Electronic Target Scoring Methods

Tackleberrywho

Folks

Anybody have any experience shooting or using kongsberg Targeting systems?

http://english.kme.no/nyheter/nyhet.asp?nyhet_ID=123

I'm doing a college project on Electronic Scoring methods and there benefit to F-Class and F/TR types of Target shooting in Ireland.

I appreciate only a few Irish people will have any experience of them, however all feed back would be greatly appreciated.

Points I am particuarly interested in

• Cost
• Quality of product
• Lifespan of product
• Effectiveness of product in F-Class F/TR
• Pro's & Con's

If anyone can provide names/Links of Alternative products I would also appreciate it.
I am hoping to hand over all my learnings to the NRAI so the Irish shooting community could benefit from my research.

Sparks

Most of the electronic systems in the RoI are Megalink systems:



There are 10m-specific ones, like the ones in UCDRC, and ones that will do 10m and 50m like in RRPC and WTSC, but they also do 100m-300m fullbore targets. Here's a few photos of the components and setup for the 10m/50m models.

BTW, just so you know, I'm pretty solidly certain that the top lads in the NRAI have already been looking at this; but "cheap" is one of the few words you wouldn't use to describe these systems...

Cass

Which system are you refering to. From what i can see they are a defence, militry, aerospace, satelite, etc developement company. I seriously doubt they would bother with target systems for a range. Now a Naval ship, or missile defence target system YES.

Also the cost would be astronomical. The best working system i've seen was the Rathdrum electronic system that showed instant hits and scores. A "larger" version could be implimented for F-Class/FTR, but again you could be looking at tens of thousands of Euro. An expense most clubs could not afford.

Lastly the NRAI (AFAIK) have tried and tested some systems however they were irish made and behind in terms of technology and too expensive.

Sparks

I'm guessing he means these Ezri:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eDmP4JS7c

For a range the size of MNSCI, you're looking at about €4k per firing point for fullbore, €2.5k for smallbore...

Tackleberrywho

Ezridax wrote: »

Which system are you refering to. From what i can see they are a defence, militry, aerospace, satelite, etc developement company. I seriously doubt they would bother with target systems for a range. Now a Naval ship, or missile defence target system YES.

Also the cost would be astronomical. The best working system i've seen was the Rathdrum electronic system that showed instant hits and scores. A "larger" version could be implimented for F-Class/FTR, but again you could be looking at tens of thousands of Euro. An expense most clubs could not afford.

Lastly the NRAI (AFAIK) have tried and tested some systems however they were irish made and behind in terms of technology and too expensive.

http://english.kme.no/

http://english.kme.no/elektroniske_skyteskiver/elektroniske_skyteskiver.asp

http://english.kme.no/nyheter/nyhet.asp?nyhet_ID=123

Sorry if the first link was a bit vague

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Most of the electronic systems in the RoI are Megalink systems:

There are 10m-specific ones, like the ones in UCDRC, and ones that will do 10m and 50m like in RRPC and WTSC, but they also do 100m-300m fullbore targets. Here's a few photos of the components and setup for the 10m/50m models.

BTW, just so you know, I'm pretty solidly certain that the top lads in the NRAI have already been looking at this; but "cheap" is one of the few words you wouldn't use to describe these systems...

The cost I';m interested in as a gauge on whether they are a good return on investment.
I'm trying to use the point that if we have Electronic scoring methods we could run a shoot for 25 shooters with 2-3 in the Butts as opposed to 31 if there was 25 shooters.

I'm still awaiting replies from the Guys in Bisley and a few places in the states and Germany.

I'd like to get any research that has been done in recent years.
My latest research is from 2004, which in Technology terms is a long time ago.

Wired Vs Wireless etc.

Sparks

The cost of electronic target systems is much higher than the cost of volunteers, I'm afraid TBW. You could make that argument in the PDF or RDF where you have to pay the lads in the butts, but in MNSCI, there's no monetary cost involved.

