Electronic Scoring

Short answers below asI heading out to play for the day shortly...

sgeorge said:
Bill,

"more a technical writing error rather than rule change and we are allowed to request that type of thing as members or via our committee." Can you provide where in the constitution this is allowed and what committee you are referring to? It has always been said and done the Wrabf Committeee can adjust technical errors in the rules and we have done so in the past, the committee is on the WRABF web pages and has always been there and you I am sure are aware of who they are.

The WRABF only puts on one event every 4 years. The WRABF has a couple under their belts at this point. With that level of experience and all the resources involved, one would hope that in the multitude of pages of rules now published, "a technical writing error" would not be the excuse provided for such a glaring error. In addition, I take no credit for highlighting this issue, you were the one that brought it up. Again, so many rules, so little time. I am trying, hopefully you can just accept that and not make a big deal out of it.

Should we all understand from your post that 8i will now supersede and overrule E.10, even though E.10 is a more recent addition to the rules? I did not say thatI said i plan to use 8i as it says I am allowed to do so and fix E10

Thank you for your continuing support of air rifle benchrest.
Click to expand...
Your welcome
 
Last edited:
Bill,

"I said i plan to use 8i as it says I am allowed to do so and fix E10"

This is what I expected you to say from the beginning.

It is going to be difficult to "fix" E.10 given it's current wording and the new WRABF acceptance of electronic scoring. A suggestion, forget the "fix", just ignore it and no one else will ever know. Kind of like your buddy in California, he does whatever he wants because he ignores whatever he wants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dont know what more i can say or do. Will let you know the result but dont plan on posting much more its just not worth it.
 
Gert,

I suppose most folks over here would be happier with Orion if, when challenged, the holes could be plugged for verification such as you guys do in SA. The main trouble with the current use of Orion is that the users and creators are adamant that nothing else can be used to check it's accuracy. Unfortunately, the competency of your Tru Score system has nothing to do with the competency of another manufacturers system. I may very well be that the fellow that created Tru Score has done a much better job of implementing the process of hole location.

The plug check wouldn't really solve the dilemma of the system giving out more points that actually earned......since nobody is going to protest an extra point. I suppose that is possible with any system.....but that doesn't mean that the frequency is the same for any system.

As per Chip's recommendation......it would be interesting to see what an optical CMM could do to actually verify the Orion system and plugs. I can't see any other means of verification that would be equally, or more, exact. You could easily find the center of the bull by using the same method a machinist uses to find the center of a hole with a touch probe.....except without touching. The center of the pellet hole would be tougher.....but it could be done with a circular transparency.

To begin my own research......I put one of my USARB targets under a microscope today after I was done shooting. Specifically, I was looking to verify the diameter of the printed rings. The magnification was great enough to see individual pixels. I used a very pointy set of digital calipers under the microscope to measure the rings around various points. I only looked at a few ten rings.....but they were off by about .0015" on average. Some areas were right on, while others were smaller or larger......as one might expect.

The next variable is the plug itself. Mine actually measures .223631 on a laser micrometer. Not much to worry about there.

Now....does the plug actually center itself on the hole. Don't know about that, yet. I'm trying to come up with a way to check that with the equipment I have access to.

Any suggestions?

Mike
 
Bill,

I apologize if I am taxing you too much.

One last question, you posted, "It has always been said and done the Wrabf Committeee can adjust technical errors in the rules and we have done so in the past, the committee is on the WRABF web pages and has always been there and you I am sure are aware of who they are."

The WRABF constitution speaks to an Executive Committee. You, as president, are part of that committee. Your role,

20. President
(1) Ensure that the Rules are followed.
(2) Convene Meetings (In person or by electronic media (video conferencing/ email)
(3) Chair Meetings, deciding who may speak and when.
(4) Oversee the operation of the Federation.
(5) Give a report on the operation of the Federation at each Delegates Meeting

Since you are to ensure that the rules are followed, how can you unilaterally state that this problem is a simple technical writing error? That type of error might involve spelling or grammar, not the actual intent of the rule.

It certainly appears you are overstepping your authority, especially when other member countries have already voted to put E.10 in, as part of the new rules supporting electronic scoring.

It also seems clear that 8i addresses events that would use plug scoring and E.10 addresses events using the new electronic scoring, which your upcoming event will use. Is it not a conflict of interest for you to be a match director and then use your position as president to change the rules to suit your purposes?

In addition, with E.10 being the more recent of rules, why would it not supersede 8i, especially now that electronic scoring will become the standard at WRABF events?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I give up with you leave me alone we will sort the issue.

sgeorge said:
Bill,

I apologize if I am taxing you too much.

One last question, you posted, "It has always been said and done the Wrabf Committeee can adjust technical errors in the rules and we have done so in the past, the committee is on the WRABF web pages and has always been there and you I am sure are aware of who they are."

