Posted by C. Cancio on July 11, 2000 at 11:23:48:
I will like to know which is the better computerized training aid for the serious shooter, the price and availability. (I already own a computer). Thanks for your help.
Posted by Michael Ray on July 11, 2000 at 11:35:33:
: I will like to know which is the better computerized training aid for the serious shooter, the price and availability. (I already own a computer). Thanks for your help.
While I know Scott deals in RIKA, now that SCATT is down to the same price, I think it is the best one out there in terms of speed, accuracy and features. The 2 things the RIKA can provide for extra would be the heart monitor and trigger pressure sensor.
You can buy them from Center Shot Sports in the US.
Posted by pilkguns on July 13, 2000 at 19:21:38:
Hi Michael, good to see you here. Unless SCATT has upgraded their system lately, the RIKA has a faster sampling rate. I did notice that they have changed the receiver on the gun to be smaller. I did ask Marcus if they had upgraded their current sampling rate was and he didn't know. Because of the recent exchange rate, we have been including the trigger pressure as a standard item. The SCATT is limited to eithe a specific Intenational target used at either 5 m or 10m . the RIKA allows you to use any distance between 3 and 7m, and allows you to inout target infomraton for any target. At the preent it only allows for input of 10 scoring ring targets but the next upgrade should allow entry of 5 ring targets as well.
Posted by Michael Ray on July 14, 2000 at 10:49:08:
I don't know the sampling rate, but as another reply noted, the SCATT at least appears to be much better than RIKA based upon what I saw from your demo on the laptop. It seemed to be a fairly new laptop but the display of the live trace was very slow and jerky. I am running the SCATT on an old P100 and it's much quicker and smoother. From a logic point of view as well, SCATT is using 4 sensors on each side of the target while RIKA only has 2 below the target.
:The SCATT is limited to eithe a specific Intenational target used at either 5 m or 10m . the RIKA allows you to use any distance between 3 and 7m, and allows you to inout target infomraton for any target.
While you are only supposed to have the target sensor itself at 5m or 10m, SCATT will work at other distances and you can scale any target accordingly. I am using it at 50 feet. I would guess the 10m target would not work well really close (signal too strong) which you would need the 5m version for. So if RIKA can go from 3m-7m (I thought it could go to 10m???) with the same target, that may be an advantage if that kind of flexibility is needed.
Posted by David Levene on July 14, 2000 at 13:29:34:
: While you are only supposed to have the target sensor itself at 5m or 10m, SCATT will work at other distances and you can scale any target accordingly. I am using it at 50 feet. I would guess the 10m target would not work well really close (signal too strong) which you would need the 5m version for. So if RIKA can go from 3m-7m (I thought it could go to 10m???) with the same target, that may be an advantage if that kind of flexibility is needed.
An important thing to remember with all (as far as I know) of these systems is that when you move away from using them at the correct distance for the event being shot the accuracy and relevance to the event reduces.
The problem is caused by the fact that there are two types of error which can cause a shot displacement on the target.
A shot displacement of 5mm on a target shot at 5m could actually represent either a 5mm displacement at 10m if caused by a parallel error (the whole gun is offset) or a 10mm displacement if caused by an angular error (e.g. sights not in line).
I don't know of any system which can differentiate between the two errors. They will all chose one or the other and therefore give incorrect results. The degree of inaccuracy will not be consistant as all shooters have a combination of the two types of error.
Moral of the story, if you are simulating a 10m shoot then use the simulator at 10m.
Posted by JP O'Connor on July 16, 2000 at 02:35:08:
: Moral of the story, if you are simulating a 10m shoot then use the simulator at 10m.
Unless you use Noptel.
It correctly handles angular and parallel errors at any distance because it uses a different sensor design that is not "blind" to parallel error and correctly handles angular error at any distance.
Downrange, there is only corner prism reflector tape (50ft, 10m, or closer), corner prism plastic reflectors (25m), or actual glass corner prisms (50yd, 50m, 100yd, and beyond) which are part of the sensor methodology. A nice side benefit to this is that it is simpler to set up. (No cords, power adapters, or fragile electronics downrange - especially nice when doing live fire!)
