euxx
-
Posts
1,854 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by euxx
-
-
11 hours ago, shred said:
We did that exact thing for decades before Practiscore was ever a twinkle in Ken's eye. I've been shooting, RO-ing, MD-ing and Scorekeeping Steel Challenge matches since the early 1990s.
Not quite. Before PractiScore you've been adding hand written note on the paper scoresheets. There was a trail, even if it wasn't entered into EzSteelScore software.
For comparison, check how these DNFs are handled for USPSA and IPSC matches.
-
37 minutes ago, shred said:
It's what everybody does (even RMs at L3s
)...
No record of what actually happened and it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do either. And that is only an interpretation, unless it is stated in the rule book...
And they do that only because that is what they have in PractiScore app. And the PractiScore app does not provide them anything else, because there isn't anything in the rule book...
-
2 hours ago, shred said:
Because everyone just gives DNFs 30 seconds per string and drives on.
You didn't hit the stop plate, you get 30 seconds for that string.
Technically that does not exactly provide a complete record of what happens at the stage and quite painful to do when you have to do that on multiple strings and multiple stages. But the point is that the rule book does not say how to handle dnfs or incomplete strings.
And also does not address noscore issue when there are incomplete stages...
-
On 3/17/2024 at 2:42 PM, euxx said:
BTW, that article is somewhat backward. It is discussing how the PractiScore app handles DNF for SC. Though the app simply does nothing for DNFs because SC rules don't specify anything about it.
I've heard several verbal versions what it should be... Logically the stage DNF should just give competitor 30 seconds for each incomplete string, including strings on the stages competitor hasn't been present at all. The end result will be that all competitors will have some overall match times (even ridiculously high ones) even if they haven't completed all stages.The ICORE does that. Though instead of +30 sec per string they have a DNF time that is set for a given stage based on number of targets, etc. Without that, in a time-based match we have to give competitors no time for the match and no overall standing.
Arguably, maybe even all incomplete strings (even if they aren't marked as DNFs) should be implicit DNF/+30 seconds.
So, seems like the DNF doesn't seem to be an issue or it's just no one cares about them as they care about false starts? -
3 hours ago, JodiH said:
We have talked about DNF and after some testing in PractiScore decided that wasn't the best way to do things (see this post for details: https://nroi.org/q-of-month-results/dnf-or-30-seconds/). I now realize that we didn't address the outcome of that discussion (30 seconds) in the most recent rules update. I will add it to the list for next time.
BTW, that article is somewhat backward. It is discussing how the PractiScore app handles DNF for SC. Though the app simply does nothing for DNFs because SC rules don't specify anything about it.
I've heard several verbal versions what it should be... Logically the stage DNF should just give competitor 30 seconds for each incomplete string, including strings on the stages competitor hasn't been present at all. The end result will be that all competitors will have some overall match times (even ridiculously high ones) even if they haven't completed all stages.The ICORE does that. Though instead of +30 sec per string they have a DNF time that is set for a given stage based on number of targets, etc. Without that, in a time-based match we have to give competitors no time for the match and no overall standing.
Arguably, maybe even all incomplete strings (even if they aren't marked as DNFs) should be implicit DNF/+30 seconds. -
-
This is a good starting point.
https://community.practiscore.com/t/getting-started-with-practiscore-scoring-apps/3332
Also there is a support crew to answer your questions. Don't hesitate to post them there. -
2 hours ago, ChuckS said:
I believe that Hit Factor came to designate a match type due to Practiscore creating the new match template so clubs could do points per second scoring without appearing to be a sanctioned USPSA match.
The PractiScore has had the Hit Factor scoring for over 10 years at least. It is so happen that people started to pay attention to it. -
18 minutes ago, busdriver said:
Right, and i too am waiting on the commander. My question is: do any of these other Bluetooth timers sync with PractiScore?
Generally I'd say may want to direct that question to the timer manufacturers. However there is this:
https://community.practiscore.com/t/support-for-new-bluetooth-enabled-timers/7221
-
On 10/26/2023 at 1:34 AM, perttime said:
Not really.
PCC is like Handgun with a small rifle.
Mini Rifle is like Rifle, but on shorter distances and smaller targets.
But yes and no. Both IPSC PCC and IPSC Mini Rifle rule books are derived from the IPSC Rifle rule book. And there is PCC rule
On 10/26/2023 at 1:34 AM, perttime said:From IPSC Mini Rifle Rules:
1.2.1.6 The recommended balance for a Level III or higher IPSC Mini Rifle match with regards to target distance is: 40% of all targets to be less than 25 meters, 40% to be between 25 and 40 meters and 20% to be between 40 and 120 meters.
1.2.1.7 The maximum target distance for IPSC Mini Targets used in IPSC Mini Rifle matches is 80 meters.
1.2.1.8 Where the physical dimensions of a range preclude the siting of targets at distances greater than 50 meters, it is recommended that the IPSC Micro Target be used
For comparison - same rules for IPSC PCC (note the bold part I highlighted):
1.2.1.6 The recommended balance for an IPSC Pistol Caliber Carbine match with regards to target
distance is: 90% of all targets to be less than 50 meters and 10% to be between 50 and 100 meters.
