FAI, Wingsuits, and the Grid

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

okay let's see
just tried a few lines and already no worky.
I have the tolerances set at whatever the default value was... distance 35% and angle at 18%, is this the same as the proposal?

Don't know, no numbers were given in the proposal, I just used the green shaded boxes from their figure. All my points fit in their green boxes.

Regardless - ANY local evaluation method allows the accumulation of errors. It's fundamental to the method.

...

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

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Quote

okay let's see
just tried a few lines and already no worky.
I have the tolerances set at whatever the default value was... distance 35% and angle at 18%, is this the same as the proposal?

Don't know, no numbers were given in the proposal, I just used the green shaded boxes from their figure. All my points fit in their green boxes.

Regardless - ANY local evaluation method allows the accumulation of errors. It's fundamental to the method.

Why a record should be single dimensional?
Than why not summarize the errors and distortions?
You can compare two or more formation.

E.g. record for shape "A" with errors of "X"
If some group can do shape "A" with errors of "Y" where Y < X, there is a new record.

[mccordia 73]

Quote

Don't know, no numbers were given in the proposal

hmm...maybe jarno had a point when he said that FAI document didnt explain the full method, and it was just a lead-in to the actual presentation..?

We do have some vallues which roughly seem to make for good formations (not the ones mentioned by Andreea), but again. Have a week or 2 of patience.

We have several things to try in terms of measuring and setting the distance. Using distances and angles measured on the formation as a whole. Or just set by lines drawn through the formation. Or by certain people. Plenty of things to play with. But not anything thats

The default vallues set, are just that. Default vallues. We do have an idea of which vallues work, and from which point on it goes more towards 'anything goes'. But we'll get to all that later.

Again...whats the sudden rush...give it a week or two (deja-vu..again) till after the FAI presentation.

Quote

I just used the green shaded boxes from their figure. All my points fit in their green boxes.

If thats what the method fully was...yes..
but as you are probably guessing by now...it isnt.
otherwise a simple photoshop layer with two lines and a circle would suffice. And it (luckely) goes a bit beyond that. Especialy when looking at further measurements and assesments we can include.

Quote

Regardless - ANY local evaluation method allows the accumulation of errors. It's fundamental to the method.

Not really...but again...seeing only half of what will be presented in a week or two, its an easy conclusion to draw...sadly a wrong one for what we are aiming for.

A week or two of patience, and more will be shown (getting deja-vu x3 here) which you THEN are fully invited to pull appart, disect, modify or wipe of thre table...

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[mccordia 73]

Quote

E.g. record for shape "A" with errors of "X"
If some group can do shape "A" with errors of "Y" where Y

That is actually something we also found, and also something especialy helpfull in debrief. Showing overal accuracy level in %, really shows if one jump was particulairly better than the other. Even though both maybe didnt yield a complete formartion. And the red lines highlight problem areas.

A briefing/debriefing tool was our initial setup.
Though you dont want to push accuracy too far, and end up being like one of Japaneese kids playing Tetris

But lots of cool options we are eager to play with and further explore..
More soon..

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[SuperGirl 0]

Quote

Don't know, no numbers were given in the proposal,

yea, turns out I shoulda played with the numbers a lot more. those are not good enough numbers for describing good formations, just default values...

with tighter tolerances it's actually pretty damn hard to induce that side dent of yours. this thing is pretty damn self-correcting from the inside out. and I'm realizing that I haven't played with it nearly as much as I need to.
I'll work on it more and I'll post a full report of my findings at some point.

[SimonBones 1]

Quote

Simon, no one is forcing you to participate in wingsuit flocks. Some people would consider diving headfirst at the ground holding hands with 107 others to be rather pointless.

Aah. By the same argument you present, some people would consider skydiving in the first place to be rather pointless. Should we all quit?

My interest is in advancing the sport, including the discipline of wingsuiting. I own a wingsuit and have been flying it for years. I would like to see the wingsuiting discipline stop turning into so much of a joke because I like my wingsuit, and have an interest in doing more with it. That's why I'm here in this forum debating the direction of wingsuiting. If you disagree with the arguments I make, maybe you should address them in a way that finds a better solution for wingsuiting as a whole. Attacking an unrelated official skydiving world record to try and take a jab at me personally is counterproductive to the topic at hand and frankly, childish. So .

