I want to use for load dev without paper backup. That means in need some type of measurement of dispersion. I am open to ES, CEP or mean radius. How many to shoot and what level of confidence is up to the user to judge, not Adam. Without this feature the product is worth much less to me and the two I just bought will be posted for sale quickly. I thought the original goal was for solo shooter, but looks like club competition use is trumping that - it will be too bad if that turns out to be the case.
ShotMarker set up for multiple targets
- Thread starter chkunz
- Start date
I want to use for load dev without paper backup. That means in need some type of measurement of dispersion. I am open to ES, CEP or mean radius. How many to shoot and what level of confidence is up to the user to judge, not Adam. Without this feature the product is worth much less to me and the two I just bought will be posted for sale quickly. I thought the original goal was for solo shooter, but looks like club competition use is trumping that - it will be too bad if that turns out to be the case.
memilanuk
Gold $$ Contributor
Well you can always crunch the numbers yourself using something like ShotGroups...
Bisson1990,
You could always simply stay on the old revision with the features you personally prefer.
You don't have to update to the new revision of firmware...
Question for you:
What would you but to replace the shomarkers that have all those features at that price point ??
Imagine developing and continuing to refine a product ( at no extra charge ) based off feedback you are getting from customers and trying to please 100% of the people.
There will always be the small % pissed off even at the free price point.
George
https://nfga.org/leveridge-range/
No reason to get cranky.
As for features at price point - no doubt shotmaker has many features/$, but if it is missing a key feature for me then that is irrelevant for me. Different products have different target markets, different users have different use cases. That is not a criticism of Adam, the product or my use case. There are thousands of great products out there that don't fit my uses, doesn't make them bad, their designers wrong or me wrong for noting the lack of fit. You just need to relax.
Last edited:
Thanks - looks like just a setting thing that was missed in the earlier discussion. COOL!
I'm not cranky and I am relaxed...
My comment / question was sincere.
Would simply staying on the current revision of the units you have not solve your dissatisfaction causing you to want to sell your 2 systems ?
--------------
You could always simply stay on the old revision with the features you personally prefer.
You don't have to update to the new revision of firmware...
------------
George
I'm not cranky and I am relaxed...
My comment / question was sincere.
Would simply staying on the current revision of the units you have not solve your dissatisfaction causing you to want to sell your 2 systems ?
--------------
You could always simply stay on the old revision with the features you personally prefer.
You don't have to update to the new revision of firmware...
------------
George
First, this is now a hypothetical discussion, as from more recent posts it is clear all is fine for me.
I would not sell a product if I didn't like one firmware update, firmware updates come and go. I was reacting to the user who suggested Adam may not incorporate these features going forward as he didn't see them as useful. So yes, if it became clear an essential (for me) feature was never to return I would sell.
As for standing pat on current version - the feature I wanted is not in the old firmware (I bought now basis understanding that MOA or similar was forthcoming - which now appears to be true). In addition, being trapped in old firmware is rarely a good option for an expensive purchase - so not a solution for me in theory either.
But all is well and I look forward to better weather and getting SM out on the range.
Hey everybody. I'd like to comment on some things here specifically related to software.
First, just so everyone is on the same page, I'm an F-Class shooter, and I've been doing load development, and working on, thinking about, and using e-target software since 2015, both for running matches and personal load development. When I add, remove, or change a feature, it's for a reason, it makes sense in my head, and my goal is to keep moving forward and for the system to be as perfect as it can be, so that everyone who has a need for e-targets can use ShotMarker and have it work well for them. If you have input, you can send me an email, and I'll do my best to explain my reasoning, my plans, ideas, and answer your questions, and I absolutely am open to changing my mind.
