LukeH

I'm travelling for the next while but you get the point.

Diving for how long at what GR? unlikely to be doing the same close to the ground?

There are a lot of sloppy conclusions in this thread being drawn from dubious information but that's par for the course with some of the posters. They don't care about the reality it's just more publicity and keeping the brand at the top of the page, for some of them it's their job. Hot air indeed! Next they'll be all over the internet claiming that their suit had the fasted time at the base race, or has a glide ratio of 3.5:1 .... oh wait ... Instead of ELE, how about ESPBC? (Everyone Stop Posting Bullshit Claims) TM

It's just C Official code: https://github.com/flysight/flysight FlyBlind fork: https://github.com/Luke900/flysight Tools you might need: https://code.google.com/p/msysgit/ http://winavr.sourceforge.net/ http://notepad-plus-plus.org/ Wiki: http://flysight.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Source_code Developer mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/flysight-devs

They look ok to me. What is happening, are you getting no tones, incorrect tones or constant un-changing tones? How far are you from the destination Lat/Lon when testing? Did the previous version work for you? Try using Mode = 5 and Mode_2 = 5 and see if that works. (It should work the way you have it, but try just as a test please) Can you PM me the Lat and Lon values?

FlyBlind has been updated to version 1.1 This adds the Chirp and SAS functions from Flysight's Beta firmware (dated 11/8/11). Download from same link as above (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13230955/Main.hex). After installing rename your config.txt file and allow Flysight to create a new one to see the new settings. Use at your own risk, it still hasn't had extensive testing.

With this beta firmware, you have two indications. -Tone (pitch of the beep you hear) -Rate (frequency of the tone) All of the settings under "; Tone settings" apply to that indication only All of the settings under "; Rate settings" apply to that indication only so you have a second set of them. If both Tone and Rate are set to the same mode, then they will both be affected together, however they can be set to different modes. See Mode: and Mode_2: settings. Re the Min_Rate and Max_Rate I wouldn't go higher than 800 for the Max (I'd probably leave it at 500) or lower than 100 for the Min. Each beep lasts 1/8 second so at 800 I'd expect 8 per second to sound more or less like a continuous beep (I haven't tried it) At 100, it'll be one beep per second. Re Flatline If you are using the settings file as per the image posted, you have Mode_2 set to 9 which is rate of change of Mode. Mode is set to 0 (Horizontal speed). When your speed is constant then you are below the minimum rate of change (set to 300cm per second/10.9kph/6.7mph) so it should Flatline. I haven't tried this either but that's my reading of the config file. This is the link to where the configuration is explained, however it hasn't been updated to include the new settings in the Beta firmware. http://flysight.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Configuring_FlySight I think the above is correct, but haven't played with Mode_2 much and am in a hurry now, someone correct me if it's wrong! P.S. It looks like the Beta you have is not the very latest code. Not sure if it matters but there was a slight change made since your version.

If you got the same config file it means that you don't have the new firmware. Try following the steps again and make sure you download the Beta firmware. The new file has an extra section and is similar to the block of red text on this page: https://github.com/flysight/flysight/blob/master/FlySight/FlySight/Config.c

[inline LaLaLaLa.jpg]

Let's not get too carried away based on one jump. The other 'intermediate' guy racing Tony also beat Frode's time, coincidence?

Pure speed races are a better measure of the performance of the pilot than the suit. Just look at the PPC results under the speed category. They are impressive speeds but GR suffers greatly to achieve them. The skill is in trading one off to gain the other. Other factors such as weight will reduce the time without affecting the GR, again not strictly suit related. The base races have a requirement for a minimum time under canopy so there is an minimum GR that must be met (anyone know what it is?) but they are still a showcase of the jumpers ability to work to the rules rather than the suits' best performance. If there is a conclusion to be drawn from a single jump it's that Tony did very well for a relatively new BASE jumper. Well done Tony!

http://www.paralog.net/ppc/showequipmenttracks.php?equipment=Vampire+4 At least you had it for speed. 132MPH average is not too shabby with good glide. Any idea what the winds were doing?

Click on the button to the right of the Template File field and browse to the correct file. For newer version of Windows it should be something like: C:\Users\[your username]\Paralog\templates\subtitles\jump_profile_gps.ssa

Several rodeo's in this video. Skydiver getting on in mid air around 2:45 http://vimeo.com/4904395

Usually it's this way. This is also possible.

