TargetTalk

The new MX2 does not use a frame it simply picks up the target bull and processes the trace from there...

So, could a competitor in a match have an MX2 attached to their rifle? As long as the monitor is not placed where the shooter can see, it would not be a "communication device". I cannot find anything in the rules that restrict a coach from monitoring the scatt trace of a shooter during the match as long as there is no communication back to the shooter.

I think this could be a very valuable post match analysis tool. Is it legal? A gray area? Are we going to soon see shooters all up and down the line with a scatt on their rifles?

The output from the MX-02 could always be linked to give live visual to the spectators, that might add a little interest to the finals.

Any sensor would have to be so fitted such that the gun still passed all the requirements - eg size.

Some officials may argue it could constitute coaching, but then coaching is permitted, it's just not allowed on the firing line.

Rob.

So, could a competitor in a match have an MX2 attached to their rifle?

I feel that it would fall foul of:

7.1.6.1 The rifle must not touch, or rest against, any other point or
object

That would probably be the case with the cable linked sensor and the default position of the ISSF to disallow anything that is not specifically permitted.

However a WiFi sensor might present a challenge.

Interesting thought.

Rutty

And then next thing we know we are not using real ammo anymore. I see a slippery slope here. Having said that it would be a fantastic coaching tool to review a match afterwards and finals as well.

Just my 2 cents.

I am thinking 10 what are you thinking??

Glen Turner

As long as there were a very quick simple way to calibrate where the optical system was looking in relation to where the rifle was actually pointing I think this would be good. Certainly for the smallbore and 300m events, where wind doping is important, mixing a Scatt like view and the actual fall of shot would be great for the spectator. I think TV would love it, as it gives something interactive for them to show. Split screen a shot of the shooter, with the trace and the wind flags. You will see where the rifle is pointing on the target, and so where the shot should land, and then the scoring system would show the actual point the shot landed.

Not quite so useful indoors of course, nothing to move the shot about and so yes potentially more worrying. I know Modern Pentathalon has gone from I believe originally cartridge pistols to air pistol to now using a laser "pistol". That is definatley not somethingto be pleased about. I know that they are not necessarly really shooters but it does give the antis ammunition to attack shooting with. I think that being able to show the very difficult to calculate numerically difference between PoA and PoI would actually strengthen the case for actual not simulated shooting.

Alan

The slippery slope to eliminating bullets / pellets is a worry for sure, hope that never happens.

Thanks for all the comments, keep them coming. I did think of a roadblock with the rules for air rifle. Barrel weights must be kept within 30mm of the centerline of the bore. The SCATT hangs down more than that. However, it should be fairly simple matter to make an adapter that will allow the SCATT to be mounted in the accessory rail.

I have already looked into wireless USB adapters that could make the entire thing wireless to the computer behind the line. Doing a web search shows plenty of options for that. I just need to order one in and try it. It is an interesting project to tinker with anyway.

We will be at the OTC next week for the Rocky Mountain Rifle Championships. I will give all this a try out there. They may not allow me to use it during the match, but it should be no problem during pre-event training.

Rick ...
If I was jury I would not allow it as it would tend to identify and mark a specific target thus possibly reducing the chance the shooter would crossfire.
I know this could also get into the argument of the side lanes (especially at the OTC), but specifically in the shooters field of view I think it would constitute "marking" the target differently.

I'm coming here not from ISSF rules, but more of NRA style ... I'd have to do some research, but if I could justify my "feelings" it would probably be in range standards or something like that.

P.S. - I know it drives you crazy not to see what is going on!!

Now if ALL the targets had that view, it would be VERY interesting for the spectators.

With the MX2 there is no frame, nothing at the target to make it look different. The sensor is a camera that detects the black dot of the bull. There is nothing that would help the shooter be aware of a crossfire.

That is the neat thing about the MX2, there is nothing at the target at all, at any range. Just mount the sensor to the gun, take a calibration shot and go!

jhmartin wrote:Rick ...
If I was jury I would not allow it as it would tend to identify and mark a specific target thus possibly reducing the chance the shooter would crossfire.

