The111

He's one of the .1% that has the ability to not be distracted by his chest strap while in freefall. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Ah, so you're evaluating other people's attitudes. Cool. And you're also letting us all know that our perception of your attitude is probably wrong. So, you evaluate the attitudes of the rest of us and you're right. The rest of us judge your attitude and we're wrong. It sounds like you're in the 0.1% in attitude judging, in addition to skydiving. Btw, 0.1% == mad skillz. How can any of us argue with you? There is only one mindset in this thread you need to by observing much more carefully, and you haven't even come close. It matters not what we ask you or what you ask us. What matters is when you close your mouth and ask yourself why every single skydiver in this thread with thousands of jumps is agreeing on something, and you answer that question with the fact that maybe their experience contains a level of wisdom that all your Google searches and logic games cannot encompass. Or, maybe they're all just crazy internet dicks who don't understand sound logic. Your choice. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You seem to continue pushing a false dichotomy that we must choose between inexperienced and highly informed or experienced and poorly informed. The simple truth is that information and experience are both invaluable, and more importantly, not interchangeable. A simple question for you, since you seem to like trying to boil the entire debate down to yes/no questions: Do you believe knowledge is a replacement for experience? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Scenario A: I understand some of the basics about how an internal combustion engine works. But there are some intricate details I don't know, and I am aware that I don't know them. Scenario B: An English speaking caveman emerges from a nearby mountain and witnesses civilization for the first time. At this point in his life, he does not even know internal combustion engines exist. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. The difference between those scenarios is striking, but I'm not entirely surprised if you don't see it, given the course of this thread. Now to take the story a little further, imagine the caveman is given a tour of the Ford factory that very next morning, and 5 minutes in he jumps out of line and starts giving the machinists advice... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You shut your dirty mouth about my S3. Never actually flew an S1, watched many people struggle with them, but also watched Nebelkopf kick ass in one as his first wingsuit. But the S3, that suit was perfection. Flew very much like the P2/3 that came later, only with a little more forward speed, and no back inlets. To this day I dream about a S3 re-release with back inlets. Agreed mostly with the rest of what you said, although I didn't fly many Vampires and know some who loved V1 and V3 but hated V2. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Agreed on the projector part, I would opt out of that if I could. :-) Thanks, I think I may end up going with that one, if not the black magic one you suggested. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Thanks Spot. That one looks interesting, has a unique form factor. What about Sony AX33? It has BOSS which I hear is good for freefall... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Thanks all for the advice. I've been giving it a lot of thought and think the easiest requirement to give up might be the Hypeye. If I do that then I can just pick up the latest and greatest Sony like I've always done in the past. I think my new jump flow will just be to start recording at 10k when I put the helmet on, and then after I land I can just use the in camera editing to split the file just before exit and trash the extra footage. This was easy enough to do on my CX100, I assume and hope the feature still exists in the newest Sony cams. Anybody know? This way I can then still have immediately available debrief footage that doesn't have a bunch of garbage preceding it. In a way this could be a relief. Hypeye/cameye has always been the weak link in my setup. One extra thing that can go wrong or fail on jumprun (it's happened to me at the worst time before), and one thing I have to update physically when installing a new camera in a new location on the helmet, and one thing I have to always consider when buying new cams. Losing that requirement could be very freeing... never again will I be reaching for the cameye button while hanging on the step, or worse in freefall... both quite awkward in a wingsuit. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

+1 "This is the part where the camera was pointed in the same direction as my eyeballs were. From it, I am able to deduce which way I was looking." www.WingsuitPhotos.com

2 * 50 = 100. Off by 2. The point I made still stands, be it 1 jump per week or 2 jumps per week, either is an extremely low goal even for a cessna DZ. And more importantly, it's still irrelevant to the greater conversation. The number of loads your DZ turns does not affect the skill required to fly a camera. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Only off by 2. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yes, you did. You've just changed your mind and therefore the thread's "purpose" multiple times in its run. It easy to understand if readers end up confused. And frankly your intent is irrelevant to the points presented. Also, 200 jumps in 2+ years is less than 1 jump per week. To say that even the world's smallest Cessna DZ can't do better than that is insane. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

That's the technique i was originally looking for. I'll try that next! Been using something like that since I first learned to pack on my first slippery canopy. Even though my skills and my canopy are both better for packing now, I still use that method. As mentioned in another post, knees are key. Have somebody local who knows the method give you tips, and make sure you keep the slider all the way up all the time, and the tail snugly wrapped around it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

No joke, as I typed out 1080p, I was anticipating you saying this. 1080p is minimum bound. I'd happily accept more (who wouldn't) from a package that fits all my other requirements and is still affordable. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I've always hated posts like these, so it's about time that I make one myself.

Re: the actual topic and the Twitter quote I see the comment as neither inaccurate nor hypocritical, although quite obviously open to misinterpretation. You can serve your children a giant meal, and then explain to them that kids in Africa are starving and will die tonight. Your kids aren't dicks if they understand you and then go ahead and eat their meal regardless. Nor are they hypocrites. They're just self-aware now, and they understand that everybody gets a different level of privilege handed to them, for sometimes no reason at all. If I as a middle-class white man accept a free ride from a stranger, it is not hypocritical if while taking that ride, I stop to reflect that if I was a homeless black man the ride probably would have been much harder to come by. Nor is it an inaccurate statement in our society. Nor is it a direct attack on the guy who offered me the ride, which seems to be the most insidious misinterpretation of the quote. Rather it's an attack on the social imbalance created by an entire nation full of humans who, on average, would treat me differently if I was a different class and a different color. It's real, and awareness of it is the first step to solving it. I find it odd that she is the target of so much hate, just for pointing out an obvious (but saddening) truth. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Dude, Firebird. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Moreover, even if the canopy was not descending, but instead magically hovering in one spot, the perspective is completely wrong to prove anything on this matter. The line from camera to horizon is a declining slope (since the ground is below the camera and the earth is round). Anything that passes under the camera and keeps moving forward will eventually cross that line. That the wingsuit crossed this line says nothing about whether his glide is negative, flat, or positive (only that it must be greater than the negative slope from camera to horizon). But yes, it's certainly possible. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

No, an arbitrary number is 70593. If a number is based on something, it's not arbitrary. It's an understandable simplification, since if you get to 200 jumps without meeting the qualifications for a C license, you probably have much bigger problems than not being ready to fly a camera. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Democracy? You seem to be confusing an internet forum with a sovereign entity. Damn good observation though. It's not a democracy. Neither is any other privately hosted fraternity in the universe. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I don't think math works the way you think it does. "Come on man math," back at you. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Excellent news on both counts! I think it would be really cool if the performance comps were done from balloons at 5k feet, over a big open desert with observers spaced out along the ground. It would be a lot easier to trust judgments that are based on both recorded device data and human observation, and under as controlled conditions as possible, e.g. both participants exiting over the same spot. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Agreed 100%, that is precisely what I meant by choosing the word "forgiving" over stable.

It has nothing to do with any of the factors you've mentioned. If you can't get a reliable opening from a student pull, then you're not doing it right. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The answer is in my previous post. As I said there, student deploy method trades altitude for softness and forgiveness of poor body position. Altitude is obviously more important than softness in BASE, and a BASE jumper should be experienced enough that he doesn't need forgiveness for poor body position. As I also already said, I don't believe either position is more stable if done correctly. The student position however is easier because of how forgiving it is. www.WingsuitPhotos.com