0
Shredex

Wingsuit Gaining Altitude.

Recommended Posts

If you have been watching the WWL, you might have seen people actually gain altitude in their Apache just before deploying.
I've never actually seen this done in a setting where you can actually see the gain.

I've uploaded the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMkvPDd-8wE

Here is a second video of Tony Uragallo(Apache Rebel) and James Boole(Apache Fusion).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKd-pnBSyb0

I think James won the climb! ;p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you have been watching the WWL, you might have seen people actually gain altitude in their Apache just before deploying.
I've never actually seen this done in a setting where you can actually see the gain.

I've uploaded the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMkvPDd-8wE



I had the pleasure of using this flare to gain altitude in my X3 last weekend...then the resulting deployment resulted in gnarly line twists and a chop! :-)

Must reengineer deployment to solve this problem!
Summer Rental special, 5 weeks for the price of 4! That is $160 a month.

Try before You Buy with Wicked Wingsuits - WingsuitRental.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hmmm,
I have to admit that looks like pretty conclusive proof (of a significant gain in altitude!) in spite of all the naysayers......



I don't doubt that it's possible, and that video is more convincing than others I've seen, but it's still not a perfectly objective perspective. Parallax through a long zoom lens can do some really funny things.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Hmmm,
I have to admit that looks like pretty conclusive proof (of a significant gain in altitude!) in spite of all the naysayers......



I don't doubt that it's possible, and that video is more convincing than others I've seen, but it's still not a perfectly objective perspective. Parallax through a long zoom lens can do some really funny things.




Watched the entire event, you could very clearly see pilots flying above their own smoke trails. Unquestionable in my opinion. Can't remeber which pilot but one of them was on course to hit the cable and dove under it then clearly climbs back up, side shot it's very clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hmmm,
I have to admit that looks like pretty conclusive proof (of a significant gain in altitude!) in spite of all the naysayers......



The only thing these videos are demonstrating is confirmation bias by many of the people posting.

There are a number of factors about these clips that make it very difficult to draw conclusions as to what is happening.
1) camera angle is not perpendicular to the line of flight.
2) the flight line doesn't appear to be straight, it looks like they are turning right just after passing the cablecar.
3) the smoke is sinking
4) as The111 pointed out long lenses from far away can cause funny effects

Gaining altitude from a flare is old news, you see canopies doing it at the DZ everyday of the week. So far any convincing evidence of it happening in a WS is after a very significant dive.

Maybe some of the pilots were wearing flysights and we can draw some useful conclusions from the log files...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guys are gaining altitude all the time now in the new tonysuits. dont be such a hater. i know multiple pilots that have data to back it up. just ask anyone who owns an x3/rebel. im sure this data will be posted in the next few days.
Flock University FWC / ZFlock
B.A.S.E. 1580
Aussie BASE 121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Hmmm,
I have to admit that looks like pretty conclusive proof (of a significant gain in altitude!) in spite of all the naysayers......



The only thing these videos are demonstrating is confirmation bias by many of the people posting.

There are a number of factors about these clips that make it very difficult to draw conclusions as to what is happening.
1) camera angle is not perpendicular to the line of flight.
2) the flight line doesn't appear to be straight, it looks like they are turning right just after passing the cablecar.
3) the smoke is sinking
4) as The111 pointed out long lenses from far away can cause funny effects

Gaining altitude from a flare is old news, you see canopies doing it at the DZ everyday of the week. So far any convincing evidence of it happening in a WS is after a very significant dive.

Maybe some of the pilots were wearing flysights and we can draw some useful conclusions from the log files...


Your posts remind me of some dude at a party on LSD stuck in a bad loop, not able to get himself out of it.

SNAP OUT OF IT BROTHER! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he's right though - I've been following these occasionally interesting arguments, and it's never been a source of controversy that a wingsuit can gain altitude after a dive.
Wasn't the idea of the whole race that it was a race? If so, wouldn't everyone have been flying a bit steeper to gain speed? Of course when they flare out they're going to get some lift.
I do think though that part of the effect on video is from them turning right after passing the cables.

