0
DSE

FAI, Wingsuits, and the Grid

Recommended Posts

The "grid method" of judging wingsuit flocks is being presented to the FAI at the IPC conference in a couple of weeks.
http://www.fai.org/parachuting/system/files/ipc_2010_agenda.pdf


Let your delegates know how you feel about the grid being implemented on an international level.
Note that this isn't being offered with a trial period, but rather immediate implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The "grid method" of judging wingsuit flocks is being presented to the FAI at the IPC conference in a couple of weeks.
http://www.fai.org/parachuting/system/files/ipc_2010_agenda.pdf


Let your delegates know how you feel about the grid being implemented on an international level.
Note that this isn't being offered with a trial period, but rather immediate implementation.



All I saw was:

USA Notice of Intent to propose addendum to SC5, (Largest Wingsuit Formation)
Marylou Laughlin, IPC Delegate, USA, will bring forward a notice of intent to propose, in
2011, an addendum to SC5, (Largest Wingsuit Formation). (Annex 52)


Which says a USPA proposal won't be forthcoming until 2011, and doesn't say what the proposal will be.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See attachment for the document with pictures of the software in question.

61ST FAI / IPC PLENARY MEETING, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND – 30TH - 31ST JANUARY 2010
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR JUDGING WINGSUIT BIG FORMATIONS Annex No. - 44
Author(s): Ronald Overdijk, IPC Delegate, The Netherlands Agenda ref. - 16.5
Date: 13 November 2009 Page 1 of 6
KNVvL department of parachuting
Proposal for judging wingsuit big formations


The KNVvL would like to propose to accept the following document for wingsuit judging.
KNVvL stresses this document is designed by Dutch skydivers but has been put together
based on international input. It furthermore stresses that wingsuit (judging) is still in its
infancy and that no final decision about judging should be made. This is clearly stated in the
mentioned test-fase in the plan. KNVvL does believe however this document is the best up
till now.


Introduction
At present, wing-suit flying is not an official IPC parachuting discipline. However, more and
more parachutists are jumping with wing-suits. There has been a presentation to the IPC at
their meeting in Paris, 2008. This presentation focused on formation skydiving with wingsuits
in sequential manner. There have been several international competitions based on this
format.
Furthermore, in the recent past there have been several "largest slot-perfect wingsuit
formation" events. The qualification of these formations were based on non-official rules. As
a result debriefing and judging of wing-suit formations has been the subject of great debate
over the years. With wing-suits not taking grips in formations as parachutists in other
skydiving disciplines do, there is a lot of room for this debate. One parachuting federation,
USPA, has adopted the so-called "grid system." We feel however that there are too many
subjective and unclear aspects to this system which may actually harm the credibility of
wing-suit records as perceived by the worldwide skydiving community. Further, the "grid
system" applies skydivers to the rule as opposed to applying the rule to skydivers. We
believe we have a better, more objective alternative which offers consistent, repeatable
results regardless of the person(s) responsible for judging. Browsing through discussions
found on the Internet and sharing ideas with many of the big minds in the sport, we set
upon a goal to create a quick, easy to use, accurate system for both judging and debriefing
jumps.


Many people with broad backgrounds in various skydiving disciplines have given input into
this project, and it didn't take long for a framework of goals to be formed.
What we wanted to create is a simple software application everyone can use for briefing,
debriefing, and judging wing-suit formations.
Regardless of the organizer, whether for debriefing or judging, consistent and demonstrable
results should be achieved in minutes.


61ST FAI / IPC PLENARY MEETING, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND – 30TH - 31ST JANUARY 2010
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR JUDGING WINGSUIT BIG FORMATIONS Annex No. - 44
Author(s): Ronald Overdijk, IPC Delegate, The Netherlands Agenda ref. - 16.5
Date: 13 November 2009 Page 2 of 6


Some the most common requested improvements over other methods:
· No need for hours of puzzling/rotating as is the case with current judging methods.
· Results not differing or being dependent on who judges the skydive, thus removing
the human factor and assuring consistent judging criteria.
· Within 5 to 10 minutes after loading a photograph, have a clear and repeatable result
with regards to a wing-suit formation. (Formation judging may be uploaded to the
web, emailed to a ratifying organization, and archived for access the world over.
NOTE: this differs from the current IPC ruling for judging records)
· wing-suit parachutists having a maximum AND minimum distance they are allowed to
move away from their slot.
· Relative spacing. This means no cumulative error, where distances adding up
throughout the formation puts parachutists out of their allowed space (even though
the formation is perfect).
· There should be no doubt with regards to the success of the formation.
· A clear way to identify which parachutists are within/outside the set distance limits,
i.e. not in their slot.
· Adaptable, and up to a small level allows for breathing, expansion and asymmetry in
a formation.

