NEW SCATT MODEL???

[O11]

Believe me you should be very patient and persistant to reach someone on weekends! Same with emails!

Interesting. Seeing as weekend communication is impossible, Scatt_manufacturer seems to have (politely and obliquely) called you a liar.

Wonder what else in your claims is illegitimate.

This is my personal experience and opinion. Sincerely believe there are some sellers out there who truly cares about their customers.

[SlartyBartFast]

Believe me you should be very patient and persistant to reach someone on weekends! Same with emails!

Interesting. Seeing as weekend communication is impossible, Scatt_manufacturer seems to have (politely and obliquely) called you a liar.

Wonder what else in your claims is illegitimate.

This is my personal experience and opinion. Sincerely believe there are some sellers out there who truly cares about their customers.

And your opinion is asinine and irrelevant. What kind of idiot complains about bad service at times when the company isn't even open?

[Jarmo]

...
Expectations and needs of each customer are different. ...

Valērijs
TRACE Team

What TRACE's customers currently need is a video proving the claims of SCATT wrong. Preferably by a third party.

Valērijs should perhaps focus on providing a video response as soon as possible as SCATT's "marketing" of their product is indeed working. I was literally just about to order a TRACE when I decided to google a review for it before the purchase. Then I stumbled upon the SCATT's video. Needles to say, I didn't order a TRACE that day and I won't until someone proves SCATT's claims wrong.

I also showed the SCATT's "marketing material" in my club where we have been discussing about getting new practice devices. TRACE really should provide their own marketing material as soon as possible ;)

So far TRACE had the price advantage to SCATT, but compared to SCATT Basic it's negligible. If the accuracy difference is so huge, I would definitely consider spending more for a more accurate product.

The test setup for a video proof should be pretty simple if one has access to the devices. My guess would be that TRACE has already tried it and noticed the same thing. What else could explain the lack of proper response?

I would love to see some owner of a TRACE to post a video of their own. Preferably not using the test setup provided by SCATT ;) I haven't checked out what's in that package of theirs but then the test would be free of suspicion ;)

If I was made out of money, I would buy both devices and do the tests and dissassemble them to see if the claims about build quality also hold true. Alas I currently still have to think carefully where to spend my money... and it's not TRACE for now.

[scatt_manufacturer]

I was quite satisfied with their customer service. After leaving a problem question on ScattUSA's website, their rep not only emailed but also called me at the phone number I supplied and left a message for me to call him direct either on the toll free number or another paid number he left. Again I had no trouble contacting them and they went beyond normal responsiveness.

Mike Powers

I am a customer and a dealer and have had outstanding customer service here in the US with SCATT. I can get someone on the phone anytime I want. I have had customers who have purchased SCATT systems from me and they say the same thing... outstanding customer service.

Rob and Mike, thank you guys, for your honest opinions on your service experience with us! As I said before, we are always doing our best to offer complete and user-friendly support to all SCATT shooters.

[scatt_manufacturer]

While the SCATT testing (and Trace's non-existent defence) sure raise questions about the accuracy of the Trace system, I think the testing fails to identify what the actual observed error is.

As the cameras have a sampling rate and the computer has a processing rate, the traces on screen are interpolations between the captured images and calculated points from the camera.

So is the observed error a failure of the camera capture rate? Communication between camera and computer? Processing speed of the computer/software? Less than ideal line drawing algorithms?

For point accuracy and repeatability, the test could perhaps be repeated with both systems moving the target known distances and evaluating the rest point measurements. Then, it seems to me, Trace needs to stop making excuses and explain the observed differences and how they are going to overcome them or how, in detailed terms, they aren't relevant to the use of the system or detrimental to the training of the user.

Good question SlartyBartFast, I'll start by quoting a part of my own post from before:

... Turned out that TRACE copied many things from SCATT, but the high quality of components and work isn't one of them. Because all it is inside is a cheap $15 Chinese webcam which cannot physically offer the necessary accuracy and quality of data for competitive shooters, no matter how you process it. This finding is what actually prompted us to perform the test in the first place.

In essence, this was pretty much the answer to your question. But if you want to explore it in a bit more detail, here: The observed error is obvious - lack of accuracy, which will lead to inaccurate recording of the shooter's movement during training, which in turn will make it all worthless. Shooters use this type of training systems, to gain the ability to reliably visualize their pre-shot movement and locate their errors. But, how can you make conclusions on your errors, if you are not going to see an accurate recording of your movement trajectory, but rather an arbitrary curve?