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[SuperGirl 0]

Quote

take a jab at me personally is counterproductive to the topic at hand and frankly, childish. So .

sheesh, get on with the times, Simon, half the crap we babble about on this forum is childish. wait. scratch that. 80% of it. maybe more.

[SimonBones 1]

Maybe you misinterpret my intention so I'll try and make it more clear. Setting a skydiving record in my opinion is not pointless. Setting a wingsuit skydiving record is not pointless. Wingsuiting is great.

Trying to set records using these proposed systems is an awful idea. Before addressing the issue of tolerances and making a pretty formation, why not address the 2D issue? Even if everyone by the photograph and grid is perfectly centered in their boxes, flyers "in their slots" can be 50+ feet above and below the 'formation'. That is ridiculous judging criteria and not worthy of a world record.

The path being taken to find a suitable judging criteria is fatally flawed. Either a complete 3D mapping system needs to be developed with much tighter slot tolerances, or the records need to be docked. Given that these ideas are not really currently doable, it is my position that wingsuiting has no current place in world records for big way formations.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[mccordia 73]

Quote

My interest is in advancing the sport, including the discipline of wingsuiting. I own a wingsuit and have been flying it for years. I would like to see the wingsuiting discipline stop turning into so much of a joke because I like my wingsuit, and have an interest in doing more with it. That's why I'm here in this forum debating the direction of wingsuiting.

Agreed...and also eager to see what a 25 to 50 person group of wingsuit flyers of the same skill and level of the 108 way headdown record (but within their own dicipline of wingsuit flying) could acomplish.

And than using that accomplishment as a basis to test, try and further explore wingsuit formation judging.
Wingsuit flying has come a long way. But in terms of both skill level and decicated practice of close relative flight/docks etc, few people compare to the extreme levels of dedication (and windtunnel practice) we see in other diciplines.

A seasoned 4 way VRW flyer or FS jumper will spend 90% of his/her jumps practicing the close relative flying, in actual jumps.
We are still trying to hold a spot 3 meters away from eachother.

Eager to see where we will be in a few years time. And how the past acomplishments (incredible as they may be) compare to the things we'll see by than..

Ive beeng flying wingsuits for 7 years now, and the stuff done these days makes the initial formation flying look like beginner flocks. Which doesnt detract one single thing from that acomplishment. It just shows how far we have come. And at the same time, how far we still have to go..

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

okay let's see
just tried a few lines and already no worky.
I have the tolerances set at whatever the default value was... distance 35% and angle at 18%, is this the same as the proposal?

Don't know, no numbers were given in the proposal, I just used the green shaded boxes from their figure. All my points fit in their green boxes.

Regardless - ANY local evaluation method allows the accumulation of errors. It's fundamental to the method.

Why a record should be single dimensional?
Than why not summarize the errors and distortions?
You can compare two or more formation.

E.g. record for shape "A" with errors of "X"
If some group can do shape "A" with errors of "Y" where Y < X, there is a new record.

Why not indeed? The method I proposed (different thread, A Modest Proposal, would allow that quite easily.

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Don't know, no numbers were given in the proposal

hmm...maybe jarno had a point when he said that FAI document didnt explain the full method, and it was just a lead-in to the actual presentation..?

We do have some vallues which roughly seem to make for good formations (not the ones mentioned by Andreea), but again. Have a week or 2 of patience.

We have several things to try in terms of measuring and setting the distance. Using distances and angles measured on the formation as a whole. Or just set by lines drawn through the formation. Or by certain people. Plenty of things to play with. But not anything thats

The default vallues set, are just that. Default vallues. We do have an idea of which vallues work, and from which point on it goes more towards 'anything goes'. But we'll get to all that later.

Again...whats the sudden rush...give it a week or two (deja-vu..again) till after the FAI presentation.

Quote

I just used the green shaded boxes from their figure. All my points fit in their green boxes.

If thats what the method fully was...yes..
but as you are probably guessing by now...it isnt.
otherwise a simple photoshop layer with two lines and a circle would suffice. And it (luckely) goes a bit beyond that. Especialy when looking at further measurements and assesments we can include.

Quote

Regardless - ANY local evaluation method allows the accumulation of errors. It's fundamental to the method.

Not really...but again...seeing only half of what will be presented in a week or two, its an easy conclusion to draw...sadly a wrong one for what we are aiming for.

