Different types of distortions

[LouDiamond 1]

The distortion allowance needs to be small but not so much that it becomes a hindrance and borders on impossible. Conversely, the allowance needs to be forgiving enough to realize that what is on a piece of paper will never be represented 100% accurately in the sky, (RW bigway formations are proof of this, usually on whackers) however that allowance doesn't need to be as broad as it is as seen with the grid.

I think kallends conservative % numbers are an ideal place to start. If the declared formation is a giant diamond on paper and the resulting skydive is a giant diamond but it is uniformly longer/wider than the paper formation and with in the allowable % then it should be considered a valid formation to be judged.


The only way to get a consensus on this is to put it to the test in the field. If the % numbers are too strict, we can adjust accordingly, repeat the field testing and do it the right way before we announce a community standard.


PS: One or two events is not an adequate field test, this process needs to be left to mature in the field for at a minimum of a year to allow for growing pains and adjustments as well as really vetting the system.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[mccordia 73]

Yea...thats a good summing up of what most people seem to think.
A one year test period, from when we have a functional system, is what Id also give as an obsolute minimum, meaning we are on a 2 year drvrlopment track at least (which is also what we will advise/ask for at the FAI this friday).

With Kallends method also added to the presentation and highlighted as (IMHO) very promising.
All the fluff/drama aside, happy to see a large part of the community agree and (silent or public) advocate further development.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

A one year test period, from when we have a functional system, is what Id also give as an obsolute minimum, meaning we are on a 2 year drvrlopment track at least (which is also what we will advise/ask for at the FAI this friday).

This field testing should be done BEFORE, anyone goes knocking on anyones door with anything. Frankly, you are wasting your and their time by doing it the other way around. I know that may not be what anyone wants to hear but the fact of the matter is until you can present a tried and proven system to them in the proper way, it's going to be received with little fan fare.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[DSE 3]

Left in the field to mature for a minimum of a year, but with MANY jumps dedicated to the growth and testing.

Starting with minimum numbers on the conservative side is great, but we might find that additional deviations may need to be allowed. Formations that are beyond wedges or diamonds need to be tested, because that's the direction a lot of our flocking is going.
A nod to turning points will likely need to be a part of testing as well, because we know we're heading that direction.
Considering aspects that might translate to 3D flight should also be part of the discussion.
The best thing about John's system is that it appears to be applicable at several levels.

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Yea...thats a good summing up of what most people seem to think.
A one year test period, from when we have a functional system, is what Id also give as an obsolute minimum, meaning we are on a 2 year drvrlopment track at least (which is also what we will advise/ask for at the FAI this friday).

With Kallends method also added to the presentation and highlighted as (IMHO) very promising.
All the fluff/drama aside, happy to see a large part of the community agree and (silent or public) advocate further development.

OK, what do you need from me, and by when?

It looks like you already have a working user interface, so just adding my mathematical part shouldn't be difficult.

...

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

[Buried 0]

There are quite a few things that are nice and absolute about this method. It would still be great to explore docks more since more and more people are learning to fly and hold docks. I still also believe we need to have a max fall rate so things don't get like what Jarno described in another thread.

what I am hearing are that there are three vars/tolerances that need to be defined for a "record". All those must be met. These are: overall uniform formation distortion, the maximum position error of any jumper of inter-jumper spacing and avg error.

It prob be good that uniform distortion be around 5-6%. We;d have to allow some distortion to occur since a person flying off a 5' person is different than flying off a 6' would be a little different in terms of position.

max error needs to be low, as well as avg error. a max error of 48.5% that you mention occurred at summerfest is just too high. That person does look out of place. Avg was 24.9%. Would 15% be more acceptable for avg and max? We'd need to play and test to be sure and look at the impact of each var better.

>>>>Should there be an "intermediate" and "Advanced" set of values as there is in other classes of competition?

yes and this is a great idea. higher tolerances would be allowed.

>>>>Should there be a differing set of values for say, a 9 way vs a
>>>>multiplane load?

