Electronic Target Scoring Methods

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.

Tackleberrywho

IRLConor wrote: »

The four mics approach is not particularly hard.

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

So getting back to programming, if a guy, with an Interest in shooting, who therefore understood the requirements.........
And was proficient with programming of software suitable.........
In there part time........
And had there own website.........;)
Would want in financial re-numeration for writing such a program??

IRLConor

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

So getting back to programming, if a guy, with an Interest in shooting, who therefore understood the requirements.........
And was proficient with programming of software suitable.........
In there part time........
And had there own website.........;)
Would want in financial re-numeration for writing such a program??

Sorry, I'm full up with out-of-hours stuff.

Bananaman

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

If I could get the program running I could focus on the build & Thesis.

The issue , as always come down to spec'ing out the thing.

You would need to in some way prototype the various sensor arrays and choose which gave you a suitable resolution

Remember - for your project who cares if it's good enough for a match - if it can pick up a cannon ball coming through and tell you if it broke the ten ring - result.

Then it's a case of getting the hits from the hardware to the software where you can interpolate the position of the 'strike' in the 'strike zone' and score it.

Not a small job and I think you have a bit of prototyping ahead of you on the hardware side.

I'd do it for shlts and giggles
....... but .......
I have no time to give to it (I have a free weekend in November)

if I can be of help in any way I will - I just would not be able to commit and scheduled time to you.

B'Man

Tackleberrywho

Bananaman wrote: »

The issue , as always come down to spec'ing out the thing.

You would need to in some way prototype the various sensor arrays and choose which gave you a suitable resolution

Remember - for your project who cares if it's good enough for a match - if it can pick up a cannon ball coming through and tell you if it broke the ten ring - result.

Then it's a case of getting the hits from the hardware to the software where you can interpolate the position of the 'strike' in the 'strike zone' and score it.

Not a small job and I think you have a bit of prototyping ahead of you on the hardware side.

I'd do it for shlts and giggles
....... but .......
I have no time to give to it (I have a free weekend in November)

if I can be of help in any way I will - I just would not be able to commit and scheduled time to you.

B'Man

Prime Example that We Irish could really make one if we all pooled resources, and could stop fighting for 5 minutes.

Why did I go back to college at this hour of my life in the Name of sweet devine Jaysus!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Sparks

IRLConor wrote: »

Sorry, I'm full up with out-of-hours stuff.

Ditto.

But take a look at this tack, it might be of some use. If you printed a target on the backing and shot at that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNZCS-coZjY

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Prime Example that We Irish could really make one if we all pooled resources, and could stop fighting for 5 minutes.

Er, no, it's not.
This is an electronics and computer problem, it doesn't know what country it's in or who's solving it.
The problem you're running into is that you're not solidly framing the goals and costs of what you want to do. As B'man said, the specifications for the project are critical. You want a system that will run an olympic match anywhere from 10m to 300m, cost less than Megalink and be more accurate than Suis Ascor, and get built in a few weeks by someone who's not an expert programmer or hardware geek? Well, that's not going to happen, no matter where you are or how little personal strife surrounds you; it's just too hard a problem.

Define a far smaller problem and try to solve that.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Er, no, it's not.
This is an electronics and computer problem, it doesn't know what country it's in or who's solving it.
The problem you're running into is that you're not solidly framing the goals and costs of what you want to do. As B'man said, the specifications for the project are critical. You want a system that will run an olympic match anywhere from 10m to 300m, cost less than Megalink and be more accurate than Suis Ascor, and get built in a few weeks by someone who's not an expert programmer or hardware geek? Well, that's not going to happen, no matter where you are or how little personal strife surrounds you; it's just too hard a problem.

Define a far smaller problem and try to solve that.

Did I not agree wth that sentiment half way through this thread?
I want a target to get hit and register a score on a screen!

With the aid of 4 mik's and a computer.
And I've lot of distractions <boards.ie being the biggest lol, That and women>

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Ditto.

But take a look at this tack, it might be of some use. If you printed a target on the backing and shot at that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNZCS-coZjY

Now this looks fun!

Anyone got a free copy of labview!

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Ditto.

But take a look at this tack, it might be of some use. If you printed a target on the backing and shot at that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNZCS-coZjY

I';m just wondering

There was a thread a few months ago about an indoor range where you used real guns to shoot computer generated wild boar etc.

I even think Zeiss have one in there factory.

I might rethink the project and make that the aim.
The accuracy could be less then of the project.

The link Sparks gave me a great idea, this could actually be a cool project.

Any of yee Tech Guys think that the youtube Video is too simplistic, or could it be doen relatively cheaply?
I could get hardwall, I have a computer game and a projector, and a multitude of firearms

Any of yee guys got any tips for me on where to source accelerometers here that would suit a say 2 foot target to keep things simple (or even smaller i needs be?

I could re-org teh project to suit.

My aims are to sho electro/mechanical and a small amount of computing which I think this shooting Hardwall could do.

And yes Sparks, I should have looked at the Video earlier than last night (my bad)
However it seems much easier to construct than an ISSF Target scoring jobbie

And if any of you guys out there wish to help for shi*s and Giggles I'd really appreciate it.
If one of yee guys wish to be an actor in my video of the project give me a Hollar!

I'm started to get excited about my project again!:D:D

Sparks

To be honest Tack, I think you're missing a trick there.
That system isn't accurate enough for 10m airgun, sure, but it's more than enough for a club-level system for 300m fullbore or even further out. If you dropped the projector and painted the target on the backing board, you might have a cheap enough solution for long-range fullbore work. The backing is just something like styrofoam; not as cheap as paper, but not far off. It won't last for a million rounds, but it might work for 20 or 30, so if you Tape a paper target over the front and stick in the sensors, that's a needs-noone-in-the-butts system for relatively little capital invested, and a moderate consumables bill.

Plus, if you just replicate the system above, it's not a very novel project; but use it as the basis for a new product, and that's not just a good project, it's almost a viable commercial product.