Hi,
This can be seen on internet:
http://www.avia.kfkipark.hu/smartscore/
might be less expesive than other electronik targets (Sius Ascor)
Kent
NEW target?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
Guest
New target
Hi,
Sius Ascor is way too expensive. New technology may be cheaper.
Manufactured in Hungary may result in a competitive price.
Used for 50 meter free pistol I think it will be nice.
Time will tell but I think this is not the time to invest in Sius Ascor.
Kent
Sius Ascor is way too expensive. New technology may be cheaper.
Manufactured in Hungary may result in a competitive price.
Used for 50 meter free pistol I think it will be nice.
Time will tell but I think this is not the time to invest in Sius Ascor.
Kent
-
Steve Swartz
O.K., so let me gett his straight: You have a regular old target system, but add a camera(s) and computer to estimate the shot value from looking a the surface of hte paper from a distance?
Aside from doing what current machine scoring systems do, but a lot less reliably and less accurately (but quicker!) whay would we want such a system?
Seriously- all kidding aside- we have to run targets back and forth etc. etc. just like a regular paper match, and we have some camera from x feet away looking at our holes in paper to guess our shot value?
No thanks.
Steve Swartz
Aside from doing what current machine scoring systems do, but a lot less reliably and less accurately (but quicker!) whay would we want such a system?
Seriously- all kidding aside- we have to run targets back and forth etc. etc. just like a regular paper match, and we have some camera from x feet away looking at our holes in paper to guess our shot value?
No thanks.
Steve Swartz
Sius Ascor
So, how does the Sius Ascor system work?
I heard that it uses microphones to triangulate the position of the bullet/pellet and then compares the coordinates to those of a virtual "target" to give a shot value. If that is true, then there is lots of room for error. At least with this Czech system, you have a real hole on a real target, so that you can challenge the score of the system (a system that presumably scans the paper target to determine the coordinates of the shot and hence the value).
I heard that it uses microphones to triangulate the position of the bullet/pellet and then compares the coordinates to those of a virtual "target" to give a shot value. If that is true, then there is lots of room for error. At least with this Czech system, you have a real hole on a real target, so that you can challenge the score of the system (a system that presumably scans the paper target to determine the coordinates of the shot and hence the value).
Last edited by Mike T. on Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Brucey
Hi,
I think there is more to it.
http://www.schuetzenwelt.de/shop/4/schi ... maschinen/ 2924/auswertesystem_smartscore/
I do not understand German.
Kent
I think there is more to it.
http://www.schuetzenwelt.de/shop/4/schi ... maschinen/ 2924/auswertesystem_smartscore/
I do not understand German.
Kent
-
Steve Swartz
Kent:
Luckily, I have 5 Austrian exchange students in my college classes this fall. While they are not shooters nor engineers, they read German!
We are both right- apparently, they use two remote cameras and the software has a "comparison" (? not sure of translation) algorithm to "ensure" (improve?) accuracy after calibration. Must be calibrated for each lane and installation prior to firing.
Compared to the accuracy of properly calibrated Suis-Ascor systems, I am not convinced but perhaps less skeptical.
I would really like to see test results (not available off of promotional materials on webv site?) or be able to conduct tests in a laboratory myself of course.
Is the system ISSF approved for setting national records?
Also, even if the system *is* just as accurate as the sonic system currently approved, my comment still stands- this is a manual "change targets after every shot" system where you are not really gaining anything (from the shooter perspective) excpet perhaps fro software that captures the shot hole coordinates/values in a database.
Steve Swartz
Luckily, I have 5 Austrian exchange students in my college classes this fall. While they are not shooters nor engineers, they read German!
We are both right- apparently, they use two remote cameras and the software has a "comparison" (? not sure of translation) algorithm to "ensure" (improve?) accuracy after calibration. Must be calibrated for each lane and installation prior to firing.
Compared to the accuracy of properly calibrated Suis-Ascor systems, I am not convinced but perhaps less skeptical.
I would really like to see test results (not available off of promotional materials on webv site?) or be able to conduct tests in a laboratory myself of course.
Is the system ISSF approved for setting national records?
Also, even if the system *is* just as accurate as the sonic system currently approved, my comment still stands- this is a manual "change targets after every shot" system where you are not really gaining anything (from the shooter perspective) excpet perhaps fro software that captures the shot hole coordinates/values in a database.
Steve Swartz
Re: Sius Ascor
What 'lots of room for error'?Mike T. wrote:So, how does the Sius Ascor system work?
I heard that it uses microphones to triangulate the position of the bullet/pellet and then compares the coordinates to those of a virtual "target" to give a shot value. If that is true, then there is lots of room for error. At least with this Czech system, you have a real hole on a real target, so that you can challenge the score of the system (a system that presumably scans the paper target to determine the coordinates of the shot and hence the value).