No

>>>>Should all experience levels, formation sizes adhere to one
>>>>standard?

Sizes - yes
levels - not necessary if it comes to competition, but should for records



where would these "dots" be placed? On their heads? On the rigs? How significant is the placement of the dot? If I move it a smudge this way or that. that tolerance needs to be considered in the % we come up with.. so if we say it's 5%, it's really 1% allowing for placement error on the rig and 4% for flying. It may not be that much, but you get the idea. Maybe Jarno can make rig icons we place over the rigs

How well would this method hold up to a formation picture that is skewed since the photographer wasn't flying exactly below or above?

but then again.. it requires software (are you going to make a mac version? ;) ) but then again so did the grid. If it could be easily dummy proofed that alone would already be better than the grid method. the tolerances based on levels (beginner,int,adv) would probably need to be hard coded in a final version for it to be that way then.

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[DSE 3]

Could we all agree that the head is the best place, as it's the least subjective? Measuring from the middle of a 5' person to the middle of a 6' person is not terribly different than measuring from the head of a 5' person to the head of a 6' person. Jarno and I already went through that exercise before.

Do we need to define the camera position regardless of whether it's above or below, given that camera angle makes for a significant difference in the measurement of angle error, and it's compounded greatly if it's far enough away and the tips of the formation are in the bend of the lens.

On that note, lens distortion can play a huge role (skewing the edges of the formation) and I'd suggest that a photo should not be altered in any way if it's being judged. Removing lens distortion is quite easy and quite exact, but it could be used as a way to bring something "into tolerance" as well. Avoiding the issue entirely seems to be the safe route.

re; dots. If we're serious about critical dot placement, perhaps we could agree about a literal dot of some color or other being placed on the back of a helmet. Something nasty in color that would stand out on any helmet. Pink. Fuschia. Lime. Orange. Inventory dots, reflective dots, whatever.

[Costyn 0]

Quote

On that note, lens distortion can play a huge role (skewing the edges of the formation) and I'd suggest that a photo should not be altered in any way if it's being judged. Removing lens distortion is quite easy and quite exact, but it could be used as a way to bring something "into tolerance" as well. Avoiding the issue entirely seems to be the safe route.

Agreed: In any record attempt, the cameraman used for taking the photos/video should be sufficiently skilled to be straight above the formation and know how far above he should be to not get the flyers at the edge to close to the edge of the picture.

In my opinion, allowing the picture to be edited to compensate for x or y distortion would indeed open up another can of worms (fuel for discussion/argument).

Costyn van Dongen - http://www.flylikebrick.com/ - World Wide Wingsuit News

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

max error needs to be low, as well as avg error. a max error of 48.5% that you mention occurred at summerfest is just too high. That person does look out of place. Avg was 24.9%. Would 15% be more acceptable for avg and max? We'd need to play and test to be sure and look at the impact of each var better.

Those figures were for the 68-way without correcting for any uniform distortion (it was slightly stretched)

The largest deviation from the correct position on the Summerfest 25-way was 21.4% of the distance between jumpers. The average error was 12%

[The111 0]

Quote

Could we all agree that the head is the best place, as it's the least subjective? Measuring from the middle of a 5' person to the middle of a 6' person is not terribly different than measuring from the head of a 5' person to the head of a 6' person.

Actually it is terribly different... the key being that when people line up in formation, they use their heads for visual references, not their rigs. So if a giant and midget were in the same formation and lined up their heads perfectly, their rigs would be WAY out of line.

For that reason I agree the heads should be used for "dotting."

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[mccordia 73]

Agreed Matt, thats also why we chose the heads.
People use sight/eyelines to line up for a row/slot, or at least most pictures indicate so.
And sight/eyelines are usualky whats enforced in briefings as well.

Thats also a flaw in the current grid system.
A 2.1 meter guy has more room for movement, compared to a 1.50 meter lady.
Though this one does seem to favour us tall Dutch people in terms of having more roo
to move, I dont think its a good one.

