Archery Talk Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm primarily looking to run arrow spine and maybe print sight tapes in the future. Can anyone please tell me which one they personally feel is easier to use or more accurate. Thanks for your input. If there is another software out there better please let me know. Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Can't say I've used AA. I do use OT2 and the outputs have been very close to actual for a couple different configurations I have. Arrows weights are usually within a few grains. Speeds are as within few fps, sliding Performance. Hoping to make a sight mark card on OT2 this weekend and test it out. Praying for a decent weekend weather-wise in WI so I can figure out my actual arrow speed.
 

·
Kung fu master/Wizard
Joined
·
2,730 Posts
I have archers advantage. It's been spot on for me. Sight tapes and cards have all been good and very useful for arrow spine.

I use it for every setup I have
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Can't say I've used AA. I do use OT2 and the outputs have been very close to actual for a couple different configurations I have. Arrows weights are usually within a few grains. Speeds are within few fps, sliding "Performance" scale will help get speeds to actual to vary other items for a bow setup. Hoping to make a sight mark card on OT2 this weekend and test it out. Praying for a decent weekend weather-wise in WI so I can figure out my actual arrow speed.
Didn't finish the sentence
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
I use the OT2 software and I make my sight tape based on sight mark calibration. My correct sight tape speed has always been faster than my chrony speed by 25fps. Mathematically the chrony is spot-on based on IBO speed and arrow weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
I use OT2 for making sight tapes and it works great. I haven't used AA so I'm not sure which is easier, but I definitely think OT2 could be simplified.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,434 Posts
I've used both and like both. The results are usually very close.

OT2 seems a little more useful to me since you can enter in more data.

Either will work fine for you.
 

·
Shootin and Cussin
Joined
·
24,574 Posts
As I have said before.... I test software for a living. As a result of that I have lot of knowledge about testing functionality.

I ran OT2, AA and a few others through a pretty thorough test regimen a while back. AA came up the winner. It is now what I use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,035 Posts
I've used OT2, AA & Archery Pro. I like OT2 best for its arrow selection ability & equipment flexibility. AA differs from AP & OT 2 in spine calculations but does a very good job with most other things. AP is a more basic and user friendly system. Now, they're all good and if I said one is better than another, for what I need them for, I'd be lying. I prefer manufacturers sight tapes since accuracy has to be hands on tested & therefor I don't trust any other method or from software alone. I also prefer HHA & their sight tapes have never been off when the required testing was done properly. Could be I'm just old school enough to think not sighting in my own equipment lacks the security of knowing its dead on when it has to be.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
As I have said before.... I test software for a living. As a result of that I have lot of knowledge about testing functionality.

I ran OT2, AA and a few others through a pretty thorough test regimen a while back. AA came up the winner. It is now what I use.
You tested software doing what ? Debugging, looking for crashes? or which is more accurate?

What difference did you see between AA and OT2 - differences as in more accurate. I really don't care if you found some bug that caused a crash.
 

·
Shootin and Cussin
Joined
·
24,574 Posts
You tested software doing what ? Debugging, looking for crashes? or which is more accurate?

What difference did you see between AA and OT2 - differences as in more accurate. I really don't care if you found some bug that caused a crash.
Accuracy was my primary concern.

None crashed. Some were easier to use than others (opinion).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Thanks for all the advice, When I first started archery years ago I never thought I would get this involved. Thanks again!
 

·
Archery Talk Sponsor
Joined
·
3,567 Posts
I'm primarily looking to run arrow spine and maybe print sight tapes in the future. Can anyone please tell me which one they personally feel is easier to use or more accurate. Thanks for your input. If there is another software out there better please let me know. Thanks
What you should do is take advantage of the "free trial" downloads offered to see if a given software package works for you.

This thread explains why there are differences in the spine match output of AA, OT2, etc..

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2271363&highlight=OT2

See post #11 for four links to polls on who likes what software..


As I have said before.... I test software for a living. As a result of that I have lot of knowledge about testing functionality.

I ran OT2, AA and a few others through a pretty thorough test regimen a while back. AA came up the winner. It is now what I use.
I'm going to repeat what I've said each time you post this...

It would be helpful to know the OT2 product and version numbers that you used and the year you ran your tests. Have you compared and tested the latest products? Each time I ask you this, you never respond to this very simple inquiry. Why? You've been saying almost the exact same thing since 2011 or 2012. I'm going to make the assumption that your test results pre-date your first post on the subject and since you probably won't reply with the info, I'll assume your test results are at least 4-5 years old. Fair?

As someone who claims expertise in the software testing industry, then you know very well that even one version difference in a software package can yield entirely different results. If you aren't testing the most current version of AA against the most current version of OT2, then the tests you did "a while back" are meaningless.

Could you explain your methodology to test sight tapes? Did you use a hooter shooter? How did you check the tape? Did you shoot out to 80 or 90 yards? Why did you use a chronograph for your velocity? Which trajectory calculation method did you use..Liston or Siacci?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
I started using the AA computer based version back in 2008 with good results. Then I tried OT2 a couple of years later because it had more details and i could play with it more. Still using it with very good results. A couple of years ago I signed up for the AA online web based access. I have not been able to get anything consistent out of it. Information you put on the set up button does not transfer to the arrow selection tab. When i try to print tapes it changes the 20 yard mark on its own. In all fairness, I have not contacted the owners to clarify but I have check the online guide and has not been much help. Something is screwy with this online version.
So...OT2 for me almost exclusively. I like the windows version better the the Mac (I have both). Windows version is more detailed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,035 Posts
There is a problem with my laptop computer and its causing OT2 not to open. After trying various fixes I'm thinking a more portable Android tablet might very well be a better option anyway. A dedicated tablet for all my archery information, equipment setups etc., in one place, without clutter just seems better all around. After looking at Windows tablets and knowing OT2 doesn't have an iPAD version an Android is looking like a better all around choice. I'm not sure which Android to get. I do like OT2 better than any other archery program I have. AA & The Archery Program that are both good programs but I strongly prefer OT2. Being able to carry a dedicated archery tablet anyplace like shopping or a shoot seems more attractive and practical. Anyone using OT2 on an Android? Which one are you using?
 