Software updates have been slow the past year because (a) version 1.08 works well and there are almost no complaints, and (b) I spend half my time on production to try and attend to the 4-8 week backlog on ShotMarker and AutoTrickler, and the other half answering emails. Software has been steadily changing on my own PC but I haven't had the time to prioritize packaging up all these changes and sending them out, and I don't want to bother everyone with a software update unless there is something meaningful that is worth the effort of updating. So for the past couple weeks I've been cleaning things up and testing to make sure it wouldn't break anyone's AP, and then I sent it out, hoping for the best.
I have a lot of different use cases to design for. I can't add every feature for every purpose or else the software will be too cluttered, or have too many options that need to be managed, and more things to fail. A very important part of the design philosophy is thinking about the person who is turning the system on and trying to configure what they want, without remembering or knowing how it was last used. A single page where you can scroll down and see the options at a glance is good. Multiple menus and levels of options on different screens is definitely a no-go for ShotMarker. Every button must be important.
I'm going to discuss two topics in separate posts. Coming up...
First, just so everyone is on the same page, I'm an F-Class shooter, and I've been doing load development, and working on, thinking about, and using e-target software since 2015, both for running matches and personal load development. When I add, remove, or change a feature, it's for a reason, it makes sense in my head, and my goal is to keep moving forward and for the system to be as perfect as it can be, so that everyone who has a need for e-targets can use ShotMarker and have it work well for them. If you have input, you can send me an email, and I'll do my best to explain my reasoning, my plans, ideas, and answer your questions, and I absolutely am open to changing my mind.
Software updates have been slow the past year because (a) version 1.08 works well and there are almost no complaints, and (b) I spend half my time on production to try and attend to the 4-8 week backlog on ShotMarker and AutoTrickler, and the other half answering emails. Software has been steadily changing on my own PC but I haven't had the time to prioritize packaging up all these changes and sending them out, and I don't want to bother everyone with a software update unless there is something meaningful that is worth the effort of updating. So for the past couple weeks I've been cleaning things up and testing to make sure it wouldn't break anyone's AP, and then I sent it out, hoping for the best.
I have a lot of different use cases to design for. I can't add every feature for every purpose or else the software will be too cluttered, or have too many options that need to be managed, and more things to fail. A very important part of the design philosophy is thinking about the person who is turning the system on and trying to configure what they want, without remembering or knowing how it was last used. A single page where you can scroll down and see the options at a glance is good. Multiple menus and levels of options on different screens is definitely a no-go for ShotMarker. Every button must be important.
I'm going to discuss two topics in separate posts. Coming up...
Pair-firing.
This is how we shoot in Canada, and also Australia, New Zealand, Bisley, South Africa... basically everywhere except the US, to my knowledge. The majority of ShotMarker users are from the US, but it's not an overwhelming majority, and I need to support both types of shooting equally.
The way pair firing works in SMT is not in ShotMarker for a reason. For clarity, what the method does is assume the next shot belongs in the next shooter's scorecard, and automatically maintains a scorecard for each shooter (left, middle, right), assuming shots arrive in correct sequence. If you convert sighters properly, then it is able to assign the last few shots, where for example someone who didn't convert sighters needs to fire a couple of shots in a row, and they need to be assigned correctly.
It requires knowing how many shots are on score for that relay, and how many shooters there are (2 or 3). This is something that needs to be managed on every target as some targets would have 2 and some would have 3, switching every relay.
In the US with single string shooting, you have it easy. There is a person at every target who's sole job it is to pay attention to the screen and make sure it's right. It's a completely different world with pair-firing where shooters need to juggle their attention between wind flags and the tablet (and those who can multi-task have quite an advantage).
When used in a match with multiple targets, there is confusion any time a crossfire, miss, or shot out of turn happens. Shooters do not notice when the shot they see displayed is actually the previous shooter's last shot, not theirs, and they will accept a V or X even though they missed the target. They will not notice when two shots appear so they will not call out that a crossfire happened so that everyone else can stop wondering why their target seemed to miss a shot. When someone shoots out of turn, they will not fix anything, they will simply move on and then wonder why the score is all messed up 12 shots later.