That's not to say it wouldn't be great, but you can't really justify it on a pure "you don't need people in the butts" argument.

You also have to remember that the cost goes up the further out you go (I don't know if anyone even makes these for Palma shooting); and if you miss the black on a normal target, no huge deal, but if you hit the frame on these, the damage stays there for ages. You wind up having to increase the maintenance budget for the target frames enormously - at best, there's repainting regularly for frame hits, at worse there's service and component replacement costs.

That said, for large competitions, they're enormously useful, speed things up tremendously, and best of all, the spectators can see the scores and results and the fall of shots instantly and in great detail. (That latter point is why ISSF uses these, it's not much to do with stats office workloads or costs).

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

The cost of electronic target systems is much higher than the cost of volunteers, I'm afraid TBW. You could make that argument in the PDF or RDF where you have to pay the lads in the butts, but in MNSCI, there's no monetary cost involved.

That's not to say it wouldn't be great, but you can't really justify it on a pure "you don't need people in the butts" argument.

You also have to remember that the cost goes up the further out you go (I don't know if anyone even makes these for Palma shooting); and if you miss the black on a normal target, no huge deal, but if you hit the frame on these, the damage stays there for ages. You wind up having to increase the maintenance budget for the target frames enormously - at best, there's repainting regularly for frame hits, at worse there's service and component replacement costs.

That said, for large competitions, they're enormously useful, speed things up tremendously, and best of all, the spectators can see the scores and results and the fall of shots instantly and in great detail. (That latter point is why ISSF uses these, it's not much to do with stats office workloads or costs).

That being said, It's a research project so all info Pro and against is useful.
I'd like to see any research Irish clubs have prior to decide to purchase there chosen Electronic scoring methods over another.

And any Flaws with the current scoring methods, or any DIY improvements

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

For a range the size of MNSCI, you're looking at about €4k per firing point for fullbore, €2.5k for smallbore...

Sparks wrote: »

The cost of electronic target systems is much higher than the cost of volunteers, I'm afraid TBW. You could make that argument in the PDF or RDF where you have to pay the lads in the butts, but in MNSCI, there's no monetary cost involved.

Just on them two points above Tack, the 1,200 yard range has 25 (dual) firing points so thats €100,000. The 600 range has 16 (dual) so thats €64,000. Leaving aside the small bore or sheltered ranges thats €164,000. Lads volunteering costs nothing so until someone wins the lotto and pays for them (or you ) the lad in the butt is the best and cheapest option.

Tackleberrywho

Ezridax wrote: »

Just on them two points above Tack, the 1,200 yard range has 25 (dual) firing points so thats €100,000. The 600 range has 16 (dual) so thats €64,000. Leaving aside the small bore or sheltered ranges thats €164,000. Lads volunteering costs nothing so until someone wins the lotto and pays for them (or you ) the lad in the butt is the best and cheapest option.

I understand that Ezri, my Job is to prove that it could be done, and show how, and what benefits.

So I have to cover all aspects, and look at ideal conditions where money was no object etc.

It's from the Engineering perspective. I have been getting some advice from MNSCI and NRAI members; however I need to cover all aspects for my Thesis.

The Kongsberg system looks quite good, I was hoping some of yee guys would have experience of using them.

demonloop

Kongsberg are primarily a military supplier, their civilian products are recent compared to Sius, Megalink, Meyton etc

Looking at their website it seems to be a microphone system ala SA/Megalink

One very possible solution is to buy the equipment 'used' from any of the companies. A lot of the big ranges on the mainland would ge upgraded and the old gear sold off much cheaper.

Reliability wise I can only comment on the Meyton we use, its very reliable. The hardware especially. Its also (for the time being) the only system using light to measure the shot position; no microphone and thus no paper/rubber running costs. SA are in the process of a light/laser system IIRC

Tackleberrywho

demonloop wrote: »

Kongsberg are primarily a military supplier, their civilian products are recent compared to Sius, Megalink, Meyton etc

Looking at their website it seems to be a microphone system ala SA/Megalink

One very possible solution is to buy the equipment 'used' from any of the companies. A lot of the big ranges on the mainland would ge upgraded and the old gear sold off much cheaper.

