Tuning Software ???

From           Cam Kreps <ckreps@mail.conterra.com>
Date           18 Jan 1996 18:49:23 GMT


Group, someone posted a couple of weeks ago looking for some 
computer software for calculating and/or providing proper tuning 
and setup.  Does anyone know if that info. came in ?  Thx in 
advance for response.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           trier@pilot.msu.edu (Terry Trier)
Date           19 Jan 1996 01:44:08 GMT


In article <4dm4nj$3fg@molokini.conterra.com>, ckreps@mail.conterra.com 
says...
>
>Group, someone posted a couple of weeks ago looking for some 
>computer software for calculating and/or providing proper tuning 
>and setup.  Does anyone know if that info. came in ?  Thx in 
>advance for response.
>
Haven't seen anything on it since the last post.  The software (Easton Arrow 
Flight Simulator) can be purchased from Easton, 5040 W. Harold Gatty Dr., 
Salt Lake City, UT 84116.  The price used to be $99.95.

I played around with the the beta version of this software once and it 
seemed pretty powerful.  But 2 posts I have seen in this group suggest that 
it has some bugs.

I once got a post from the guy who wrote the program (sorry, I forgot his 
name) so I know that he used to monitor this group.  I wish he would post 
again and let us know more about the program, bug problems/fixes and future 
releases/plans for this software.  Windoze version? :-)

-- 
Terry M. Trier       

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           Perry Ratcliff <ratcliff@mailsrv1.trw.com>
Date           Fri, 19 Jan 96 17:08:01 PDT

> >Group, someone posted a couple of weeks ago looking for some 
> >computer software for calculating and/or providing proper tuning 
> >and setup.  Does anyone know if that info. came in ?  Thx in 
> >advance for response.
> >
> Haven't seen anything on it since the last post.  The software (Easton Arrow 

> Flight Simulator) can be purchased from Easton, 5040 W. Harold Gatty Dr., 
> Salt Lake City, UT 84116.  The price used to be $99.95.
> 
> I played around with the the beta version of this software once and it 
> seemed pretty powerful.  But 2 posts I have seen in this group suggest that 
> it has some bugs.
> 
> I once got a post from the guy who wrote the program (sorry, I forgot his 
> name) so I know that he used to monitor this group.  I wish he would post 
> again and let us know more about the program, bug problems/fixes and future 
> releases/plans for this software.  Windoze version? :-)
> 
I just spoke with Don Rabska at Easton and he said that the retail price is 
still $99.95.  He also said that the software can be ordered through any 
Easton Retailer.

I haven't played with it myself yet but may get my hands on a copy in the next 
couple of weeks.

Good Shooting!

Perry

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           bhanson@pebbles.uswnvg.com (Brian Hanson)
Date           22 Jan 1996 06:40:58 GMT


Bowhunters Discount Warehouse has this software for $39.95.  Their 
# is:  800-735-2697

I picked it up recently.  It's definitely still in its formative stages
being a DOS program in the Windows age, but it runs fine under Win 95.
It's a good program to use if you want to experiment with lots of 
variables in trying to find a good shaft size.  As far as tuning goes, 
I don't think it was programmed as a tuning tool.  It will give you 
shaft and point size options and tell you various info regarding what 
it perceives as the best shaft sizes for your setup.  This includes 
estimated velocity, energy, and spine compatibility with your bow.  A
couple of bummers in this version are:  It won't let you input the 
shaft size - it picks the best options for you.  However, you can 
trick it into selecting a shaft size by adjusting the bow parameters 
and then fine tune things (experiment) with your selected shaft size.
It doesn't have a database of common bow specs so you have to measure 
your bows features.  Admittedly, this would be tough to do with all the
bows on the market.  My last complaint is that it doesn't do 
trajectory graphs so you can compare different arrows.  Complaints 
aside, I think the software is worth $40 bucks if you are into 
experimenting with setups or want a more technical means of picking a 
shaft/point size.  I like it and am waiting for version 2.0!