How this may be achieved:
· Within the software, a dive plan is made before the jumps, with all parachutists
placed in their designated positions within the formation. The application provides the
option to specify name and color of each parachutist visible using wing-suit
pictograms.
· After the jump, a video-frame still (HD or SD) is loaded into the software, and the
formation is moved in place over the actual background photo, with dots on the head
of the body, as a fixed point of position.
· Lines are drawn between all parachutists in a 45° degree angle diamond or a 90°
degree angle square pattern (depending on the formation flown).
· The average distance flown by the two parachutists next to the base sets the
distance people should fly throughout the formation. These are denoted as BLUE
lines.
· This distance is used to judge distance between all parachutist in the formation. Each
parachutist is measured referencing the parachutist(s) in front of him as their point of
reference/origin.
· All parachutists have an acceptable % tolerance in terms of distance (room for
movement) from their reference parachutist(s).
· All parachutists have an acceptable % tolerance in terms of the angle (45° or 90°
degrees) they must fly relative to the parachutist(s) in front of them.
· These two combined restrictions, give each parachutist a certain 'flight zone' relative
to the parachutists in front of him. This allows for "breathing"
right/left/forward/backward without impacting other portions of the formation.
· This means parachutists can not be too far away from their assigned position, but
also prevents them from getting too close. This is indicated by overlapping circles in
the "flight zone" tolerances.
· Parachutists outside of their 'flight zone' are indicated by a RED line in the
application, indicating where the error was made.


61ST FAI / IPC PLENARY MEETING, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND – 30TH - 31ST JANUARY 2010
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR JUDGING WINGSUIT BIG FORMATIONS Annex No. - 44
Author(s): Ronald Overdijk, IPC Delegate, The Netherlands Agenda ref. - 16.5
Date: 13 November 2009 Page 3 of 6


Benefits and advantages of a software based system accessible to all wing-suit
parachutists using a Windows-based computer:
· Objective and instant results after matching markers to the photo, regardless of
formation size.
· Still photo or SD/HD video frame-grab may be used for judging.
· The framework allows for some minor asymmetry due to stingers/lines slightly
curving away, but never to the point where it pulls a formation apart.
· Parachutists can never get too close to each other, or even go as far as being on top
of each other or almost switching slots and still be considered 'in slot/in formation',
as this will be indicated by lines and the "flight zones" as defined by the tolerance
measurements.
· 100% objective results (where everybody gets the same result, regardless of who is
doing the judging when or where)
· In case of a not-complete formation, a percentage value as to the completion of the
formation is calculated by the software (i.e. 82% complete)
· When briefing and debriefing the jump, the software provides immediate feedback
when the overlay is compared to the still image/video frame-grab.
Plan
· This method should be in a trial phase for at least a year, to see if the method also
holds up to everyday use. This also allows time and opportunity for commentary from
the wing-suit community and application improvements.
· Accept and incorporate feedback from other wing-suit parachutists who are
interested in improving the methodology and software application. We feel strongly
that a wing-suit judging system should not be thrust upon the wing-suit community,
but rather a joint effort with input from all whom will be affected by such a judging
system.


Software Requirements
· Windows XP, Vista or 7.
· .NET Framework 3.5.
· 256MB memory.


61ST FAI / IPC PLENARY MEETING, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND – 30TH - 31ST JANUARY 2010
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR JUDGING WINGSUIT BIG FORMATIONS Annex No. - 44
Author(s): Ronald Overdijk, IPC Delegate, The Netherlands Agenda ref. - 16.5
Date: 13 November 2009 Page 4 of 6


Project History
Based upon discussions and ideas coming from the wing-suit community this judging
method was developed by:
Costyn van Dongen - NED - wing-suit instructor, coach and load organiser, organiser of
the Int. Artistic Wingsuit Competition 2008 & 2009, creator of the (Online) Paralog
Performance Competition.

Jarno Cordia - NED - wing-suit instructor, coach and load organiser, organiser of the Int.
Artistic Wingsuit Competition 2008 & 2009, creator of the (Online) Paralog Performance
Competition, creator of multiple articles and instuctional videos on wingsuit flight.