A week or two of patience, and more will be shown (getting deja-vu x3 here) which you THEN are fully invited to pull appart, disect, modify or wipe of thre t
eable...

So you are making a proposal to an official body BEFORE sharing all the details with the community. That is exactly the criticism levelled at the folks who proposed "the grid". Hmmm.

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Maybe you misinterpret my intention so I'll try and make it more clear. Setting a skydiving record in my opinion is not pointless. Setting a wingsuit skydiving record is not pointless. Wingsuiting is great.

Trying to set records using these proposed systems is an awful idea. Before addressing the issue of tolerances and making a pretty formation, why not address the 2D issue? Even if everyone by the photograph and grid is perfectly centered in their boxes, flyers "in their slots" can be 50+ feet above and below the 'formation'. That is ridiculous judging criteria and not worthy of a world record.

The path being taken to find a suitable judging criteria is fatally flawed. Either a complete 3D mapping system needs to be developed with much tighter slot tolerances, or the records need to be docked. Given that these ideas are not really currently doable, it is my position that wingsuiting has no current place in world records for big way formations.

You are, of course, fully entitled to your opinion. However, right here we are trying to hash out some issues that need to be resolved before we can move on.

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Don't know, no numbers were given in the proposal,

yea, turns out I shoulda played with the numbers a lot more. those are not good enough numbers for describing good formations, just default values...

with tighter tolerances it's actually pretty damn hard to induce that side dent of yours. this thing is pretty damn self-correcting from the inside out. and I'm realizing that I haven't played with it nearly as much as I need to.
I'll work on it more and I'll post a full report of my findings at some point.

If they would tell us the numbers instead of just hinting at future revelations we wouldn't have to guess what they are up to.

...

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

[Buried 0]

This thread makes me laugh and smile. It's some of the better critiques and ideas that we've had going in a long time.

Jarno has said much more than he has needed to at this point. Jarno has also said much more than anyone from *RTS* or the the IPC delegate who is presenting on behalf of us, the USPA member, as a common voice. A "common" voice that seemly exists in only a few people's heads. There is no common voice exists today. Little comment or true and honest intentions to hear us out have been posted here on line or even off line. No additional information has been made public. Any contact I have had with some members of the USPA commitees/board have needed to be direct since barriers obviously exist as only one voice and some also show little interest in pursuing anything else other than a incomplete, subjective system. There have been numerous recommendations on ways to improve the grid sent to them over the last number of months by a few. It has led to no outside discussion. Heck, they haven't even had one board meeting since it's adoption to discuss this in an official place, in an open forum. It makes me sad and proves the current system is broke.. but we will see for how long this will remain true.

Do i support the software? I can't say, I haven't played with it. I've already have thought of improvements which would help better judge different formations. Time, testing, application, and [potential] revisions to the software or the rules will tell.. as it would any judging system.

Many have really lost focus of what drives us...

we don't need a judging system, let alone a poor one to be able to have fun and put together good looking formations that people would still stand in awe at.

we don't need a judging system, let alone one that can't apply to our creativity and pursuit of taking wingsuiting to another level.

we don't need a judging system to increase or [falsely] validate our skill levels..

we don't need a judging system to make a buck or gain publicity.

If a judging system is meant to be, one will be supported by the community through proof and through testing. At that point one should be adopted. Right now it shouldn't happen anytime soon. There are no reasons to make official steps in something no one has anything to gain from, except those promoting it.

Quote

If they would tell us the numbers instead of just hinting at future revelations we wouldn't have to guess what they are up to.

If taya and others told us what they were up to before they snuck through a flawed system we may not be where we are now either or have to guess what they are up to. Same thing goes with this IPC proposal. At least this time we have time and a true community voice to put behind it.

I will say that the 'numbers' have not been defined. why? because if this method proves to offer something more we as a community can define those tolerances. we can have agreement between us all. That's something the grid, especially under the current rules (or near future proposed rules) can offer.

.. and for those still reading this you can see record spot was talking about at http://news.flylikebrick.com/2010/01/florida-state-record.html

if anyone wants to address something to me. call. if you need my number send me a pm.

