Disappearing Targets

[Graham Smith]

Topic pretty much says it all. I've never seen that much use for them myself, but what the heck do I know, I've only been designing stages for a year now and I've got a lot to learn.

I understand the idea, they are kind of like bonus points. You get points if you hit them but no penalty if you don't. But when and why use them?

[jdphotoguy]

The way I've seen them used is as a risk reward kind of thing. You can take the time to try and hit them and get bonus points or waste precious time if you miss. Kind of like how golf courses have a tee box were you can either try to crush the drive and make it over the water and thus make the hole much shorter or take the safe shot avoiding the water, but making the hole that much longer.

Edited March 28, 2012 by jdphotoguy

[yoshidaex]

This is where being able to calculate a hit factor for a given stage would be beneficial.

[Nik Habicht]

Topic pretty much says it all. I've never seen that much use for them myself, but what the heck do I know, I've only been designing stages for a year now and I've got a lot to learn.

I understand the idea, they are kind of like bonus points. You get points if you hit them but no penalty if you don't. But when and why use them?

Essentially it depends on how they're set. If they're quick and on a short stage, everyone has a limited amount of time to hit them, i.e. better shooters will score more points; and they matter in terms of stage performance....

On long stages it can become a game -- am I better off taking the points, or shaving time....

Essentially they're a shooting challenge -- and they're a different challenge from an out and back, that after it's completed movement leaves you a tougher shot by having the upper panel available near a no-shoot....

Best reason to use 'em: Because your shooters will see them at level 2-4 matches....

[Sherwyn]

I try to avoid using disappearing targets

Sherwyn

[Skydiver]

With disappearing targets, you can get these interesting "flippers":

[Poppa Bear]

I like putting them into the middle of arrays. Time it right and you get good hits. If your timing is off you get bad hits or no hits. To me it is a method of getting into the shooters head.

Unless you shoot like Max Michel

[bbbean]

I like disappearing targets. They add a different challenge that isn't present with non-disappearing targets and add another option to your stage strategy.

BB

[steel1212]

I always try to work a way to get them. It doesn't always work and if the timing is off I just let them go. Most major matches though they have worked the timing right and are typically worth it, IMHO.

[Graham Smith]

I assume that the targets actually have to disappear by some mechanical method? Do they have to appear then disappear?

For example, a paper target sits next to a popper. Knock down the popper and the paper target falls or something moves to block it, etc. Does that constitute a disappearing target or does the fact that it was visible to start with mean you must shoot it. I can see how this could be a fine line.

[Corey]

Disappearing target . . . . . .A target which when activated and after completing its

movement is no longer available for engagement.

[Flexmoney]

Unless you shoot like Max Michel

That is a pretty cool video, but I might have to give it a thumbs-down due to 75% of the time shown is the "Make Ready".

[Corey]

Unless you shoot like Max Michel

That is a pretty cool video, but I might have to give it a thumbs-down due to 75% of the time shown is the "Make Ready".

It was cool shooting that he could pull that off (although I think i read somewhere he may have only gotten 1 hit on the last target). Ill agree on the thumbs down for a lack of editing. I can understand him wanting to take that long to get ready but at least cut it out of the video that gets posted on the internet, haha.

[Graham Smith]

Disappearing target . . . . . .A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement.

Yah, I thought about that a couple minutes ago - RTFM Smith !!

[sperman]

I like putting them into the middle of arrays. Time it right and you get good hits. If your timing is off you get bad hits or no hits. To me it is a method of getting into the shooters head.

Unless you shoot like Max Michel

Sorry for the thread drift, but how is that not requiring more than 8 shots from a single location or view?

[Skydiver]

I like putting them into the middle of arrays. Time it right and you get good hits. If your timing is off you get bad hits or no hits. To me it is a method of getting into the shooters head.

Unless you shoot like Max Michel

Sorry for the thread drift, but how is that not requiring more than 8 shots from a single location or view?

The video kept on stopping on me, but if it was only best 1 shot per paper on the disappearing target, I can see how it is within the rules.

[Graham Smith]

Sorry for the thread drift, but how is that not requiring more than 8 shots from a single location or view?

Let's not start this again. It's not a single location if you can run from one place to another and still see the targets. It may be pushing the limits of the definition in this particular case, but it's not breaking them.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Graham Smith

[SLM]

Sorry for the thread drift, but how is that not requiring more than 8 shots from a single location or view?

Let's not start this again. It's not a single location if you can run from one place to another and still see the targets. It may be pushing the limits of the definition in this particular case, but it's not breaking them.

