Tom has kindly provided a download link as well as a brief video tutorial for the software he's spent countless hours implementing and improving. Thank you, Tom, you're a superhero.
Please keep in mind this is still a beta version, and many improvements are still considered on the todo list, and your feedback is of great value.
Play with the tool, insert your wingsuit formation pictures, connect the dots, and see who's flying their slot better.
Jump more and use it for debriefs, and come up with new methods that could be integrated. Let's see how far we can take this!
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Mar 30, 2010, 2:41 PM
Post #2 of 112
(2275 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for getting this build out there for folks to play with Tom. In case y'all haven't met Tom, he's a newer wingsuiter, and he flies very well (insane forward speed). A lot of different folks offered input to the beginning stages of the software. Hopefully now that the community has it for testing, it'll grow more powerful from the community input.
Another thing this is good for is pre-briefing. Build your formation in the software before the jump (including names and suit colors) and then go jump. Then it's a very simple matter to overlay the pre-designated formation over a still of the actual jump. Great for being able to say "guy XXX, you were XX too far to the right, adjust your sight picture a little this/that way." Maybe save some templates for your jumps as well. Hopefully we'll soon have a library of formations that we can use as a "formation pool."
LouDiamond (D 25931)
Moderator
Mar 30, 2010, 3:13 PM
Post #3 of 112
(2255 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for putting this together! I noticed in the video that the lines that were drawn did not include vertical lines such as from the base to the tailbiter. Are these lines also considered?
You can choose 90 or 45 degree angles in the setting in the debrief/briefing mode. For the early version of Kallends feature, any angle/position/diveplsn works..
Ok. Here is my first attempt at analyzing the Lodi 16 way that was made in May, 2008. This photo was taken by Avery Badenhop.
I am not familiar enough with this software or the judging algorithms that it contains, but it appears that the "green circle" method shows that it passes. However, the "connect the dots" method shows that it fails. Perhaps someone more familiar with the software can explain the differences between the two methods.
In my opinion, this is a great formation and should pass wingsuit formation record standards Can someone show me a better sixteen way diamond?
Purple Mike
__________________________________________
Disclaimer: I post this as part of the ongoing process to improve the measurement system. I appreciate all the work that everyone has done. I do not wish to offend anyone with this post.
Do the same formation with 25% skew/tolerance. It works (it's one of the test pieces I used, and was going to show during the Elsinore event). The pepperell 16 way is marginally tighter...even though the camera angle is off.
Depending on method used, each formation can be tested/compared and receive a score or setting/tollerance at which its regarded complete..
So we can compare several at one setting and say this one scores 100% this one 89% etc All methods are open to (sensible) input for further development.
However, the "connect the dots" method shows that it fails. Perhaps someone more familiar with the software can explain the differences between the two methods.
It looks like you increased the distance tolerance from 35% to 100%. So if the base sets the distance with 10ft, 35% means you can fly from 6.3 to 13.5 ft away in the third row. With the tolerance set to 100% you can fly between 0(?) and 20ft awy if I understood that setting correctly.
Do the same formation with 25% skew/tolerance. It works (it's one of the test pieces I used, and was going to show during the Elsinore event). The pepperell 16 way is marginally tighter...even though the camera angle is off.
Can you post (or send me) a photo of the Peperrell sixteen way? The Lodi formation was flown with head to foot spacing. Was this the same spacing flown on the Pepperell sixteen way?
These are both great formations, so I suppose that a good use of this software is to determine if there is a quantifiable way to decide which formation is more "perfect".
I am unsure what you mean by the skew tolerance. I see distance and angle settings that control the "connect the dot method." I also see two slider bars that control the "green circle" method. Does one of the slider bars control the skew tolerance?
Finally, the 100% distance and 22% angle settings are the maximum allowed by the software. As I understand this software, it appears that even at these relaxed settings the "connect the dot method" does not pass. Am I interpreting this correctly?
A lot is (currently) determined in that method by who you assign as a base for distance. Various methods of assigning flying distance are possible. Currently that method uses the leader and adjenct flyers as a reference. Different flyers can be assigned base. We could also opt for an avg. Length measured on the whole group.
Suggestions are welcome...thats why its there.. Showing during dirtdives who goes where and who did what and what to improve..
Adding absolute distances (via a ruler, measuring a known distance) will allow for more absolute distances/margins (not measured from just the base). Plenty of ideas...thats why this is here..
I wonder how hard it would be to program auto line creation once the heads were all marked. Some sort of algorithm that connects all points together directly or through point to point.
That would also give not only diamond based lines, but vertical lines as well.
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Mar 30, 2010, 5:32 PM
Post #14 of 112
(2170 views)
Shortcut
I wonder how hard it would be to program auto line creation once the heads were all marked. Some sort of algorithm that connects all points together directly or through point to point.