·
Shootin and Cussin
Joined
·
24,574 Posts
What you should do is take advantage of the "free trial" downloads offered to see if a given software package works for you.

This thread explains why there are differences in the spine match output of AA, OT2, etc..

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2271363&highlight=OT2

See post #11 for four links to polls on who likes what software..




I'm going to repeat what I've said each time you post this...

It would be helpful to know the OT2 product and version numbers that you used and the year you ran your tests. Have you compared and tested the latest products? Each time I ask you this, you never respond to this very simple inquiry. Why? You've been saying almost the exact same thing since 2011 or 2012. I'm going to make the assumption that your test results pre-date your first post on the subject and since you probably won't reply with the info, I'll assume your test results are at least 4-5 years old. Fair?

As someone who claims expertise in the software testing industry, then you know very well that even one version difference in a software package can yield entirely different results. If you aren't testing the most current version of AA against the most current version of OT2, then the tests you did "a while back" are meaningless.

Could you explain your methodology to test sight tapes? Did you use a hooter shooter? How did you check the tape? Did you shoot out to 80 or 90 yards? Why did you use a chronograph for your velocity? Which trajectory calculation method did you use..Liston or Siacci?
No. I will not explain my methodology. I am looking into the process of copyrighting it. Something for retirement and it's not just archery.

I checked the tapes by mounting them on my sight and shooting.

I used my hands. That's how I shoot a bow. I have yet to able to carry a Hooter Shooter on a 3D course.

My max distance was 60 yards.

I used a chrono because, well, how else would I do it. Trust the software?

I did not mess with the trajectory pieces. I didn't, and don't, consider them important.

All the testing was done a few years ago. I can't speak to anything recent but I know AA does regular updates.

Now, I will be willing to run another set of tests with OT2 and AA and use a Hooter Shooter as long as someone will pay my hourly rate for the tests. That should pay for the Hooter Shooter.

By the way, I have never seen a response from you up until this one. You can always contact me via PM if you would like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,035 Posts
Really, the bottom line is you still have to test all results using your setup for yourself. Hooter shooters are great but I still have to make the shot and if I can shoot like the Hooter Shooter no problem! However, I know any software can only give me a suggestion and a Hooter Shooter can only show if my bow is, great, good or a dog. I still have to test "ALL" results for myself and shoot my own bow. I have to make the shot no matter how much easier it would be to trust results from software of a Hooter Shooter. Guessing or trusting if software or Hooter Shooter results will work for me frankly is not something I could ever be comfortable doing.
 

·
Archery Talk Sponsor
Joined
·
3,567 Posts
I used my hands. That's how I shoot a bow. I have yet to able to carry a Hooter Shooter on a 3D course.
LOL. Yeah, hooter shooters on a 3D course are hard to use..difficult to find a flat spot to set up. ;-)


I checked the tapes by mounting them on my sight and shooting.

My max distance was 60 yards.
The reason for asking about your methodology to test sight tapes and which trajectory calculation method you used was to try and determine how you came to your conclusions.

Assuming the same data is used in both programs..peep height, sight radius, and a velocity is calculated from 2 shot in marks..both AA and OT2 will generate nearly exact sight tapes. They may not calculate the same velocity from the 2 marks, but the tapes should be close to identical.

Instead of attaching and shooting tapes on the range, they can just be laid out next to each other and compared. You can also compare the output from the marks table each program generates. You just have to make sure you have OT2 set to output the marks in "M.dd" format instead of the "M+cc" format that is the OT2 default.

Liston or Siacci? Are the 2 trajectory calculation methods used by OT2. The Liston trajectory algorithm is the original from 2001 and is only an option for backward compatibility. It was replaced by the Siacci method with is faster and more accurate, especially at the longer distances. If one were to accidentally use the Liston method, output would not be as good.


I used a chrono because, well, how else would I do it. Trust the software?
Actually, yes..trust the software. Both AA and OT2 allow you to generate sight tapes from 2 shot in marks. That is the most accurate method for either program.

Chronographs are problematic for a number of reasons. They can be off +-3% or more. At 280fps that's 8fps. If the velocity you use if off 8fps, tapes will be way off. For reference, HHA tapes are spaced 2.5fps apart. That's 3 tapes away from the one that should have been used.

The reason AA and OT2 may not calculate the same velocity from the 2 marks is that both program are written by different programmers using different algorithms..and both used different chronographs to validate their output. For 2 chronographs to give the same output they have to be calibrated to each other.

If you plugged in the velocity from your chronograph and used it for both AA and OT2, you're almost guaranteed to get different tape results. If AA gave better results with your chronograph, then it means your chronograph happens to be synched closely to the output AA generates.


All the testing was done a few years ago. I can't speak to anything recent but I know AA does regular updates.
OT2 products are updated on a fairly regular basis. The most current release was done last week Vx451. All you need to do to test against the most current version is download and install. This assumes you have a registered version of OT2.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top