Tom van Dijck – NED / USA - Skydiver and Technical Director at Electronic Arts Canada.
The software was implemented by: Tom van Dijck

With additional input and support from the following people:
Douglas Spotted Eagle - USA - wing-suit instructor, coach and load organiser, creator of
several commercially available (wingsuit) instruction DVDs, and partner in VASST Software

Ronald Overdijk - NED - Secretary Parachuting Federation The Netherlands, IPC Delegate,
Chair IPC subcommittee Artistic Events

Henny Wiggers - NED - wingsuit instructor, co-creator of the 1st Birdman instruction
manual, IPC Alternate Delegate, Member IPC subcommittees CF, PS and adviser for CP

Stephane "Zun" Zunino - FRA - FlyYourBody wingsuit inventor and constructor, instructor,
coach and load organiser

Kathy Jean Albert - FRA - wingsuit instructor, coach and load organiser

James Boole – GBR / ITA - wingsuit instructor, coach and load organiser

Klaus Rheinwald - GER - wingsuit flyer, Creator of Paralog, organiser of the (Online)
'Paralog Performance Competition', chief judge 'Wings over Gransee' and 'Wings over Marl'

Steve Bartels - RSA - wingsuit instructor, coach and load organiser

Christian "Skyjester" Stadtler – GER - wingsuit instructor, organiser of 'Wings over Marl'
performance competition.

Hans Schoeber – NED - wingsuit instructor, load organiser, chief judge Stupino Wingsuit
Competition 2007 & Int. Artistic Wingsuit Competition 2008

James "Macca" McDonald – GBR - wingsuit instructor, coach and load organiser

Scotty Burns - USA - professional wingsuit cameraman

Patrick deGuillebon - FRA - wingsuit instructor, coach and load organiser

Scott Bland - USA - wingsuit instructor, coach and load organiser

Scott Callantine - USA - wingsuit instructor, coach and load organiser

Robert Pecnik - CRO - Phoenix-Fly wingsuit inventor and constructor, instructor and coach

Juan Mayer - ARG - wingsuit instructor, coach and load organiser

61ST FAI / IPC PLENARY MEETING, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND – 30TH - 31ST JANUARY 2010
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR JUDGING WINGSUIT BIG FORMATIONS Annex No. - 44
Author(s): Ronald Overdijk, IPC Delegate, The Netherlands Agenda ref. - 16.5
Date: 13 November 2009 Page 5 of 6

a ‘perfect’ formation. All lines black, showing parachutists within the allowed tolerance for
maximum and minimum distance. The green boxes show the allowed flying distance, relative to
adjacent wingsuit parachutists.
A formation flown with several parachutists outside of the allowed tolerance levels for
maximum and minimum distance. The green boxes show the allowed flying distance, with
several flyers being outside of those allowed distances. Their connecting lines show up red,
clearly showing the parachutists who are not regarded as ‘in their slot’.


61ST FAI / IPC PLENARY MEETING, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND – 30TH - 31ST JANUARY 2010
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR JUDGING WINGSUIT BIG FORMATIONS Annex No. - 44
Author(s): Ronald Overdijk, IPC Delegate, The Netherlands Agenda ref. - 16.5
Date: 13 November 2009 Page 6 of 6


A proposed 36 way formation, show with the dive result, and judged with the USPA grid
system. Signed of as a valid ‘record’ formation, within limits of the USPA accepted margins
of their system.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are two presentations.
One is the USPA (as advertised in the OP).
The other is from the Dutch/Netherlands. It doesn't affect the USPA (unless the FAI accepts it as a method, which they likely won't).

In the face of an FAI presentation of the grid, an actual "alternative" must be presented if for no other reason than to counter the grid system as it now stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
61ST FAI / IPC PLENARY MEETING, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND – 30TH - 31ST JANUARY 2010
Subject: SPORTING CODE SECTION 5 - ADDENDUM Annex No. - 52
Author(s): USPA, Marylou Laughlin, IPC Delegate, USA Agenda ref. - 17.6
Date: 15 November 2009 Page 1 of 1


Wingsuit Largest Formation
The USA would like to make a presentation at the 2010 IPC Meeting for a new
performance world record category, Wingsuit Largest Formation.


At the February USPA BOD Meeting USPA adopted a new State and National Record
category, Wingsuit Largest Formation. Over the next year USPA will evaluate the rules
governing the new category.

Based on the information that USPA gathers the US will come to the Plenary in 2011
with a proposal for a new performance world record category, Wingsuit Largest
Formation.

Respectfully Submitted,
Marylou Laughlin
IPC Delegate, USA
16/11/2009
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are two presentations.
One is the USPA (as advertised in the OP).
The other is from the Dutch/Netherlands. It doesn't affect the USPA (unless the FAI accepts it as a method, which they likely won't).