In my opinion, in my experience, based on 3 years creating and iterating on this process and trying to make this work at my club, it hurts the match, causes people to be frustrated, not pay attention to shooting well, and dislike e-targets as a result. Anything that has the effect of turning people off e-targets needs to not be part of ShotMarker.
Instead I decided to try "recent" mode, and also "delayed". This displays one shot at a time, but shows the last couple if they arrived within 20 seconds (ie. for a crossfire). In a pair-firing situation, the system does not know who fired which shot, and it doesn't keep score. It just displays the shot. With a delay, it means the target will clear and wait 7 seconds, so there is a clear indication that a new shot is incoming. In this mode, anyone who has shot on pulled targets can lay down and shoot with ShotMarker and not be frustrated by having to score a different way, and does not require a 15 minute training session about what to do when converting sighters or correcting shots out of turn.
And it eliminates the drain on the match staff associated to correct scoring (in other words, me, at my club). It help me shoot in peace and not have to get up and run down the line to explain what just happened because I see something weird in their scorecards. And no one needs to set the number of shooters on each target, and number of shots, every relay (sometimes the course of fire is 2+7 then 2+10 and then back to 2+7, then 2+15...). Those options are gone because they are not needed except to support automatic pair-fire scoring.
At the time, this mode was new. I'm not sure if it's been implemented into SMT since, but I built this into pre-release ShotMarker from the start, and started using at my club. Immediately it solved the problems and everyone agreed it was the way to go. No one is asking for the old way now.
This means there are two use cases which are not really supported by ShotMarker:
a) a very small group / club who is already used to pair-firing with SMT, does not have issues with new shooters being confused because they don't run large events, and is comfortable with managing the left/right columns, reassigning shots, etc. They are now not able to score digitally and have to use a paper scorecard with ShotMarker. For those who accept the challenge, they lose this feature if they use ShotMarker.
b) two people who are practicing together, on one target, by themselves. They have to score on paper, even though managing the columns would be pretty easy for just two people.
I realize this is not ideal, but to implement this feature as an option, I felt that most clubs who pair-fire would see this as "the way to pair-fire" and not appreciate the challenges involved. The challenges are not obvious and it took me a long time to realize that it was not fair to ask the shooters to learn how to recognize and fix each type of issue. It would end up with more people disliking e-targets. So there was no question, I could not simply leave it in, even as an option.
I am asked quite frequently "how to pair-fire with ShotMarker" and I have to explain this. It's not easy to explain why it doesn't do everything automatically.
Instead, my plan is to come up with another method for pair-firing, where instead of automatically assigning the shots and asking the shooters to pay attention and fix errors, the system is opt-in, and requires the shooters to "claim" each shot. Crossfires, misses, etc. can be ignored with no action required. On-score shots must be claimed, which is the way to "mark the score" for the other shooter. Anyone who wishes to use this feature can start claiming shots and they will be displayed on their scorecard, but there's no hard requirement to, and if no shots are claimed then shooters can keep on scoring shots individually as they do now.
I see this as the correct way to do it, but I haven't implemented it yet. It will be new, it will involve more UI elements to deal with, and it will create confusion to learn a new process. But it will allow the paper card to go away.
I'm still not convinced whether there is anything wrong with the "recent" mode of scoring on paper one shot at time. Having the e-target mirror a pulled target shot by shot makes sense to everyone of any experience level. With this new mode I would be asking people to tap on the screen for every shot they fire. I'm not sure it will be well received in the long run, which is why I have been hesitant to build it in. I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the risk and added complexity.
What do you think? I'm asking anyone who pair-fires on a regular basis. What do you envision the e-target should do when there is a crossfire / miss / etc? Is there a better solution?
This is how we shoot in Canada, and also Australia, New Zealand, Bisley, South Africa... basically everywhere except the US, to my knowledge. The majority of ShotMarker users are from the US, but it's not an overwhelming majority, and I need to support both types of shooting equally.
