Introducing PractiScore

[Skydiver]

Has anyone tried a cheap 7" Android based tablet, most run Google Android 2.2? I can find several for $55-70. No need to root, easy enough to get the Practiscore app. I have a 10.1" Archos that it works wonderfully on, but it's a bit large to make it useful for squad/stage scoring. Most are resistive touch screens, a stylus would be necessary I assume.

I've not personally tried them, but I've always been curious and have tried to read as many reviews whenever possible. The comments that stands out for me is that the devices themselves are fast, and the screens and touch UI work well, but they also have a common pattern of poor battery life. With these less well-known brands having integrated batteries, even if I were to risk doing my own servicing to replace worn out Lithium ion batteries, I'm not sure if I'd be able no source the components. Or should I just make the assumption that by the time these devices start having only 2 hour battery lives, newer and cheaper devices will be available? With the bigger named Nooks and Kindle's I am gambling that there will be a bigger chance of getting replacement batteries because of their wider market reach.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Skydiver

[centermass]

Has anyone tried a cheap 7" Android based tablet, most run Google Android 2.2? I can find several for $55-70. No need to root, easy enough to get the Practiscore app. I have a 10.1" Archos that it works wonderfully on, but it's a bit large to make it useful for squad/stage scoring. Most are resistive touch screens, a stylus would be necessary I assume.

I've not personally tried them, but I've always been curious and have tried to read as many reviews whenever possible. The comments that stands out for me is that the devices themselves are fast, and the screens and touch UI work well, but they also have a common pattern of poor battery life. With these less well-known brands having integrated batteries, even if I were to risk doing my own servicing to replace worn out Lithium ion batteries, I'm not sure if I'd be able no source the components. Or should I just make the assumption that by the time these devices start having only 2 hour battery lives, newer and cheaper devices will be available? With the bigger named Nooks and Kindle's I am gambling that there will be a bigger chance of getting replacement batteries because of their wider market reach.

Battery life is the main concern. My Archos 101 will run streaming video (think Netflix/HBOGo) for 6-7 hours no problem. I think that even these inexpensive versions would run a single application all day. I am unclear if battery life is affected by the device trying to search for the wi-fi if not in range, but the user can always turn that function off until time to send results to the main user. I have read mixed reviews about viewing in full sunlight, especially with the layered resistive screens. Again, battery life would be the concern with the brightness at maximum so it can be read.

[Alan Adamson]

you can always use a usb battery, they are cheap on amazon, ebay, etc... Some even come with the appropriate connector that will just dock onto what you are powering as a simple extension to the device.... (obviously depends on the connector, its location, etc).

Alan

[Graham Smith]

I took some results from this weekends match and entered them into PractScore on my Kindle fire. Here are a couple more things I noticed...

--On score sheets there is only one box for No-Shoots. I can see an advantage to having them easily accessible on the same screen as the target scores but they really do need to be moved all the way to the right most column, after misses and NPM's. As it is now, it's too easy to put in a NS when you mean to put in a Miss. Also, since a NS is not specifically associated with a particular target, I assume that it doesn't matter which row a NS gets marked in.

--If for any reason the score for a stage needs to be redone (i.e. a reshoot), then there does not appear to be a way to clear the results other than row by row.

--We do not now and never have and are unlikely to ever use no-penalty misses. For that matter, I hardly ever see them used. Would it be possible to add NPM Yes/No to the stage setup and only display them if required? That said, while they appear as a scoring column, I can't seem to increment them.

--There is no way to setup a stage using the Classic (headless) targets. So, it would be easy on such a stage, for someone to make a mistake and mark a B when no such scoring zone actually appears. I'm not sure what would happen if such a score were imported into EzWinScore.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Graham Smith

[waktasz]

I noticed your #1 and #2 points also.

for #3, You can add max NPM to the stage when you are building it. If it's zero, looks like NPM appears on the scoring screen but you can't add to it.

[euxx]

--We do not now and never have and are unlikely to ever use no-penalty misses. For that matter, I hardly ever see them used. Would it be possible to add NPM Yes/No to the stage setup and only display them if required?

You never using drop turner targets or anything that may disappear?