In the face of an FAI presentation of the grid, an actual "alternative" must be presented if for no other reason than to counter the grid system as it now stands.



As far as I can see (see Scott's post) USPA is not making an actual proposal until 2011.

Some people think a grid method (not necessarily the USPA version) is superior to the Netherlands proposal.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Dutch prrsentation isnt about acceptence of any system.
Its a presentation showing the positive AND negative aspecs of all current judging systems, and proposing a plan for further cummunity-wide development, testing and input.

Instead of rushing an incomplete system/method into a trial year for immidiate 2011 acceptance.

And there is no real 'netherlands' system. The people involved with the development of what we are showing/proposing are spread throughout the community and include many big names in wingsuitflying throughout the world.

Wanting to show a proposed method and suggesting a road/goal for a future final proposal for an actual trial year and future acceptance is our goal.
More detailed information soon..
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Some people think a grid method (not necessarily the USPA version) is superior to the Netherlands proposal.



For fuck's sake, before we start throwing shit at each other and yelling "mine's better [bigger] than yours", perhaps we need to think about a few things:

- There are currently not one, but two wingsuit presentations happening at the FAI meeting. As far as wingsuiting as a discipline is concerned, we are getting plenty of attention. And that's a good thing!

- Until now we've been saying that the grid is the best thing out there because nobody has come up with any other alternative. Well, finally we see that a whole bunch of people put a lot of work into coming up with what sounds like a very interesting alternative. That is also a good thing, regardless of which approach you think is better... Hell, we haven't even heard all the details yet. Could we give these people a chance to show off their stuff first?

Having two approaches instead of one is GOOD. It's progress. I can only hope that someone brings forward a third approach, and maybe a fourth, and so on. Who knows, we might even end up finding some combination of ideas that works better than any one approach on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



- Until now we've been saying that the grid is the best thing out there because nobody has come up with any other alternative. .



That's simply not true. First, we haven't been saying any such thing. Second, quite a few alternatives have been discussed at length, right in this forum, including one that I proposed that is NOT "the grid".
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Dutch prrsentation isnt about acceptence of any system.
Its a presentation showing the positive AND negative aspecs of all current judging systems, and proposing a plan for further cummunity-wide development, testing and input.



I'm glad you told us that, because reading your presentation materials doesn't give that impression AT ALL. In fact, it's difficult to find mention of a single positive aspect of the USPA system or a single negative aspect of your system in the materials you presented.



Instead of rushing an incomplete system/method into a trial year for immidiate 2011 acceptance.



Fair enough. The USPA system has already had 1/2 year of such a trial and has been tested at a number of events. What exactly is "incomplete" about it?

Quote



Wanting to show a proposed method and suggesting a road/goal for a future final proposal for an actual trial year and future acceptance is our goal.
More detailed information soon..



Thanks.

There's nothing wrong with making the strongest possible case for your proposal, I would expect nothing less, and I would do the same. Just don't pretend that you are being objective about it when clearly you are not.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


That's simply not true. First, we haven't been saying any such thing. Second, quite a few alternatives have been discussed at length, right in this forum, including one that I proposed that is NOT "the grid".



The system we are working on uses input from comments/ideas you posted on dz.com in the past as well. And we hope to further refine/update it as a community.
The structure is also quite open, and we will be able to include any addition or complete revision, should new/better ideas come up, or flaws exposed demand so..

The biggest key IMHO is testing on real and virtual formation pictures, and seeing if the 100% clear, repeatable and always identical (when different people judge the same formation) results the software gives/scores, visualy match the score we all (looking at that picture) would logicaly expect.

A completed record should be a quick, simple matter of objective measuring of parameters.
Not creative rotating, scaling and moving.
If 10 people judge a formation, 10 people should have similar results instantly.

Regarding acceptance of a FINALIZED proposal by the FAI, its a one year process.
We dont want to lock anyone in the community to a set of rules, by now (prematurely) submitting a set of rules, that isnt yet finalised, to rush for 2011 implementation.

I hope thats something everyone submitting a FAI proposal sees.
If you want to create a set of binding rules for the community, dont rush things, but take a step back to listen to critique and being open to improvements.
Personaly I would have prefered one system the whole community worked on, instead of several ideas seperately developed/pushed because input/critique isnt accepted..
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

for your proposal, I would expect nothing less, and I would do the same. Just don't pretend that you are being objective about it when clearly you are not.