Headcount seems to work better indeed.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[JohanW 0]

Quote

Thats also a flaw in the current grid system. A 2.1 meter guy has more room for movement, compared to a 1.50 meter lady.

It's an advantage is you have to touch your grid cell; it becomes a disadvantage if you have to be in it.

Johan.
I am. I think.

[mccordia 73]

So the judging system prefering head, is a safe assumption, either way.
Although we do have a lot of people with big heads in this sport[/:P]

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[LouDiamond 1]

At the risk of making this even more complicated than it needs to be, there may be another mathematical way to address this that could possibly work but would require more information be known, but at least we would know where each persons navel/central points were. Vitruvian Man

Quote

Then again, in the human body the central point is naturally the navel. For if a man be placed flat on his back, with his hands and feet extended, and a pair of compasses centred at his navel, the fingers and toes of his two hands and feet will touch the circumference of a circle described therefrom. And just as the human body yields a circular outline, so too a square figure may be found from it. For if we measure the distance from the soles of the feet to the top of the head, and then apply that measure to the outstretched arms, the breadth will be found to be the same as the height, as in the case of plane surfaces which are perfectly square

The other alternative is to do something commonly done in the precision shooting of humans with a scoped weapon system and tweaking it a tad. That being the determination of an average distance from a persons head to the navel and applying that to all the jumpers as a universal central point of each jumper.

Just food for thought/thinking out loud.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Buried 0]

i thought about using the center of a person, but then it becomes overly complicated to find the center of each flyer and where their center truly would be in the formation before you start plotting. That's were a % or somehow exact measurable tolerance comes in to allow for that.

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

i thought about using the center of a person, but then it becomes overly complicated to find the center of each flyer and where their center truly would be in the formation before you start plotting. That's were a % or somehow exact measurable tolerance comes in to allow for that.

Well if we know what the average distance from a persons head to their navel is that can be replicated by placing a dot on the persons head to a dot that represents that distance and go from there. Yes there is margin of error but it is very small,thats why it is an average. Another way to look at it is that most peoples BOC/ bottom of their rig is in the general height location of their navel. More food for regurgitation.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

The other alternative is to do something commonly done in the precision shooting of humans with a scoped weapon system and tweaking it a tad.

Would save having to axe people who aren't in their slot.

...

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

[mccordia 73]

As fun as it is to dive into those method Scott, I dont think any of that really applies to wingsuit formation, unless everyone is always flying legs out/max.
You're never sure if someone has his feet 10%, 20% or 99% up.
So getting an actual centered navel position is hard to do. Also when combined with camera helmets that hide the actual head height.

And thats not even getting into wingsuits where the tailwing length exeeds the height of the person, and may even hide the actual position of the feet. Getting 'a' center position, in terms of profile presented to the camera, may be possible. But I dont think the added difficulty and potential inaccuracies outweigh the simple head measurement (potentialy aided by a sticker).

Looking across a line in a formation, I see faces lined up. It seems to be what most people actually fly. Flying next to a shorter or taller person, I know I do.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Another way to look at it is that most peoples BOC/ bottom of their rig is in the general height location of their navel. More food for regurgitation.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[mccordia 73]

Quote

Quote

Another way to look at it is that most peoples BOC/ bottom of their rig is in the general height location of their navel. More food for regurgitation.

Ive owned 3 different brands of containers (Vortex II, Wings, Vector 3), and the BOC location varied greatly depending on just the brand.
Id make a guesstemate of up to 30 cm or more between the two extremes.
The VortexII BOC almost hanging past my cuddly bottom. The Wings BOC sitting halfway up my back.
Combining just the container design with different sized canopies those same containers are made for, I think its appearant we should quit regurgitating that one, as its hard to impossible to really get an accurate centering there.
Also in terms of finding an easy/big trackingpoint thats not hidden inside a wingsuit. I wouldnt want to be the one charged with finding Jebs black BOC on his black container on his black wingsuit

Heads seem to work quite well in the examples we tried.
Both in shape and location. It seems to work in terms of how we fly, using our eyes for positioning. And it seems to work well in terms of locating the point. Always in the same location, sticking out, in a similar size thats easy to center.