The WRABF constitution speaks to an Executive Committee. You, as president, are part of that committee. Your role,

20. President
(1) Ensure that the Rules are followed.
(2) Convene Meetings (In person or by electronic media (video conferencing/ email)
(3) Chair Meetings, deciding who may speak and when.
(4) Oversee the operation of the Federation.
(5) Give a report on the operation of the Federation at each Delegates Meeting

Since you are to ensure that the rules are followed, how can you unilaterally state that this problem is a simple technical writing error? That type of error might involve spelling or grammar, not the actual intent of the rule.

It certainly appears you are overstepping your authority, especially when other member countries have already voted to put E.10 in, as part of the new rules supporting electronic scoring.

It also seems clear that 8i addresses events that would use plug scoring and E.10 addresses events using the new electronic scoring, which your upcoming event will use. Is it not a conflict of interest for you to be a match director and then use your position as president to change the rules to suit your purposes?

In addition, with E.10 being the more recent of rules, why would it not supersede 8i, especially now that electronic scoring will become the standard at WRABF events?
Click to expand...

I give up with you, not even going to answer this time, I am trying to sort this and you actually as usual are no help I cant win even when i agree with you, you put things in your own words and slant them to suit your agenda, so leave me alone we will sort the issue. No one can say i did not try this time.
 
sgeorge said:
Gert,

It was great meeting you in Arizona and thank you so much for jumping in here with your experiences. Much of the world has been aware of your electronic scoring system since 2011 but the details were always lacking. I hope you are able to fill in some of the blanks of what we don't know.

We presume the target is scanned and imported to the software resident on your computer. What does Brett mean with, "due to the way the program is set up to look for diagrams with two shots and 17cal holes." The program have to be able to detect from a rimfire ,22 hole down to a ,177 hole. So in the scoring process it may flag a target to have the "plug" moved with the cursor. Sometimes a RF hole will be seen as too big and that the program will flag it as a possible multiple shot. On ,177 it may flag it as a "no hole detected" due to the size of the hole, especially when the LV gun is set on a very low fpe.

What kind of paper are you printing targets with? Normal printing paper as per the WRABF rules. Steer clear from cheap print works. Not worth the agony afterwards.

What are you using for backers and how do you ensure that the target is flat against the backer? A solid card stock backer per target and staples.

Also, in your protest process, is the full target plugged, not just the bull in question? The whole target is plugged and the competitor lives with the result. This way we get very few challenges as the shooter may have seen another shot that he knows is going to be dodgy with a plug. So you cannot have the best of both worlds!!! The shooter is then committed to the plugged score even if it scores higher or lower than the electronic score? Bravo.
Click to expand...

My responses in Bold.

Gert
 
michaelthomas said:
Now....does the plug actually center itself on the hole. Don't know about that, yet. I'm trying to come up with a way to check that with the equipment I have access to.

Any suggestions?

Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

Is it possible to find the centre of the hole using the electronic system and consequently how far that centre is away from the centre of the target (I'm assuming that's how these electronic scoring systems work)

Then plug the hole, find the centre of that and also how far it’s away from the centre of the target, ideally both recordings should be the same, if not there is a problem.

Presumably this would prove/disprove any operator error with regards using a plug?

Brian
 
michaelthomas said:
Gert,

I suppose most folks over here would be happier with Orion if, when challenged, the holes could be plugged for verification such as you guys do in SA. The main trouble with the current use of Orion is that the users and creators are adamant that nothing else can be used to check it's accuracy. Unfortunately, the competency of your Tru Score system has nothing to do with the competency of another manufacturers system. I may very well be that the fellow that created Tru Score has done a much better job of implementing the process of hole location.

The plug check wouldn't really solve the dilemma of the system giving out more points that actually earned......since nobody is going to protest an extra point. I suppose that is possible with any system.....but that doesn't mean that the frequency is the same for any system.

As per Chip's recommendation......it would be interesting to see what an optical CMM could do to actually verify the Orion system and plugs. I can't see any other means of verification that would be equally, or more, exact. You could easily find the center of the bull by using the same method a machinist uses to find the center of a hole with a touch probe.....except without touching. The center of the pellet hole would be tougher.....but it could be done with a circular transparency.

To begin my own research......I put one of my USARB targets under a microscope today after I was done shooting. Specifically, I was looking to verify the diameter of the printed rings. The magnification was great enough to see individual pixels. I used a very pointy set of digital calipers under the microscope to measure the rings around various points. I only looked at a few ten rings.....but they were off by about .0015" on average. Some areas were right on, while others were smaller or larger......as one might expect.

The next variable is the plug itself. Mine actually measures .223631 on a laser micrometer. Not much to worry about there.

