kallend 1,620 #76 January 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteFundamental questions: Do we allow angular distortion? Do we allow dimensional distortion? Do we allow crooking (bent lines) in the formation? Do we allow skewing in the formation? When I find the time, I may draw up some examples. And, from the wide weird web, a great classical example of crooking. Angular, dimensional and skewing are all examples of what I called "homogeneous" distortions. I'd allow all of them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #77 January 2, 2009 First of all, happy new year to eveyone. Hope it brings lots of fun flocks and jumps to all! QuoteYou don't have to run it in an industrial machine, either. Doesn't even have to have its own camera, you can just as easily run it on a laptop, tell it to do its thing on any photo you provide and it will give you an answer before the wingsuiters have even deployed- but the software is so insanely expensive I seriously doubt anyone is willing to pay that much for it. Contact Siemens/RVSI or the Rofin-Baasel laser people for details and they might even throw in a free hat. -B It sounds like really cool software. Too bad it's so expensive, but hey I guess thats why its industrial software. QuoteHow about fitting a diamond grid over the formation and then requiring all flyers touching a diamond cell half the size of a grid cell? Does not require computation, disallows crooking, does not suffer Yuri scatter (or you might need less than half the size, Hell, have them touch the centre point). If you want the perfectness of the formation as a number, calculate the relative size of the smallest diamond everyone is touching, or require touching one half the size and then calculate RMS distance from the center. Hmmm I quite like this idea, but with this diamond-in-diamond method, we do allow for homogenous deviations? Seeing your examples (nice work btw), I think we should disallow crooking. We just want straight lines. Cheers!Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #78 January 2, 2009 Quote Hmmm I quite like this idea, but with this diamond-in-diamond method, we do allow for homogenous deviations? Why not? The inner diamond scales with the outer one. (For the math obsessed, define negative ratio percentages as entire inner diamonds that have to be completely blotted out by the wingsuiter. For a truly ideal, perfectly flown, very close formation, you might get a value surprisingly close to -100% I think. I like symmetry. Symmetry is good. Quote Seeing your examples (nice work btw), I think we should disallow crooking. We just want straight lines. A grid does seem better suited to judge this than you intra formation line lengths model. We seem to be returning to grids again and again .. now for the skills to fly within the box. Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #79 January 4, 2009 I've put your diamond-in-diamonds idea into pictures, using the base pic with 2 different size diamonds. I had to rotate the picture but I wasn't able to draw horizontal/vertical lines between the points of each grid diamond. There is some weird crooking going on within the diamond grid. I guess we can make the red diamonds bigger and smaller to make it easier or harder. How big should we make them? Note I've added a 3rd picture, where I keep a grid spacing but moved the diamonds around and did some skewing and put the base diamond over Jeff. The result is quite nice actually. I'll see if I can get some more jumpers in, see where people start to "fall out" of the formation.Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #80 January 4, 2009 Well, here's the entire formation. It's pretty hard to get the best fit... I can imagine it was driving the organization nuts trying to place a grid over 10,000 different pictures. I have done a bunch of sheering and changing angular distortion, but this is the best I can come up with (the diamonds seem to cover the most people). Too bad we don't have a picture without the existing grid in it... anyone? If anyone wants the OmniGraffle or Visio document to play with, you can download them here (they're too big to put as attachment here). I have no idea if the Visio document works - I made it in OmniGraffle and exported to Visio... CheersCostyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #81 January 4, 2009 Yes, I'm replying to myself... again... Here's James' thread with bigway pictures: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3401101. Matt mentions another thread, which I can't find at the moment as search is broken. Maybe we can try this new criteria on these pictures?Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #82 January 4, 2009 That would be this thread.Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #83 January 9, 2009 Flocking ... I don't think they fit in a grid."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #84 January 9, 2009 QuoteFlocking ... I don't think they fit in a grid. I think the fact that they're not flying would be the first reason to disqualify them.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #85 January 9, 2009 Quote Quote Flocking ... I don't think they fit in a grid. I think the fact that they're not flying would be the first reason to disqualify them. I'm just going by the caption. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #86 January 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Flocking ... I don't think they fit in a grid. I think the fact that they're not flying would be the first reason to disqualify them. I'm just going by the caption. I'm going by the photograph showing their feet on the groundDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #87 January 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Flocking ... I don't think they fit in a grid. I think the fact that they're not flying would be the first reason to disqualify them. I'm just going by the caption. I'm going by the photograph showing their feet on the ground I don't know what I was thinking going by the caption. After all, they never get the incidents right either ... PS: The point is that flying (especially with others) is fun no matter what the formation looks like."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #88 January 9, 2009 Quote The point is that flying (especially with others) is fun no matter what the formation looks like. But for a few days a year, we'd like to set the bar higher, and include judging the formation into the fun. If you don't want to do that, please start your own thread to discuss walking flamingoes. Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #89 January 9, 2009 QuoteBut for a few days a year, we'd like to set the bar higher, and include judging the formation into the fun. Agreed. I think we should set the bar at taking grips. People didn't think they could do RW (with grips) but then people improved their skills, started small RW (with grips), and then grew. People didn't think they could do VRW (with grips) but then people improved their skills, started small VRW (with grips), and then grew. So, people don't think we can do WRW (with grips) but people will improve their skills, start small WRW (with grips), and grow ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #90 January 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Flocking ... I don't think they fit in a grid. I think the fact that they're not flying would be the first reason to disqualify them. I'm just going by the caption. I'm going by the photograph showing their feet on the ground Sheep flock with their feet on the ground. So do penguins, if you want to restrict it to birds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #91 January 9, 2009 You have made this point before. And it has merit. Kallend also pointed out where it was flawed. And Costyn pointed out why it was not a solution to the problem at hand. We may outgrow no contact formations. But for now, grids seem to be where it's at for bigways. Implicitly, for now, that means we're considering ourselves aircraft, not freefallers. If you look at it that way, requiring grips would be a step back. (And no, I am honestly not working towards rationalising not requiring grips. I am keeping an open mind and trying to think things through.) I have seen the first wingsuits with leg grippers. I have heard people agree we need to test flying docked with noodles. In time, we will know if these ideas work, and, for now, for what sizes of formations. And for now, I am also interested in developing a working grid system for bigways. Does anyone perhaps have examples yet why James' system with floating lines would or would not work? Discuss ..Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #92 January 10, 2009 Quote We may outgrow no contact formations. But for now, grids seem to be where it's at for bigways. Implicitly, for now, that means we're considering ourselves aircraft, not freefallers. If you look at it that way, requiring grips would be a step back. (And no, I am honestly not working towards rationalising not requiring grips. I am keeping an open mind and trying to think things through.) I agree. I think since we are gliders, we should try to make formations which look like those made by airplanes. They can't/don't dock, so why should we. During the artistic wingsuit competition, only the Tony Suits and Phoenix Fly factory teams were able to do the ankle docks, and they basically did them by getting rid of nearly all forward speed and pretty much falling straight down. It seemed the only way to get a good grip. So, I challenge you people that say we should fly them docked to bring us pictures of people flying docked, not in a straight line, but docked at ankles etc. Quote And for now, I am also interested in developing a working grid system for bigways. Me too. Quote Does anyone perhaps have examples yet why James' system with floating lines would or would not work? Discuss .. I'm still a little hazy on what exactly he means. I've taken one of Matt's pics without a grid (unfortunately very low resolution) and drawn some lines on it like I think he means (see attachment). What are the criteria? When is a skydiver not in his spot? Do lines have to be parallel to eachother? Are we looking at how close they are to the line intersections? This is not very different from our current red diamonds which we increase/decrease in size. or are we looking for if they are touching the