Reliability wise I can only comment on the Meyton we use, its very reliable. The hardware especially. Its also (for the time being) the only system using light to measure the shot position; no microphone and thus no paper/rubber running costs. SA are in the process of a light/laser system IIRC

Thanks Demonloop

I'd appreciate any specific info you have on Meyton, or if you have an e-mailadress of someone who would not mind sending on info to me <bearing in mind I do not wish to purchase, just research>

Very little on the net or in books about how it is currently done.
My Thesis will be to study say acoustics Vs Optical Vs some other medium

And it would be great if I could get some info on current research.

I was looking into Barcode readers and scanning Electron microscopes to date .

As with all companies selling a product getting info on how it works can be difficult.

Mr.Flibble

Have you asked these people? http://www.westatholl.org.uk/

Also, try Iain Robertson in the UK NRA; I believe he ran their trials of electronic target systems for fullbore target shooting.

Tackleberrywho

Mr.Flibble wrote: »

Have you asked these people? http://www.westatholl.org.uk/

Also, try Iain Robertson in the UK NRA; I believe he ran their trials of electronic target systems for fullbore target shooting.

I e-mailed Iain, no reply.

I read his study from 2004. However times have changed since then in the world of Electronics, I'm trying to take a fresh look at, and from a distinctly Irish scenario and perspective

LCrawford

Talk to the guys in ETSys. They are the UK and Ireland agents for KME and both active 300m full bore shooters. They can advise on costs per lane. As far as I know there is a club in North of England shooting longer ranges. Details on the lads website.

Tackleberrywho

LCrawford wrote: »

Talk to the guys in ETSys. They are the UK and Ireland agents for KME and both active 300m full bore shooters. They can advise on costs per lane. As far as I know there is a club in North of England shooting longer ranges. Details on the lads website.

I did last week.
They directed me to Kongsberg Directly.

I met with my Project Supervisor today and he wants me to try and replicate how any of the systems work.

i.e pick the simplest system and try to reproduce on a small scale and see if any Technological developements can be employed to improve or even simplify how the current systems operate.

I need to know, how a Target can register a 10 from an 8, and what happens when clovers happen etc.

<why did I not pick a simpler project:eek:>

LCrawford

I have some information on the subject from when I did the ISSF electronic scoring target course. Will take a few days before I have time to search.

Tackleberrywho

LCrawford wrote: »

I have some information on the subject from when I did the ISSF electronic scoring target course. Will take a few days before I have time to search.

I'd appreciate any and all help!

It's actually quite difficult subject so I am trying to focus on basics, black and white in perfect conditions etc

demonloop

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I met with my Project Supervisor today and he wants me to try and replicate how any of the systems work.

i.e pick the simplest system and try to reproduce on a small scale and see if any Technological developements can be employed to improve or even simplify how the current systems operate.

If you can do that, you're onto a winner!

dCorbus

This may be of use to you:

It's the "Evaluation of Automatic Targets for Use at Bisley" by Iain Robertson, as published in the Spring 2005 edition of the NRA UK Journal (The article starts at Page 46)

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nra.org.uk%2Fcommon%2Ffiles%2Fjournals%2F2005spring.pdf&rct=j&q=%22evaluation%20of%20automatic%20targets%20for%20use%20at%20bisley%22&ei=SYc1TfCINcHPhAeb4cXCCw&usg=AFQjCNGKTUOUaWZqb7xODcQVzobMESFJOg

Isn't Google an amazing yoke entirely! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!?

