Electronic Scoring

electronic scoring

After trying to score a ton of targets in my lifetime I find that almost every argument here has some degree of merit.
However my mind sez we are concerned with the wrong thing i.e. the center of the shot. The center of the shot does not touch any scoring area. Folding it back creates a degree of centering when utilizing present electronic scoring methods.
What does touch the scoring area is the outer periphery of the pellet hole proper. It remains the least unmolested section of the entire hole.
My mind visualizes a projected target on a screen blown up 30X using a caliber appropriate overlay centered over the hole in question.
The obvious would become undeniable.

Frank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was reading through the threat and was not sure if I should comment, however I decided to air my view here.
I was amazed at the insults that goes around on a forum that is suppose to have positive discussion and enhance the sport.
As the saying goes "you can not keep all the people happy all of the time".
The True Score program as already spoken about by Gert and used by us (South Africa) for a couple of years, and extensively tested by Australia, can in my opinion be considered as putting down the standard for electronic scoring.

Amnion(Paul) also indicated that we never had one dispute on scoring. The scores that comes out of the electronic scoring are accepted by everybody without hesitation, and this is because of our trust in the program. Plugging can be considered accurate, however the human eye can not go down to pixel level and the electronic scoring program exactly does that, and that is what makes it accurate.

Personally I think Bill C has done a splendid job and his intentions was and is always to put the sport first. So there might be some rule changes that needs to be applied, and that will happen through a proper governed process.
Let's rather make positive contributions than to find reasons why stuff will not work. Nothing in life is perfect but let us strive to that in a positive and constructive way.
 
billyC said:
I was reading through the threat and was not sure if I should comment, however I decided to air my view here.
I was amazed at the insults that goes around on a forum that is suppose to have positive discussion and enhance the sport.
As the saying goes "you can not keep all the people happy all of the time".
The True Score program as already spoken about by Gert and used by us (South Africa) for a couple of years, and extensively tested by Australia, can in my opinion be considered as putting down the standard for electronic scoring.

Amnion(Paul) also indicated that we never had one dispute on scoring. The scores that comes out of the electronic scoring are accepted by everybody without hesitation, and this is because of our trust in the program. Plugging can be considered accurate, however the human eye can not go down to pixel level and the electronic scoring program exactly does that, and that is what makes it accurate.

Personally I think Bill C has done a splendid job and his intentions was and is always to put the sport first. So there might be some rule changes that needs to be applied, and that will happen through a proper governed process.
Let's rather make positive contributions than to find reasons why stuff will not work. Nothing in life is perfect but let us strive to that in a positive and constructive way.
Click to expand...

Who can we contact about True Score? Paper required, compatible scanner, operating system etc etc?

Thanks,
Casey
 
Casey,
I think Gert would be the best person to contact. I will phone Gert and ask him to get in touch with you.
 
Offer of Assistance

Hello.

My name's Zachary Snell. I manage logistics and operations at Shooter's Technology, makers of the Orion Scoring System. I've been reading through the thread and would like to offer some thoughts on this matter:

As much as we'd like it to be otherwise, no target scoring solution is going to be perfect. There's always a margin of error, even at the highest levels of competition (the creator of the software has consulted with the ISSF specifically in regards to electronic target systems and accuracy). That said, what makes any competition fair is holding all shooters to the same standard. Orion won't "push" a plug to go from a 9.9 to a 10, it won't get tired and score a 9 as a 7, and it will hold every target to the same standard. It isn't a perfect standard, as has been discussed, but it is the same.

Two of the core weaknesses Orion has are related to low velocity, roundhead ammunition. This is why we encourage all of our JROTC and 4H customers to use well-maintained equipment with flathead pellets. There are some settings that can be fine tuned in specific situations to lower the number of problems Orion has; I'd be happy to discuss some of those.

I've read some commentary in regards to plugs and electronic targets. We've had similar conversations with the NRA in regards to rule changes made in the last year for their competitions. The simple fact of the matter is manual scoring is both less accurate (making it a poor backup option at best) and works to a fundamentally different standard than electronic scoring. You can read more about this issue and our thoughts on it at the included link below:

http://www.orionscoringsystem.com/orion/SupportFaq.aspx?FaqID=75

I'd be happy to answer any questions in this forum or through our support contact information (found on www.orionscoringsystem.com). We also plan on hosting several introductory video conferences on Orion for new customers in the fall; I encourage any interested parties to contact me for information to join and participate.
 
Hi Zachary,

I've read through everything on the Orion site many times. I have a few comments and questions.