I do not know the specifics of the sensor technology; only that the system correctly handles both types of error and auto-scales for your actual training distance. (e.g. simulating 50m at 10m or say 6.2m or whatever, or simulating 10m at say 7.3m or whatever) You do not have to tell it, nor does it just use some arbitrary internal "setting" when being used at non-standard distances... it actually adjusts to the specific training distance.
Because it handles the parallel error correctly, you don't have to re-zero if you move your position slightly to one side or the other during or between training sessions. I am told that with other systems, you need to re-zero even if there has only been a slight shift to one side or the other. This is apparently due to parallel error. I can't say this to be the case with 100% certainty, however, since I have not seen test results under lab conditions for these systems.
Since this thread has raised the issue of accuracy, I provide this additional comment. Noptel is the only system that has accuracy specifications that are published, at least to my knowledge. (If accuracy figures do exist for other systems, please email me or post them here, I'd love to see them, as I'm sure others would too.)
Note that "sample rate" is not "accuracy". Sample rate is merely the number of data points recorded in a given time period (usually one second). Whether the sample itself is accurate or not is an entirely different story. (sensor technology, communications issues, etc., ad naseum) Also, whether the sampled data are correctly processed has significant impact on accuracy.
Posted by David Levene on July 16, 2000 at 07:51:57:
: Unless you use Noptel.
: It correctly handles angular and parallel errors at any distance because it uses a different sensor design that is not "blind" to parallel error and correctly handles angular error at any distance.
I hate to disappoint you but any system which works by simply sensing where the gun is pointing will have a problem working out whether the error is caused by angular or parallel error. All that it knows is that there is an error.
The advantage of Noptel is that you can use it at the correct distance (eg 50m)by using the prisms instead of the reflective targets.
The problem of parallel error is not when moving position, it is actually when shooting. None of the systems that I know of care where you are shooting from (within reason).
As for accuracy figures, Scatt post theirs on their web site, 0.1mm or better at 10m.
Posted by Andy Wai on July 16, 2000 at 13:09:05:
: : Unless you use Noptel.
: : It correctly handles angular and parallel errors at any distance because it uses a different sensor design that is not "blind" to parallel error and correctly handles angular error at any distance.
: I hate to disappoint you but any system which works by simply sensing where the gun is pointing will have a problem working out whether the error is caused by angular or parallel error. All that it knows is that there is an error.
Now that I have a chance to think about it... Yes, there is a anormaly here, but don't forget angular and parallel errors are not pereived in the same way by the shooter. Because the target is scaled down, the effect of a parallel displacement on the sight picture is scaled up. Therefore, the trainer system still shows you the right hit point according to your sight picture.
This is really too bad: Now I'll have to go find some other explanation for my erratic hit point problem.
Posted by David Levene on July 16, 2000 at 14:05:42:
: Now that I have a chance to think about it... Yes, there is a anormaly here, but don't forget angular and parallel errors are not pereived in the same way by the shooter. Because the target is scaled down, the effect of a parallel displacement on the sight picture is scaled up. Therefore, the trainer system still shows you the right hit point according to your sight picture.
I can see your point but unfortunately the system is not reporting the result of what you see, it is reporting the result of what you do.
If I had the time and equipment to do it I would love to try the following experiment just to prove what I am saying:-
Clamp a scoped rifle in a machine rest with a simulator set up at 10m with a scaled down 50m target. Aim at the centre of the target and dry fire a shot to check the setup.
Pivot the rifle around the back of the machine rest so that the scope is aiming at the edge of the black. Dry fire a shot and see where the simulator reports the shot. This simulates an angular error.
Pivot the rifle back so that it is again aiming at the centre of the target and dry fire a shot to prove it.
Now move both the front and back of the machine rest to the side (same amount front and back) so that the scope is again aiming at the edge of the black. Dry fire a shot and see where the simulator reports it. This obviously simulates a parallel error.