No it wouldn't as there is no infrastructure required at the target end, it's all on the gun. Older scatt models yes they need something on the target and would be ruled out on a number of grounds.

Rob.

Rick, YOUR going to be the reason for another ISSF rule!!

LOL!!! You are probably right about that!

redschietti wrote:Rick, YOUR going to be the reason for another ISSF rule!!

Nah, there's already one.

7.6.1.1.h The rifle must not touch or rest against any other point or object;

Either the rifle is touching the sensor or, if you claim that the sensor is part of the rifle, the cable will be bound to be touching the table or control unit.

A wireless version would be totally different.

Several years ago at Dortmund they held a special competition (for a selected few) where all of the rifles were fitted with Scatt. The TV people wrote some special software so that the trace was shown until the shot was fired, and the hole placement from the Meyton targetry was shown.

It was really very good, even for a non-rifleist like me. From memory, and I could be wrong, Nancy Johnson won it (beating Juha Hirvi?).

I hope no IOC officials are reading this topic on the TT Forum...

One wants to improve shooting events and to make them more multimedia and TV friendly, and immediately others decide - OK, 2020 you shoot both, live and electronic. Time flies and 2024 we shoot only electronic... Am I too pessimistic?
:-/

PS. Concerning ISSF Rules, the use of scatt or any similar system - in my opinion - would be considered as a violation of the "general" rule - 6.7.2.

David, I think it is totally wireless

redschietti wrote:David, I think it is totally wireless

No, the MX sensor is cabled.

I get it ... the Sensor(camera) just plugs into a USB port on the computer.
Then it's just running a tracking algorithm on the computer (doubt it can fit into the sensor for only $1800)
Neat concept.
Rick does it use USB 1, 2 or 3?

A year or so ago I played with a USB wireless extender. It really only worked at about 10 feet, but the concept was what you are wanting. We ditched this comm effort in our application as it was pretty noisy in terms of other wireless devices around it. Pretty broad spectrum transmission.
So if you could have used this, it would have only allowed 1 unit in the vicinity.
Trying to remember, but the transmitter was something like 500ma @5V.
So now you'll also have to hang a battery.

What would have been cool (and maybe for Scatt MX3??) is if it had a small 802.11 transmitter and would tie into a wireless hub with a configurable IP address, maybe a single 9V would get you thru a match???
BUT ... I don't really know how fast the data is being sent back thru the USB port now.

Oh ... the geekiness of the thing!

David is correct, the sensor plugs into a USB port So there is a cable to contend with.

Joel, yeah its something for us geeky engineer types to tinker with!

USB 1. I can't imagine that there is very much or very fast data involved. It's really a pretty simple device. A bluetooth link would be perfect!

I added a 10' extender cord to the 6' cord that comes with it. When I added another 6' cord it wouldn't work, so around 15' is the limit for the cable. I'm going to play with it next week during PET at Rock Mountain. Since it's not a selection match, I'm going to see if they will let me use it during the match(s).

As far as I know the USB spec tops out with a cable length of 2m. Saying that most low speed devices, mice keyboards printers etc will usually run on to around 4m. Of course all performance over and above the specification is both hardware and location specific. I have been caught out with this issue before, as you can buy cables longer than the USB spec actually allows for.

I would agree that Blutooth would be the ideal answer for a wireless version using off the shelf components. Outside of development cost recovery it shouldn't add significantly to the actual hardware costs, and I think would be a big advantage to usability. It's a heck of a lot easier for everybody on the range if you don't have Rifles/pistols physically tied to something else.

You could even go the whole hog and build in a position sensor to directly measure cant and some accelerometers to measure the speed/direction of the gun as well. Sometimes I think it would be very interesting to fully instrument a rifle and have the top shooters all shoot it. Just to see what they do mechanically that is the same, and what varies.

Alan