FAI, Wingsuits, and the Grid

[SuperGirl 0]

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.

as far as I understand, the difference lies in the way it is presented to the governing body.

the grid was never presented as something that the whole community would have a chance of refining and working on.

the software method is simply being presented as an alternative... to show that there ARE alternatives being worked on and that no single method should be adopted right away.
nobody's giving any plans of implementing it within a year. if it proves to be the answer,then so be it, but we are far from knowing that.
details will be made public before anyone accepts it as an official method of judging.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

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.

as far as I understand, the difference lies in the way it is presented to the governing body.

the grid was never presented as something that the whole community would have a chance of refining and working on.

the software method is simply being presented as an alternative... to show that there ARE alternatives being worked on and that no single method should be adopted right away.
nobody's giving any plans of implementing it within a year. if it proves to be the answer,then so be it, but we are far from knowing that.
details will be made public before anyone accepts it as an official method of judging.

Well, you all have the opportunity to comment on my proposal. It is open (NO secret shit to be revealed later, "just have patience"), available to all to test on their pet formation, gives maximum and average deviations from perfection, and I have now posted an actual example of its use in another thread.

I may just analyze the new Florida record and the 68 way over the weekend if my wife gives me time off for good behavior.

...

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

[Zeemax 0]

I've just seen two interesting articles here in the UK about the 68 way. Interesting how both of them mention the FAI and how it should recognize the grid system - what does this mean to wuffos? Nothing.

Seems interesting timing considering the upcoming meeting, and the fact that the papers have already covered the record story before.

I'm not saying the 'grid' is right or wrong, but I am saying as a wingsuiter I feel mighty pissed off that there seems to be this unstoppable movement trying to push in a system that from what I can tell is only supported by a small minority, but doing it as the 'voice' of everyone.

Why are we not hearing from any of the originators of the grid in this thread? Why are they not asking what we the community think about the system?

Phoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE
Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies

[mccordia 73]

Quote

Well, you all have the opportunity to comment on my proposal.

If some people (unlike you) hadnt gotten of their ass, and actually worked to present to the FAI, to show there are multiple paths to explore (including yours), there would be a pretty straight-forward (mostly hidden) process already hard on its way to lock down ANY other validation, briefing or debriefing system, as the USPA grid would have been proposed as the ONLY method of validation/judging to the FAI next week.

I hear a lot of crying and yelling about the lack of input, and presented methods/systems etc.
But (again), we are showing there are alternatives. We are not out to get anything accepted.

You can work all you want on your amazing system that triumphs every other effort, and discredit every other thing on the planet.
But whats the use, if there is only one process/method highlighted (without showing flaws) to the FAI for worldwide implementation next week.

You state you've proven our 'concept' doesnt work.
Yet complain you dont have all the info. Which one is it?

While we (where 'we' is a group of +-100 people that have written letters to the USPA and FAI) actually try and do something about the possibility of not ever having ANY say in what gets accepted at the FAI. You just do your thing, and keep complaining about aspects of a subject-matter that are NOT open to discussion, presentation or even comments AT THIS TIME.

Once we know for sure we have the room to work out (ANY!) judging, briefing or validation method, without time and a flawed system getting accepted as a worry. THAN we have allll the time and room in the world for comments, input, screaming, yelling, bitchslaps, and proposition for 50 other systems/methods.

That thread you posted with your proposal. great. But nobody at the FAI meet next week would know about it, if it was up to you.
And if your answer to that is "I dont care...in the past lesser systems also won over better ones" (like you said a few posts up), than why even waste anyones time posting here.

Hope to speak to you again in a week or 2, when we will post all details, and look towards opening a forum for further development of our briefing tool and hopefully a (be it ours, or other) community approved judging method. Hopefully by then I see someone with a more open mind in your posts, willing to look ahead, and work together as a community. Instead of screaming loud, claiming a ton of ideas, yet doing nothing.

Here are all the details you need for now.

If you have any further questions after that...than first try understanding the difference between presenting a concept for free development, or presenting a closed/finalized judging method for acceptance.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

[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.
.