The reason behind the observed error: SCATT designs and makes it's systems from ground up. The sensors are built with carefully picked top-notch electronic and optical components, it's all held together by a precision-machined aluminum body. The sensor produces over 100 coordinates/sec. This approach allows SCATT to offer extreme levels of accuracy and reliability. Aside from accuracy our system has several levels of redundancy built-in and can withstand live-fire recoil of very high-power calibers.

Now compare it with Trace's 3D-printed plastic body stuffed with a low-end consumer-grade webcam (several years old model), which has a max capability of 30 frames per second, which is 30 or less coordinates/sec. The "quality" of these coordinates is also questionable, because this hardware is not designed to output accurate raw data, but rather a smooth looking image. Build quality and reliability aside, it literally cannot produce raw frames good enough and frequent enough to create enough coordinate points, hence the inaccuracy. Therefore, no matter how that software (which is also a story of itself) will process raw data, it's still not going to make it any more accurate, since the initial data is low-quality and insufficient.

[rasty_ryan]

And this is something new:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u57Jq2-493E
Posted on youtube week ago. Seems like made by trace.

[scatt_manufacturer]

And this is something new:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u57Jq2-493E
Posted on youtube week ago. Seems like made by trace.

Dear Trace, the biggest difference between your test and our test is that - not one single user of SCATT MX-02 ever had effects like you show, so no matter how you faked it, no one else will be able to see it in real life. On the other hand, any Trace user can see the issues that we demonstrated on their personal system if they run this test. Some have already confirmed it. But, most importantly, and we have already said it before, but you ignored it: let's have a series of tests open to public at any major international competition, so that everyone can see and compare the features, quality, accuracy and reliability of both systems with their own eyes.

[Texdance]

After reading and viewing all the Scatt vs Trace comparisons I could find, I am convinced Scatt Basic best fits my needs and budget and quality expectations. Since the average daily cost of the various Scatt units depends on their unit life, I would like to know what life to expect from a given set of electronics, assuming light indoor use. Electronics can be rated in Mean Time Between Failure, I think it is called, so if Scatt is listening do you have any info about what life to expect from your various products? In an earlier post, a 7-year-old unit was mentioned as having an old sensor - it that the life rating?

On a different note, I wonder if the Scatt Basic unit will have an upgrade path where the owner could buy MX-02 software to run on his Basic.

[argus]

After reading and viewing all the Scatt vs Trace comparisons I could find, I am convinced Scatt Basic best fits my needs and budget and quality expectations. Since the average daily cost of the various Scatt units depends on their unit life, I would like to know what life to expect from a given set of electronics, assuming light indoor use. Electronics can be rated in Mean Time Between Failure, I think it is called, so if Scatt is listening do you have any info about what life to expect from your various products? In an earlier post, a 7-year-old unit was mentioned as having an old sensor - it that the life rating? .....

Texdance, I was a relatively early adopter of the Trace system but over the last few weeks I have also had access to a Scatt Basic unit so have had the luxury to make my own comparisons. I can't help you with mtbf specifications for either Trace or Scatt but for what it's worth, in my opinion you have absolutely made the the right choice.

I plan to post a bit of a write up comparing the two systems on here soon so as the Trace team is no doubt reading this, if you would like to post a link to the software/firmware update that will allow my Trace unit to perform like the one shown in your recent video or if you would like to post a link to the animated test target used in your video for me to use in my comparison please feel free to do so as my intention is to provide an objective comparison that will allow potential buyers to make up their own minds.

[argus]

I was a relatively early adopter of the Trace system having owned it for some months now. Over that time I began to have some concerns about the performance of the unit based on anomalies I observed while using the Trace device and some less than convincing responses from the Trace team to my questions on performance. The revelations by Scatt of the capabilities of the Trace device in their videos seemed to confirm my suspicions. Over the last few weeks I have had access to a Scatt Basic unit so I was keen to make my own comparisons. I have decided to share my findings here in the hope that they may be of assistance to fellow shooters considering investing in one of these systems. Since the software and sample data for both devices is freely available you may find it helpful to install them so you can experience the look and feel for yourself and can see what I am referring to in the review below.

I apologise in advance because the comparison that follows is a little long winded so for those that want to cut to the chase, the link to the performance test video is at the end of the review.
I am happy to try to answer any questions that may arise.

Scatt Basic vs. Trace - Review and Comparison of Hardware and Software.