Heads also make a much easier to find centerpoint for evalutation on pictures taken from underneath, by a cameraman looking up. Something quite common.

I think only gripped hands between flyers would be a more absolute location for validation....

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Another way to look at it is that most peoples BOC/ bottom of their rig is in the general height location of their navel. More food for regurgitation.

Ive owned 3 different brands of containers (Vortex II, Wings, Vector 3), and the BOC location varied greatly depending on just the brand.
Id make a guesstemate of up to 30 cm or more between the two extremes.
The VortexII BOC almost hanging past my cuddly bottom. The Wings BOC sitting halfway up my back.
Combining just the container design with different sized canopies those same containers are made for, I think its appearant we should quit regurgitating that one, as its hard to impossible to really get an accurate centering there.
Also in terms of finding an easy/big trackingpoint thats not hidden inside a wingsuit. I wouldnt want to be the one charged with finding Jebs black BOC on his black container on his black wingsuit

Heads seem to work quite well in the examples we tried.
Both in shape and location. It seems to work in terms of how we fly, using our eyes for positioning. And it seems to work well in terms of locating the point. Always in the same location, sticking out, in a similar size thats easy to center.

Heads also make a much easier to find centerpoint for evalutation on pictures taken from underneath, by a cameraman looking up. Something quite common.

I think only gripped hands between flyers would be a more absolute location for validation....

What about differences in wing sweep?

My eyes are in my head. I find it easy to align my head with a line of heads. I'm not sure I can so easily align my navel with a line of navels.

...

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

[The111 0]

Quote

My eyes are in my head. I find it easy to align my head with a line of heads. I'm not sure I can so easily align my navel with a line of navels.

Exactly.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[mccordia 73]

The cool thing would be that the tollerance level could be named navel-fluff!

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[LouDiamond 1]

Are we talking about reference points while flying or for evaluating the picture of the formation? I was under the impression we were talking about evaluating the photo?


If you can find a persons head in a photo, you surely can find the bottom of their container/butt. I'd wager the difference in measuring using the head and the BOC/butt would show one to be more precise in positioning individuals in the formation.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[mccordia 73]

Quote

Are we talking about reference points while flying or for evaluating the picture of the formation? I was under the impression we were talking about evaluating the photo?

This statement seems to suggest the exact opposite?
Why would you want to use different criteria for judging, than the ones briefed for the formation.

As others also point out, nobody flies navel to navel. Sightlines are what we use in both briefing and execution during the jump.
Suddenly using a different point, that (depending on someones height) may cause deviations from the actual position flown by a person just makes no sense.

Quote

If you can find a persons head in a photo, you surely can find the bottom of their container/butt.

I beg to differ. Give it a try on some pictures.
And how would we judge pictures taken from the bottom up?
The formation against a clean sky is a much better picture to judge than the topview over detailed terrain. Though both can and will be used, depending on cameraman skill/preference.

Quote

I'd wager the difference in measuring using the head and the BOC/butt would show one to be more precise in positioning individuals in the formation.

I seem to recall you briefing people to look for eachothers eyelines as well? Or at least, thats how every load organiser Ive met so far does it? When did you switch to navels?

Taking the head as the point of origin, the butt/navel/BOC position will cause variations, be more open to interpetation/tweaking on judging, and it doesnt match the actual reference point people are using/flying to. And depending on the photo/video (we've been looking at quite a few formation pictures lately) you will notice by trying to find definable points, that a lot of pictures (especially on bigger formations) lack resolution to properly evaluate. Even when viewed at full resolution.
This gets worse when evaluating based on video.

The head is the last point which is clearly defined, even when a wingsuit is only 10 pixels in size on video, you're still able to point it out.
Both in terms of accuracy in judging and the actual practical realisation, its more time-consuming, less accurate and counter-productive as its much more open interpetation.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?