More importantly though, the event looked awesome, the footage was awesome, and wingsuits are just fucking awesome. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been saying it for six months. The suit can climb if you know how to use it.
Easily.
With a vengeance.
The hecklers will continue to demand GPS data then challenge it and claim its too inaccurate or inapplicable, Claim it isn't and can't be happening, even long after its been filmed to exhaustion at events like these.

Give it another couple of years and somebody will have done a similar camera placement at another of these events but laser-verified and dead-level with GPS backup and multi-axis speed and delta-V plotting, captured from 16 different camera angles and STILL the naysayers will pick at it trying to claim that dubious accuracy proves it hasn't really been proven and its an illusion of gravitic interpolation or some wild argument.

Despite the fact that the exact same measurement and verification techniques are accepted as gospel when used, in the same speed ranges, but for other applications such as gliders or motorsports.

The more uninformed the opinion the more desperately and insistently the uninformed person holding it will cling to it. I've had a couple people come off with a laughably condescending attitude to me about this topic. "Oh but of COURSE you know you're mistaken, right? Wingsuits can't climb its just an illusion" Naturally, not one of them actually flies one of these suits. Then they ask and find I've got 10x the flight time they do, been pulling climbs verified 3 different ways routinely all season, and a seasons' experience competing with a suit they won't even be qualified to try for another few years and they get all red and sputtery and mumble something about going for coffee or a sudden need to make a phone call. I felt embarassed for them, but hey, if you're gonna shoot off your mouth, think it through...

In the end analysis done by a growing population of Apache/Rebel/X3 pilots will show exactly what I've been saying all along. Climbs of a range topping out at between 100 and 150 feet, durations of 3 to 5 seconds give or take a couple, and speeds well inside the ranges your average competent pilot takes for granted.

And while the naysayers and condescending types continue to tell us that the experiences we've been enjoying have not, in fact, been happening, we'll have been busy honing our skills, mapping out all possible speed combos and getting climbs whenever we damn well please. By the time the hecklers get with the program, quit insistently denying reality and just give it up and accept it, they'll simply be further behind. I've spent a whole season using the climb to access and skim otherwise-unreachable cloudtops routinely. I've taken to deliberately setting my aim low on the side of the cloud well below the summit to enhance the visual effect and get an idea of just how precisely I can direct the climb and subsequent dropoff. I've learned to cut the climb off early to maintain enough speed to stay level and clear the far side of the cloud. If you time it just right you can punch up through the edge of the cloud at an angle... just clip the edge on the way up, then watch the surface drop away, back off before I stall it and fall into the cloud like an idiot.

Its a blast.

-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lurch, not one single person in this thread has claimed it isn't possible. There have been two posters, however (one being me) who have pointed out that the camera angle shown does not make it clear what is happening on those specific jumps. That is neither heckling nor hating... it's just being objective. I don't know whether the pilots in those videos are climbing or not. It's impossible to tell.

I'd love to see a camera angle which is level on all axes (there a few ways to accomplish this, one of the easiest is to get the horizon in frame), and a flight trajectory which is normal to the LOS of the camera (this is harder to prove, but "close enough" would probably be good enough). Unfortunately, when the camera is pointed at a mountain or a valley, and the pilot is carving hard away from the camera, you cannot accurately judge glide angle from the way the video appears. I have seen tons of BASE jumping videos, shot with long lenses, of dudes in tracking suits that appear to be going straight up like a rocket.

Actually, if you could execute one of your climbs as you pass the edge of a puffy, looking straight at the puffy (to your side), such that as you get to the edge of it, the horizon comes into view... parallax would make it very clear whether you're ascending or descending at that point... just look whether the cloud appears to be moving up or down relative to the horizon in the distance. No fancy GPS needed, just a video camera and a puffy. Only problem with that idea is that clouds do not sit perfectly still. :|
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Brian,

I thought there might be an essay from you on this.