DRM suggests that this is going to be a PROPRIETARY system, not an open system.

If no secrets, why do I keep getting the brush off when I ask for details? They won't even tell me what tolerances they use, and when I measure them from their own diagrams they tell me I'm wrong but STILL won't tell me what they use.

Seeing a demo of the software is not the same as understanding its details.

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Well, you all have the opportunity to comment on my proposal.

If some people (unlike you) hadnt gotten of their ass, and actually worked to present to the FAI, to show there are multiple paths to explore (including yours),.

blah blah.

EXACTLY the same can be said of critics of the USPA system. While most of us sat on our arses, others made a proposal. For the arse-sitters to be whining now is just inappropriate behavior.

...

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

Why are we not hearing from any of the originators of the grid in this thread? Why are they not asking what we the community think about the system?

Because they don't care. It's all part of a chess game to create something that is for the benefit of one or two, not the group as a whole. I'm grateful that the USPA system in *this* case is working. You'll hear more on that in a few hours.
This is the best aspect of the system that the Netherlands are proposing is that it's a concept, and presentation that says "there are other things being developed for wingsuiting" and having the IPC see that wingsuiting is starting to mature enough that we can begin a dialog about competition, judging, scoring, etc.
But we're not there yet.

I'd like to (and will) propose a wingsuit symposium at Flock n' Dock to discuss how we as a community want to achieve competition scoring and judging. From there, we might have at the least a direction that the USPA and other countries might test. In the aftermath of the past three days, the USPA has become painfully aware of the error that occurred in July.
I'm very glad this issue is being discussed. There are some brilliant minds out there. Hopefully we can gather them at Flock n' Dock and have some productive discussion rather than counter productive dismissal of each other's ideas. Crystal, L, grid, point to point, elastic broomstick, whatever... a solid discussion over cases of beer are called for.
I'll buy the first two cases and bring the pizza.

[fmmobley 0]

Reading this thread reminds me of a saying I read once...

"Arguing on the internet is kind of like the special olympics... even if you win, you are still a retard"

... Marion

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

[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.
.

DRM suggests that this is going to be a PROPRIETARY system, not an open system.

If no secrets, why do I keep getting the brush off when I ask for details? They won't even tell me what tolerances they use, and when I measure them from their own diagrams they tell me I'm wrong but STILL won't tell me what they use.

Seeing a demo of the software is not the same as understanding its details.

And how do you propose to do a demo of the software without some kind of DRM that protects it from being stolen, copied, and passed on? Duh.
There should be a penalty for practicing software coding without a license.
The tolerances are variable, Professor. As I SHOWED YOU in Elsinore. Quit playing the whining victim. You saw that the tolerances are variable, and I specifically told you they're variable for a reason.
So for now, quit thinking the world revolves around you. Some of us actually work, and can't spend our days satisfying your every whim and whine.
you'll see a video demonstration as soon as it can be edited.

Tell ya what...Put up or shut up. Pay me for one day's production work, and I'll edit it right now. My PayPal account is the same one listed as my email here on DZ.com.

[mccordia 73]

Quote

DRM suggests that this is going to be a PROPRIETARY system, not an open system.

No, its just a method of keeping something you are working on yours, untill you deem the time right to show a first working setup to the world, and open it up for further development.

Quote

If no secrets, why do I keep getting the brush off when I ask for details?

Who said there are no secrets?
There are no secrets AFTER we present the system to everyone, and when we open it up for comments/feedback.
I didnt see any of those things yet. All Ive seen so far is an FAI document, to request speaking time?
Again, your input is GREATLY appreachiated, once you see the whole thing, and are able to give us your informed oppinion. But at this point in time, I wish you could look beyond the petty subject you are stressing, and see the bigger picture..

Quote

They won't even tell me what tolerances they use, and when I measure them from their own diagrams they tell me I'm wrong but STILL won't tell me what they use.

I dont see why we have to?
We havent presented anything to you or anyone yet for feedback.
That will come, but not now. Again, there are more urgent matters at this point in time.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

[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.
.

DRM suggests that this is going to be a PROPRIETARY system, not an open system.