--There is no way to setup a stage using the Classic (headless) targets. So, it would be easy on such a stage, for someone to make a mistake and mark a B when no such scoring zone actually appears. I'm not sure what would happen if such a score were imported into EzWinScore.

No issue there. The B zone gives the same score as C.

Personally I am more concerned that it is not possible to enter a no-shoot hits for a steel only stage. But, PS crew said they will look at it after Area 1 is over.

[centermass]

I would prefer to see the procedural box on the targets page, as the total is usually not known until scoring is complete.

[euxx]

I would prefer to see the procedural box on the targets page, as the total is usually not known until scoring is complete.

If I am not mistaken, the only target-related procedural is "Failed to Engage", but even that one is known when time is recorded.

Though I find it somewhat inconvenient to have to click on "score targets" button after entering time (feels like legacy from the Palm scoring system).

We often see that on field courses scoring is started while competitor is still shooting and with PS you basically have to go on a separate target screen and then back, skip the confirmation box, enter time and then back again to the targets screen. It would be simpler to just start scoring targets on the same screen... That would also address issue with procedurals.

Edited April 24, 2012 by euxx

[Graham Smith]

You never using drop turner targets or anything that may disappear?

The B zone gives the same score as C.

No, we do not use drop turners and are very unlikely to start.

I know that B and C score the same, but I want to be sure that this won't create a problem when importing the scores to EzWinScore if a stage is setup to use classic targets since that column does not appear in the scoring.

I would prefer to see the procedural box on the targets page, as the total is usually not known until scoring is complete.

I tend to agree. They could be added as a column along with the rest of the stuff - particularly as foot faults could be marked as you go.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Graham Smith

[Skydiver]

You never using drop turner targets or anything that may disappear?

The B zone gives the same score as C.

No, we do not use drop turners and are very unlikely to start.

I know that B and C score the same, but I want to be sure that this won't create a problem when importing the scores to EzWinScore if a stage is setup to use classic targets since that column does not appear in the scoring.

You are missing the fact that the workflow is forces you to import the stage definitions from the device before you can import scores. So the only way you'll end up in that situation is if you import the stages from the device, go and tweak the stage definition in EzWinScore to say Classic targets, and then go import the scores. If you don't bother tweaking the stage definitions, then all will be good.

I would prefer to see the procedural box on the targets page, as the total is usually not known until scoring is complete.

I tend to agree. They could be added as a column along with the rest of the stuff - particularly as foot faults could be marked as you go.

On a small screen of a phone, there isn't enough screen real estate to have the NS, NPM, and any procedurals. On a bigger tablet style device, then this may make sense, but don't you run into the same issue where you complained that it's too easy to sausage finger a C into a B? Now it'll be easy to hit the procedurals and mikes. Unlike accidentally hitting the M and NPM where there is a double check, you could easily miss having given somebody procedures on any given row.

I do agree, that the first time I use the program, I wanted the procedurals on the same page as the target scoring, but after using the device more, it actually made sense to have the procedurals on a different page.

(I've already exchanged correspondence with Ken about this.) There is a small problem with the current electronic scoring if you go completely paperless:

10.1.1 Procedural penalties are imposed when a competitor fails to comply with procedures specified in a written stage briefing. The Range Officer imposing the procedural penalties must clearly record the number of penalties, and the reason why they were imposed, on the competitor’s score sheet.

Ken recommended keeping a paper scoresheet for now to record the reasons for the procedurals.

[Alan Adamson]

So if anyone is curious...

I've (and will do formally this weekend at our outdoor match), successfully used SSI to register shooters, export the information to EZWS (yes, even competitors), created a small script to build a squad file from the SSI information, and import that into EZWS. What does all of this mean?

I can use SSI as an online registration process and then easily pull the information to EZWS, create the files for PS and basically have online registration for PS....

Plan is to use this process this weekend... I'll let you know how it goes. The biggest issue was the competitors, I do have to edit one file, and run that manual script, but it makes this process oh so much faster than dealing with one each personal registration at the match...

Alan

[Graham Smith]

You are missing the fact that the workflow is forces you to import the stage definitions from the device before you can import scores.