Quote

The hecklers will continue to demand GPS data then challenge it and claim its too inaccurate or inapplicable, Claim it isn't and can't be happening, even long after its been filmed to exhaustion at events like these.


As much as you like to try and put spin on things I've said... I didn't challenge the GPS data, it showed your claims were over optimistic. I didn't realise you were still bitter about that, get over it.

Getting back to the topic at hand. These videos aren't useful in proving if there was a climb or not. That's just being objective about it, it's not rocket surgery. I feel like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you watched the finals last night, you would have seen Boole do it again. He was at the very bottom of the shot, which is parallel or even lower then the camera's perspective. He then flared and gained an unmistakable amount of altitude. The amount of degrees they are turning in are simply not enough to explain the sheer height this guy was perceived to be going.
Not to mention the massive stall he experienced just afterwards that put him falling nearly straight down. :P

Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, they were gaining altitude. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To both Matt and Luke...
to be clear so I'm not feeding into the same kind of argument we get too much of in here, I wasn't taking a shot at either of you.

I understand where both of you are coming from.
Matt, I'd take your word regarding photography as gospel because its your specialty and I know precious little about the topic myself. What I'm arguing is, with "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" video, maybe the simple truth is, yup, its a duck. I've had people insist (not in this thread, in person) that -all- forms of measurement are irrelevant due to inaccuracy, altimeter, GPS, video, you name it... and that despite all evidence its still not happening because they know it can't.

...and Luke, easy, man. No shot at you either. I haven't got a problem with skepticism and requiring evidence, thats healthy and rational. I would like to politely point out however that your way of expressing that position comes off as negative and somewhat scornful. That may not be your intention but thats how it reads, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. There have been a few other threads since you and I were arguing in which I noticed you got the same "jeez man let it go" sort of reaction you already got in here a couple times before I stepped in. I stayed out of those. The reason people keep reacting to you that way is because even if thats not your intention, to be a heckler, clearly thats the way it looks to people or you wouldn't be getting that reaction in the first place.

One of these days if I ever run into you in person I'll buy ya a beer and we can debate the topic around a bonfire at some random DZ somewhere till we both pass out laughing, hows that sound?

:)
Back to Matt:
Hey, I've actually got what I think might be an acceptable piece of video thats pretty close to what you just described. Its not exact... thats the trouble with trying to mimic lab-style conditions in the field, its messy...
The video is of a double surf. I twisted a hard carving spiral down one side, scooted across the gap between clouds and punched it when I reached the surface of the second one. Its not a horizon, angle's all wrong, I was looking down and left at the time, but what the video -does- show is terrain defining which way is "down", and cloud shreds visibly passing the camera downward for a few seconds. It looks just like some of that epic "backfly watching a flock through cloud scraps" video I think you shot a few years ago except turned around 180 degrees and looking down instead of up, but it has some of the same "cloud rush" visual effect except with the scraps passing downward in between the camera and the terrain. I can't think of any way for that visual effect to have been produced unless I was just flying level and the cloud itself was dropping rapidly. After a couple seconds the "drop" angle slows down and then reverses to the typical upward rushing visual effect we're used to from a million surfs already. Its the closest thing to a parallax shot I've got so far.

Sooner or later I'll put it up somewhere, maybe youtube and you can gimme a photog's analytical perspective on it if you feel like it. You'll know what you're seeing better than I do.

Next season I'll try to get a better shot... not for argument purposes either, but just because it looks so damn cool. That was my favorite shot of the season because I remember how I felt when I got it, and it was the first time I had a seriously solid close-range all-but-stationary visual reference while getting climb effect. Actually SEEING the cloud drop away, even for just a few seconds, really blew my mind.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


...and Luke, easy, man. No shot at you either. I haven't got a problem with skepticism and requiring evidence, thats healthy and rational.



Thanks for the sentiment and I'm glad we are on the same page.

I'm not too worried about those that try to paint me as being negative or scornful, it's easier for them to do that than stick to the facts. Some people fall for it but in the end they usually make a tit of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0