Now....does the plug actually center itself on the hole. Don't know about that, yet. I'm trying to come up with a way to check that with the equipment I have access to.

Any suggestions?

Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,
An optical CMM will not help. LV holes are in most cases not perfectly round. With ,177 heavies traveling at 720 fps you are in many cases not removing enough paper to see light through the hole. We found a system that can score the hole consistently as close as possible to the next higher score ring and we are satisfied with it. Sometimes the geometry of the hole makes it more difficult to average the hole digitally and a possible error can occur. We are talking here of pellets that create randomly shaped holes and it is not possible to talk them into becoming perfect little round holes.

On the day we would ensure that for all challenges the same plug is used. Then 2 or 3 officials witness the plug scoring. How can we do better? I don't think it is possible.

Gert
 
Bill,

There is no need to get this stressed out over this issue. Everyone knows you will sort it out. I am just curious as to how. You are under no obligation to provide me with any details. That is how you treated me for going on 4 years.

When USARB committed to the WRABF, I was loyal to a fault.

When USARB saw an opportunity to have international postal matches, we did. When we scheduled matches with groups from Italy and the UK that were not affiliated with the WRABF, you questioned my loyalty. I never scheduled another match, even though you never gave any sense as to why. I had to find out on my own that some petty rift had developed and you just let me fall into that hole.

When the BIPM started up, while I could not force match directors to not participate, I would not post these scores on our web site.

We had the old WRABF logo and the new logo on our web site, with a link back to yours. I begged for 2 years for you to reciprocate. To this day, nothing.

I accepted that your constitution would only allow a country to have one representative, so I asked to be apprised of rule changes that would impact air rifles. I learned months after the fact that a new rule was passed, unanimously, that would change both international classes and USARB had no say in the matter.

I was quiet in every case where there were under the table, back alley dealings that were justified by your constitution. I was treated like a mushroom in a dark room and was expected to be happy. Guess what, I was not happy but I am over it.

I am no longer associated with USARB. I do not slant anything. I do not have an agenda. I do know something about leadership. I do know something about doing the right things, rather than doing things right.

You still have a fan club, they have asked me leave you alone. This is my last post to you. If you want me to live up to this promise, do not address me when I mention your organization. To be clear, if I call out the WRABF, it is NOT the organization I take issue with, it is the leadership.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gert,
If an Optical CMM was used it would not be useing the hole, it would be useing the lead witness ring left by the pellet as it passed thru. I have never shot LV before but with every power level I have shot with a good backer board there is a lead ring left behind. Please let me know if the lower power do not do the same. Even if I were to use the hole you will have the image blown up on a large HD monitor and several people could see it at the same time to evaluate if they agree that is the center. And the hole remains undamaged from a plug if it is later to be plugged.
But in reality I know an optical cmm is not something will be used, I just like to dream of how far we can take it. I do think I could build a base plate on three legs much like a front rest but have a linear X-Y compound on it with a 25 power scope. For measurement, simple digital micrometer heads in .0001". The company up in LA that makes the 25 power scope can do custom cross hairs. I would have three circles with the ID of the ring measureing 2mm for the bull, .224 and .181". I have tested this on my HAAS CNC mill useing the centering in the spindle. I can do this to measure a feature and then check it with a micrometer and it is with in a couple .0001".
If I build this or maybe Mike and I(hint hint) do I would pass it around to anyone needing it for a match to settle disputes.
 
Gert......it seems as though you guys have logically developed your process to work together in a sensible manner. The process over here with Orion is not open to logic or debate. Orion has deemed itself infallible......and set itself up so the system cannot be questioned despite it making obvious mistakes.

It seems to me that the key to improved electronic scoring is finding a target material that will make a round hole that doesn't close up with the various power level guns. I have ordered some various thicknesses of copper sheet to experiment with. I'm thinking the malleability of the copper may form a round hole with no closing after the pellet has passed through. I'm not talking thick stuff.......008"-.015". The lower end being about the thickness of heavy card stock.

There must be something out there that can make better holes than what we are used to.

Chip....Joe and I were talking yesterday about a device that he saw in a magazine which was an optical lens box that an iPhone is placed in to enhance its ability to magnify. In the right shape.....this could greatly improve the manual scoring methods and provide a digital copy of what has been seen to preserve for future reference. Just one step further beyond the method of viewing that we have been using with the iPhone and plug.

The thing you are talking about would be very similar to the stage that most optical comparators use to position the part on the gradient plate. I fooled around with a comparator yesterday to see if I could get it to pick up the dark rings of the target.....no real luck on that one.