Really? How so? I was perhaps the bluntest in calling out the mis-leading performance claims, but didn't rag on Jeb personally. In fact I specifically said so and wished him well a couple of times. I'm sure he has thick enough skin to cop the flak for the misleading claims without taking it personally. As for anyone being a Base jumper, what does that have to do with anything? Even though the suit is supposed to be for "experienced base jumpers only" the post was made here on DZ.com. What's your point? I take it you did notice that the newspaper article says speed of 85MPH and quotes Jeb as saying "almost 90MPH", quite a difference to what he was suggesting here. There is no excuse for the multiple misleading statements on performance from anyone, let alone someone of Jeb's experience, skill, knowledge and super-star status in the community. Your own video shows speeds of 75mph - 80mph, do you really think Jeb is 50% faster than you? Your glide ratio is somewhere in the 2.5:1 - 2.7:1 when not getting lift from the wall, do you think 3.5 is sustainable without thermals? That is all.

The altitude reported by GPS is not relative to ground level. Flysight cannot work out your height AGL on it's own. It could be done by adding a way to set the ground level but another factor is the accuracy of the altitude reported by GPS and consequences should it loose GPS signal for any reason. From a safety point of view barometric pressure audibles are more reliable.

That sounds fairly typical to what I've experienced in the past too. I call them social jumps. It's nice to jump with all the other people with wingsuits, and can be a lot of fun but the quality of the flying suffers. Could you imagine trying to take a large mix of canopy types, wing-loadings and experience levels and doing a large CRW formation? The discipline is still finding it's feet and is a novelty for many, but there is progress in the right direction. I cheered when I read you prefer to downsize the suit for flocks!

I'm not having a pop at Jeb. I'm having a pop about misleading performance posts. I have nothing against him or any of the stuff he has done. More luck to him. Yes I referred to various different sources as there have been a few recently all on the same theme. He has the right tools. Is it unreasonable to expect from someone planning a mutli-million dollar project to land a wing-suit to be able to accurately read such data. James, thanks for the kind words. It's ironic that not so long ago it was you that used to call out the outrageous performance claims and call for GPS data to support it and are now on the other side of the fence. There is a difference, I'm not on the payroll, I'm not sponsored, I pay for my own suits. While I am an agent for the burgeoning population of jumpers here, there is little or no financial gain for me to be had in this. I jump for myself and post few videos or claims. Thanks Jeb, likewise. Enjoy your jumps.

That's fine. I didn't said it was in this post, I mentioned and was referring to various claims. Attached is where you said no dive, there is\was a graph that showed what looks like a dive. No worries, take care.

If you want to know the true distance you have covered, the GPS data from your flysight is probably the most accurate way. The problem with using the ruler in google earth is you are measuring between points at different altitudes in a 3d model so are probably measuring more than just the horizontal distance between those points. Paralog will give you the information you are looking for. If you say you are not in competition with anyone I believe you. Neither am I (I'd regard myself as an average flyer at best). But you are the one that is choosing to post these claimed GR and claim no dive etc . Why? Even after you got the first one quite wrong, you posted another claim of even higher performance on facebook shortly after, and this on two forums. You actions don't seem to reflect the post above. I have no problem with someone being a great flyer, or any suit that has great performance (or not so great). I do have a problem with the constant flow of false\distorted data about certain suits being portrayed as fact. Why claim the GR is not the result of a dive and then post a graph that clearly shows it is? None of this is personally aimed at you Jeb, others are doing the same. Enjoy your flights, I hope you benefit from continued publicity and it helps with your future projects, but please try to be a bit more accurate when quoting figures, you have the right tools to be accurate there is no excuse really.

I believe your figures. I was talking about Jebs claims. Rules on map software can be used accurately, but I think they can also give inaccurate results if not used properly.

Not sure where the distance for this claim came from, but for a previous claim, it looks like it was the ruler tool in google earth used against the 3d track of the flight which will I think will give an exaggerated figure.

Consider velocity on 3 axis rather than 1. Assuming reasonable glide ratio I like flocking with a downward velocity around 50mph - 55mph in small suits to give everyone a bit of range so agree with your upper 40s - mid 50s.

Dude, once could be a mistake or over enthusiasm. But three times recently you are posting fairytale numbers, supposedly backed up by GPS and graphs. Glad you are having fun flying your suit, but maybe take a math 101 class on reading graphs and calculating averages before making anymore misleading claims. This style of suit has been slow in all previous iterations, the only obvious change is the usual - add surface area (and remove drag from chest drag). If this style of suit is now suddenly faster how was this achieved? Prove me wrong, I'd be glad to be wrong and find a suit that had the performance being claimed. Between these claims and the sped up video clips posted by others it's obvious that a lot of effort is going into changing the perception of these suits. Try another tack, a slow large floaty suit has advantages. It will benefit more from thermals and tail winds. That's a style of flying some people may prefer - nothing wrong with it. Think para-glider V speed-wing. I've seen Apache, X-Bird and others flown first hand, and they look noticeably slower to me.