Also, there's no requirement to shoot at a disappearing target. 9.9.2

[Skydiver]

Sorry for the thread drift, but how is that not requiring more than 8 shots from a single location or view?

Let's not start this again. It's not a single location if you can run from one place to another and still see the targets. It may be pushing the limits of the definition in this particular case, but it's not breaking them.

Also, there's no requirement to shoot at a disappearing target. 9.9.2

But the shots still count in the "required" count when determining if the stage is a legal stage or not. The paper targets in the picture below are appearing targets activated by the poppers. They disappear at the end of their movement. If this were best 2 per paper, the stage would not be legal as a short course. Making it a only 1 per paper, then it is a legal stage. Yes, the stage designer went back and forth with John Amidon regarding the term "required" and how no penalty misses on disappearing targets don't require that you shoot at them (as long as they are activated). In the end, Amidon determined that the shots on the disappearing targets count towards "required".

Edited March 29, 2012 by Skydiver

[sperman]

Sorry for the thread drift, but how is that not requiring more than 8 shots from a single location or view?

Let's not start this again. It's not a single location if you can run from one place to another and still see the targets. It may be pushing the limits of the definition in this particular case, but it's not breaking them.

That's a pretty big stretch. A SS shooter would have to do at least 1 if not 2 standing reloads to get all the points on that stage. I guess you could argue that he could take a baby step during each reload, thus moving to a new location.

Since this was at an area match I have to assume it was approved by Amidon. And since Max took 2 shots at each target I have to assume the best 2 were scored on each target.

If this stage has already been discussed somewhere please let me know. I'll be glad to take my comments to that thread.

[sperman]

Sorry for the thread drift, but how is that not requiring more than 8 shots from a single location or view?

Let's not start this again. It's not a single location if you can run from one place to another and still see the targets. It may be pushing the limits of the definition in this particular case, but it's not breaking them.

Also, there's no requirement to shoot at a disappearing target. 9.9.2

But the shots still count in the "required" count when determining if the stage is a legal stage or not. The paper targets in the picture below are appearing targets activated by the poppers. They disappear at the end of their movement. If this were best 2 per paper, the stage would not be legal as a short course. Making it a only 1 per paper, then it is a legal stage. Yes, the stage designer went back and forth with John Amidon regarding the term "required" and how no penalty misses on disappearing targets don't require that you shoot at them (as long as they are activated). In the end, Amidon determined that the shots on the disappearing targets count towards "required".

I count 31 shots in the video. That's no short course.

[leas327]

It gives the stage designer more tools to put in his toolbox. It makes each person do a quick assesment of their skill. For me sometimes it just isn't worth it to go after the extra points. But top tier shooters (like Max in the vid) will be able to get the points and the time. They are fun and they offer different challenges.

[CHA-LEE]

Disappearing targets are tricky to deploy effectively in field courses. On speed shoot stages they can work out really well. Usually the high hit factor for medium to large field courses will be in the 7 - 8 hit factor range. Knowing that, if it takes you more than 1.5 seconds of "extra" time to activate, engage, and transition away from a disappearing target you are better off with simply blowing it off. If it takes you less than 1.5 seconds to activate, engage, and transition away from a disappearing target then its worth going for it. We are also talking about getting two solid A's on the DT as well. If its a partial target with hard cover or no shoots blocking it then the risk verses reward makes it even less worth going for it.

But its fun to watch people do everything in their power to try and engage the DT's without even thinking about calculating the stage time and possible high hit factor. I have done very well on these kind of stages at major matches because I took the time to calculate the high hit factor and determine that the best plan was to blow off the DT and reap the time benefit of not trying to engage it.

Edited March 29, 2012 by CHA-LEE

[Nik Habicht]

I like putting them into the middle of arrays. Time it right and you get good hits. If your timing is off you get bad hits or no hits. To me it is a method of getting into the shooters head.

Unless you shoot like Max Michel

Sorry for the thread drift, but how is that not requiring more than 8 shots from a single location or view?

You didn't have to shoot them from there.....

As a matter of fact, if they were disappearing targets, then 0 rounds were required to be shot at them.....

You would only be required to take the five steel.....

[Nik Habicht]

That's a pretty big stretch. A SS shooter would have to do at least 1 if not 2 standing reloads to get all the points on that stage. I guess you could argue that he could take a baby step during each reload, thus moving to a new location.

No -- a single stack shooter would not have to do standing reloads....

One perhaps -- but he had the option of taking the steel and paper while moving toward the next targets.....

Not an ideal presentation -- but not illegal.....