If no secrets, why do I keep getting the brush off when I ask for details? They won't even tell me what tolerances they use, and when I measure them from their own diagrams they tell me I'm wrong but STILL won't tell me what they use.

Seeing a demo of the software is not the same as understanding its details.

And how do you propose to do a demo of the software without some kind of DRM that protects it from being stolen, copied, and passed on? Duh.

I haven't asked for the software, I've asked for the tolerances they propose.

Quote

There should be a penalty for practicing software coding without a license.
The tolerances are variable, Professor. As I SHOWED YOU in Elsinore. Quit playing the whining victim. You saw that the tolerances are variable, and I specifically told you they're variable for a reason.

Variable tolerances? Does that mean favored organizers have bigger tolerances than the rest?

Come on, if we are going to have a pass/no pass criterion for deciding if a formation is complete as designed, the tolerances need to be well defined, not variable.

Quote

So for now, quit thinking the world revolves around you.

I think ANYONE who wants to test out a proposal should have access to the details, not just the cheerleaders. Are they afraid we'll identify a weakness? Who else is trying to identify its weaknesses rather than cheerleading for it?

I haven't concealed any details of my proposal.

...

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

Variable tolerances? Does that mean favored organizers have bigger tolerances than the rest?

You honestly can't think of a reason that there can be variables? I can think of at least two. But I'm not a PhD

[mccordia 73]

Quote

I haven't asked for the software, I've asked for the tolerances they propose.

Do explain why we'd give you info on an idea in development, instead of showing it when we think its ready for public commenting and further development. None of your stings regarding closed development have any truth to them, as there IS no system submitted for approval or acceptance.
Its an idea for to SHOW that FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IS 100% NEEDED

Quote

Variable tolerances?

One needs to have the ability to test multiple vallues and tollerances.
We have an idea of vallues that work and dont work. But you'll be the last to hear it, untill we actually present something for feedback.

Quote

I think ANYONE who wants to test out a proposal should have access to the details,

Agreed...and when its an actual proposal, instead of a lead-in to a development track (much like a synopsis for a film) ANYONE is welcome to test, comment and give input.
But you choose to not understand the actual concept of whats being presented to you.

So read it, and try and graps whats being told (as most other seem to)

Nobody is proposing ANYTHING to you to comment on AT THIS TIME
We just want to show the FAI that there is more stuff beyond the narrow horizon formed by the USPA proposal.

Is it sinking in already...?

Your comment and input is greatly appreachiated...when we present something, and ask for it...and thats a few weeks away from where we are now..

I hope you understand..

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

.. 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

According to the method I have outlined in a different thread, the maximum position error in this formation is 52% of the defined spacing between adjacent jumpers. The average error was 25%

I was thinking that an appropriate error threshold for the maximum error would be more like 35%.

...

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

[mccordia 73]

Quote

Quote

.. 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

According to the method I have outlined in a different thread, the maximum position error in this formation is 52% of the defined spacing between adjacent jumpers. The average error was 25%

I was thinking that an appropriate error threshold for the maximum error would be more like 35%.

Good stuff. But try and read between the lines, and see what that formation and this thread are actually about (there is a good hint in the title of this throad). Your numbers mean nothing is the underlying issue isnt adressed.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

.. 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

According to the method I have outlined in a different thread, the maximum position error in this formation is 52% of the defined spacing between adjacent jumpers. The average error was 25%

I was thinking that an appropriate error threshold for the maximum error would be more like 35%.

Good stuff. But try and read between the lines, and see what that formation and this thread are actually about (there is a good hint in the title of this throad). Your numbers mean nothing is the underlying issue isnt adressed.

If my method were the official one, which it is NOT, it would say that the 8-way Florida formation was not completed as designed.

...

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

If my method were the official one, which it is NOT, it would say that the 8-way Florida formation was not completed as designed.

It was completed as designed.
Definitely something to think about.

