how much difference you talking about and are you sure all the input specs are the same?

 

Data is exact and this is something I have seen with several different setups.

Both programs tend to give a spectrum: very weak - slightly weak - good - slightly stiff - very stiff. Usually there are 2 levels difference. If one says very weak, the other says good. Or if one says slightly weak, the other says slightly stiff.

 

are you using a chronograph?

 

Oehler 35

 

I shoot a 350 spine arrow,54lbs,28 inch arrow 120 point weight . Shoots great.

 

How does your statement answer the OP's question?

 

Anyone else play with both software programs?

 

I did. A LOT!!! I went with AA.

Like you noticed, TAP, OT2, etc seemed to point me to stiffer shafts.

I used older trial copies of the software and AA came closest to being correct. I test software for a living so I used a common approach used in that field to test things.

Remember.... You can always tune arrows that are to stiff.

 

innn

 

I've also experienced the same thing when comparing arrows using both programs...

I've always just built them according to TAP and the arrows have always performed as expected.

Why they are different? I don't know for sure but I suspect it has to do with the math algorithms each company utilizes in their respective programs.

When making sight tapes, charts, etc., I can never get either program, or even AM, to match despite inputting the same exact data points!

 

OT2 and TAP have been very close with their recommendations and have never had an issue

 

I have primarily used TAP for producing my tapes and have been very happy. I found that I have to fudge the fletch size slightly to account for the steep helical that I usually use, so they are exact on long distance shots.

Having played with probably 20 different setups over the years (different bows and weights), I have not found 1 instance where TAP ever said an arrow setup was stiffer than AA. Every AA setup that was optimal was underspined on TAP. And, every TAP setup that was optimal was overspined on AA. Currently I am playing with a Hoyt CST ZT and 330 injexions. I do not have the program in front of me, but I believe TAP said I needed .290 with the heavier head that I was considering when the arrows were cut to 27". They said the 330's were underspined. When I placed the 330s on my RAM tester and measured at 27" (not standard 28"), they actually spined at .285. AA says the arrow combination will be perfect and I tend to believe it will. I know this is all in how the program was written and the algorithm used.

Like I said originally, I have been able to get the arrows to fly - just wonder if one is "more" correct.

 

OT2 will give a stiffer spine than AA per my experiences over the years. However, when I put in the same data for my sight settings (which is a different algorithm than the spine charts), the sight tapes only differ by a couple of clicks, if any.
The real proof of the pudding is in how the arrows hold the line and grouping at longer distances. In my experience BOTH the stiffer (from OT2) and the weaker (from AA) produce good arrow grouping, so it becomes one of individual preference; at least IMHO.
I use them as the "guide", but not the gospel, however.

field14 (Tom D.)

 

"I have AA and TAP software programs. I have noticed this for years and it bugs me. If I input the exact data for both programs, AA always shows the spine to be stiff compared to TAP and vice versa (TAP shows the spine is weak compared to AA). The difference is not small either."

Could you possibly post the exact specs used and how the program output matched up to your testing or expectations?

DW
DL
Shaft Length (end-to-end carbon)
fletching used
nock used
point and insert weight
wrap length used
primary use: hunting, target, both

"Why they are different? I don't know for sure but I suspect it has to do with the math algorithms each company utilizes in their respective programs."

Exactly right. What are the inputs used by each program? How are those inputs applied? What weighting did each developer apply to each of the aspects affecting spine? If all inputs and expectations were not exactly the same, the results would have to be different.

"I used older trial copies of the software and AA came closest to being correct."

If you're not using the most current version, then the results are only relevant to the old version, not the newest release.

 

If you're not using the most current version, then the results are only relevant to the old version, not the newest release.

I used the older trial versions and used an older bow, that all the packages had listed, to perform the testing. It was as close as I could come to a true comparison without buying the software packages.

Keep in mind that this is what I do for a living. I do it with much larger packages that cost thousands of times what the archery software costs.

 

So here are the 2 programs, I hope you can actually see the screen shots. The bow data is exactly the same (A-A, BH, DL, peak weight, etc....). The arrows are the same length, weight, double inserts, point weight and fletch.

I hope you can see that AA shows arrow is stiff side of optimal whereas TAP shows arrow is very weak.

 

On left you have 141 grain point on right 100 grain point

 

Your draw length and specs the 330's will be just fine

 

I agree. This is what I shot last year out of 2014 CST as well as out of my 2015 CST on a red stag hunt last month. I am actually wanting to go to 125 heads for this falls elk hunt. I will probably cut the shafts a little shorter to beef up the spine if I do.