Tackleberrywho

dCorbus wrote: »

This may be of use to you:

It's the "Evaluation of Automatic Targets for Use at Bisley" by Iain Robertson, as published in the Spring 2005 edition of the NRA UK Journal (The article starts at Page 46)

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nra.org.uk%2Fcommon%2Ffiles%2Fjournals%2F2005spring.pdf&rct=j&q=%22evaluation%20of%20automatic%20targets%20for%20use%20at%20bisley%22&ei=SYc1TfCINcHPhAeb4cXCCw&usg=AFQjCNGKTUOUaWZqb7xODcQVzobMESFJOg

Isn't Google an amazing yoke entirely! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!?

I got that article last week of a colleague.

Not if much use to me at the moment.

Very dated, and very little detail.(Plus Iain Robertson has not returned my E-mails)
No mention of how Electronic Targets actually work.
ie C++ Program's Algorithms etc.

That's what I need to know.
I need to know how they work and try to replicate it.

I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, however I need to demonstrate how it works either Electro-mechanically or via software.

If I could get my hands on some of the software used to play around with it, It would be great:)

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

That's what I need to know.
I need to know how they work and try to replicate it.

Basicly?

Bullet hits the paper or rubber in the target frame (the stuff on the roll). Several microphones around the frame behind the armor plating detect the sound. The computer notes the precise time each sound arrived at the microphones (or, using electronic circuits connected to the microphones, measures the exact time difference between the sound arriving at different pairs of sensors). Since the speed of sound is effectively a constant within the scale you're looking at here, it becomes a fairly simple geometric exercise to determine where the bullet hit the paper and then it's an equally simple geometry problem to figure out the score.

There is at least one system out there now that uses an optical method for this instead of the acoustical method - I could guess how they'd do that, but I don't know for sure.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Basicly?

Bullet hits the paper or rubber in the target frame (the stuff on the roll). Several microphones around the frame behind the armor plating detect the sound. The computer notes the precise time each sound arrived at the microphones (or, using electronic circuits connected to the microphones, measures the exact time difference between the sound arriving at different pairs of sensors). Since the speed of sound is effectively a constant within the scale you're looking at here, it becomes a fairly simple geometric exercise to determine where the bullet hit the paper and then it's an equally simple geometry problem to figure out the score.

There is at least one system out there now that uses an optical method for this instead of the acoustical method - I could guess how they'd do that, but I don't know for sure.

That could be what I am looking for.
Although I still need the software to try and play with it.

See what happens if it is changed in pitch, or grid size to accomadate a larger round

Sparks

What grid size? And what do you mean by "changed in pitch"?

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

That could be what I am looking for.
Although I still need the software to try and play with it.

See what happens if it is changed in pitch, or grid size to accomadate a larger round

The acoustic systems calculate the shot fall based on the average centre of the projectile's impact, so the size of the bullet is irrelevant.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

What grid size? And what do you mean by "changed in pitch"?

If I am reading your post correctly there are mic's
Each mik picks up a sound wave.
Sound waves travel isotropically so we have to make a grid to sense where they are originating from.

If the Target is broken into a grid the finer the grid the more precise the scoring Method <or at least this is my understanding of it>

I need to figure out how the Screen can show exactly where the round struck the Target to give a graphical representation.
That representation has to be decoded from a signal sent from the Target.

And that's what I have to figure out how it is done, so I can try and replicate it with a simple rig

IRLConor

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Although I still need the software to try and play with it.

I doubt anyone will give you the software. It's all proprietary stuff as far as I know, so the only people with the source will be the manufacturers and they're highly unlikely to provide you with it.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The acoustic systems calculate the shot fall based on the average centre of the projectile's impact, so the size of the bullet is irrelevant.

Well, for outward scoring they need to know the size of the round, but that's a software issue, not a hardware one.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The acoustic systems calculate the shot fall based on the average centre of the projectile's impact, so the size of the bullet is irrelevant.

How does it do it is the question. What is used to calculate??
Java,C,Basic,C++ etc??