My guess is that the simulator will report both shots as being in the same place.
If you extrapolate the bore line in the two cases however you will find that the angular error would have caused a 3 at 50m and the parallel error would have caused a 9 at 50m.
Apologies if I have got the mathematics wrong but They look about right to me.
To expect a simulator to be able to tell the difference between the two types of error is like expecting someone looking at a displaced hole on a target (without being able to measure the angle at which the shot passed through the target) to be able to tell what form of error caused the displacement.
As I have said previously, and still totally believe, if you want accuracy from a simulator then use it at the correct distance for the match you are simulating. In effect this means that if you want to accurately analyze your 50m shooting you need to use a Noptel at 50m. If you want to analyze your 10m shooting then you can use any of the systems (with the obvious differences in the hardware/software features) provided that you use them at 10m.
If you cannot get 10m then thing about using two solidly fixed high quality mirrors placed parallel to each other to reduce the space needed. Distance to the target is 10m but the space needed can be reduced to 4m. Please note that this system only works if you are shooting "Light Bullets". (Joke)
This may seem that I am not in favour of simulators. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are an extremely valuable diagnostic tool, provided that you understand their limitations.
Posted by Andy Wai on July 17, 2000 at 07:21:19:
Yes, but from the point of view of the trainer's user, I'd rather see it reports both shots hitting the same place. Becase that's what I see in the scope. Things would be quite confusing if you get a 3 or a 9 depends on how you shift the gun.
That's what should happen in a perfect world, of course. My problem is that I've been getting unexplained and very erratic horizontal shifts in hit point when trying to simulate 50m with 8m. The Rika machine would report a steady 10 hold and proper release that drops it right on top of the hold pattern, but the whole thing happens right out at the 7 ring. If it happens once in a long while, I can blame it on over holding and burning the the sight picture into the eye, but 3 out of 10 on average? And they're all horizontal shifts? I think there are some other as yet undiscovered factors at work here.
Posted by David Levene on July 17, 2000 at 13:11:24:
: That's what should happen in a perfect world, of course. My problem is that I've been getting unexplained and very erratic horizontal shifts in hit point when trying to simulate 50m with 8m. The Rika machine would report a steady 10 hold and proper release that drops it right on top of the hold pattern, but the whole thing happens right out at the 7 ring. If it happens once in a long while, I can blame it on over holding and burning the the sight picture into the eye, but 3 out of 10 on average? And they're all horizontal shifts? I think there are some other as yet undiscovered factors at work here.
This could (and I stress the word could) be a perfect example of what I am talking about.
If your system is interpreting all errors as being angular but the problem is being caused by a parallel error then the system would report a mid-ring 7 when it should be reporting an outer 10. I haven't quite got my mind round what you would be seeing through the sights but it is worth thinking about.
Posted by pilkguns on July 14, 2000 at 14:40:14:
: I don't know the sampling rate, but as another reply noted, the SCATT at least appears to be much better than RIKA based upon what I saw from your demo on the laptop. It seemed to be a fairly new laptop but the display of the live trace was very slow and jerky.
Nope, that was an old 486 that we bought for $200 to show that it will work on older systems such as a lot of the schools have. That laptop was very s-l-o-w in everything it did, and your right the shot traces were jerky due to that. When I have it on my Pentium 350 laptop(slow by todays standards), it runs much much faster and smoother.
Posted by Andy Wai on July 15, 2000 at 08:57:27:
Well, seems like my earlier observation about Rika having lower time and space resoluation than Scatt was wrong. Just recently upgraded to software version 2.082 and never had a chance to use it seriously. Just did soeme prone runs this morning and looked at the traces in slow motion. They are smooth indeed. As good as the Scatt. Using the new version of the software to look at old traces (all air rifle) and the segmentation shows up in a big way. Then I looked at the one air rifle run I did last weekend, and they are indeed much better than old ones.
So looks like the old software wasn't driving the hardware hard enough. I guess the moral of the story is to upgrade whenever one can. Good job!
Sponsored by Pilkington Competition Equipment