The way pair firing works in SMT is not in ShotMarker for a reason. For clarity, what the method does is assume the next shot belongs in the next shooter's scorecard, and automatically maintains a scorecard for each shooter (left, middle, right), assuming shots arrive in correct sequence. If you convert sighters properly, then it is able to assign the last few shots, where for example someone who didn't convert sighters needs to fire a couple of shots in a row, and they need to be assigned correctly.
It requires knowing how many shots are on score for that relay, and how many shooters there are (2 or 3). This is something that needs to be managed on every target as some targets would have 2 and some would have 3, switching every relay.
In the US with single string shooting, you have it easy. There is a person at every target who's sole job it is to pay attention to the screen and make sure it's right. It's a completely different world with pair-firing where shooters need to juggle their attention between wind flags and the tablet (and those who can multi-task have quite an advantage).
When used in a match with multiple targets, there is confusion any time a crossfire, miss, or shot out of turn happens. Shooters do not notice when the shot they see displayed is actually the previous shooter's last shot, not theirs, and they will accept a V or X even though they missed the target. They will not notice when two shots appear so they will not call out that a crossfire happened so that everyone else can stop wondering why their target seemed to miss a shot. When someone shoots out of turn, they will not fix anything, they will simply move on and then wonder why the score is all messed up 12 shots later.
In my opinion, in my experience, based on 3 years creating and iterating on this process and trying to make this work at my club, it hurts the match, causes people to be frustrated, not pay attention to shooting well, and dislike e-targets as a result. Anything that has the effect of turning people off e-targets needs to not be part of ShotMarker.
Instead I decided to try "recent" mode, and also "delayed". This displays one shot at a time, but shows the last couple if they arrived within 20 seconds (ie. for a crossfire). In a pair-firing situation, the system does not know who fired which shot, and it doesn't keep score. It just displays the shot. With a delay, it means the target will clear and wait 7 seconds, so there is a clear indication that a new shot is incoming. In this mode, anyone who has shot on pulled targets can lay down and shoot with ShotMarker and not be frustrated by having to score a different way, and does not require a 15 minute training session about what to do when converting sighters or correcting shots out of turn.
And it eliminates the drain on the match staff associated to correct scoring (in other words, me, at my club). It help me shoot in peace and not have to get up and run down the line to explain what just happened because I see something weird in their scorecards. And no one needs to set the number of shooters on each target, and number of shots, every relay (sometimes the course of fire is 2+7 then 2+10 and then back to 2+7, then 2+15...). Those options are gone because they are not needed except to support automatic pair-fire scoring.
At the time, this mode was new. I'm not sure if it's been implemented into SMT since, but I built this into pre-release ShotMarker from the start, and started using at my club. Immediately it solved the problems and everyone agreed it was the way to go. No one is asking for the old way now.
This means there are two use cases which are not really supported by ShotMarker:
a) a very small group / club who is already used to pair-firing with SMT, does not have issues with new shooters being confused because they don't run large events, and is comfortable with managing the left/right columns, reassigning shots, etc. They are now not able to score digitally and have to use a paper scorecard with ShotMarker. For those who accept the challenge, they lose this feature if they use ShotMarker.
b) two people who are practicing together, on one target, by themselves. They have to score on paper, even though managing the columns would be pretty easy for just two people.
I realize this is not ideal, but to implement this feature as an option, I felt that most clubs who pair-fire would see this as "the way to pair-fire" and not appreciate the challenges involved. The challenges are not obvious and it took me a long time to realize that it was not fair to ask the shooters to learn how to recognize and fix each type of issue. It would end up with more people disliking e-targets. So there was no question, I could not simply leave it in, even as an option.
I am asked quite frequently "how to pair-fire with ShotMarker" and I have to explain this. It's not easy to explain why it doesn't do everything automatically.