You are assuming that this is the way it will be used. What if the stages are set up in EzWinScore in advance?

This may be a non-issue. Even if the stages are set up in EzWinScore first, they don't have to be setup using Classic vs Metric targets. BUT, if they are, what happens when the scores are imported?

[wgnoyes]

You are missing the fact that the workflow is forces you to import the stage definitions from the device before you can import scores.

You are assuming that this is the way it will be used. What if the stages are set up in EzWinScore in advance?

...

Then you still have to defines the stages in PS. That is, if you're going to score a match in PS and register people in EZWS, don't bother defining the stages in ezws.

[wgnoyes]

Practiscore 1.4.1 for iOS is now available for update from the app store. It includes the following:

- fixed bug with power factor not changing to minor on division change to production

- added a workaround for a problem importing psc files (practiscore export file) generated from older version of PractiScore in Android.

- added a switch to put a match in read-only mode.

- added a feature that allows you to pull down a match from results posted to PractiScore.com. The resulting match is locked to read-only mode.

- added password protection to match results posting. The device that created a match may assign a password for the match that allows results to be posted to practiscore.com

But additionally (and they don't list this in the app store list of update)

- you can now run classification updates against your club/auto-complete database on your device and also against the current match.

Please be aware, however, that you must have an internet connection available to do classification updates, as the app downloads a fresh copy every time this feature is used and therefore will not update when you are offline.

[Skydiver]

You are missing the fact that the workflow is forces you to import the stage definitions from the device before you can import scores.

You are assuming that this is the way it will be used. What if the stages are set up in EzWinScore in advance?

This may be a non-issue. Even if the stages are set up in EzWinScore first, they don't have to be setup using Classic vs Metric targets. BUT, if they are, what happens when the scores are imported?

As Bill noted, you'll still need to define the stages in PS. Currently, you can't push a stage definition from EWS to PS (or Palm). It's only one way from PS to EWS. You are doubling your workload.

Give it a try, but as I recall my experience was that if I define the stages in EWS, and then also define the stages in PS, when it's time to import the scores into EWS, EWS will popup a message box saying that the stage definitions are not the same. (I know that is weird because as best as I could tell they were identical.*)

[Graham Smith]

As Bill noted, you'll still need to define the stages in PS.

I know. Only reason I brought this up is because I'm a software developer and I have a tendency to try and look at every possible scenario to see if I can find problems.

In this case it came from a discussion about setting up a match where only one squad would use the electronic scoring as a test and the others would do paper scoring. In the process of looking for issues I tripped over the target type.

Of course, the simple answer is to just set up the stages in EZWS using metric targets for everything, regardless of their actual type. I actually did that in a match and the world didn't come to an abrupt end.

[Skydiver]

As Bill noted, you'll still need to define the stages in PS.

I know. Only reason I brought this up is because I'm a software developer and I have a tendency to try and look at every possible scenario to see if I can find problems.

In this case it came from a discussion about setting up a match where only one squad would use the electronic scoring as a test and the others would do paper scoring. In the process of looking for issues I tripped over the target type.

Of course, the simple answer is to just set up the stages in EZWS using metric targets for everything, regardless of their actual type. I actually did that in a match and the world didn't come to an abrupt end.

Yeah, we software developers are often too analytical for our own good. You should read some of my email exchanges with Ken finding problems and potential problems.

Funny, how that we also gravitate towards doing stats at our clubs, though.

[JThompson]

Handheld Scoring Program Approvals

• USPSA rule 9.11.11 allows the use of PDA's or handheld computers for the collection of scores, provided the program has been approved by the USPSA president. The approvals listed below are currently in effect. Please note that both of the listed programs are commercial products that are not available from USPSA. Support for these products may be obtained directly from the vendor.
  USPSS - Palm based Auto Scoring System from Peter Cunningham, lingus@acenet.com.au
  

Approved for all level matches (I, II and III)

Stagescore - Palm based scoring system from www.stagescore.com

Approved for all level matches (I, II and III)

JT

EDIT: I just got off the phone with Phil and he said he DID approve it for local stuff and this A1 as a test case to see how it goes, he also said he would give me a ring after the match and let me know if we should keep looking at it for A5 or if we need to hold off for now.