However, this does not apply if the same courses of fire are being used for an IPSC Pistol Caliber
Carbine match held in conjunction with that of another discipline (e.g. handgun).
1.2.1.7 The maximum target distance for IPSC Mini Targets used in IPSC Pistol Caliber Carbine matches is 50 meters.
1.2.1.8 Where the physical dimensions of a range preclude the siting of targets at distances greater than 50 meters, it is recommended that the IPSC Micro Target be used (see Appendix B5).
So, the PCC match can be co-located not only with a Handgun match but also with an IPSC Mini Rifle match. Then the recommended balance would not apply on the shared courses of fire.
And there is this. The same range where the Extreme Euro Open is being run...
-
On 10/12/2023 at 8:10 PM, ZackJones said:
2 - LO...
3 - Adding a new division may sound trivial at first but it's not. We would need to collect good stage times to do an good analysis for Peak Stage Times. I didn't do a good enough job for some of the low read divisions which is why we are top heavy with GM's in them. The good thing is we have had some GM's that are no longer shooting at that level request classification downgrade and I've approved every one so far.5 - LO part 2...
@ZackJones do you expect to see different PSTs for LO comparing to the current Open and current/adjusted CO PSTs? After all, Open, CO and LO are all sub-minor divisions (per 5.5.5). -
Let's see how these estimate hold to the final overalls tomorrow.
.thumb.png.80872d118f54c7ea10e8d6f90b50a026.png)
.thumb.png.97a8617d6dea67d237cf60595d38dc17.png)
.thumb.png.c8ab138178a88d51423d11a873d47b11.png)
.thumb.png.91d6a52772685a1ec86e2439090ba926.png)
.thumb.png.c720d48265ff252d5712402267d79b58.png)
-
I didn't say I blame any shooters. I just find it ironic for Max to still shoot any USPSA matches or even needing to defend his title. That is if he truly believes there is something wrong with USPSA as a sport.
-
15 hours ago, rowdyb said:
Nice to see Crazy Legs make an appearance again
Did anyone predicted JJ dropping out from the match? Anyone know what happen there?
On a side note. It is interesting to see the person promoting and pushing an alternative competition league/sport is still shooting the USPSA nationals... Why do that if USPSA is that bas as a sport? Or if it is not bad - why do we need another sport? -
2 hours ago, ltdmstr said:
...So, you can see what's happening in real time. That's not possible with shooting unless you have cameras on each target so you can see the hits as the shooter progresses through the stage. Although it could be done, no way is it cost effective to do...
With lo-res cameras you may get away with about $50 per camera. That is with battery and wifi link... Though that adds up quickly - 1 camera per target x 16 targets - $800. -
38 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:
Short/medium/long constitues a distinct axis for performance, IMO—I perform better than my average on short stages without respect to target difficulty. I can't back that up with data yet, but maybe I'll look into it over the winter. I think it would be interesting to see how much stage-type ratings differ from the overall ratings, and it also opens up some interesting research opportunities on classifiers.
As not all stages are the same, regardless of the round count (which gives you short/medium/long categories). I think you need to add 2nd dimension for HF ranges, something along the lines of 0..4, 4..8 8..12, 13. That will give 12 buckets between round count and HF ranges.
The HF buckets may not be needed for low-round count stages, especially ones that don't require movement. But longer stages tend to differentiate competitors more significantly, at least from what is observable in the results for large matches.38 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:On an unrelated note, I had a thought a while back about a way for me to collaborate with PractiScore, in a way that would let me do some deeper analysis and drive donations to PS—drop me a private message or an email if that sounds interesting from your end.
I am not the one who is making calls about data access. You should send an email to support@practiscore.com and outline your proposal and scope of work.
Though having your code under GPL might be a problem, unless you're willing to change license for PS use.
-
33 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:
Only to a small degree. Because of the way matches tend to look in the US, I weight higher-points stages more heavily. I also reduce the weight of stages that large proportions of people zero, since Elo is all about relative performance, and lots of zero hit factors confuse things.
I have considered tracking overall Elo along with short course/medium course/long course Elo, or precision/normal/hoser Elo, but haven't had much time to work on that lately, with my season peaking in September/October.
Using points or just HF won't be representative... The idea is to compare similar stages, so precision/normal/hoser would be along the lines (though I think it may need to be more granular). -
On 8/9/2023 at 9:57 AM, Fishbreath said:
Since Elo depends solely on relative performance, cross-pollination between groups of isolated shooters is necessary to make the numbers work out.
Have you tried to add stage specifics when running stage-based ELO?
E.g. something based on stage points/HF and maybe even take harder lean on classifier stages when comparing shooters.
On 8/5/2023 at 8:55 AM, euxx said:There is enough data in the results to tell if stage required accuracy or hosing. Basically each stage can be identified as 2-dimensional coordinates: target points (5 - 160) and the best time (say 0.5 sec to 30..40sec). Though the time need to take into account what level competitors shot it. Then you can compare stages with similar parameters.