I'm sure you are aware that benchrest shooters only shoot round headed pellets. I'm sure that you are also aware that simply consulting with the ISSF about scoring system accuracy will not make a system any more or less accurate. Your comment about Orion holding everyone to the same standard is only valid if there is a guarantee that it will, indeed, find the center of each pellet hole. No guarantee could possibly be made that if you get shafted on one hole, you will get blessed by another. They may even out over all the contestants in a match, but they will certainly not even out for each individual.

The only thing that is truly fair about electronic scoring is that the system will accurately measure from the "calculated" center of the hole to the "calculated" center of the bull. I believe that electronic scoring is very good at that. However......if the calculated center is not really the center, then fairness just left the building.

You said, "The simple fact of the matter is manual scoring is both less accurate (making it a poor backup option at best) and works to a fundamentally different standard than electronic scoring".

1. Can you elaborate on the reasoning and testing procedures used to determine this "simple fact"?

2. Are you referring to it being more accurate compared to an experienced and conscientious person using a plug on a target with a verified diameter 10 ring?


That's probably enough for now......as I'm sure there will be a line of guys waiting to kick me in the nuts for approaching this "dead horse" at all.

Mike
 
Mike,

The horse is obviously not dead.

Welcome Zachary,

My question is whether any testing has been done with different types and weights of paper that could provide an advantage with the round nose pellets that are used. My understanding is that Orion has a source for paper and that this source has a wealth of experience with wadcutter pellets but not round nose pellets. Also, any suggestions on backer material and use would be appreciated.
 
electronic scoring

Let me see if I get this right.....Zack stated that Orion agrees the system has problems with round nosed projectiles and low velocity.......
.Yet it just scored a national BB gun tournament?

Last time I checked them suckers were real round and running real slow........ I got to be missing something here.

Frank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll clarify a few things here:

Mike,

The debate on electronic targets has already happened extensively here, and other people have summarized this conversation. I've provided and linked to our response in the matter of using plugs. If you have a question outside of that I'm happy to help. If you wish to debate on the merits of manually scoring hundreds of bulls v. using Orion, that seems like a less productive conversation.

Steve,

I discussed the matter of the target paper with Garrett this afternoon. We spoke with a number of manufacturers and mills in and outside of the US. I'm confident that the stock we're using is pretty much BIS for air rifle.

Frank,

Yes, Orion was used at the BB nationals this year, and yes roundhead pellets and BB have been a challenge in scoring. BB continues to report the largest number of "problem shots" within Orion. By that I mean perhaps 2-4% will require operator intervention to correct, depending on weather conditions and the maintenance of the equipment. We have continued to optimize our processes on this, and reported far fewer problem shots at nationals.
 
electronic scoring

Zack, so you know we are not trying to give you or Orion a hard time here I would like to point out some very obvious facts. As competitive shooters we probably have close to $4000.00 wrapped up in a single gun, scope never mind rests and all the other support systems required to keep one competitive. Most of our competitors have spent years refining equipment and methods, going to great extremes to insure a competitive degree of accuracy, spending tons of money to achieve the perfect shot..

What makes Orion believe we highly skilled shooters, shooting the most accurate airguns in the world wish to be handicapped, lose a world record or National match because YOU knowingly have a flawed method of scoring?
Explain to me how is this fair to the prospective World Champion or record holder exhibiting this kind of dedication to a sport?
The scoring system MUST be as accurate as the shooter. One must totally compliment the other.....period!

What we are asking is DO NOT spend your energy here defending the present system, spend it in PERFECTING the system. If it works well we will demand it .

Respectfully, Frank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zachary,

I asked two specific questions. If you could answer only the first one I would be happy.

You said, "The simple fact of the matter is manual scoring is both less accurate (making it a poor backup option at best) and works to a fundamentally different standard than electronic scoring".

1. Can you elaborate on the reasoning and testing procedures used to determine this "simple fact"?

2. Are you referring to it being more accurate compared to an experienced and conscientious person using a plug on a target with a verified diameter 10 ring?

When someone from a company says......its a simple fact that ......blah, blah, blah......the burden of proof is upon them to at least give us a reference to the specific testing done to verify the simple fact in question. I believe that the simple fact is that the company that you represent has not actually done anything to verify it's claim of superiority. If you have......I bet many of us would love to see the data.

Mike
 
Mike,

I do not believe you will receive an answer to your question from any electronic scoring system. Why? It simply does not need to be scrupulously tested, results analyzed and published.

We all know gravity works. It represents a simple fact. No one needs proof. If someone does, there are plenty of rooftops to take a nosedive from. The scientific community might categorize this as anecdotal but they don't because no one has ever verified an exception to the rule.

We already agree that electronic scoring measures distances better than human scorers can. The only issue is, can electronic scoring find the center of a pellet hole better than a human scorer using a plug? The WRABF had their guy do some limited testing on TrueScore. Was it conclusive? Maybe not.