I dont claim to be as a person. But Im trying to make a case for a judging method that is or should/will be. If proposing a seperate/different idea is also not deemed correct, Im curious at which point anyone IS allowed input or comments on the system.

After the presentation in two weeks, we will open a public forum/blog where all development will be shown, monitored and open to input and ideas.

Its just a presentation to advocate a developmentplan. Not a ball and chain we want to put on anyones leg.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personaly I would have prefered one system the whole community worked on, instead of several ideas seperately developed/pushed because input/critique isnt accepted..



When the rules for RW (FS) were being developed that is pretty much what happened. There WAS a semi-formal organizatiion (the "RW Underground") that developed the rules, and then submitted them for acceptance. But even there the first people to develop an event were, in general, the ones whose rules ended up being adopted.

See users.cs.fiu.edu/~esj/uwf/uwf6.htm about 1/2 way down for a history of the RW underground and how its rules ended up being adopted.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

for your proposal, I would expect nothing less, and I would do the same. Just don't pretend that you are being objective about it when clearly you are not.



I dont claim to be as a person. But Im trying to make a case for a judging method that is or should/will be. If proposing a seperate/different idea is also not deemed correct, Im curious at which point anyone IS allowed input or comments on the system.

.



I didn't say you shouldn't. My response was to your statement "Its a presentation showing the positive AND negative aspecs of all current judging systems" when all your written submission does is give the negatives of the USPA system and the positives of yours.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The documents posted here are what we needed to submit as to WHY and roughly about what we will present.
The actual presentation is something we are still currently shaping/writing, and will focus mostly on what we want to show.

Showing whats not working in the current system and how we believe to improve on that is part of that. Showing points for improvement there is also what will be highlighted.
That aside...Id rather see you comment on the system when the complete details are out, instead of the tone and feeling the method lf presenting gives you..;)
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The documents posted here are what we needed to submit as to WHY and roughly about what we will present.
The actual presentation is something we are still currently shaping/writing, and will focus mostly on what we want to show.

Showing whats not working in the current system and how we believe to improve on that is part of that. Showing points for improvement there is also what will be highlighted.
That aside...Id rather see you comment on the system when the complete details are out, instead of the tone and feeling the method lf presenting gives you..;)



I shall be happy to, assuming it's "fair and balanced" and not as one sided as your written submission;)
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would I balance things?
Pointing out true and valid points of critique on things that dont work, and offering ideas on future development is all that matters.

Its funny how I got 'submit your own proposal or shut up' as an answer to input and critique previously, and now that we (as a group) did, it seems to be an issue we actually did..:P

DSE has a nice video in the works which shows more on our initial proposal and how it works.
After the FAI proposal, we'll open it up for input and further development as a formation planning, briefing, debrief and possible judging method...
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why would I balance things?



Maybe because that is what you claimed when you wrote:
"Its a presentation showing the positive AND negative aspecs of all current judging systems, and proposing a plan for further cummunity-wide development, testing and input."

Now, if you want to push your own system and denigrate others, fair enough, but admit it and don't claim that you are doing something different.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Why would I balance things?



Maybe because that is what you claimed when you wrote:
"Its a presentation showing the positive AND negative aspecs of all current judging systems, and proposing a plan for further cummunity-wide development, testing and input."

Now, if you want to push your own system and denigrate others, fair enough, but admit it and don't claim that you are doing something different.




I have to agree with what Kallend has pointed out. The info in the FAI pdf only shows one side of the negative aspects, that being the USPA's current method. Why are there no negatives listed for the proposed computer software method?

Some potential negatives that need to be addressed and I am sure are thoughts others reading this thread are having:

First observation/question that comes to my mind is this: Will this software be free for everyone to use or is it being sold? If it's being sold, then there is a clear agenda here and that is to sell software. If this software is going to be distributed and maintained for free for anyone to use then it should be stated as such.

Second observation is that despite the speed of judging advantages the software offers, it really isn't better than the grid in so much that it is still limited to formations on one plane and for all practical purposes it is still creating a grid based off of the base. The only difference is there is no "slinky grid" that can be manipulated.

Third observation/question: Neither the current nor the proposed software solutions addresses the fact or identifies how many pictures can be submitted or used to make a determination of a completed formation. This again allows for a machine gunning of the camera to capture and find the one photo that best fits the formation. Basically, take enough photos and one of them will show a completed formation for that split second in time. Consequentially, this is where the software would be faster than the human in sorting thorough the hundreds of photos but is this "spray and pray" mentality what "we" really want to adopt and use as a measuring stick to quantify success?
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

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