Are the Targets Plug and Play or do they have to be calibrated??
How often do they have to be calibrated, and if they are; who does it?

It wasn't me!

IRLConor wrote: »

I doubt anyone will give you the software. It's all proprietary stuff as far as I know, so the only people with the source will be the manufacturers and they're highly unlikely to provide you with it.



Well, for outward scoring they need to know the size of the round, but that's a software issue, not a hardware one.

Aye, sorry, meant to note that it projects a size of round based on the software being run, so if you're shooting a 50m smallbore target it projects a round of 5.6mm, but if you were shooting 300m, it'd project the maximum round size, which is 8mm. The same applies to inward gauging targets as it needs to decide whether it touches the line.

Tackleberrywho

IRLConor wrote: »

I doubt anyone will give you the software. It's all proprietary stuff as far as I know, so the only people with the source will be the manufacturers and they're highly unlikely to provide you with it.
Not even a limited version, I have many Student edition versions of software


Well, for outward scoring they need to know the size of the round, but that's a software issue, not a hardware one.

That's why I need software, Much as I'd love to hand up a project of quotes from folk, I need to have either physical evidence or software to support it <Engineering Project>

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

If I am reading your post correctly there are mic's

Yes, four in the megalink system, three in some others. My best engineer's guess is that in the megalink system you have the mics connected in pairs to a discriminator circuit setup that triggers on the peak of the sound wave and thus measures the difference in time between the sound arriving at each of the two mic's in the pair. Give those two numbers and the precise distance between the mic's and their location, it becomes trivial to tell where the point of impact was and everything after that stage is easy.

Each mik picks up a sound wave.
Sound waves travel isotropically so we have to make a grid to sense where they are originating from.

Er, no. We get a time measurement with an associated error range. No grids, just fixed points and ranges.

And sound doesn't travel isotropically, but we can ignore that for the initial pressure wave from the sound of the round hitting the paper - though we have to have circuitry or software routines to deal with things like echos from the target frame.

And that's what I have to figure out how it is done, so I can try and replicate it with a simple rig

The thing to remember here Tack, is that quite a lot of the time, the extra complexity you find in these commercial rigs is there for a reason. I spent a fair while working with ultrasonic sensors in the robotics lab, and they're infamous for high error rates from things like echos and ringing; electronic target systems would need to worry about stuff like that.

IRLConor

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Not even a limited version, I have many Student edition versions of software

It's not the kind of software that has "limited" versions.

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

That's why I need software, Much as I'd love to hand up a project of quotes from folk, I need to have either physical evidence or software to support it <Engineering Project>

Tack, as IRLConor pointed out, the software and the details of the hardware design, are proprietary. Nobody has them, not even the people who own these systems (we get the binaries of the software that runs on the PC, and the software that runs on the frames and controllers is in firmware in chips on the PCBs - we never, ever see source code. Ever).

You're going to have to prototype a system if you want to do this. Which means you'll need four mics, some electronics, and a PC.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, four in the megalink system, three in some others. My best engineer's guess is that in the megalink system you have the mics connected in pairs to a discriminator circuit setup that triggers on the peak of the sound wave and thus measures the difference in time between the sound arriving at each of the two mic's in the pair. Give those two numbers and the precise distance between the mic's and their location, it becomes trivial to tell where the point of impact was and everything after that stage is easy.


Er, no. We get a time measurement with an associated error range. No grids, just fixed points and ranges.

And sound doesn't travel isotropically, but we can ignore that for the initial pressure wave from the sound of the round hitting the paper - though we have to have circuitry or software routines to deal with things like echos from the target frame.


The thing to remember here Tack, is that quite a lot of the time, the extra complexity you find in these commercial rigs is there for a reason. I spent a fair while working with ultrasonic sensors in the robotics lab, and they're infamous for high error rates from things like echos and ringing; electronic target systems would need to worry about stuff like that.

I'm trying to stay away from Ultrasonics and more vision systems, however I will go with what ever is easiest to get to work.