So there ya go...

J

Edited April 27, 2012 by JThompson

[wgnoyes]

They've already scored one other Area championship and several state championships with it as well.

[JThompson]

They've already scored one other Area championship and several state championships with it as well.

I think some may have jumped the gun a bit from what I am reading via emails... It's a great system though from what I am seeing and I think Phil will give it the green light quickly. I heard there was a dust devil at A1 that took all the backup sheets and scattered them to the wind.

Electronic devices have issues, but as long as there is a paper backup with the minimum info needed then the most that can be lost is one shooter. For the gains in the shack, accuracy, ease of use, this could be a great option.

The old school in me thinks I should keep the check mark in the box of the known column for A5. There are so many things I can't control, I hate to add one more to that column.

JT

[Ken N.]

All - we finished the A1 match yesterday, using PractiScore.

I apologize for not keeping up with this forum during the match, I was just to busy.

PractiScore worked well, competitors and staff liked it.

This was a big test, I'm told possibly the biggest Area match yet, with 414 scored competitors (of about 430 registered) and 12 stages. 5028 potential scores + chrono data.

That match size did expose some issues with regard to memory management, no show stoppers. Not all devices were affected (it probably was related to what else was being run on them), and of those affected, resetting the iPod between stages cleaned it up. We saw this 3 times on the last morning, when the score count approached 5000. We will fix the memory usage in the next update.

With this many competitors, we did identify some match point differences in at the 4th decimal point between PractiScore and ezWinScore. Initial investigation points to a floating point round off error on the ezWS side. The ezWS and PS engineers are discussing to see where the (very few) differences stem. We used ezWS for final results.

Out of 5028 scores we had about 10 paper versus electronic differences. Mainly (we think) due to scorers correcting scores on the paper, but not on the device. These were readily resolved. As cheap printers for mobile devices come available, these type errors should disappear. Note that most of these errors were identified by early and regular posting of results. We had 3 or 4 paper vs electronic things at match end.

We did identify a hole in the score summary sheet. A shooter that had hit 3 of 4 steel said he didn't have a mike because the summary, which records steel separate from paper, didn't have a mike listed. It had 3 steel, explaining the mike, but not clearly. So to make this more clear, in the coming days, we will change the summary page, and the summary forms on PractiScore.com to NOT separate out steel. The current summary is mainly for quick reentry of data from paper, but that really isn't a common problem and we will trade efficiency there for clarity.

On an otherwise calm Saturday, we had a surprise and quite large dust devil form, taking targets, target sticks, destroying 4 or 5 ezups, knocking the chrono off it's stand, and taking entire packets of score summaries out of squad buckets on two stages off to somewhere far away. Nobody was hurt (thankfully) and no data was lost - and here electronic scoring really saved the day. That COULD have been a mess sorting out who had missing sheets (2 stages, for 1 to 1.5 squads each based on the pickup schedule) and then recovering the carbons from shooters.

As often happens, humans made a mistake. For instance, we spent 1/2 hour at match end wondering how the match had suddenly dropped to 391 shooters. Turns out, while they had gathered all the iPods, the stats folks didn't SYNC all of them - missing the last 2 squads out on the range. This is akin to not entering a packet of score sheets when they get back to the stat shack. Although an obvious problem in hindsight, it took the stats staff (exhausted by this time) about 30 minutes to identify and 1 minute to correct. Our remedy will be an in/out type of process, where devices to be synched go into an in basket, and then to an out basket. The ultimate reason this happened, though, was that our battery powered range wifi system decided to run out of battery right at the end of the match. Bad luck/timing, but because we'd grown dependent on the easy synching, we hadn't been practiced on manual synching via the pocket router. With luck we will have power on our range before our next L3, or I will figure out why my solar / battery setup didn't work long enough.

This error compounded to slow down the start of the arbitration period because, at the time, we had to go to ezWS for the final scoring. Unfortunately, Palm -> ezWS has some issues - like not handing DQs, so we had to manually find them twice in ezWS (taking time). This wasn't a problem with 40 or 50 competitors. But with 400+, it took a bit of time, not much, but when everybody is waiting/watching, an eternity. )-:

Going forward we were instructed that we had approval to just use PS for the arb printouts/final scores.