line they should be flying on? Johan, a small dz.com forum tip from me: when you link to someone else's post, you need to include the post in the postid, not only the anchor, otherwise you get directed to the first page, while my post was on the second page (or maybe you have your settings so the thread is displayed in 1 page only?) /gforum.cgi?post=3440072#3440072 (post= and # id's are the same) instead of /gforum.cgi?post=3438404#3440072 CheersCostyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #93 January 10, 2009 Quote During the artistic wingsuit competition, only the Tony Suits and Phoenix Fly factory teams were able to do the ankle docks, and they basically did them by getting rid of nearly all forward speed and pretty much falling straight down. It seemed the only way to get a good grip. So, I challenge you people that say we should fly them docked to bring us pictures of people flying docked, not in a straight line, but docked at ankles etc. I seem to recall Henny could do them quite easily. I struggled. We were definitely still flying. (I did not understand how he could do them so easily, he did not understand I had such a hard time. ) Quote Quote Does anyone perhaps have examples yet why James' system with floating lines would or would not work? Discuss .. I'm still a little hazy on what exactly he means. I've taken one of Matt's pics without a grid (unfortunately very low resolution) and drawn some lines on it like I think he means (see attachment). What are the criteria? When is a skydiver not in his spot? Do lines have to be parallel to each other? Are we looking at how close they are to the line intersections? This is not very different from our current red diamonds which we increase/decrease in size. or are we looking for if they are touching the line they should be flying on? I think he means (attached). Parallel lines is not too much to ask, the difference is mostly in lines not having to be evenly spaced. Edit: Judging the outer slots flying too loose is going to be a problem, looks like. Quote Johan, a small dz.com forum tip from me: when you link to someone else's post, you need to include the post in the postid, not only the anchor, otherwise you get directed to the first page, while my post was on the second page (or maybe you have your settings so the thread is displayed in 1 page only?) I did test, but indeed, I still have it all on one page. Will do.Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Costyn 0 #94 January 10, 2009 Quote I seem to recall Henny could do them quite easily. I struggled. We were definitely still flying. (I did not understand how he could do them so easily, he did not understand I had such a hard time. ) Hmm come to think of it I was able to them somewhat easily too, Alex and Jarno had a harder time. But I really wonder if its going to be possible to fly a formation that way, with one person docked on each leg. Quote I think he means (attached). Parallel lines is not too much to ask, the difference is mostly in lines not having to be evenly spaced. Edit: Judging the outer slots flying too loose is going to be a problem, looks like. Wait, how is that different from Jeff's current grid? It still suffers from Yuri scattering doesn't it? What are the criteria for the formation being complete and not complete?Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #95 February 22, 2009 Two months ago Guinness were actually closed for Christmas. I finally got around to asking them the criteria for "Largest civilian formation flight" today. Of course, they may or may not have actual objective criteria for judging the completeness of a formation. But if and when they get back to me, I'll let us know.Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 0 #96 February 22, 2009 There is a lot of talk of judging with the grid, but not much about "flying" in it... In the grid everyone is supposed to be in a 3 meter box, accounting for everyone being about 2 meters tall, give or take, that leaves about half a meter on both ends. Everyone in the formation should be flying about a meter apart, or approx. 3 feet. The spaces were much wider in the formation, more like 2 meters. I think there was confusion about how far apart we were supposed to be... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #97 February 22, 2009 No, between the 10' boxes you were supposed to be in were 10' boxes that were supposed to be empty.Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 0 #98 February 22, 2009 where's the extra box in the grid? If thats the case, we should all be 4 meters apart, might as well not even be flocking... Maybe I'm the one who is confused? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #99 February 22, 2009 The extra box is there only in square grids, not in diamond grids. Those diamonds are bigger than those squares, but not ridiculously bigger. It's still very much formation flying.Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 0 #100 February 22, 2009 The diamond grid is bigger, but when we were all lying out in the field on our diamonds, we were definetely not 4 m./12 ft. apart. It was alot closer to a meter or a little over, about 4 ft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