I was toying around with Nokia Point and find software
<it's used to identify objects from there appearance or bar-code and tell you what it is, I was trying to use the same Beta Software to try identify a strike mark on a target, by taking photos of shots 10's 8's 6's etc and getting the Phone to memorize what they look like>

Sparks

If the optical systems work the way I think they work tack, then the acoustical systems will be far easier to build (distance measurement with laser pulsechains and measuring the correction signal in a PLL circuit is more complex than an audio signal discriminator and timer).

Memorising what a 10, 8, 9 or whatever look like is not going to work. If you could take a photo of the target after the shot goes through, then detect the most recent bullet hole reliably, and tell where on the target it hit, then that system could work and be cheaper to build and retro-fit on existing ranges; but you'll have to write some vision processing code, you won't find off-the-shelf stuff to do it for you.

Did I mention that this project was a difficult one yet?

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

If the optical systems work the way I think they work tack, then the acoustical systems will be far easier to build (distance measurement with laser pulsechains and measuring the correction signal in a PLL circuit is more complex than an audio signal discriminator and timer).

Memorising what a 10, 8, 9 or whatever look like is not going to work. If you could take a photo of the target after the shot goes through, then detect the most recent bullet hole reliably, and tell where on the target it hit, then that system could work and be cheaper to build and retro-fit on existing ranges; but you'll have to write some vision processing code, you won't find off-the-shelf stuff to do it for you.

Did I mention that this project was a difficult one yet?

If I paraphrase JFK, "We do not do these things because they are easy, we do them because they are hard"

But yes, I wish I had an easier topic.

Sparks

The thing is Tack, there's an engineering rule that goes like this:
Better, Cheaper, Faster. Pick two.

You're trying to pick three and you're looking for a fourth, Easy. World don't work that way

IRLConor

Having done vision projects in college, I'd run a mile from trying to detect bullet strikes on a paper target. Absolute nightmare to get useful results out of it. It might be OK if the camera wasn't too far off perpendicular to it and if the bullet holes were round, but you're into a world of pain once you start looking at real bullet holes from a shallow angle (which you'll have to do since otherwise the camera would be shot).

As for sonar, radar, lasers, etc, run away. Any active system with a useful resolution operating perpendicular to the bullet flight is beyond college project territory. The state of sensor technology may have improved (I'd defer to Sparks on that personally) but last time I looked at that kind of stuff it was expensive and very complex to work with.

If I was doing it, I'd go for four mics at each corner of a square. Ignoring acoustic interference (which for a college project you probably will be allowed to fudge) you should be able to write relatively simple software to interpret the timing results to produce a useful position.

demonloop

Sparks wrote: »

The thing is Tack, there's an engineering rule that goes like this:
Better, Cheaper, Faster. Pick two.

That's quite good

Tackleberrywho

demonloop wrote: »

That's quite good

These days is always the cheapest!

My Budget is €400!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
And my Time ( Yes I also have a Full Time Job 42 hrs per week on average)

Tackleberrywho

IRLConor wrote: »

Having done vision projects in college, I'd run a mile from trying to detect bullet strikes on a paper target. Absolute nightmare to get useful results out of it. It might be OK if the camera wasn't too far off perpendicular to it and if the bullet holes were round, but you're into a world of pain once you start looking at real bullet holes from a shallow angle (which you'll have to do since otherwise the camera would be shot).

As for sonar, radar, lasers, etc, run away. Any active system with a useful resolution operating perpendicular to the bullet flight is beyond college project territory. The state of sensor technology may have improved (I'd defer to Sparks on that personally) but last time I looked at that kind of stuff it was expensive and very complex to work with.

If I was doing it, I'd go for four mics at each corner of a square. Ignoring acoustic interference (which for a college project you probably will be allowed to fudge) you should be able to write relatively simple software to interpret the timing results to produce a useful position.