Brian Hanson

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Tuning Software ???
From           jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Date           22 Jan 1996 12:11:23 GMT


bhanson@pebbles.uswnvg.com (Brian Hanson) writes:

>Bowhunters Discount Warehouse has this software for $39.95.  Their 
># is:  800-735-2697

>I picked it up recently.  It's definitely still in its formative stages
>being a DOS program in the Windows age, but it runs fine under Win 95.

It runs OK in a Windows shell (under 3.11) if you have sufficient guts
in your machine. eg 90MHz Pentium, 16MB ram.

A slow 486/4MB laptop and it's strictly DOS only and so sloooow.

                                Stretch (expecting everything to whizzz)
--
John Dickson,(aka Stretch)      

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From           trier@pilot.msu.edu (Terry Trier)
Date           23 Jan 1996 01:05:04 GMT


In article <4dvutb$dh5@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk 
says...
>
>bhanson@pebbles.uswnvg.com (Brian Hanson) writes:
>
>>Bowhunters Discount Warehouse has this software for $39.95.  Their 
>># is:  800-735-2697

Wow!  Sounds like a deal (I think).


>
>A slow 486/4MB laptop and it's strictly DOS only and so sloooow.

This is something I have been wondering about.  My home computer is a 386 
sx16 and my work computer is a 386 dx25 (don't laugh).  Will the program 
even run on these machines and if so, how sloooowww will it be?  Honest 
guesses will be appreciated.


>
>                                Stretch (expecting everything to whizzz)
>--
>John Dickson,(aka Stretch)      Stylist Supreme, Carbon Foam 70" 45#
>Multimedia Guru?                Gemini Stabilisers, Spiga Carbon 30
>University of Edinburgh         FF S4 9 Strand, ACE 400 L4 32.5"

-- 
Terry M. Trier       

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Date           24 Jan 1996 10:55:48 GMT



trier@pilot.msu.edu (Terry Trier) writes:

>>A slow 486/4MB laptop and it's strictly DOS only and so sloooow.

>This is something I have been wondering about.  My home computer is a 386 
>sx16 and my work computer is a 386 dx25 (don't laugh).  Will the program 
>even run on these machines and if so, how sloooowww will it be?  Honest 
>guesses will be appreciated.

<ROTFL...>

Sorry couldn't help it but.....oh never mind it's cruel to torment the
afflicted.

I had a look at the software, it's only about 1MB for all the files so
it should run no problem on a low spec machine (particularly is you have
4MB Memory or so)

My guess is that it will run in a DOS only session. A P5 90 takes about
35seconds to process all carbon arrows (incl ACE) and all aluminium
arrows for a recurve setup on maximum detail (when running in a Windows
DOS shell). It's very much faster if you narrow the range of shafts eg 7
seconds if you restrict to ACE only. A 486 25 MHz (I think) took about
1min or so to do similar but running from DOS. I guess your 386's will 
be around 2 minutes to process each change. 

So useable, just go and make a de-caf coffee while you wait ;-)

I have a 386 20 kicking around somewhere, I'll try to remember to load
the software onto it and see how it runs...if I haven't posted the
results E-mail me and remind me to do it. I spend all day in front of
this damn goggle box so I don't usually spend much time at home!

--
John Dickson,(aka Stretch)      

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           bhanson@pebbles.uswnvg.com (Brian Hanson)
Date           25 Jan 1996 02:07:44 GMT


I run it on a 386dx33 and it takes about 2 minutes to generate its data.
This machine has 8megs o' ram.  On a 486 75mhz w/8megs it does it in
about 20 seconds.  It's not that bad on the 386:)

: This is something I have been wondering about.  My home computer is a 386 
: sx16 and my work computer is a 386 dx25 (don't laugh).  Will the program 
: even run on these machines and if so, how sloooowww will it be?  Honest 
: guesses will be appreciated.

Brian Hanson 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           trier@pilot.msu.edu (Terry Trier)
Date           24 Jan 1996 23:36:24 GMT


In article <4e537k$rtg@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk 
says...
>
>So useable, just go and make a de-caf coffee while you wait ;-)
>

How did you know I only drink decaf!