Introduction
The price point of the Trace unit and the manufacturer’s claims that its performance is equivalent to that of the Scatt units certainly made it an attractive proposition to me. To further tip the balance in Trace’s favour, the Scatt distributor in Australia did not stock the Scatt Basic unit when I made my purchase and even if they did, based on their current MX02 pricing compared to the US MX02 price the cost of the Basic would have been at least 20% - 25% higher than the equivalent US Scatt Basic pricing. Combine that with a 10% discount that Trace was offering when I placed my order, it seemed too good to be true. For comparison, at the time of writing this pricing was as follows, as you can see Trace still holds the advantage, particularly with their occasional 10% discount offers but the difference between them is not huge:

Trace €579 (~A$905) (US$690) including post
Scatt Basic US$749 (~A$984) including post in US or + US$50 (~A$66) post to Australia
(since both units currently sneak under the Australian GST threshold no local tax is payable on either unit.

At the time I ordered and paid for my Trace unit they were clearly only building devices to order after payment was received, delivery to Australia took just over a month. I don’t know if this is still the case or if they now carry stock. Having waited a month for the arrival of your device you are then subjected to the added indignity of having to wait for Trace to deem you worthy to use the device you paid for over a month ago and provide you with an activation code for their software. I don’t quite understand why Trace considers this level of security is necessary for their software given that it is freely available with read only functionality. This of course means that if for whatever reason you need to replace your computer at some time in the future and Trace has ceased support for this device or is no longer in business you effectively have a €579 paperweight. There is no such requirement for Scatt Basic it is fully functional out of the box.

Unboxing, First Impressions
When it comes to unboxing the units, both are supplied in simple cardboard boxes but this is where the similarities end. Design, build quality and materials are simply like chalk and cheese. The Trace unit is housed in a 3D printed enclosure and while the quality of the 3D printing is reasonable the look and feel of the unit is very cheap. The design features a mounting system and USB cable that are integrated into the housing so if either is damaged it is highly unlikely that the housing would be repairable or the cable replaceable. Similarly local repair appears to be out of the question as there seems to be no allowance for servicing or access to the electronics in the housing design. The Trace housing also incorporates a manual focus ring for setting of target distance. In comparison the Scatt Basic unit is housed in a precision-machined anodised aluminium body, USB cable and mount are detachable and there are no focus or distance adjustment facility on the housing. Various optional alternative mounting systems are also available separately from Scatt. The supplied mount is also anodised aluminium and incorporates adjusting screws to help dial out any parallax error between the mounting position and the target. The Scatt Basic device is supplied with an allen key, memory stick containing manuals, Mac OS and Windows software. Trace provided only the device and poorly photocopied manual. Windows software must be downloaded and a virtual machine is required for Mac OS functionality, manuals were not available on the Trace website however the Quick Start and FAQ sections now available on the website provide useful setup information with links to videos and animated screen captures.

Software
When it comes to software, since I could not use Trace for the first few days of ownership I found that Windows 7 recognised the Trace device as a 720p webcam and my webcam software was able to display video from it. Perhaps here we see at least one possible reason for Trace’s onerous software activation requirement, could it be their software could be made somewhat functional with any off the shelf webcam?

For the testing that follows the latest software versions available on the manufacturer’s websites were used, namely ScattBasic-1.0.0b-setup-2017-11-20_23-16 and Trace v1.2 (2308). Despite my open request to Trace to provide me with the software/firmware combination that would allow my device to perform like the unit in their recent comparison video and to provide their own animated test target software for side by side comparison with the target software provided by Scatt I am yet to see a response from Trace.

The software from both companies are a typical Windows applications, they are both easy to navigate and intuitive to use. Both offer functionality for printing of reduced scale targets and export of session files that can be sent and viewed remotely by coaches etc. with freely available software. Trace do offer a wider selection of targets than Scatt, from my perspective one particular omission from the Scatt Basic software is the ISSF 25m Rapid Fire Pistol target which will hopefully be added in a future update.

When I began this comparison the Scatt Basic software was still at version 2017-10-16_20-19 which I did find a little more challenging to calibrate and the Scatt device appeared to need a little more light on the target than the Trace unit to achieve a calibration. Trace gives a 0-5/5 rating on target detection quality using an automatic routine or you can select to manually adjust the detection settings. For Scatt Basic if there is insufficient light the target detection dot simply does not appear in the field of view. Both applications offered an indoor mode and Scatt Basic an additional low light check box to assist with difficult lighting conditions. Both have a preview mode which displays what the sensor is seeing which is helpful for initial setup and alignment. I discovered an update to the Scatt Basic software on their web site (11-20_23-16) which, once installed notified me that updated firmware (32) was also required for the device to function with the new software. The firmware update is achieved with a single click from the diagnostic page within the software itself.

This latest Scatt Basic update has simplified their calibration process, target recognition seems to have improved, lighting requirements also appear to have reduced slightly, the preview image is clearer and it is generally much easier to achieve a good calibration. Scatt Basic has now also automated the brightness control and removed the manual brightness slider as well as the indoor and low light check boxes. Shot detection on both systems could be easily adjusted to recognise the electronic trigger of my LP10E to register the shot in dry fire mode using only the sound of the solenoid without the need to engage the striker each time. A nice feature of the Trace software is the ability to save user / target / distance / shot detection setting combinations into a “preset file” so that they can be recalled with a single click whereas Scatt requires that these options are manually selected each time making Trace more user friendly in this regard. A similar approach would be a welcome addition to the Scatt Basic software. With both systems the importance of making a good calibration at the start of each session is critical to achieving accurate results from the system.

Features
Something else that Trace has introduced in their software is “Trace Routines” currently consisting of Aiming Stability and Hit the Spot exercises where performance feedback is provided to the user. Having used Scatt’s animated target for this testing I think there is a real opportunity to combine these two concepts, perhaps in cooperation with a recognised coach to develop various training exercises using a laptop or tablet as an animated target, thus adding some variety to dry firing along with the ability to measure and monitor progress in the various exercises through the software (I will provide an address for the royalty checks later).

Data Analysis
When it comes to data analysis the main function of both systems is to record and review the trajectory of aiming process, shot release and follow through. Scatt Basic allows you to colour code the stages of the shot process to your liking, allowing identification of a fixed 1 second period before the shot breaks. For Trace colours are fixed but Trace allows you to customise the thickness of the trajectory line and the time period before the shot is also adjustable with a default of orange 1 sec, and red 0.2 sec before the shot. Trace shows a table of numbered shots broken into series, scores can be toggled between standard and decimal and total time taken for the shot is also shown along with grand totals for the two columns. Also displayed as each shot is selected is the trajectory length. Scatt Basic also shows a table of numbered shots broken into series with an arrow indicating direction from centre. Individual shot scores are shown in decimal form followed by trajectory speed in mm/s and total time taken for the shot in the final column. At the bottom there are two totals one showing a total for decimal scores and the other totaling the standard integer score along with averages for speed and shot time. Trace allows for shots to be deleted from the table Scatt Basic does not. Trace also offers filters to allow display of shots that fall within defined parameters such as score range, shot time, trajectory length etc. as well as a time interval chart and a coordination chart to help analyse performance, both of which provide useful information. Hopefully an upcoming release of the Scatt Basic software will add similar features for their users.

Naturally both systems offer the ability replay the trajectory by simply selecting the shot in from the data table. Trace stores and replays the entire period that the trajectory remains on the target whereas Scatt stores 10 seconds before the shot breaks and 1 second of follow through. This ensures the most important part of the shot process is displayed with a minimum of unnecessary clutter on the screen. The total time taken for the shot is available from the Scatt Basic’s data table if required. Both systems allow zooming of the replay however only Scatt Basic allows the replay to be paused and restarted during playback along with a slider which allows for a virtual frame by frame view if so desired when analysing the results.

Test Methodology
Finally but most importantly we come to the accuracy of the devices. These tests were performed multiple times in an attempt to get the best performance from both devices. The laptop on the left in the video is running the Scatt Basic software and the one on the right the Trace software. Both devices were attached to the same cylinder held in a vice. Trace auto detection was performed with the device hand held as recommended in their quick start guide and achieved a 5/5 rating, (the vice was loosened and the cylinder hand held between the jaws). The distance to the target was accurately measured at 10m. The Scatt animated target program which is freely available for download was used to produce the various patterns and the size of the scoring ring on the target laptop was also accurately measured. The speed of the animated target was set at the default 80mm/s which is probably a little higher than an average shooter's aimpoint speed but the intention here was to challenge both systems to determine which displays better accuracy. My intention is to follow up with some live fire tests if/when time permits using full size printed targets also at 10m with both devices attached an LP10E, the Trace device on the cylinder and Scatt Basic on the Scatt LP10 rail mount.