[SuperGirl 0]

Quote

If my method were the official one, which it is NOT, it would say that the 8-way Florida formation was not completed as designed.

this is awesome.
that formation has everyone pretty much completely inside of their grid square. you can scale the grid a bit more to actually get that even better.

so basically you have just added another good counter example to the grid, cause here is a formation that perhaps should NOT be a record, yet according to the specifications set forth by the uspa, it should, cause it doesn't break any rule.
it even goes as far as to fit the improved grid criteria, like the suggestion of everyone completely inside the box.

precisely the point of this thread. the grid is not yet ready... (the only other option would be that your method is flawed and needs refinement...)


Another thing I've been meaning to bring up (not addressed to you specifically) is that when we design a method for judging formations we may want to check if it's a solid system by using some basic notions from propositional logic.

1. Soundness [i.e. If the system claims to prove something is true, it really is true.]
If the method says that a formation is a valid record, is the formation always one that the wingsuit community would consider record-worthy?

2. Completeness: [i.e. If something really is true, the system is capable of proving it.]
If a formation is undoubtedly worthy of being called a record, will our method always validate it as a record?

Just something to keep in mind when evaluating people's various methods.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

If my method were the official one, which it is NOT, it would say that the 8-way Florida formation was not completed as designed.

this is awesome.

You were in it. What do you think (ignoring all methods official or unofficial - just your personal opinion)?

Quote

Another thing I've been meaning to bring up (not addressed to you specifically) is that when we design a method for judging formations we may want to check if it's a solid system by using some basic notions from propositional logic.

1. Soundness [i.e. If the system claims to prove something is true, it really is true.]
If the method says that a formation is a valid record, is the formation always one that the wingsuit community would consider record-worthy?

2. Completeness: [i.e. If something really is true, the system is capable of proving it.]
If a formation is undoubtedly worthy of being called a record, will our method always validate

THAT is the reason I have in another thread requested pictures of formations people consider marginal, so at least my method can be tested.

...

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

[SuperGirl 0]

Quote

You were in it. What do you think (ignoring all methods official or unofficial - just your personal opinion)?

I think the rules should be strict enough not to allow that kind of error.

I don't care that I was in it. I'll fly any formation for anyone's method, regardless of the heated up discussions on here.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

Because they don't care. It's all part of a chess game to create something that is for the benefit of one or two, not the group as a whole.

I'm really curious as to how it benefits them, considering it's an open standard anyone can use and implement. Today. And no "DRM" required.

Frankly I don't blame them for not showing up in this thread. It's a typical wingsuit forum's conspiracy theory drama fest that pretty much just strokes a few egos.

[peggs82 0]

Quote

. It's sad that the current system was accepted without that dialog (since we didn't know it was happening).

Taya,
You did an outstanding, awesome job with the BOD in both Wingsuit Record and Wingsuit Instructor Rating presentations. You worked hard and it was obvious to everyone. Thank you for standing next to me (and holding me up) during the Sunday presentation.
You were a rockstar for wingsuiting at this BOD meeting.
-DSE July 14,2009



The selective memory here is crazy!!!!!!!!

[DSE 3]

Been waiting for someone to pull that up, Phil, thanks for the opportunity to respond to it.

Taya told all of us that were in the Wingsuit Instructor's Rating group that she needed money to go to Dallas to present on my behalf, since I was not going to be there due to the Utah boogie. You donated, Rick Hough donated, etc.
Then I was injured.
With some help, I flew to Dallas to represent the WSI rating as I'd been told by a board member that Taya hadn't convinced the board that it was a needed rating. Was kind of a big deal at the time, since I was still in the hospital. But the WSI was very important to me, and the person that was supposed to have presented on my behalf hadn't done the job I thought she was doing. But she still was there, and did present. Had I known the motivations, I'd have figured something else out before hand. But, i didn't know. (You did)

While there, I was told at the dinner table, by MaryLou, that Taya was seeking recognition for the 71 WAY RECORD. Nothing was said to me then, or even immediately after, about it becoming a USPA standard. No one knew. (well, YOU did).

I was as stunned as everyone else to find it wasn't recognition for the 71 way, but rather being presented as a locked-in competition standard.
Forgive my ignorance at the time. I didn't know how the Governance Manual worked, didn't know how the competition manual worked, as I never had thought about competing in skydiving.