I'm not a programmer, any tips on what would be the easiest software to use? and Get my hands on??

and cheapest:eek::eek:

IRLConor

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I'm not a programmer, any tips on what would be the easiest software to use? and Get my hands on??

and cheapest:eek::eek:

I hate to say it, but if you're not able to program you're pretty much screwed for this project.

There's no third-party software that's going to do what you need.

Sparks

IRLConor wrote: »

As for sonar, radar, lasers, etc, run away. Any active system with a useful resolution operating perpendicular to the bullet flight is beyond college project territory. The state of sensor technology may have improved (I'd defer to Sparks on that personally) but last time I looked at that kind of stuff it was expensive and very complex to work with.

If you're talking about a scanning lidar system, yes, but if you're just running a laser through a splitter to make a light curtain and detecting any reflection of a pulse, it gets a lot cheaper to do, and more reliable to boot. Which is what I think the optical systems do.

If I was doing it, I'd go for four mics at each corner of a square. Ignoring acoustic interference (which for a college project you probably will be allowed to fudge) you should be able to write relatively simple software to interpret the timing results to produce a useful position.

Yup. Easier to prototype in the kind of timeframe you're talking about if you can use off-the-shelf soundcards and the like and just plug regular microphones in. A proper system would use pairs of mikes and do the discrimination (ie the detection of the shot) in hardware and spit out a measurement of the time difference between the sound arriving at the two mics, but a proper system would have a fully equipped lab, a proper budget and more time...

Tackleberrywho

IRLConor wrote: »

I hate to say it, but if you're not able to program you're pretty much screwed for this project.

There's no third-party software that's going to do what you need.

How much would a programmer charge for such a service???
If only I knew a programmer!!;)

Sparks

IRLConor wrote: »

I hate to say it, but if you're not able to program you're pretty much screwed for this project.

Yup. And if you don't know electronics, you're at a disadvantage as you won't know the underlying stuff.

Put it this way Tack, if this was so easy that a college student who can't program, can't solder and doesn't have any money can put together a cheaper, better alternative to what Megalink, Suis Ascor and Kongsberg sell; well, they wouldn't make any money because someone else would be eating their lunch in the marketplace.

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

How much would a programmer charge for such a service???
If only I knew a programmer!!;)

You know several. And with a budget of €400, you could probably afford to hire a middle-of-the-road programmer on contract for about four hours. Maybe. If they gave you a discounted rate. (Hiring one as staff gets you a far lower rate, but you have to pay PRSI, various other taxes, healthcare and other compensations, and so on, so it works out more expensive in the end).

Bananaman

You could ask someone to do it for nothing

If they have the time ..........

B'Man

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. And if you don't know electronics, you're at a disadvantage as you won't know the underlying stuff.

Put it this way Tack, if this was so easy that a college student who can't program, can't solder and doesn't have any money can put together a cheaper, better alternative to what Megalink, Suis Ascor and Kongsberg sell; well, they wouldn't make any money because someone else would be eating their lunch in the marketplace.

I never said I can't program, I said I am not a programmer.(I use basic programs to teach Robotics)
I can Solder, have limited Budget €400-500 from Work Budget, the rest out of my pocket.
However I appreciate when a programmer says it's hard, that it's HARD!

I'm trying to make a rough prototype that will give a reading if you fire a shot at it.
That is 2/3's the project. The other 1/3 is learnings and researching

IRLConor

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

How much would a programmer charge for such a service???
If only I knew a programmer!!;)

You don't have the budget to hire someone good.

You might get someone to do it for the giggles though, that's pretty much your only hope on the software side.

IRLConor

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

However I appreciate when a programmer says it's hard, that it's HARD!

The four mics approach is not particularly hard.

All the other options I've thought of... yeah, they're hard.

Tackleberrywho

Bananaman wrote: »

You could ask someone to do it for nothing

If they have the time ..........

B'Man

I'd never expect something for nothing.
If I could get the program running I could focus on the build & Thesis.