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[SuperGirl 0]

Quote

If they would tell us the numbers instead of just hinting at future revelations we wouldn't have to guess what they are up to.

there are no numbers. this is research!! ongoing research!!
come on John you know better than most what that's all about

also, there is no "they", it's "us"
We as a community will have to do the thorough testing and figure out numbers, for this system or whatever other system we choose to use.

what are your numbers?? ehh?? cmon, how could you possibly keep us in the dark, it's been days already and we don't know the magic tolerance number that your maximum deviation should be less than or equal to... what number works best?
same kinda thing. it's an interesting method with great potential but it's not all figured out yet. which is why we shouldn't be rushing things, and nor should the USPA.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

A seasoned 4 way VRW flyer or FS jumper will spend 90% of his/her jumps practicing the close relative flying, in actual jumps.
We are still trying to hold a spot 3 meters away from eachother.

I'd love to see a no-contact bigway RW jump with 3-meter spacing. Doubt it would look much prettier than a recent wingsuit jump. Might make for a fun competition at the DZ sometime... same formation, wingsuits vs. RW. But no, I don't have judging criteria.

Dave

[piisfish 135]

Quote

The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels don't take grips either.

they don't ask for world records either

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[DSE 3]

The constant comparison to the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, etc is beyond ridiculous.

FWIW, there is a Blue Angel's pilot that frequents the DZ, and he's enthralled with the wingsuit, what it can do, and he's hoping to get to 200 jumps soon so he can fly one. Last weekend I talked to him about comparing the two. Between the mathematical examples and the physical examples, he had some chuckles and thought that comparing wingsuits to a deadstick 152 would be just as absurd, but more accurate.

Seeing so many letters going to the national board, many of them from the biggest names in the sport, expressing their fear at the grid being accepted at a national level, is exciting, heartening, and provides hope that this community will win out. So many of us coming together with a common voice of "No FAI acceptance of the grid" is a small step towards us coming together with somewhat of a common voice saying "this is what we think we want" and perhaps we can take it a few steps further and define a judging system of grips, no grips, whatever....and eventually have something worth passing along over the years.
Keep sending those letters, folks.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

If they would tell us the numbers instead of just hinting at future revelations we wouldn't have to guess what they are up to.

there are no numbers. this is research!! ongoing research!!
.

Right, and I have shown you my research on the method using the tolerances on the diagrams they have submitted to the FAI. I have shown that the method is fundamentally flawed in that in cannot detect accumulated errors regardless of the tolerances unless the tolerance is zero.

The USPA grid is flawed in its details - the boxes are too big. That is fixable.

The Netherlands proposal is flawed in its fundamentals and no fiddling with the details can fix that.

Both are flawed in that they can't handle formations like circles, stars, words..

I know of a method that has none of these flaws

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels don't take grips either.

they don't ask for world records either

RVs and Bonanzas don't take grips, and they HAVE claimed world records.

...

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

[mccordia 73]

Kallend, you are judging based on images, used to illustrate a working concept we want to explore, and develop. Who knows, into something completely different.

You are missing a large piece of the puzzle. Again (deja vu #12).
Wait a while till you understand the whole concept and have seen the actual workings of the system. And again, from there on, we will welcome ANYONE to develop this into a working system. In any shape or form. Anyones idea. As long as it works.

How hard is it to wait judging, untill you have the full information.
Or just continue bitching with a nice mix if theory and assumption thrown in.

Again: we will present ideas for development. Not a lockdown or even dedication to one system or method

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[mnskydiver688 0]

It continues to befuddle me why the wingsuit community immediately jumped to the idea of a "world record" to assert the relevance of our discipline. Why there wasn't more emphasis put on developing a competition circuit like the NSL with the goal of developing small group flying skills is beyond me. Then after the discipline gains a grass roots hold in competition and nationwide involvement from 182 dropzones to multi plane operations move on to establishing a method of creating and judging a world record. For those of us who do not have the means to travel to record events really have nothing riding on how the records are judged or accepted for that matter.

Have fun trying to establish the relevance of our discipline by a means that all but eliminates most of us small DZ flyers.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[mccordia 73]

Quote

Have fun trying to establish the relevance of our discipline by a means that all but eliminates most of us small DZ flyers.

Thats a bit narrow...
There are several different Artistic (2 way + camera) competitions, there are three different performance based competition formats.

But also agreed, that though bigways are great fun, the urge to classify jumps as records, this early in our development is a tad premature.

Take the 60-something people that flew the recent record in the USA.
Let that same group do that same jump again in 3 years, with each person having 300 to 1000 more wingsuit jumps under their belt.