I probably should not be bothered, but would like to understand why the 2 programs are so different in their assessment of spine recommendations. TAP makes great tapes, but I think it underestimates on spine.

 

The screen grabs you show have 2 different bows ?

AA=2015 Hoyt CST IBO 350
TAP=2013 Spyder Turbo IBO 340

So it is odd that the TAP screen is showing "weak"..you'd think it would be showing stiffer given the same shaft and all else equal and the 10fps dif in IBO.

How SFAX for MacOS show it..

 

Not sure how I missed your screen shots, but thanks for taking the time. Confirms to me that your algorithm is much closer to AA regarding spine.

Now you need to make a version compatible with an ipad :wink:

 

My TAP program is not updated to include the 2015 CST ZT. I used that bow to start but changed specs on TAP to exactly match the CST ZT. There are other levels of the software that allow modification of A-A, BH, IBO, etc... What matters most is making sure you have the actual arrow speed of the bow. Even if my chrono is off a little, I am using the exact same speeds with both programs.

I have the programs set identical, shooting the same arrow out of matched bows at an identical speed. Yet the spine recommendation is different.

I would be glad to test this on someone else's setup, if they want to include all the specifics.

 

Can't you just use a bow both programs have. Then input identical specs for everything else? Then see how identical they are?

 

For spine selection I like the guidance OT2 provides
For sight tapes TAP is easiest for me
never really caught on with AA

 

"On left you have 141 grain point on right 100 grain point "
he has a 41grn insert..

One thing to consider is BOP as Easton suggests. With regular inserts or fat shafts it probably isn't much of an issue but on thin shafts with glue in points I've found that real world testing shows that you'll get stiff tuning vs end of carbon suggested "good" spine.

 

How does the result that each program generate compare to the shaft manufacture recommendations? I only use TAP Pro but it has always produced great tapes for me.

 

The programs account for dynamic spine and are a far better starting point in most situations compared to the manufacture recommendations on the back of a box

 

So I compared a random setup: Mathews Chill, 29" DL, 65# shooting easton redline 360, 29" with 100 grain point (388 grains total) at 280 fps. AA says spine perfect and TAP says spine extremely weak.

 

Only use TAP for sight tapes nowadays so can't help you there. TAP used to be right there with OT2 on spine but haven't used TAP for probably 3-4 years for spine selection. I always use OT2 nowadays for spine

 

So here you go:
Archers Advantage Desktop Version
View attachment 2217213

Archers Advantage Online Version
View attachment 2217214

OnTarget2
View attachment 2217215

The Archery Program PRO
View attachment 2217216

Draw weight 49#
Draw Length 29.75"
ATA 40.5"
Brace height 8"
Manufacturer IBO 301
Point weight 100 grains
Raw shaft length 27.5"
Fletching 3 pieces 3 grains each
Nock 7 grains
Nock bushing 12 grains
Peep 8 grains
D-Loop 6 grains
Nock point 1 grain
Silencers 40 grains

 

So here you go:

OnTarget2
View attachment 2217215

Draw weight 49#
Draw Length 29.75"
ATA 40.5"
Brace height 8"
Manufacturer IBO 301
Point weight 100 grains
Raw shaft length 27.5"
Fletching 3 pieces 3 grains each
Nock 7 grains
Nock bushing 12 grains
Peep 8 grains
D-Loop 6 grains
Nock point 1 grain
Silencers 40 grains

Make sure to "check" release if the setup uses a mechanical release..the OT2 screen grab shows spine for "fingers". ;-)

Not sure how I missed your screen shots, but thanks for taking the time. Confirms to me that your algorithm is much closer to AA regarding spine.

Now you need to make a version compatible with an ipad :wink:

No worries and you're welcome.. iOS and Android stuff is in the works. Android will probably make to market 1st just because the app store restrictions are less onerous.

OT2 gives you a good selection but i didn't like having to buy another license to update every year to get new bows AA does it for free and I have only used the TAPS free version

The OT2 licenses are "forever" on the the same computer. The database subscriptions are optional ($7.50). The DB subscription is 1 year from date of purchase, but technically straddles 2 years. Example: buy SSX program $19.95 today. The first year subscription is included and expires 28APR16. You get full access for 2015 and since the subscription expires in 2016, you get that year as well. When 2017 rolls around, you don't have access to 2017 (but still do for all prior years), so if you need to, you renew the DB subscription for $7.50 which extends you through 2018. So for $19.95+$7.50 you get 2015-2018 for $27.45. If I understand correctly the $12 per year for AA, that totals $48.00 for 2015-2018.