I have no doubt that we could come up with some sort of checking device that would do a good job settling electronic and manual disputes in a very accurate and consistent manner. It won't matter if we are not allowed to dispute the electronic system, though.;)

Mike
 
michaelthomas said:
Gert......it seems as though you guys have logically developed your process to work together in a sensible manner. The process over here with Orion is not open to logic or debate. Orion has deemed itself infallible......and set itself up so the system cannot be questioned despite it making obvious mistakes.

It seems to me that the key to improved electronic scoring is finding a target material that will make a round hole that doesn't close up with the various power level guns. I have ordered some various thicknesses of copper sheet to experiment with. I'm thinking the malleability of the copper may form a round hole with no closing after the pellet has passed through. I'm not talking thick stuff.......008"-.015". The lower end being about the thickness of heavy card stock.

There must be something out there that can make better holes than what we are used to.

Chip....Joe and I were talking yesterday about a device that he saw in a magazine which was an optical lens box that an iPhone is placed in to enhance its ability to magnify. In the right shape.....this could greatly improve the manual scoring methods and provide a digital copy of what has been seen to preserve for future reference. Just one step further beyond the method of viewing that we have been using with the iPhone and plug.

The thing you are talking about would be very similar to the stage that most optical comparators use to position the part on the gradient plate. I fooled around with a comparator yesterday to see if I could get it to pick up the dark rings of the target.....no real luck on that one.

I have no doubt that we could come up with some sort of checking device that would do a good job settling electronic and manual disputes in a very accurate and consistent manner. It won't matter if we are not allowed to dispute the electronic system, though.;)

Mike
Click to expand...

Michael,
I looked at the Orion paper and it looks to be the the best on the market. From what I could figure out it may also have a but of clay in the pulp. This makes it "brittle" and thus any pellet should be capable of removing the material and leaving a hole in its place. The local guys here that shoot indoors buy this paper from Germany in bulk and then print it up with the correct artwork.

So when I came back I was all hot to import some for us but I quickly realized that the paper that we use is doing the job well enough. 180 grams per meter I think. I have to beleve that USARB would want the best for electronic scoring and that given the time and effort people in your organization will be able to give the shooters just that. Maybe step back a bit and let the like of Garrett do his thing.

Gert
 
Gert,

All I'm saying is that maybe paper is not the best thing to shoot through.

I'm not really the sort of guy that sits back and accepts research as it is from others. I prefer to investigate things with my own independent tests. I'm one of the few people, it seems, that is incapable of forming an emotional link with something I'm deeply involved in. If I take a year to build something, and it's crap......I immediately recognize that it's crap and start working on something different. I don't bother saying it's not crap, and then spend all of my time covering up and defending it's flaws in hope that no one else will recognize it for what it is. It doesn't matter how much I have invested in something.....whether that's time, energy, or money.

The first step to solving any problem is to recognize that one exists. I believe one exists. I comes as no surprise to me that Chip sees that there is such a device that can offer greater accuracy potential than anything available for scoring at this time. If somebody doesn't pursue something like this with the intention of being able to verify what is being used.....manual or electronic.....then the same unproven notions about each system will always exist. I don't believe either of us are suggesting that a match be scored with a CMM. I believe we are saying that the CMM should be the final word on what is accurate and what is not on a system level. In my opinion, there should never be a situation where things are "too close to call". Maybe that is true if we are only using our naked eyes and simple measurement tools. There is so much more available to us.....why not utilize it for the good of the sport?

Chip....if that thing is a comparator......is it just going to cast a shadow of the "part" on a grid. If so, I think you'll have the same trouble I did when trying to use the comparator over here on a target. The target is not transparent enough, or the rings are not opaque enough to be able to cast the shadow on the ones I have tried.

Mike
 
Brian_K said:
Hi Mike,

Is it possible to find the centre of the hole using the electronic system and consequently how far that centre is away from the centre of the target (I'm assuming that's how these electronic scoring systems work)

Then plug the hole, find the centre of that and also how far it’s away from the centre of the target, ideally both recordings should be the same, if not there is a problem.

Presumably this would prove/disprove any operator error with regards using a plug?

Brian
Click to expand...

Yes......that is certainly a logical approach. It wouldn't determine which was correct, though. I'm looking for a way to actually determine if the plug will find the absolute center of a hole to begin with. I think that a plug whose shank is close to the size of the printed hole will likely do the best job. We have shot only .177 since the beginning, and the plug that I made has a .185 body and a .224 head.

Mike
 
No the tool makers scopes and optical CMM's are useing the surface view and not any kind of shadow or pass thru light. Simple huge magnification combined with linear measurement to the .0001". I have used microscopes on my mills for inspection and it works great useing the machines digital readout. For what we want it would require a specific reticle. Much like a Titan centering Microscope that has been used on Jig bore machines for years. The reticle is a series of rings with .005" line,space,line,space from .100 diameter to .250" diameter. It is proven that the human eye and this method at 25X can center things with in .0002"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top