That would have saved a decent chunk of time, letting us defer the ezWS export to the classifier/activity reports.

I'd planned to have non-certified staff write score summaries and verify with the shooter, but our RM said the rules forbid this. Having this rule changed would let us have time to train local staff on the system. Our first squad or two of the Wed/Thu (mostly staff) schedule were a bit rough as folks learned the system. Nothing major, but I like things to be "perfect", and I'd prefer to not pay the learning curve on the match clock. I could also import less certified staff (saving the match money), if local non-certified staff could handle this housekeeping task. Hand writing summaries of scores called by Range Officials seems a decent duty for non-certified helpers, which we had in abundance.

All in all, it worked pretty good. Some hiccups, and somebody has to be first. (-:

So should you run your L3 match with PractiScore? I wouldn't recommend until the next update, which will fix some problems with memory (as discussed above). So, if in May, I wouldn't recommend it. In June or later, I say... somebody has to be 2nd. (-:

Regards,

Ken N.

TY64062

[Ken N.]

BTW: I loved seeing competitors gathered around their stages iPods at then end of a stage cheering and commenting as the scorkeepers called off the winners / hit factors on the stage they had finished (and also told them their % relative to the super squad that had shot the day before). It adds to the fun - and that's what the game is about for most of us.

Ken N.

[wgnoyes]

...

This error compounded to slow down the start of the arbitration period because, at the time, we had to go to ezWS for the final scoring. Unfortunately, Palm -> ezWS has some issues - like not handing DQs, so we had to manually find them twice in ezWS (taking time). This wasn't a problem with 40 or 50 competitors. But with 400+, it took a bit of time, not much, but when everybody is waiting/watching, an eternity. )-:

Going forward we were instructed that we had approval to just use PS for the arb printouts/final scores.

That would have saved a decent chunk of time, letting us defer the ezWS export to the classifier/activity reports.

...

As a general practice, I save up the DQ's and PF changes for the end of the match after the last merge. (I'm speaking from a ezws paper match standpoint, but think it could work in PS as well.) I would say a good practice to get into is to have the RM bring the paper "scoresheet" showing the DQ to the chief stats officer, where he/she deposits it in what I call the "hassle folder", which you would then apply in ezws and/or ps after the last synchs and export/import into ezws. Don't even DQ the competitor in the stage units; you don't really need to. I also put PF scoresheets from the chronograph in the hassle folder for those who didn't make their declared PF and apply those at the end. (You only want the exceptions from the chronograph; not all the paper for the 99.5% of folks who chrono'ed successfully.)

I'd also like to see a "missing scoresheets (sic)" report in PS. Totally useless for stage units, but I think it would be very useful in the master unit receiving the synchs. An additional benefit from that would come when chronoman shows up at the end with his list of people who didn't go to the chronograph. If your missing scoresheets report shows Joe Shooter didn't shoot stages 1-12, then he didn't shoot at all. If he did shoot some stages, look in the hassle folder as described above for a DQ sheet, else he no-showed the chrono and gets deleted from the match.

Also maybe we need a list of competitors by squad number which is printed and sent to the stages, RM, and MD. (Damn: air-print capable printers could become important all of a sudden.) And a list a competitors by name showing class, division, PF, categories, etc, for posting so people can check their particulars. Else you have to go back to ezws to produce those.

[wgnoyes]

Those of you on the international circuit having to use WinMSS can apparently now use practiscore for data collection. IPSC Ontario now has a web-based procedure for taking a .psc match export file and converting it into something usable by winmss. Available at https://ipsc-ont.org/stats/ps

[euxx]

Those of you on the international circuit having to use WinMSS can apparently now use practiscore for data collection. IPSC Ontario now has a web-based procedure for taking a .psc match export file and converting it into something usable by winmss. Available at https://ipsc-ont.org/stats/ps

Thanks for posting my announcement here Bill.

Anyone interested in using WinMSS with PractiScore, please PM or email me.