For simplicity the 2-dimensional space probably can be just broken down to 4 areas (e.g. fast and low points stage, fast and high points, slow and low points, slow and high points) or 9, 12 areas. That would reflect the non-linear dependency of HF on points and time. -
Folks, first of all, the "overall results", AKA "combined" aren't the official results and are not covered by USPSA rule book.
It is already been pointed out, that the 9.3 rule only cover match results ties and it also states that the the tie breaker stage selected by MD is only used for the final ranking and "original match points will remain unchanged". In other words, PractiScore doesn't do anything about it there.
As for the order in the tied stage and match results. The 9.2.2.1/9.2.3.1/9.2.4.1 and 9.2.5 don't mandate anything beyond HF. So, to not give any random shuffling (including the DNF and DQed ones) the PractiScore does use "stable" order - HF, then stage time, then the last and first name. It is been like that for over 10 years now.
The last part is why @barrysuperhawk is seeing what he is seeing having the same HF and time in his combined match results. His last name comes 2nd. -
19 minutes ago, RJH said:
What does ELO stand for?
It's the last name of a physics pfogessor who created it.
-
18 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
You're examples JJ wins nationals, match is lots of partials and distance. Fred shoots 90% and fred is really good at distance and partials. Fred goes to local match with all open close targets, Jimmy is a badass at hosing but sucks at aiming. How will we really get a accurate ranking for Jimmy?
Maybe it works out, I don't know much about it honestly. Our current system is flawed but it also basically works. I can go shoot a stage at a local or in practice and basically know if it was good or not. That part is nice.
The math just need to take into account each stage specifics.
There is enough data in the results to tell if stage required accuracy or hosing. Basically each stage can be identified as 2-dimensional coordinates: target points (5 - 160) and the best time (say 0.5 sec to 30..40sec). Though the time need to take into account what level competitors shot it. Then you can compare stages with similar parameters.
For simplicity the 2-dimensional space probably can be just broken down to 4 areas (e.g. fast and low points stage, fast and high points, slow and low points, slow and high points) or 9, 12 areas. That would reflect the non-linear dependency of HF on points and time.
-
1 hour ago, HighSpeedFocusedFailure said:
Doesn’t really matter what the email says. I looked at the website while purchasing not that email.
If the display is not the greatest thing ever, as the site proclaimed it to be, no love lost on my end I will flip it and be on to the next.
By the way, which site is that? Could you share a link with that claim? -
2 hours ago, Rich406 said:
...
I know how cameras don’t film the same way our eyes see. But the video is a good approximation of the problem. As soon as there is sunlight, the display is unusable. Square to the sun, 30 degree angle, it sucks no matter what.
For that video to be a good approximation, the frame rate of your camera has to be at least 2x of the timer's screen refresh ratio. They have special math about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem#Application_to_multivariable_signals_and_images
You need to capture video with a high fps camera to get a some approximation.
On the other hand, your own video does show the actual brightness of the screen. These yellow dots on screenshot taken from your video are good representation how bare eye see the screen. It matches with my own observations and like I said, I personally don't find that brightness unacceptable.
2 hours ago, Rich406 said:let’s also not forget that a lot of people that use the timer clip it to their belt or pocket while using it. Which makes it extra aggravating trying to twist around and look at the screen. The timer is a tool. It should convey quick and precise info to the user. The LCD version does this, the oled version does not. Simple as that.
From the personal range experience. The fun part about using belt clip is that I always use my hand to tilt the timer up when I need to look at the screen. And the hand naturally is working as a shield to screen the sun light...
Admittedly, during my own practice, I rarely need to look at the screen, as I get time spoken to me by the connected PractiScore Log app running on my phone. -
15 minutes ago, Rich406 said:
Maybe so, but you aren’t even acknowledging that there is a problem and you seem to be taking it slightly personal.
What exactly was personal in my responses? Yours on the other hand...
I don't see what I need to acknowledge. I haven't sold you that timer and I don't even make timers. As a user of that same timer I don't see a show stopper issues, not at the scale you describing it.15 minutes ago, Rich406 said:With or without sunglasses in sunlight the screen ranges from pure black to extremely faded. In both cases its unreadable.
maybe I have a bad screen, maybe you have a different batch of screens, who knows. All I can say is the timer I have is unusable in sunlight.
did you watch my video? That is exactly what I see when I’m trying to use it. Nothing.
For the most part, your video shows your camera's sweep line inference over timer's screen sweep line. That is why the video shows it a blinking. Cool demo, kind of similar to moiré pattern.
The human eye doesn't work that way, so looking at the timer not through another digital camera I see pretty much static image.
)...
.png.91059f1cd6954380d809ae84c97103fe.png)
.png.7f98bc9f7514d48f423b93216a2a9192.png)
.png.87d6cf289ec92518bf338ea4879e91a2.png)
.png.23549d6031091a115f850041645bc59e.png)
.png.3ad8bb74366cfc41f7eb5a112ba9b2fa.png)
2024 Rules Changes
in Steel Challenge
Posted
That is inline with my point. But isn't it amazing (or insane) that in the last 20 years rule book does NOT cover it?!
More interesting what happens with Glen Higdon there...