>I have a 386 20 kicking around somewhere, I'll try to remember to load
>the software onto it and see how it runs...if I haven't posted the
>results E-mail me and remind me to do it. I spend all day in front of
>this damn goggle box so I don't usually spend much time at home!

Mucho appreciato.

-- 
Terry M. Trier       

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           "David S. Mattson" <mattson@indirect.com>
Date           25 Jan 1996 04:30:12 GMT



bhanson@pebbles.uswnvg.com (Brian Hanson) wrote:
>
> Bowhunters Discount Warehouse has this software for $39.95.  Their 
> # is:  800-735-2697
> 
>               Mercilous snip, snip snip

        Brian what is the name of the software.......I did not get in 
on the initial part of this conversation.

Thanks,
        Dave  mattson@indirect.com


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From           jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Date           26 Jan 1996 10:49:54 GMT



trier@pilot.msu.edu (Terry Trier) writes:

>jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk says...

>>So useable, just go and make a de-caf coffee while you wait ;-)

>How did you know I only drink decaf!

I saw that you were a man with respect for your body and obviously
dedicated to a minimum amount of bow-shake ;-) Honest Guv.

Well I guess I underestimated how many calculations the Easton Arrow
Fight Simulator does! So here are the actual stats:

Bow type: recurve    Detail: Maximum     All Shaft Types selected

Pentium 90 16MB RAM, running in Windows Shell, 
processing time = 35seconds

386SX 20 MHz 2MB RAM, running from DOS prompt,
processing time = 12 minutes (yup that says twelve minutes)

The software was stable on both platforms.

So I guess it's more of a go and hoover the kitchen, make the bed and do
the washing up while you wait for the processing to finish.

For this kind of performance difference the EAFS must do one hell of a
lot of calculations (unless, maybe 2MB was a bit low and it was running
out of memory)

Hope this helps you guys get an idea of how it runs!


John Dickson

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: trier@pilot.msu.edu (Terry Trier)
Subject: Re: Tuning Software ???
Date: 29 Jan 1996 20:29:19 GMT

In article <4eabki$du6@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk 
says...
>Well I guess I underestimated how many calculations the Easton Arrow
>Fight Simulator does! So here are the actual stats:
>
>Bow type: recurve    Detail: Maximum     All Shaft Types selected
>
>Pentium 90 16MB RAM, running in Windows Shell, 
>processing time = 35seconds
>
>386SX 20 MHz 2MB RAM, running from DOS prompt,
>processing time = 12 minutes (yup that says twelve minutes)

Ugh!!!!!!!!!  This is pitiful.  I do a lot of number crunching using 
sophisticated statistical programs that do hundreds of calculations on 
fairly hefty databases and I've never run anything this slow on a PC.  I 
guess I will wait until I get my new Hexium to buy the software. :-)  Or 
perhaps Easton will produce a more efficient program?????

In a way I suspected this because when I first tried out the software at the 
Anderson's Archery Clinic the guy from Easton told me that it wouldn't run 
very well on a 386 that Anderson's had in their shop.

>
>The software was stable on both platforms.
>
>So I guess it's more of a go and hoover the kitchen, make the bed and do
>the washing up while you wait for the processing to finish.
>
>For this kind of performance difference the EAFS must do one hell of a
>lot of calculations (unless, maybe 2MB was a bit low and it was running
>out of memory)
>

I don't see how that is possible.  Unless you are converting some of that 2 
megs to expanded memory and the EAFS has the capabilities to access expanded 
memory, I doubt that the EAFS can access extended memory running in dos (I'm 
not sure if it can acutally access extended memory running as a dos app 
under windoze either).

>Hope this helps you guys get an idea of how it runs!

It was a great help.  I appreciate it.  BTW, does your 386 have a math 
coprocessor in it?  That could make a big difference (but then 12 minutes is 
an awful loooooonnnnnngg time). :-)

-- 
Terry M. Trier       

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ldiehr@eth233.eld.ford.com (L S Diehr (Lawrence))
Subject: Re: Tuning Software ???
Date: 30 Jan 1996 14:37:20 GMT

Terry Trier (trier@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: In article <4eabki$du6@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk 
: says...
<snip>
: >Pentium 90 16MB RAM, running in Windows Shell, 
: >processing time = 35seconds
: >
: >386SX 20 MHz 2MB RAM, running from DOS prompt,
: >processing time = 12 minutes (yup that says twelve minutes)

It is probable that the EFS is written in a language that is not
optimized well, or an interpeted language that cannot be optimized 
at all.  Be satisfied with the functionality, especially for $40.00,
and realize that it is a DOS based i80286 program.

: -- 
: Terry M. Trier       
: Michigan State University
: trier@pilot.msu.edu

--
Larry Diehr

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: force10ten@aol.com (Force10Ten)
Subject: Re: Tuning Software ???
Date: 1 Feb 1996 01:13:43 -0500

Very interesting thread.  It is always good to know what people think of
our work and products, and this one has been very enlightening. It shows
me we probably need to do more to explain what this thing is, and  how it
works.

I'm pretty sure the main reason EAFS takes so long to run on a 386SX is
that normally these chips don't have a math coprocessor.   A coprocessor
should help a lot.

As some posts alluded to, the EAFS does indeed do a LOT of calculations. 
All the data the program asks for is used to synthesize frequency and
dynamic spine matching.  First the program calculates a 'theoretical"
ideal dynamic spine match.   Then it mixes and matches all possible point
and shaft combinations to home in on the best matches.   Key to this is a
database of all Easton shafts and points, including shaft spine, weight,
and in the case of A/C/E,'s design data which allows the program to "fine
tune" the exact point and shaft combinations which work best in the
specific setup.    There's of calculation going on "behind the scenes"
with this program which slows it more than one would expect.

Some ways to save execution time are to provide the program with a known
shaft weight shot from the example bow, and a velocity for that arrow.  
This fine-tunes the energy calculations.

Additionally, the program will run very fast if you specify an exact point
weight.
Otherwise, it has to calculate and re-calculate FOC, dynamic spine, and
velocity for every possible combination of a given shaft and point.

It took several years of R&D in our labs, and hundreds if not thousands of
hours of programming work on the part of Tom Stevenson, to develop EAFS
and other programs we use at Easton.
I noted that some people say they "will wait for 2.0", but in reality the
released version of EAFS follows more than 20 internally tested packages,
and a great deal of beta testing.


George Tekmitchov

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: angus@harlqn.co.uk (Angus Duggan)
Subject: Re: Tuning Software ???
Date: 01 Feb 1996 19:18:33 GMT

In article <4eplmn$f2a@newsbf02.news.aol.com> force10ten@aol.com (Force10Ten)
writes:

>Very interesting thread.  It is always good to know what people think of
>our work and products, and this one has been very enlightening. It shows

Heads down! I'm about to give an opinion...

>I'm pretty sure the main reason EAFS takes so long to run on a 386SX is
>that normally these chips don't have a math coprocessor.   A coprocessor
>should help a lot.

I don't think the running time of EAFS is relevant in the slightest. How often
do I change the type of arrows I shoot? Once in the past six years. If it
takes a program 10 hours to calculate which arrow to use, it doesn't matter,
since I only do it once in a blue moon.

However, the quibble I had with EAFS is that the results didn't seem to bear
any relation to my experience of the arrows. It suggested that the arrows I
have would be too stiff, and that I should go to ACE 560s (or whatever the
next one up from a 520 is). Instead, I find them tuning better with the back
of the arrows trimmed so that they react more like a 500 would, were such a
thing to exist :-)

I did believe the selection of Aluminium arrows, which was based on the same
data, and coincided with my experience and expectation.


>George Tekmitchov
>A/C Archery Product Engineer

Angus Duggan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: force10ten@aol.com (Force10Ten)
Subject: Re: Tuning Software ???
Date: 1 Feb 1996 22:17:12 -0500

Angus wrote with reference to the Easton Arrow Flight Simulator:

>However, the quibble I had with EAFS is that the results didn't seem to bear
>any relation to my experience of the arrows. It suggested that the arrows I
>have would be too stiff, and that I should go to ACE 560s (or whatever the
>next one up from a 520 is). Instead, I find them tuning better with the back
>of the arrows trimmed so that they react more like a 500 would, were such a
>thing to exist :-)

Angus, in terms of archers we have tested the software on (sort of a
reverse test of expert archers, just to see if the package came up with
the same results as archers with years of experience) we had a %100 match
with all 16 members of the 1995 and 1996 US Archery teams, along with
numerous international shooters.   I imagine that the biggest variablefor
shooters who see a difference with the program may be differences in
measurement methods and most specifically accuracy of bow scales.


George Tekmitchov

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: trier@pilot.msu.edu (Terry Trier)
Subject: Re: Tuning Software ???
Date: 2 Feb 1996 00:04:15 GMT

In article <ANGUS.96Feb1191833@watson.harlqn.co.uk>, angus@harlqn.co.uk 
says...
>I don't think the running time of EAFS is relevant in the slightest. How often
>do I change the type of arrows I shoot? Once in the past six years. If it takes
>a program 10 hours to calculate which arrow to use, it doesn't matter,
>since I only do it once in a blue moon.

That's nice Angus for you but what about other people.  I like to help 
others select arrows if I can.  And I shoot target arrows, 3D arrows, and 
hunting arrows so I (and others) may shoot different arrow and bow combos 
far more frequently than you might and therefore change arrows far more 
frequently.  And what about all the little archery shops around the country 
(any country) who maybe can't justify buying a 486 or pentium computer just 
to run this software but could pick up a cheap 386.  These people have to to 
a lot of work to select the proper arrows for all kinds of bows and 
conditions.  A lot of the shops I've been in don't even have a computer.  
And as I said before, I was at Anderson's Archery, one of the biggest shops 
in the US and Easton couldn't get the software to run on their computer (so 
I assume they were running an older 386 or maybe even a 286).

Nevertheless, I can understand why the program runs so slowly given the 
enormous number of calcs and iterations it has to make.  And since I have a 
mathco on my 386 sx16 I may stll buy it.  I would like to hear from anyone 
who has run the program on an sx16 or sx20 with a mathco.

-- 
Terry M. Trier       

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Subject: Re: Tuning Software ???
Date: 2 Feb 1996 12:19:39 GMT

angus@harlqn.co.uk (Angus Duggan) writes:


>I don't think the running time of EAFS is relevant in the slightest. How often
>do I change the type of arrows I shoot? Once in the past six years. If it
>takes a program 10 hours to calculate which arrow to use, it doesn't matter,
>since I only do it once in a blue moon.

I think it only matters if your shaft choice is variable and you want to
see how sensitve the spine is to minor modifications to your setup eg
brace hieght, draw weight, draw length, point weight. So if you re-reun
it several times it gets to be a bit of a bore.

Moreover if you run it for other people........ ;-)

>However, the quibble I had with EAFS is that the results didn't seem to bear
>any relation to my experience of the arrows. It suggested that the arrows I
>have would be too stiff, and that I should go to ACE 560s (or whatever the
>next one up from a 520 is). Instead, I find them tuning better with the back
>of the arrows trimmed so that they react more like a 500 would, were such a
>thing to exist :-)

I think this will always happen, the charts never fit everybody but it's
very curious if you find that you tune different equivalent spine on an
ACE compared with a Alloy...very weird. But then I reckon that it gives
me the right spine ACE but the alloy (if I were to want to shoot such a
thing...yuk) is slightly weak.

Only thing I can think of is there may be a disproportionate weight
difference between the 570 and the 520 so if the 520 wasn't that much
heavier than the 570 you may get odd results......dunno haven't looked.
It also does odd things according to point weight with ACEs it may have
been recommending 570's with very light points?

As for the EAFS, it's a toy, quite amussing but nothing more. The
only way to make sure you get the right spine arrows is to shoot them,
tune them and change them if necessary...as I think you'll find you did!

                                Stretch
--
John Dickson,(aka Stretch) 


HomeUsenetArticlesArticles