysis like “worked good for me” is like playing Horse Shoes.

We are happy with Bar 3 Range MS, efforts along with Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club DE, and Read Range PA. They are great people to work with. I appreciate their friendship.

Bar 3 Range has a first-class facility, and the Bush family are great hosts. Try to get into one of Mikes feasts with his French Fries. It was the RO’s decision to have the data analyzed to help them understand what it was that happened that day. These targets are not new, but new to the U.S.A.Hex Systems, goBallistic and Bar 3Range consider this thread finished.

 

[okshooter]

The foundational problem is that there are no official guidelines governing the performance of E-Targets. There is no qualification or Certification process. It’s wide open.

That's one of the things that blows me away. Having had extensive conversations with the NRA about targets (specifically repair center size for 600 yards), we haven't been able to get them to even consider making the centers smaller, but otherwise identical to any other target, yet we can use ETs in national matches that have virtually no rules or standards.

 

[FatBoy]

That's one of the things that blows me away. Having had extensive conversations with the NRA about targets (specifically repair center size for 600 yards), we haven't been able to get them to even consider making the centers smaller, but otherwise identical to any other target, yet we can use ETs in national matches that have virtually no rules or standards.

we shot F class "unofficially " for three or four years before Larry decided to round up a handful of shooters to bounce ideas off of each and formulate the initial F Class Rifles proposal, which was adopted. Before it was, we managed to shoot hundreds of matches and two national championships, Butner being #1 and TnSSA shooting #2 at Oak Ridge TN.

My long winded way of saying hang in there. We'll get there. When the rules are revisited (like f class was i.e. target size) they are still not going to make everyone happy. (not including suppressors as Highpower legal still pisses me off) but I would bet in the next 2-3 years we won't be having these discussions anymore.