That would also give not only diamond based lines, but vertical lines as well.
The lines *can* be created as you dot the heads. In other words, pretty well what you're asking, so you can see how the formation is shaping up as you dot the heads
A lot is (currently) determined in that method by who you assign as a base for distance. Various methods of assigning flying distance are possible. Currently that method uses the leader and adjacent flyers as a reference.
My understanding is that the base is used because it is the only slot that is by definition in the correct three dimensional plane. In another thread, I suggested using the tallest person or the median height of the flyers.
For base dependent measuring systems, I propose multiplying the height of the base by a factor that will account for the varying sizes of flyers. This factor can be either the ratio of the heights of the tallest flyer and the base, or the ratio of the median height and the height of the base. This will allow the base to be used as well as account for the varying height of the flyers.
For a numeric example, suppose that the tallest person is 2 meters and the base is 1.75 meters. Then, I propose measuring using the base as if it were multiplied by 2/1.75 = 1.14 (i.e. 14% increase).
Alternatively, if the base is 2 meters and the median height of the flyers is 1.75 meters. Then, I propose measuring the base as if it were decreased by 1.75/2 = .875 (i.e. 12.5% decrease)
Of course, all heights would have to be recorded prior to making the formation.
If the overall measuring system is invariant to these corrections, then I claim that the argument over using the base versus tallest person versus median height is mute. Otherwise, this should show the sensitivity of a given base dependent measuring system to the choice of base
Do the same formation with 25% skew/tolerance. It works (it's one of the test pieces I used, and was going to show during the Elsinore event). The pepperell 16 way is marginally tighter...even though the camera angle is off.
Can you post (or send me) a photo of the Peperrell sixteen way? The Lodi formation was flown with head to foot spacing. Was this the same spacing flown on the Pepperell sixteen way?
These are both great formations, so I suppose that a good use of this software is to determine if there is a quantifiable way to decide which formation is more "perfect".
I am unsure what you mean by the skew tolerance. I see distance and angle settings that control the "connect the dot method." I also see two slider bars that control the "green circle" method. Does one of the slider bars control the skew tolerance?
Finally, the 100% distance and 22% angle settings are the maximum allowed by the software. As I understand this software, it appears that even at these relaxed settings the "connect the dot method" does not pass. Am I interpreting this correctly?
Purple Mike
Here's a nice 16-way from the Elsinore warm-up jumps.
My understanding is that the base is used because it is the only slot that is by definition in the correct three dimensional plane. In another thread, I suggested using the tallest person or the median height of the flyers.
you guys are talking about two different things. Mike, your base scaling method makes sense - however, it refers to modifications to the current uspa judging criteria.
the software here does not take into account height of the person. the dot is on the head. What Jarno was trying to explain about the base flyers being used for measurements was this: - you place your first dot on the head of the base - then you connect that to the next two flyers - afterwards, you connect the rest of the formation - if you do things this way, the first two lines are shaded blue, everything else gets black/red - blue means those two are used to evaluate the rest of the formation. the 3-way at the top (base flyer and next 2 flyers) sets the spacing for the rest of the formation - black means a distance between two other flyers is between x % of the average of those two blue lines at the top and the angle is within y degrees of either 45 or 90, whichever you selected, where x and y are your set tolerances - red means one of two things: the angle is too bad, or the distance is too bad (exceeds allowed tolerance)
making sense?
(This post was edited by SuperGirl on Mar 30, 2010, 9:06 PM)
I watched the video, it looks nice and easy to use as long as your avoid getting in a discussion about tolerances!
When will there be a Mac version available as I would like to play with it as well, without using my vmware.
I am most interested to hear about the QA process for community software like this. I would imagine something used in judging would need to be certified wouldn't it? What body is responsible for certifying a judging system?
A mac version most likely not immidiately. Working on multiple versions at the same time isnt that effective right now. But when everything starts to shape up, its a definate possibility.
As to methods and tollerances, if people play and find vallues that work nicely (in any method) that discussion would be quite good to have. Thats why this is here. Allowing everyone input, ideas and hands on testing..
This is all a free, own initiative. Nothing here is more than a testbed to try anything we as a community can come up with. You got a question? Ask it! You got input? Give it!
A simple/effective briefing/debriefing application is our goal. Instead of a vague yes/no, getting an accurate pointer as to which person was in/out, and exactly how well a formation was flown.
We do plan on updating the software with new judging methods/parameters as they come available to allow quick comparison. But being able to measure how nice your 4 way to 100 way flew, and having an easy briefing/debriefing tool is the main goal..
Lodi 16 Way May, 2008 Distance 35% Angle 18%.JPG
1
