FYI,
After discussing it with Dan (Match Director) Lutke, I have decided to start a separate thread from our match results for updating our progress with the e-backer experiment we have been running this year. I am copying the previous post from last months match to this thread and will update this months match also.
From June:
Since i am the one who put the system together, maybe I can help out with a few of the technical questions.
First off, as some have already commented our club decided to invest in new technology rather then rebuild our old, heavy, hard to move, difficult to setup, etc, mechanical backers.
This obviously ran afoul with NBRSA rules & regs, so we decided to unregister this years matches.
As Dan mentioned most of us are getting older, and there are fewer of us to do the work. With our new system 2 guys and a p/u can setup in 30 minutes.
The frames weigh in at @ 30 lbs, and are constructed with heavy wall (11 gauge) 1" aluminum tube with coroplast faces.
With the help of club member Lane Buxton, who new Adam at Shotmarker from F-Class shooting, he and Adam worked on what I think is an elegant way to record shots.
The target face Adam developed for us is set up as a 4x8 frame, but if you look at the tablet screen shot you will notice our 3x8 frames centered in the target face.
This is adjusted in the software. We are only using the system as an e-backer. Although the averages we checked while testing were suprisingly accurate, they are no where near capable of being used in a match as an end result. That technology is coming some day, just not here yet. (At least not affordable!).
As you can see the record shots in the A-B-C-D show up in the score box, while sighter regardless of who shot them count as zeros.
If you need to look at the sighter for some reason you can drill down on the tablet and look at the individual shots. Basically if you have a score of 5 with the appropriate letters to match the shooters on that frame, save the file and move on to the next frame.
Full disclosure: we have had some issues along the way, the biggest one was one frame the sensors were not perfectly square (rectanguler), which is critical to accurate functioning of the system. Some one asked about 5 targets to a frame, here is the issue.
The software thinks that your POI should be frame center and that is where it is most accurate. The further you get from frame center the greater the margin of error, not a big deal for counting but definitely would be if you were using it for measuring.
Also the more shooters per frame the greater chance of doubling and the sensors missing a shot. The numbers from our match were as follows:
900 record shots over 2 days.
897 shots recorded
1 ghost shot (which was a shot)
2 shots unrecorded. Probably doubles, luckily we could determine shots on target.
Each club would have to determine whether this level of accuracy (99.67%) is acceptable for their purposes.
Personally given all the advantages, (portability, no backers, less (or no) target crew), we are moving forward and leaving the dinosaurs wading
in the swamp wondering what that bright shiny object heading towards them is. We will evolve, with or without a sanctioning body.
July match update:
We had 11 shooters Saturday (110 Targets 550 Record shots)
System recorded all 550 record shots.
We had 7 shooters Sunday (70 Targets 350 Record shots)
System recorded 349 of the 350 record shots. By coincidence it was the Match Director Dan whose shot was missed and although it wasn't
the "worst group in the history of BR" as he claimed, we could determine 5 shots on the target.
So the scorecard for the weekend is 900 record shots taken 899 recorded (99.89% accuracy).
Anyone who has measured as many targets as I have (20 years and counting) knows that there are at least that % of times that the referees have to have the
"yeh that one kind of looks like a double" discussion with paper/card backers. Again it would be up to the individual clubs (or hopefully the Sanctioning Body) to decide what procedure would be appropriate. At our club we try and give the shooter the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
I am quite pleased that all the effort looks like it is paying off, it sure lightens the work load.
Questions welcomed, I'm not on here all the time so it may take a bit for a response.
Greg
After discussing it with Dan (Match Director) Lutke, I have decided to start a separate thread from our match results for updating our progress with the e-backer experiment we have been running this year. I am copying the previous post from last months match to this thread and will update this months match also.
From June:
Since i am the one who put the system together, maybe I can help out with a few of the technical questions.
First off, as some have already commented our club decided to invest in new technology rather then rebuild our old, heavy, hard to move, difficult to setup, etc, mechanical backers.
This obviously ran afoul with NBRSA rules & regs, so we decided to unregister this years matches.
As Dan mentioned most of us are getting older, and there are fewer of us to do the work. With our new system 2 guys and a p/u can setup in 30 minutes.
The frames weigh in at @ 30 lbs, and are constructed with heavy wall (11 gauge) 1" aluminum tube with coroplast faces.
With the help of club member Lane Buxton, who new Adam at Shotmarker from F-Class shooting, he and Adam worked on what I think is an elegant way to record shots.
The target face Adam developed for us is set up as a 4x8 frame, but if you look at the tablet screen shot you will notice our 3x8 frames centered in the target face.
This is adjusted in the software. We are only using the system as an e-backer. Although the averages we checked while testing were suprisingly accurate, they are no where near capable of being used in a match as an end result. That technology is coming some day, just not here yet. (At least not affordable!).
As you can see the record shots in the A-B-C-D show up in the score box, while sighter regardless of who shot them count as zeros.
If you need to look at the sighter for some reason you can drill down on the tablet and look at the individual shots. Basically if you have a score of 5 with the appropriate letters to match the shooters on that frame, save the file and move on to the next frame.
Full disclosure: we have had some issues along the way, the biggest one was one frame the sensors were not perfectly square (rectanguler), which is critical to accurate functioning of the system. Some one asked about 5 targets to a frame, here is the issue.
The software thinks that your POI should be frame center and that is where it is most accurate. The further you get from frame center the greater the margin of error, not a big deal for counting but definitely would be if you were using it for measuring.
Also the more shooters per frame the greater chance of doubling and the sensors missing a shot. The numbers from our match were as follows:
900 record shots over 2 days.
897 shots recorded
1 ghost shot (which was a shot)
2 shots unrecorded. Probably doubles, luckily we could determine shots on target.
Each club would have to determine whether this level of accuracy (99.67%) is acceptable for their purposes.
Personally given all the advantages, (portability, no backers, less (or no) target crew), we are moving forward and leaving the dinosaurs wading
in the swamp wondering what that bright shiny object heading towards them is. We will evolve, with or without a sanctioning body.
July match update:
We had 11 shooters Saturday (110 Targets 550 Record shots)
System recorded all 550 record shots.
We had 7 shooters Sunday (70 Targets 350 Record shots)
System recorded 349 of the 350 record shots. By coincidence it was the Match Director Dan whose shot was missed and although it wasn't
the "worst group in the history of BR" as he claimed, we could determine 5 shots on the target.
So the scorecard for the weekend is 900 record shots taken 899 recorded (99.89% accuracy).
Anyone who has measured as many targets as I have (20 years and counting) knows that there are at least that % of times that the referees have to have the
"yeh that one kind of looks like a double" discussion with paper/card backers. Again it would be up to the individual clubs (or hopefully the Sanctioning Body) to decide what procedure would be appropriate. At our club we try and give the shooter the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
I am quite pleased that all the effort looks like it is paying off, it sure lightens the work load.
Questions welcomed, I'm not on here all the time so it may take a bit for a response.
Greg
Attachments
Last edited: