I really tried to sort this out via the archives, but there was way too much stuff to slog through. What are the practical / functional differences between the Rika and Scatt devices. They both appear to do everything I need & more, but I'm concerned with convenience, ease of setup / use, and reliability. I'm a wicked analogue person; I don't want learning to be a computer jock to get in the way of learning to shoot better.
Specific & on-topic, please.
Home Trainers
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
Rika, SCATT and Noptel all do the same thing but slightly differently.
SCATT and Rika use Infra Red whilst Noptel is an optical system.
SCATT has the largest user base and the software is regularly updated. It does just about everything you would want from beginner to international level.
RIKA is somewhat "clunkier" than SCATT and is lacking some features, however it does have a couple of useful things that SCATT does not have, e.g. cant monitoring. For the beginner/improver RIKA is fine and a number of international shots have used it very sucessfully. It does have one significant advantage over SCATT, secondhand RIKA systems tend to be quite a lot cheaper! Both sytems are effective to a bit over 10 mtrs.
Noptel has all the bells and whistles, at a price. So think carefully whether you need what Noptel has to offer. It is the most flexible of the 3 sytems as regards live firing, but do you need that feature? It does have one significant physical advantage, there are no down range cables. RIKA requires power to the target sensor and SCATT requires a cable from firing point to target. Noptel requires nothing but the laptop to run it, the target end is a passive reflector. Noptel can be used a longer range than 10 mtrs.
The learning curve on all 3 systems is very steep. Whichever you choose, try before you buy and make sure that you have someone available to lead you through it. I wonder how many SCATTs there are gathering dust at the back of cupboards because their owners haven't been able to properly exploit their potential?
In terms of setting up and calibrating, there isn't much to choose between them. Obviously the IR systems don't function all that well in direct sunlight, Noptel has the edge there. There is also a live fire attachment for SCATT that closes the capability gap with Noptel, but at a price. If you really need live fire then probably best to spend the extra and go for Noptel in the first place.
So the short summary:
Cheap - 2nd hand RIKA
Utility - SCATT
Need to live fire - Noptel
Hope that this helps.
Rutty
SCATT and Rika use Infra Red whilst Noptel is an optical system.
SCATT has the largest user base and the software is regularly updated. It does just about everything you would want from beginner to international level.
RIKA is somewhat "clunkier" than SCATT and is lacking some features, however it does have a couple of useful things that SCATT does not have, e.g. cant monitoring. For the beginner/improver RIKA is fine and a number of international shots have used it very sucessfully. It does have one significant advantage over SCATT, secondhand RIKA systems tend to be quite a lot cheaper! Both sytems are effective to a bit over 10 mtrs.
Noptel has all the bells and whistles, at a price. So think carefully whether you need what Noptel has to offer. It is the most flexible of the 3 sytems as regards live firing, but do you need that feature? It does have one significant physical advantage, there are no down range cables. RIKA requires power to the target sensor and SCATT requires a cable from firing point to target. Noptel requires nothing but the laptop to run it, the target end is a passive reflector. Noptel can be used a longer range than 10 mtrs.
The learning curve on all 3 systems is very steep. Whichever you choose, try before you buy and make sure that you have someone available to lead you through it. I wonder how many SCATTs there are gathering dust at the back of cupboards because their owners haven't been able to properly exploit their potential?
In terms of setting up and calibrating, there isn't much to choose between them. Obviously the IR systems don't function all that well in direct sunlight, Noptel has the edge there. There is also a live fire attachment for SCATT that closes the capability gap with Noptel, but at a price. If you really need live fire then probably best to spend the extra and go for Noptel in the first place.
So the short summary:
Cheap - 2nd hand RIKA
Utility - SCATT
Need to live fire - Noptel
Hope that this helps.
Rutty
-
Freepistol
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Berwick, PA
Have any double blind studies been done comparing the improvement in scores by incorporating an electronic trainer into a shooter's development, versus a comparable training program not involving the use of electronic trainers?
Have any coaches extensively discussed the use of electronic trainers in athlete development in their programs?
Have any coaches extensively discussed the use of electronic trainers in athlete development in their programs?
Whilst I don't disagree with most of Rutty's comments, It is certainly perfectly fine to live fire on the scatt as well as the Noptel. I shoot and coach pistol, and for that my scatt is used for live fire (10M AP). For coaching prone rifle I use the scatt in dry fire mode and there it's at reduced distance and indoors.Rutty wrote:Rika, SCATT and Noptel all do the same thing but slightly differently.
<snip>
So the short summary:
Cheap - 2nd hand RIKA
Utility - SCATT
Need to live fire - Noptel
Hope that this helps.
Rutty
I personally like scatt, but then that's the system I use and also the system we use for the groups I coach. I have used the other systems but enough to be able to critique them. I have a now built up a small repertoir of coaching notes for the scatt from those far more experienced than me in coaching and doing so with scatt.
Rob.
Sorry for being totally blunt, but who cares ? Coaches all work differently, have different methods and experiences. There is no one set of tools that are applicable to every shooter and every situation.Roly wrote:Have any double blind studies been done comparing the improvement in scores by incorporating an electronic trainer into a shooter's development, versus a comparable training program not involving the use of electronic trainers?
Have any coaches extensively discussed the use of electronic trainers in athlete development in their programs?
Don't also forget coaches are training athletes to win against the opposition, they are not therefore likely to give away all their 'secrets' to that same opposition.
Rob.
Rob, I sure don't mind you being blunt, but my response is equally blunt: I care. If I am going to spend over a grand on a training aid I would like to know that it is more than an expensive toy!
If everyone tells me a thousand dollar series of sugar pills will improve my score, I am sure that I will perceive that the sugar pills are improving my score. What I want is some scientific evidence that an electronic trainer is something other than a placebo. Anyone?
If everyone tells me a thousand dollar series of sugar pills will improve my score, I am sure that I will perceive that the sugar pills are improving my score. What I want is some scientific evidence that an electronic trainer is something other than a placebo. Anyone?
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
An electronic trainer will not improve your scores.Roly wrote:If I am going to spend over a grand on a training aid I would like to know that it is more than an expensive toy!
What it will do is give you the data showing where the gun is pointing at any particular time. That data can be interpreted by someone who knows what they are doing to suggest what you might be doing wromg. The data can also be used to measure the results of changes in technique and equipment.
I doubt whether you will find the comparative tests you are looking for. If a coach believes that ETs help him to train his shooters then he would be unfair to not use it for all of his shooters he thinks could benefit.
-
John Marchant
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:35 pm
- Location: Bedfordshire, England
- Contact:
All of the electronic training aids are very good at what they do. That is provide you with a shed load of information that then needs very careful interpretation.
Which ever system you buy, it is very usefull as a bench mark provider, which once you have interpreted and implimented the results can often significantly improve your perceived shooting, whether this is by reducing your group size or irregularly placed shots.
If after a corrective shooting period, you re-assess your benchmark, you will then be able to start the interpretation cycle again to see if there are other specific basics of your technique that requires improvement.
The electronic training aids are only part of the answer, the bulk of the solution is gained from the careful interpretation and knowing how to correct your errors.
Hope this is of some help.
Which ever system you buy, it is very usefull as a bench mark provider, which once you have interpreted and implimented the results can often significantly improve your perceived shooting, whether this is by reducing your group size or irregularly placed shots.
If after a corrective shooting period, you re-assess your benchmark, you will then be able to start the interpretation cycle again to see if there are other specific basics of your technique that requires improvement.
The electronic training aids are only part of the answer, the bulk of the solution is gained from the careful interpretation and knowing how to correct your errors.
Hope this is of some help.
Hello David. Firstly, and not pertaining to your response, I am not taking any position on whether these devices alone will result in an improved score. My feeling is that, incorporated into a traditional training regimen, they make certain 'givens' more obvious. For instance, it might show that "hunting" for the perfect shot is less likely to produce a good shot. Secondly, it is possible that these devices may not statistically result in an improved score over a traditional regimen not using them. I simply don't know of any unbiased evidence.
You stated "What it will do is give you the data showing where the gun is pointing at any particular time. That data can be interpreted by someone who knows what they are doing to suggest what you might be doing wromg. The data can also be used to measure the results of changes in technique and equipment." From that I would infer there exists at least the opportunity to impove one's score through the proper interpretation and response to 'errors' being shown on the screen.
I look forward to someone posting how a Scatt, etc., was incorporated into their training and whether they felt it was a significant aid in improving their scores.
You stated "What it will do is give you the data showing where the gun is pointing at any particular time. That data can be interpreted by someone who knows what they are doing to suggest what you might be doing wromg. The data can also be used to measure the results of changes in technique and equipment." From that I would infer there exists at least the opportunity to impove one's score through the proper interpretation and response to 'errors' being shown on the screen.
I look forward to someone posting how a Scatt, etc., was incorporated into their training and whether they felt it was a significant aid in improving their scores.
I agree Rob, in fact RIKA even has a calibration mode for live fire. However, one slip can be very expensive and even with the protection plate on SCATT you know full well the pellet will take out the a part of the sensor array! I am always slightly concerned, that during live fire, having to traverse the SCATT frame during the approach to the target may mentally inhibit the shooter and produce a "false" trigger technique. In fact in this respect RIKA is the better of the two having the sensor well below the target and being a bit tougher. The point I was trying to make was that Noptel is the best of the three for live fire, get it wrong and you perforate a bit of reflective tape at short range and the chances of hitting a prism at longer range are pretty slight. I would guess that most trainers are used away from the range anyway and it is the dry training element that is more important to the majority of users.Whilst I don't disagree with most of Rutty's comments, It is certainly perfectly fine to live fire on the scatt as well as the Noptel. I shoot and coach pistol, and for that my scatt is used for live fire (10M AP). For coaching prone rifle I use the scatt in dry fire mode and there it's at reduced distance and indoors.
Roly
If I may direct you to this paragraph from my post in reply to William's original post:
You do need someone to show you what an electronic trainer can do and how to train with it. Some people will loath it and some will love it. They are not the answer to everything (that was 42) but they do give you access to data where you could otherwise only guess. Taken their on own SCATT traces are valueless, it's no good sending a set to someone and asking, "What am I doing wrong?" The output needs to be combined with good old fashioned observation by a coach or can be used by the shooter to evaluate change. The greatest strength of these systems is in medium to long term monitoring and the way in which they may be used to present the data. The Russians pioneered their use in sport shooting and this is clearly the way that they approach them. I sometimes think that we in the west are a bit too inclined towards instant gratification, shoot, look at the trace and say "What's it telling me now".The learning curve on all 3 systems is very steep. Whichever you choose, try before you buy and make sure that you have someone available to lead you through it. I wonder how many SCATTs there are gathering dust at the back of cupboards because their owners haven't been able to properly exploit their potential?
I am intrigued by your question and its implications:
How would you set up such a study? What conditions would you use? Would you use SCATT to replace live fire or complement it? Would you use SCATT to replace dry training? What level of shooter are you going to study and how large a sample might be needed?Have any double blind studies been done comparing the improvement in scores by incorporating an electronic trainer into a shooter's development, versus a comparable training program not involving the use of electronic trainers?
As an aside, I recall a time some 40 years ago when part task simulators were just starting to be introduced into basic flying training. A eager young educator asked me how many hours of flying I thought could be saved by using the new Instrument Trainer for 30 Hours. I replied "none", "then whats the point of it?" he asked. "You get a better pilot" I replied.
Rutty
A couple of comments. Firstly if you are afraid of shooting the target frame then you have something wrong going on between your ears. If a shooter is so easily distracted then a scatt (or A N Other trainer) isn't the answer. If my frame were to get shot, and in the small area of the sensor, and get broken - then my insurance would probably cover it. I am not in the slightest bit concerned that that will ever happen - I focus on the positives ;)
A trainer gives you the data in black and white. It can give you comparative data to for example compare 2 techniques side by side. Mine comes out rarely for AP but it is still of use. It can sometimes, over a series of shots, show the good technique = good score, and vice-versa. That reinforces the fact to the shooter in a manner they cannot ignore. They can of course choose to learn from that data or ignore it, but just as they can verbal advice from a coach.
So in summary, has the scatt helped me shoot better, the simple answer is no. Has it helped me coach people better, probably not either. Will I still use it, yes but for specific reasons and not very often, just as an extra information source for me and the shooters.
Rob.
A trainer gives you the data in black and white. It can give you comparative data to for example compare 2 techniques side by side. Mine comes out rarely for AP but it is still of use. It can sometimes, over a series of shots, show the good technique = good score, and vice-versa. That reinforces the fact to the shooter in a manner they cannot ignore. They can of course choose to learn from that data or ignore it, but just as they can verbal advice from a coach.
So in summary, has the scatt helped me shoot better, the simple answer is no. Has it helped me coach people better, probably not either. Will I still use it, yes but for specific reasons and not very often, just as an extra information source for me and the shooters.
Rob.
Improvement due to the use of an electronic trainer is really not even remotely important.
The electronic trainer is an empirical tool, that gives the coach or shooter feedback. The value of that data is only as good as the person that interprets the data, and the actions that are prescribed to address the areas that are identified in the data.
I started with a Rika and have moved to a Scatt, simply because it provides more useful data to me and allows me to manipulate that data easier for analysis.
The biggest thing to remember is the fact that these are not electronic targets, if you want an electronic target get a Mega-link, Polytronic, Meyton or any of the others.
They are great tools for a coach working with relatively good shooters or better, because sometimes the things that you must look for are just too fast or small to see. Also some shooters have trouble verbalizing what is actually going on the trainers sometimes let you see things that they are doing that they don't realize.
The nice thing is they give you a baseline of a shooters performance and you can use this to compare to when making changes.
The electronic trainer is an empirical tool, that gives the coach or shooter feedback. The value of that data is only as good as the person that interprets the data, and the actions that are prescribed to address the areas that are identified in the data.
I started with a Rika and have moved to a Scatt, simply because it provides more useful data to me and allows me to manipulate that data easier for analysis.
The biggest thing to remember is the fact that these are not electronic targets, if you want an electronic target get a Mega-link, Polytronic, Meyton or any of the others.
They are great tools for a coach working with relatively good shooters or better, because sometimes the things that you must look for are just too fast or small to see. Also some shooters have trouble verbalizing what is actually going on the trainers sometimes let you see things that they are doing that they don't realize.
The nice thing is they give you a baseline of a shooters performance and you can use this to compare to when making changes.
Hi Richard,Richard H wrote:I started with a Rika and have moved to a Scatt, simply because it provides more useful data to me and allows me to manipulate that data easier for analysis.
Just a quick question - what specific stuff did you find the Scatt did better than the Rika? I'm training on the club Rika at the moment but was thinking about buying something for home training, and was looking at the wireless Scatt setup and the Rika setup and trying to figure out which would be better for AR60 home training.
I’m with you David 100%!David Levene wrote:An electronic trainer will not improve your scores.Roly wrote:If I am going to spend over a grand on a training aid I would like to know that it is more than an expensive toy!
What it will do is give you the data showing where the gun is pointing at any particular time. That data can be interpreted by someone who knows what they are doing to suggest what you might be doing wromg. The data can also be used to measure the results of changes in technique and equipment.
I doubt whether you will find the comparative tests you are looking for. If a coach believes that ETs help him to train his shooters then he would be unfair to not use it for all of his shooters he thinks could benefit.
Home trainers
I understand that in general these home trainers are not really intended for the individual shooter. They are rather a help for the trainer. Would the 'trigger sensor' be a better choice in guiding the individual to correctly operate the trigger?
Think of home trainers as instrumented dry-fire: when in the shot process is the shooter's hold steadiest? exactly how does a shooter's trigger pull affect his/her hold? is the shooter truly following through? Scatt, Rika and Noptel answer these questions exactly, but do no more than that.
What to do with the answers will of course be best addressed by a coach who understands what the traces tell, but the individual shooter can put the information to good use too if willing to pay attention to it and invest time and discipline in folding it into training.
Hmm...time & discipline. Those are the real key all along, aren't they? Not the Gold Medalist's Gun, not the Best Pellets, not coach XYZ, not Scatt/Rika/Noptel - all simply tools, and none of them miracles.
David
What to do with the answers will of course be best addressed by a coach who understands what the traces tell, but the individual shooter can put the information to good use too if willing to pay attention to it and invest time and discipline in folding it into training.
Hmm...time & discipline. Those are the real key all along, aren't they? Not the Gold Medalist's Gun, not the Best Pellets, not coach XYZ, not Scatt/Rika/Noptel - all simply tools, and none of them miracles.
David
Just a question on the SCATT system and live fire:
As a smallbore shooter, a 10m range is not a particularly useful range for live fire, however, as the scatt system operates much like a nintendo wii (camera on rifle, two IR LED's on the target plate, in theory the target does not have to be between the IR LED's.
Was wondering if the SCATT can be calibrated to shoot at a target above the plate (allowing me to mount up on a traditional 50m target, and put the scatt plate on a stand at 10m)?
I guess it's limited to the width of the lens on the camera (how far from at the centre the camera can see the lights) this raises another question, could brighter IR LED's directly mounted on a backing board work for longer ranges?
As a smallbore shooter, a 10m range is not a particularly useful range for live fire, however, as the scatt system operates much like a nintendo wii (camera on rifle, two IR LED's on the target plate, in theory the target does not have to be between the IR LED's.
Was wondering if the SCATT can be calibrated to shoot at a target above the plate (allowing me to mount up on a traditional 50m target, and put the scatt plate on a stand at 10m)?
I guess it's limited to the width of the lens on the camera (how far from at the centre the camera can see the lights) this raises another question, could brighter IR LED's directly mounted on a backing board work for longer ranges?
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
I'm pretty sure that would give you some serious parallax problems. Unless you can guarantee that the rifle/sensor is in exactly the same position each time the results will not have the same point of aim.mangusta wrote:Was wondering if the SCATT can be calibrated to shoot at a target above the plate (allowing me to mount up on a traditional 50m target, and put the scatt plate on a stand at 10m)?
If you have an indoor range you could use theScatt 25/50m system.mangusta wrote:I guess it's limited to the width of the lens on the camera (how far from at the centre the camera can see the lights) this raises another question, could brighter IR LED's directly mounted on a backing board work for longer ranges?