Instead, my plan is to come up with another method for pair-firing, where instead of automatically assigning the shots and asking the shooters to pay attention and fix errors, the system is opt-in, and requires the shooters to "claim" each shot. Crossfires, misses, etc. can be ignored with no action required. On-score shots must be claimed, which is the way to "mark the score" for the other shooter. Anyone who wishes to use this feature can start claiming shots and they will be displayed on their scorecard, but there's no hard requirement to, and if no shots are claimed then shooters can keep on scoring shots individually as they do now.
I see this as the correct way to do it, but I haven't implemented it yet. It will be new, it will involve more UI elements to deal with, and it will create confusion to learn a new process. But it will allow the paper card to go away.
I'm still not convinced whether there is anything wrong with the "recent" mode of scoring on paper one shot at time. Having the e-target mirror a pulled target shot by shot makes sense to everyone of any experience level. With this new mode I would be asking people to tap on the screen for every shot they fire. I'm not sure it will be well received in the long run, which is why I have been hesitant to build it in. I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the risk and added complexity.
What do you think? I'm asking anyone who pair-fires on a regular basis. What do you envision the e-target should do when there is a crossfire / miss / etc? Is there a better solution?
Group size / width and height measurement.
This issue is that the group analysis boxes (let's call them blue boxes) have previously had separate width and height measurements. In 1.09 I changed it to be group size (extreme spread, two furthest shots). A lot of people asked me to change it, and now a lot of other people are asking me to change it back.
I am trying my best to cater to everyone. If it's important, I'll put it back. If you really, really want something unique, and it's easy for me to do, I can just take 20 minutes and package you up a custom version of the software. Anything is possible, but before I open a can of worms for custom software for everyone, please keep in mind there are a lot of people that ask me a lot of different things and I have to say "yes" to some and "no" to others based on trying to manage my time.
Let's cover how the system actually works. The "Stats" option controls what number is displayed next to the notebook at the top. This is a single measure of the entire string, including all shots on record (not sighters, not hidden). This options have always been "score" for competition and "inch", "moa", "mil", or "mm" which gives you extreme spread group size in that unit (primarily intended for benchrest, where a single group covering the whole target is scored).
Later, for load development, I implemented the blue boxes. This system lets you draw one or more boxes around some shots and it will measure only those shots. Each box has its own little set of numbers. I did not put group size as extreme spread here. I chose width and height because at the time it seemed like an interesting alternative to group size, and group size was already calculated in the main "stats" display, even if for the whole target.
The boxes use the unit you have selected in "stats", or "inch" otherwise. So if you want to see "moa" here, select the "moa" option.
In hindsight, it was a mistake to not have ES, because most people would want group size calculated as ES, because that's the way it's usually done. I got so many emails asking why I don't have group size here. My response was that, "yes, you're right, but you do have width and height, so it's OK for now and I'll figure something out for the next release".
I'm pretty sure if I had put ES group size here from the start, adding separate width and height wouldn't have been expected, since that's sort of an advanced measurement. If anyone did ask for width/height I would have said to use the CSV since it's pretty easy to calculate in Excel.
I'm not trying to create advanced software for measuring and analyzing groups, I'm trying to offer some useful data for you to make quick decisions at the range, without too much clutter. Also also, for record keeping purposes, to have some numbers that complement the actual display of the shots, since these numbers will always be displayed right next to the actual group, so they shouldn't be redundant.
This is what I do each time I go to the range. I load 43.7 grains, I seat to 10 jump, and I fire 3-5 shots. I draw the box around them, and label it. Then I load a few at 25 jump, and shoot them, and compare the groups side by side, by eye, to see which one looks better. I can see whether the group is wide, tall, tight, or loose. The number is not really helpful, since I know that the groups are probably statistically the same, but I have to make a decision, so I make an interpretation by eye and shoot another group. Hopefully by the end of the day I will have stumbled on something that's repeatedly tight and I just keep on shooting that to prove it.
I find this method much faster, and cheaper, than loading a ladder test or many different loads beforehand. Once I see three shots spread far apart, I stay away from that load and save myself all the ammo I would have wasted into that group. Groups don't get any smaller if you keep shooting.