I was in Dallas, I was easily able to have JP wheel me into the Competition Committee meeting to comment on the grid, but since I didn't know it was being presented, I had no reason to go into that room. No one outside of MaryLou and Taya knew what was being presented.
Again, I thought it was merely seeking USPA recognition of some kind, for the 71way. Which would be commendable. The 71 way was a terrific event.

And yeah, I'm grateful Taya helped me stand up during that meeting, because if I'm gonna stand up for something I believe in, I'm gonna stand on my own two feet to do it. Just because I don't appreciate the grid doesn't mean I don't appreciate Taya's efforts in helping me get out of my wheelchair.

You gonna tell me to "shut up and jump" next, Phil? I didn't see you at the board meeting on two good legs, let alone with casts on your body in a wheelchair.

I don't see you offering solutions or doing anything but telling folks to shut up and jump. Or voting to keep me off the bigway because I didn't appreciate the grid. I guess it's all in what you deem important. I felt the WSI was important, so I was there. I would have felt the competition/judging aspect was important, but I didn't know it was occurring. My first letter to the USPA about the grid was on 8/21/09, right after I left Pepperell. In other words, I was opposed to it from the moment I realized what had occurred.
No "selective memory" here, but rather a mind that isn't f**ked up on medications and broken bones, and unaware of what your group was hiding after that "dark and windy day at Jumptown."

Strange you have courage to tell folks to "shut up and jump" when it comes to the grid, but you yourself had several criticisms of the grid, of the grid authors when you sat in my trailer and I showed you the software (that you said was a pretty good concept). (were you being untruthful?)

Maybe if you, as one of those in the "dark and windy day" meeting had let some wingsuiters know what was going on...but then again, aren't you on the board of Raise The Sky? If so, I do understand the need for secrecy.

It's really sad for this community that things had to reach a battle before anyone would listen to the detractors of the grid. Fortunately, we've been heard.
With luck, the BOD will soon repeal the grid system.

And you're welcome for me picking up your camera helmet out of the wet since you left it down on the packing mat that night.

[mccordia 73]

The comments and suggestions are aimed at the method/system.
The past year there have been several requests to withhold further pushing of 'the grid' pending evaluation and further development.

You (Phill) called me a liar for suggesting FAI submittion, and now Im spending my own money to travel there and ask to please give the community (instead of two people who, much appreachiated, put a lot of effort in) some time to first internaly figure this stuff out.

Its such a shame this is turned into 'us against them' while it actually is 'a system needing re-evaluation vs the wish to be able to give community input.

The drama is created by turning this into personal attacks, instead of realising a 100 letters to the USPA/FAI by active wingsuit flyers, people getting fired from the USPA and a ton of other controversy may say something about the need for a clear, emotionless, and fair look at weather FAI submittion may mean something.

We're grasping to ratify formations, while still learning how to fly them.
Give it some time...whats the worst that could happen..

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[peggs82 0]

Quote

Or voting to keep me off the bigway because I didn't appreciate the grid.

Remember how you told me you had given your smaller canopy to your rigger, and told him, "Keep this away from me until I am really once again ready for it" ---

Maybe I voted "No" with that story in mind...

---------------------

But to get away from personal grievances -

I encourage everyone who is reading this from the sidelines, everyone who has enjoyed this past year - A year of RECORDS, a year of ACCOMPLISHMENT, a year of PRIDE to let the USPA know just what the Grid has done for Wingsuiting.

Tell them about the number of events you participated in, where you traveled to DZs to be a part of USPA records. Tell them about the skills camps you participated in which made you better skydivers. Tell them how these records MADE WINGSUITING BETTER!

Think of how you felt, when you could tell your parents, your children, your friends, your co-workers that you HELD A RECORD!

The train is rolling....yes...we finally have momentum. Keep it up. This year was invigorating. Seeing people WORK HARD to be a part of something special...well to me, that was special. We made real accomplishments - and I want to see it continue!

Anyone who needs info on how to tell the USPA you support the US proposal, please contact me.