Will they fly the same formation, or will they fly it much, much tighter.
When we get to the point where we can fly 9 ways linked, it wont mean shit (in the public eye) as we already flocked with 100+ people by then in 'records'
And when a formation is flown without grips, but with 30 cm spacing, at a 3.0 glide/40 mph, it again wont mean much.

And I look forward to 'us' explaining 'them' how this smaller formation, bigger technical acomplishment, and greater show of skill and precission flying, doesnt qualify as a record.

Its a shame the urge to qualify records, to label it 'official', has led to a knee-jerk reaction, and formation ratification thats far from ready for actual use.

We (as a community) havent even figured out the stuff ourselves.
Yet next week, there is one group presenting at the FAI for acceptance.
Why? For the community, or personal fame/gain?

Im really sadened that we actually HAD to go to the FAI to try and prevent that from happening. Though glad, that (through critique on what we wanted to show) it made people finaly think about what the USPA grid would mean to wingsuit flying, if it got accepted in its current form.

A 1 to 2 year pause, in terms of ANYTHING being accepted in terms of official FAI wingsuit ratification is what we will be asking for.
And showcasing our concept (and highlighting other ideas) to just show that effort IS being taken to create something that works.

Though I personaly feel we have to mature a lot as a community.
In terms of being a more unified voice to the outside world and developing the dicipline further, both in terms of planning, goals and flying.

Look at how far freeflying has developed the last 5 to 10 years, and the leaps we, wingsuit flyers, have taken the same last 5 years.
Freeflyers have been at it for 20 years, and share much more with diciplines such as FS, which allows them to lend/borrow concepts in terms of ratification and competitions.
We lack 10 to 15 years of development, and the ability to take a lot of things from the record and competition circuit. 1 on 1.

Keep and open mind...

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Kallend, you are judging based on images, used to illustrate a working concept we want to explore, and develop. Who knows, into something completely different.

You are missing a large piece of the puzzle. Again (deja vu #12).
Wait a while till you understand the whole concept and have seen the actual workings of the system. And again, from there on, we will welcome ANYONE to develop this into a working system. In any shape or form. Anyones idea. As long as it works.

How hard is it to wait judging, untill you have the full information.
Or just continue bitching with a nice mix if theory and assumption thrown in.

Again: we will present ideas for development. Not a lockdown or even dedication to one system or method

Isn't that the EXACT criticism that has been leveled against "the grid"? That it was presented to the governing body BEFORE the details had been made public.

Why are you keeping the details secret?

...

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

Isn't that the EXACT criticism that has been leveled against "the grid"? That it was presented to the governing body BEFORE the details had been made public.

Why are you keeping the details secret?

Nope, it's only a small part of the criticism against the grid. Further, the grid presentation violated the USPA Competition Manual and Governance Manuals, if you want to go by the most strict interpretations.
The grid is being criticized objectively as being an incomplete mess. As the over 50 letters to the USPA in the past 24 hours have stated.

The grid promotes mediocrity in wingsuiting.

The grid doesn't take any aspect of wingsuiting into account beyond flat flocks. Docking, 3d, none fo these are possible to measure in "the grid."

The grid is simply not ready for primetime. Simple

On a subjective level, those that have offered to help improve the grid have been met with direct hostility, threats, barred from events, nasty emails and PM's, and derision by the authors of the grid. Again, not exactly the same path other disciplines have followed.
As put by two of the competition committee members early this morning, "there has been a path which other disciplines have taken to the competition arena. Wingsuiting has attempted to circumvent those paths, and now we're seeing the fallout from that attempt."

[edit]
To answer your constant assertion that "secrets are being held" Kallend...AFAIK no secrets are being held. Can't put the software out there without paying money for DRM, so no point in putting it out there unless you'll pay for the DRM lock.
Can't show you how it works more than I did in S'nore, where it was patently obvious that you had no patience for software nor hearing how it worked. I couldn't show it to the world during the bigway, as I was told I'd be kicked off the DZ if I participated in the bigway events. Which is why I was in my trailer during all the bigway dinners, after jump activities, etc. I really wanted to show it to more people. There is no secret on my end. There is a video that I created a few days ago, once it's edited it will will be publically available. Unfortunately, time and paying work has priority.

Lotsa changes in the winds, folks. Stay tuned.