Spencer C
Spencer,
In response to your query:
I'm thinking that there is quite a number of variables that go into the equation(s) that must be solved to give the position of the pellet/bullet on the virtual target. Each of these variables has an associated error of measurement. Additionally, certain assumptions are probably made regarding the uniformity of the pressure field surrounding the moving pellet/bullet, the uniformity of the temperature field within the target frame, and the perpendicularity of the pellet/bullet path relative to the plane of the target frame. Variations in each of these factors will cause the calculated position of the pellet/bullet to differ from the actual position. Other factors that I have not mentioned (and probably other factors that I am not even aware of) have to be taken into consideration, too.
Now, the errors in the various measurements might be very small, and the deviation of the actual properties of the various parameters might be very small compared to the assumed properties, but I think there must be a lot of errors to be evaluated and minimized in order to use microphones to detect a variation in air pressure from the passage of a pellet/bullet and subsequently calculate a predicted position of that pellet/bullet on a target - and hence the score value of the shot.
Note, I am not saying this can not be done. Presumably, the Sius Ascor system is proof it can be. But I also think the price of that system reflects that lots of errors must be evaluated and minimized using sophisticated equipment and techniques.
Now, another disclaimer: Other than it uses microphones, I have no knowledge of how the Sius Ascor sytem actually works. Starting with the idea of microphones , I have thought out how I might attempt to devise a system to calculate the shot value. But that is as far as I have gone, just a thought exercise. Similarly, I have thought how the cameras in the Czech system might be used to calculate the shot value. To my mind, the latter system has fewer errors to contend with. But, as has been pointed out, the Czech system still relies upon paper targets and the handling that accompanies paper targets.
Mike T.
In response to your query:
I'm thinking that there is quite a number of variables that go into the equation(s) that must be solved to give the position of the pellet/bullet on the virtual target. Each of these variables has an associated error of measurement. Additionally, certain assumptions are probably made regarding the uniformity of the pressure field surrounding the moving pellet/bullet, the uniformity of the temperature field within the target frame, and the perpendicularity of the pellet/bullet path relative to the plane of the target frame. Variations in each of these factors will cause the calculated position of the pellet/bullet to differ from the actual position. Other factors that I have not mentioned (and probably other factors that I am not even aware of) have to be taken into consideration, too.
Now, the errors in the various measurements might be very small, and the deviation of the actual properties of the various parameters might be very small compared to the assumed properties, but I think there must be a lot of errors to be evaluated and minimized in order to use microphones to detect a variation in air pressure from the passage of a pellet/bullet and subsequently calculate a predicted position of that pellet/bullet on a target - and hence the score value of the shot.
Note, I am not saying this can not be done. Presumably, the Sius Ascor system is proof it can be. But I also think the price of that system reflects that lots of errors must be evaluated and minimized using sophisticated equipment and techniques.
Now, another disclaimer: Other than it uses microphones, I have no knowledge of how the Sius Ascor sytem actually works. Starting with the idea of microphones , I have thought out how I might attempt to devise a system to calculate the shot value. But that is as far as I have gone, just a thought exercise. Similarly, I have thought how the cameras in the Czech system might be used to calculate the shot value. To my mind, the latter system has fewer errors to contend with. But, as has been pointed out, the Czech system still relies upon paper targets and the handling that accompanies paper targets.
Mike T.
Mike,
given all the variables mentioned (and a few you have not thought of yet) the practical accuracy of the Sius Ascor targets is still way better than the printing on paper targets.
The SA sysytem detects the shot hitting the target material (not the oft quoted pressure wave from the bullets passage) - proof of this is available if a 10m target has a paper jam and the centre gets shot outl it won't register a shot throgh the shot out area.
as you mention, the cost of the SA system in part probably reflects the development costs of getting a system that always gives the required accuracy.
If you have any questions or want more detailed info drop me an e-mail.
Regards,
Spencer
given all the variables mentioned (and a few you have not thought of yet) the practical accuracy of the Sius Ascor targets is still way better than the printing on paper targets.
The SA sysytem detects the shot hitting the target material (not the oft quoted pressure wave from the bullets passage) - proof of this is available if a 10m target has a paper jam and the centre gets shot outl it won't register a shot throgh the shot out area.
as you mention, the cost of the SA system in part probably reflects the development costs of getting a system that always gives the required accuracy.
If you have any questions or want more detailed info drop me an e-mail.
Regards,
Spencer
Another target
Hi,
This is another target:
http://www.megalink.no/defaultEN.htm
The cost seems to be less than Sius Ascor, 105 000 NKR excl. tax for 5 MegaLink (pistol 25 and 50)
I am sure there is room for a less expensive way to score the result.
If not perfekt it should do well for practice on range and save a lot of time when shooting rapid fire.
Is it not possible to take a picture of bullet before it hit the target and calculate where it vill hit? With two cameras?
Kent
This is another target:
http://www.megalink.no/defaultEN.htm
The cost seems to be less than Sius Ascor, 105 000 NKR excl. tax for 5 MegaLink (pistol 25 and 50)
I am sure there is room for a less expensive way to score the result.
If not perfekt it should do well for practice on range and save a lot of time when shooting rapid fire.
Is it not possible to take a picture of bullet before it hit the target and calculate where it vill hit? With two cameras?