Conclusion
I think it is clear for all to see in the video that the Trace device struggles to follow the trajectory of the target accurately. Of most concern to me are the sharp erratic deviations from the actual trajectory that appear randomly. If such deviations occur in the final stages of the shot process the data being captured is meaningless and the shooter is trying to analyse something that did not actually happen. As I mentioned previously these tests were performed multiple times and what I have shown is actually the best performance I was able to achieve after trial and error with both devices. When watching the video pay attention to how closely the devices follow the scoring rings. When drawing squares and zigzag patterns notice the return to centre path for Trace, it is slightly different each time whereas with Scatt Basic there is a highly repeatable single path. Probably the most telling of the tests is the 5 circles in the 10 ring. For the Scatt Basic device even on the 10m Air Rifle target we can see a defined circular motion whereas in the case of Trace the inherent “noise” of the system itself overpowers its ability to detect let alone replicate the motion of the target. In conclusion I have to say that if I had my time over I would buy the Scatt Basic device, even with the current 21% Christmas discount being offered by Trace, in my opinion the Trace device does not live up to the performance claims made by the Trace team.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0JigH8Vrs

[rmca]

argus,

Thank you for the very complete review! Nice work!

[sochan]

i shoot 10 air and bought trace in dehli as SCATT didnt work AT ALL!!! with my light in home

also i see trace have big offer - www.traceshooting.com

[SlartyBartFast]

Well written review Argus.

Just saw a post from Trace:
http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php ... 54#p273750

While our loved competitor :) keeps faking videos and forum content

This seems like slander to me. Trace seems to be getting desperate if that is the level they'll stoop to while they don't seem to want to address any of the concerns raised directly.

[rasty_ryan]

This seems like slander to me. Trace seems to be getting desperate if that is the level they'll stoop to while they don't seem to want to address any of the concerns raised directly.

As far as I see trace made similar test and now scatt desperately denies that test was accurate. They are using an uncalibrated system and then are showing very "proud" results of their system. So who is desperate?!

[SlartyBartFast]

This seems like slander to me. Trace seems to be getting desperate if that is the level they'll stoop to while they don't seem to want to address any of the concerns raised directly.

As far as I see trace made similar test and now scatt desperately denies that test was accurate. They are using an uncalibrated system and then are showing very "proud" results of their system. So who is desperate?!

The slander IMO is saying forum content and videos are being faked.

A professional response is to list the errors and link to their own tests.

[CMPJames]

Hello shooting community,

I don’t think it’s healthy for anybody to bash another competitor, on the line or in the marketplace. Who gains anything by bashing another person/product? I also don't believe Trace meant that to come across as slander. Maybe a lost in translation comment? I don’t know. I do know there is a learning curve to both devices, and people have their own preferences, just like Windows and Mac, Ford and Chevy, Morini and Pardini, paper and electronic targets. The electronic target market has seen this same discussion in the last year with KTS building an air gun target and replacing the MEGAlink version in all CMP ranges.

I have used and trained with both Trace and the Scatt. I have a neutral opinion of both. They both have great but different features. They both provide a digital representation of your hold. Scatt provides a wealth of information, to the point that I have found it beneficial to take the Scatt class to learn how to decipher that information appropriately. I believe Trace has provided a cost worthy product in the ~1.5 years they have been in the market. It is easy to setup, use and see information in your hold. They even developed holding drills within the software application. The Trace routines are fantastic and challenging drills. I have personally made suggestions to Trace and seen them develop and grow their product. I have received excellent customer service, and they encourage users to provide feedback.

I have faced frustrations with the Trace setup and installation until I learned how to use it. I have also had extensive troubles with a Scatt and the Morini air pistol working together. As well as the Scatt device just flat out not working. I am actually in possession of a Scatt right now that just does not work, I've been on the phone with Marcus Raab on a couple different occasions and we are both puzzled. (Hello Scatt USA, if you read this I would like a reply to get mine fixed/replaced :-)

The bottom line is:
Scatt is a device that provides a digital representation of your hold with its own features, own issues, and its own learning curve and cost X
Trace is a device that provides a digital representation of your hold with its own features, own issues, and its own learning curve and cost X

Scatt came out with their comparison of the Trace device: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0JigH8Vrs
Then Trace came out with a rebuttal video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u57Jq2-493E&t=1s

The fact is, the Trace guy doesnt know how to setup the Scatt, and the Scatt guy doesnt know how to setup the Trace. You can make either device look bad if you don’t know how to set it up. Go ask a Ford guy to rebuild a Chevy motor, or a Windows guy to program a Mac. Same same.