It was a fairly easy decision to drop width and height and put ES in the box instead. That's what people were asking for, it's closer to the standard method of measuring groups, and one number is better than two, when one will do.
When comparing or measuring groups, given a reference frame, like a 1 moa grid, then you can interpret the group size and its distribution / shape / pattern by eye relative to this grid more meaningfully than a static number, and so having separate width and height seems a lot less useful than just having one number, or even no number.
I realize it's nice to have a number for comparison purposes, but in fact if you have two 10-shot groups that are say 0.62 and 0.72 moa in ES, they are actually statistically so similar that making a decision based on that is essentially choosing at random. So I tend to base my decisions at the range on the shape and distribution pattern of the group, in an effort to learn something from less shots when I know that numbers would only be deceiving.
So, having said all of that, I would be open to putting back width and height. The problem is that having to add two more numbers to the box would make it larger, more cluttered, and I think it's already too big, and challenging to avoid covering shots in adjacent groups. I also need to reconsider having velocity average, SD and ES in this box. I'm struggling to decide what this box is and should be used for.
I'll show you a picture from my last day at the range. This was with 1.09 software. It's a mess, with two shooters and two brand new barrels we were working in and doing some initial testing on. I'd like to see what you all think if the box with numbers should bigger, small, less, or more.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of the typical person who would use the blue boxes, and what numbers they really need, keeping in mind that anything crazy advanced can be done in the CSV, and isn't worth the clutter on-screen for the majority of shooters.
All of your feedback is much appreciated.
Adam
This issue is that the group analysis boxes (let's call them blue boxes) have previously had separate width and height measurements. In 1.09 I changed it to be group size (extreme spread, two furthest shots). A lot of people asked me to change it, and now a lot of other people are asking me to change it back.
I am trying my best to cater to everyone. If it's important, I'll put it back. If you really, really want something unique, and it's easy for me to do, I can just take 20 minutes and package you up a custom version of the software. Anything is possible, but before I open a can of worms for custom software for everyone, please keep in mind there are a lot of people that ask me a lot of different things and I have to say "yes" to some and "no" to others based on trying to manage my time.
Let's cover how the system actually works. The "Stats" option controls what number is displayed next to the notebook at the top. This is a single measure of the entire string, including all shots on record (not sighters, not hidden). This options have always been "score" for competition and "inch", "moa", "mil", or "mm" which gives you extreme spread group size in that unit (primarily intended for benchrest, where a single group covering the whole target is scored).
Later, for load development, I implemented the blue boxes. This system lets you draw one or more boxes around some shots and it will measure only those shots. Each box has its own little set of numbers. I did not put group size as extreme spread here. I chose width and height because at the time it seemed like an interesting alternative to group size, and group size was already calculated in the main "stats" display, even if for the whole target.
The boxes use the unit you have selected in "stats", or "inch" otherwise. So if you want to see "moa" here, select the "moa" option.
In hindsight, it was a mistake to not have ES, because most people would want group size calculated as ES, because that's the way it's usually done. I got so many emails asking why I don't have group size here. My response was that, "yes, you're right, but you do have width and height, so it's OK for now and I'll figure something out for the next release".
I'm pretty sure if I had put ES group size here from the start, adding separate width and height wouldn't have been expected, since that's sort of an advanced measurement. If anyone did ask for width/height I would have said to use the CSV since it's pretty easy to calculate in Excel.
I'm not trying to create advanced software for measuring and analyzing groups, I'm trying to offer some useful data for you to make quick decisions at the range, without too much clutter. Also also, for record keeping purposes, to have some numbers that complement the actual display of the shots, since these numbers will always be displayed right next to the actual group, so they shouldn't be redundant.