Kent
-
Steve Swartz
Kent:
The "MegaLink" system looked like (since only part of the "english" pages were written in, well, english, I can't be sure) the same technology as Sius-Ascor system.
Rolling paper backer, microphones in frame, etc. but with better software.
Looked promising at first glance . . . pricing and ISSF suitability would be issues.
Steve Swartz
The "MegaLink" system looked like (since only part of the "english" pages were written in, well, english, I can't be sure) the same technology as Sius-Ascor system.
Rolling paper backer, microphones in frame, etc. but with better software.
Looked promising at first glance . . . pricing and ISSF suitability would be issues.
Steve Swartz
-
Guest
Steve,Steve Swartz wrote:Kent:
Also, even if the system *is* just as accurate as the sonic system currently approved, my comment still stands- this is a manual "change targets after every shot" system where you are not really gaining anything (from the shooter perspective) excpet perhaps fro software that captures the shot hole coordinates/values in a database.
Steve Swartz
What you are gaining is a paper record, on a bullseye paper target, of each of your shots. If you feel there is an error with the electronic system, you can challenge based on the paper targets.
In addition, shooting on the electronic targets looks very different than shooting on paper, especially in rapid fire. That black rubber is VERY black.
Shooting on a paper system that can also score electronically is the best of both worlds. Even if the system can't score a shot for one reason or the other, it can flag that numbered target to be scored manually. For match directors, it could really save time and volunteer hours. It would allow the shooter to score his own targets and challenge if needed.
As a competitor, I hated the introduction of electronic scoring. I don't like the idea of not being able to see, for myself, where my shot went. As to the accuracy. Ha. I was on the US Team for the Cuban World Cup in I think 1995. We shot on turning targets for the match. However, for the final they made us shoot on electronic targets. "This was RF" When I arrived to shoot the finals I watched them setting up the range. To calibrate the targets, a guy with a rifle stood in front of the targets, about 5 meters away and fired a shot in the middle. They hit a button and called that a 10.9. C'mon.
Futhermore, Tim Conrad who does all of my electronics, and is an Electrical/Mechanical engineer at the OTC has determined that in Air Rifle at least, there is no way microphones are sensitive enough to have .1 of a point accuracy. After calculating the requirements he contacted several of the best manufactures of microphones in the world. Not one of them even came close to the sensitivity required. After contacting either speith or ascor, I don't recall, about this, they basically replied that the computer would pick a score and someone would win.
As a competitor, I want a paper target with my hole in it. I think most competitors feel this way. However, we don't run our sport. As far as I know ISSF has only approved speith and ascor for competitions and I doubt they will approve anything else. Politics and kickbacks I would guess.
Just my two cents.
Eddy Esworthy
-
Guest
I believe having a hard copy of the shot may indeed be an advantage. There would at least be some sort of verification of the scoring system.
My son shot an AP match at a range using the Sius Ascor system. He was at around shot 40 when it was discovered by the range officer that his paper roll had jammed and had not been advancing properly. My son's focus was on shooting the match, and was not realy aware of the paper at all. He was frustrated by the scores the system had been returning though.
His only alternative was to wait untill the paper could be fixed and reshoot the whole match as the shots to that point could not have been scored properly. Not much else could be done. I have no idea if this is a common problem or a one in a million error, but my son would have prefered to have targets as a backup to the electronic scoring that day.
My son shot an AP match at a range using the Sius Ascor system. He was at around shot 40 when it was discovered by the range officer that his paper roll had jammed and had not been advancing properly. My son's focus was on shooting the match, and was not realy aware of the paper at all. He was frustrated by the scores the system had been returning though.
His only alternative was to wait untill the paper could be fixed and reshoot the whole match as the shots to that point could not have been scored properly. Not much else could be done. I have no idea if this is a common problem or a one in a million error, but my son would have prefered to have targets as a backup to the electronic scoring that day.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
More common than it should be I'm afraid. The most common causes are:-Anonymous wrote:I have no idea if this is a common problem or a one in a million error, but my son would have prefered to have targets as a backup to the electronic scoring that day.
Range staff error in not feeding the paper roll correctly or "tap-testing" the target when any supplies have been replenished.
Careless tearing of the paper roll tail (tear it below the target box, not up to the target box).
Shots in the white can sometimes cause a piece of the mask to tear backwards into the paper roll.
Very low velocity guns tearing the paper roll instead of punching holes in it.
When running a match on electronics I always have a small scope or binoculars with me to regularly check for problems.
-
Mike McDaniel
I'm old-fashioned enough to like paper. Cheap and reliable. If a score is needed for spectators, I can see having a TV camera set up to cover the target.
As for RF, there are some advantages to electronic scoring - notably the speed of scoring. On the other hand, some sort of falling plate system could do as well. Probably a bigger improvement would result from formally adopting a shot timer as the primary reference for late/early shots. The IPSC crowd has really driven the cost of those into the floor.
As for RF, there are some advantages to electronic scoring - notably the speed of scoring. On the other hand, some sort of falling plate system could do as well. Probably a bigger improvement would result from formally adopting a shot timer as the primary reference for late/early shots. The IPSC crowd has really driven the cost of those into the floor.