As far as, "experienced and conscientious person" doing the scoring, they all want to be, they all try very hard but most are older gentlemen, some have issues that make their efforts an exercise in futility. Some are definitely not in your 25% category. Can they find the center of a pellet hole? Yes but for how many repetitions? Is the 25th push of the plug as accurate as the 1st?

Which system makes the fewest mistakes after thousands of bulls, which is really what we need to know? Only time will tell.

Now, a question for you. How long would it take you to score 10,000 bulls and what percentage do you think would be correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll have to check my notes......but I believe the company that supplied the gravity for the Nationals was able to deliver with 100% success. I don't recall any reports, otherwise.
 
electronic scoring

Brother Steve, I know Mike is busy working on my gun. I do not wish to interrupt this progress answering your question so I am going to try and answer your question for him. Prolly won't be no where near as accurate as Leonardo's but as we say in Texas....... pertin' neer close.

Let's see, it takes me 7 seconds to observe and plug a target X 10,000 = 70,000 seconds divided by 60 = 1166.6666 divided by 60 = a whoppin' 19.44 hours.

My question is, what has this got to do with gravity and TIITS?

Frank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank,

I agree Mike should continue working on your gun.

Almost 19 1/2 hours but no accuracy percentage. I will concede 95%. That means you screwed up on 500 bulls, cost some points, gave some points. It remains to be seen if electronic scoring can do as well but another simple fact, it won't take anywhere near 19 1/2 hours.

Gravity is a simple fact. No testing required, unless you really like pain.

Electronic scoring measures distances better is a simple fact. No testing required, unless you are in that dreaded 75%.

As to your other acronym, not a chance of going there.
 
Followup from Orion

All,

Well, it seems things were a bit active over the weekend. I'll try to cover some of the points that have come up.

Regarding accuracy, I'll refer back to my statement re: roundhead pellets and low velocity. However I think we are talking about different spectrums of error, as many here are to point out. I do not mean to imply Orion is unreliable with disciplines such as benchrest or BB, simply that it may result in more operator corrections. I believe we had six of these at the BB Nationals in total.

The point that you are using expensive equipment comes up here, and unfortunately that simply isn't relevant. Orion is built around providing an accurate, reliable score based on the standards set by the ISSF for national competition across shooting disciplines. It does not care if you have a $200 plinker or a $10,000 gun, it measures shot holes.

Regarding plugs, the simple aspect of it I was referring to is that a plug, by nature, will deform the shot hole. Orion will not. That and the capacity for human error due to fatigue, bias, etc. will make Orion a more reliable system. Again I refer you to information on our site for questions.

To clarify, I am not here to defend our system. Orion's results speak for themselves, and have to thousands of users worldwide. I was asked by a customer to provide information in this form, and have attempted to do so.

Should you have further questions, I would be happy to help, in this format, through one of our web seminars online, or via email or phone.
 
Uve missed the point

ZacShootersTech said:
All,

Well, it seems things were a bit active over the weekend. I'll try to cover some of the points that have come up.

Regarding accuracy, I'll refer back to my statement re: roundhead pellets and low velocity. However I think we are talking about different spectrums of error, as many here are to point out. I do not mean to imply Orion is unreliable with disciplines such as benchrest or BB, simply that it may result in more operator corrections. I believe we had six of these at the BB Nationals in total.

The point that you are using expensive equipment comes up here, and unfortunately that simply isn't relevant. Orion is built around providing an accurate, reliable score based on the standards set by the ISSF for national competition across shooting disciplines. It does not care if you have a $200 plinker or a $10,000 gun, it measures shot holes.

Regarding plugs, the simple aspect of it I was referring to is that a plug, by nature, will deform the shot hole. Orion will not. That and the capacity for human error due to fatigue, bias, etc. will make Orion a more reliable system. Again I refer you to information on our site for questions.

To clarify, I am not here to defend our system. Orion's results speak for themselves, and have to thousands of users worldwide. I was asked by a customer to provide information in this form, and have attempted to do so.

Should you have further questions, I would be happy to help, in this format, through one of our web seminars online, or via email or phone.
Click to expand...



All shooters want is what they have earned, and that means a fair shake on their score. Statistics and all the other gobeledygook mean nothing to the fact that a person who has invested not only their money but their time in arriving at a venue to compete against other peers, not some machine that is yet to be perfected. Perhaps instead of other lane laments you should find a way to make your software perfect. That-a-way, there would be no issue. Those who are not there competing have a lot to say about how good the machine is, I say prove it. Back it up with 100% accuracy. The old adage "Figures lie and liars figure may apply in this instance. I use to oversee a Governmental org that had statistics that could prove or disprove almost any point that came up. Performance is what matters. Find a way.

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top