This is what I do each time I go to the range. I load 43.7 grains, I seat to 10 jump, and I fire 3-5 shots. I draw the box around them, and label it. Then I load a few at 25 jump, and shoot them, and compare the groups side by side, by eye, to see which one looks better. I can see whether the group is wide, tall, tight, or loose. The number is not really helpful, since I know that the groups are probably statistically the same, but I have to make a decision, so I make an interpretation by eye and shoot another group. Hopefully by the end of the day I will have stumbled on something that's repeatedly tight and I just keep on shooting that to prove it.
I find this method much faster, and cheaper, than loading a ladder test or many different loads beforehand. Once I see three shots spread far apart, I stay away from that load and save myself all the ammo I would have wasted into that group. Groups don't get any smaller if you keep shooting.
It was a fairly easy decision to drop width and height and put ES in the box instead. That's what people were asking for, it's closer to the standard method of measuring groups, and one number is better than two, when one will do.
When comparing or measuring groups, given a reference frame, like a 1 moa grid, then you can interpret the group size and its distribution / shape / pattern by eye relative to this grid more meaningfully than a static number, and so having separate width and height seems a lot less useful than just having one number, or even no number.
I realize it's nice to have a number for comparison purposes, but in fact if you have two 10-shot groups that are say 0.62 and 0.72 moa in ES, they are actually statistically so similar that making a decision based on that is essentially choosing at random. So I tend to base my decisions at the range on the shape and distribution pattern of the group, in an effort to learn something from less shots when I know that numbers would only be deceiving.
So, having said all of that, I would be open to putting back width and height. The problem is that having to add two more numbers to the box would make it larger, more cluttered, and I think it's already too big, and challenging to avoid covering shots in adjacent groups. I also need to reconsider having velocity average, SD and ES in this box. I'm struggling to decide what this box is and should be used for.
I'll show you a picture from my last day at the range. This was with 1.09 software. It's a mess, with two shooters and two brand new barrels we were working in and doing some initial testing on. I'd like to see what you all think if the box with numbers should bigger, small, less, or more.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of the typical person who would use the blue boxes, and what numbers they really need, keeping in mind that anything crazy advanced can be done in the CSV, and isn't worth the clutter on-screen for the majority of shooters.
All of your feedback is much appreciated.
Adam
Attachments
I would sure like to have the option of selecting group width x height in the data display menu....I miss it. Group center x and y from target center would actually be preferable to me...hint...hint
You're just needy . . . .
Group ES is my minimum need for this box, as I have labradar for velocity stats. The velocity stats (mean, sd & ES) are a nice addition too, as your software is easier to see/use/manage in the field than the labradar app. X & Y bounds are not necessary for me, but X & Y shot data via csv are nice so I can go down the mean radian/CEP90 rabbit hole if I wish.
Last edited:
I'm 'Veruca Salty'..... I want my x/y ordinates Daddy...and I want them NOW!
Acyr
Gold $$ Contributor
Thanks Adam, as usual you show us that you want to give the shooters what they need/ask for in the development and implementation of your products. Of course you cant please everyone but you have demonstrated that you are actively willing to listen to all.
I for one wish it had a 2 person pair fire option for practice only but understand the complexity of implementing that. For $800 I can live without it.
As an F Class shooter who does all of his load development at 600 yards I do miss the vertical part of the group measurement. MOA is ok. I don't care about width for load development. ES doesn't mean much either although SD is ok. Not really necessary because if it prints well at 600 and ES or SD is high who cares!
Maybe just add H&W as an Stat option down the road?
Thanks Adam for your posts in this forum.
I for one wish it had a 2 person pair fire option for practice only but understand the complexity of implementing that. For $800 I can live without it.
As an F Class shooter who does all of his load development at 600 yards I do miss the vertical part of the group measurement. MOA is ok. I don't care about width for load development. ES doesn't mean much either although SD is ok. Not really necessary because if it prints well at 600 and ES or SD is high who cares!
Maybe just add H&W as an Stat option down the road?
Thanks Adam for your posts in this forum.
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.