I drive a Ford, prefer Windows, Android and electronic targets....air pistol is a Pardini.*

If anybody would like a demo of either device, I work at the CMP airgun range in Anniston AL, I’m typically at the range on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 4-7pm CST and I love to talk shooting, Rifle or Pistol :-)

In regards to what training device is best for you, do your own homework and pick the one that is most cost effective for your situation.

* not a paid sponsor from anybody mentioned. However, I am for sale. :-)
Hold center,
-James Hall

[argus]

Thank you rmca and SlartyBartFast for acknowledging the effort that went into preparing the review. It was intended to be a fair and objective comparison that gives credit where it is due and encourage potential buyers do their own research and make up their own minds.

..... So who is desperate?!

rasty_ryan, you may want to have a read of the 11 posts you have contributed to this forum, 9 of which spruiking Trace, and then you can tell me who is desperate.
They are linked below for your convenience. A true Dorothy Dixer if ever I have seen one.
http://www.targettalk.org/search.php?au ... 1&sr=posts

i shoot 10 air and bought trace in dehli as SCATT didnt work AT ALL!!! with my light in home
also i see trace have big offer - http://www.traceshooting.com

sochan, thank you for your enlightening (pun intended) contribution to the discussion.

Just came across this amazing offer: http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php ... e&start=60
Have been using one for the last 6 months for 3P rifle home practise and would highly recomend. Especially at such price!!

Link
And yet another one, they are coming out of the woodwork today....... but will it come with a set of free steak knives?
4 posts, 3 about Trace
http://www.targettalk.org/search.php?au ... 7&sr=posts

.....In regards to what training device is best for you, do your own homework .....

Wiser words have not been spoken James!

While our loved competitor :) keeps faking videos and forum content….

Well, there you go, exactly the response I was expecting from Trace, they are nothing if not predictable.

TRACE OFFICIAL I do take offence at your accusations but refuse to sink to your level of mudslinging. If you care to look above and slightly to the left you will notice that I have been a member of this forum since 2004. Enough members on here know me personally and also know that I am not employed or sponsored by Scatt. The review documents my experience with your device; readers are free to make up their own minds. I will happily accept a full refund of the purchase price along with the cost of return post for your device as in my opinion it is not fit for my purpose. Once I receive that I will return your device and no longer have need to comment in your threads.

[ruig]

Test by argus 100% represents my own opinion. I tried trace device in Munich (World Cup 17). The test device was presented by trace representative(!) in the area in front of 10m hall entrance. And don't say that setup that time was also wrong. I saw delayed in time zig zag path like a saw by my own eyes.

Almost all trace buyers simply don't want to accept the they bought product of dubious quality.

[argus]

Thank you ruig.

......Almost all trace buyers simply don't want to accept the they bought product of dubious quality.

Your comment got me thinking, how could this be?
So I went back and reviewed the threads on this forum that convinced me to buy the Trace device and what I found was a number of supportive posts from people with suspiciously low post counts and Trace as their main topic of interest. Then we have the “friend from Bisley” that posts a video that just so happens to use exactly the same vice and the flooring suggests exactly the same location as the so called “Trace rebuttal video” that a “member” miraculously found
……. coincidence……I think not.

Last week accidentaly met a friend at Bisley, who is a computer nerd and actually owns a trace trainer. While we discussed the accuracy issues he made some tests over the weekend to show the precision and sent me this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvmByaHLhHg
From his feedback - he had some struggle with the initial setup, but once the setings are adjusted the system operates well and is happy about it.

And this is something new:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u57Jq2-493E
Posted on youtube week ago. Seems like made by trace.

So by publicly slandering my good name on this forum and accusing me of faking content and videos TRACE OFFICIAL would appear to have revealed himself as the true master of fake content.
The evidence is there for anyone that would care to look and make up their own minds.
I am embarrassed to say that I was scammed by what I consider to be deceptive, corrupt and unethical behaviour by Trace.
Hopefully I was the only one on here that they fell for the fabricated endorsements. Certainly I will never deal with the Trace company again and will be letting as many people as possible in my local shooting community know about their unethical behaviour and poorly performing product.

Dear forum members,
While our loved competitor :) keeps faking videos and forum content we would like to come 1 step closer to our community!

It would appear that the only thing TRACE OFFICIAL wants to come one step closer to is member’s wallets.
BE WARNED!!

[scatt_manufacturer]

In order to alleviate any uncertainty, here is one final comparison test.
Live-fire test review of Trace and SCATT systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU755oJqanE&t=3s