Nastyn8

Members
  • Content

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive Kansas / Skydive K-State
  • License
    D
  • Number of Jumps
    700
  • Years in Sport
    6
  • First Choice Discipline
    Wing Suit Flying
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
    205
  1. I think it's safe to say this is way out of bounds....and wrong. It takes a lot of logical gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that a licensed jumper low pull fatality is the DZO's fault.
  2. You would be correct to a degree, in fact Mr. Haig has put in writing one of the main reasons why he voted down any proposed operations on KLWC was his fact finding tour visits with Jen Sharp and possibly additional KC area dzo's. Wes, this elaborate theory about Jeremy being sent as a spy becomes incoherent when you acknowledge (as you did...so I don't understand why you believe this theory?) that Jeremy corrected Mr. Haig's false recollection of his conversations with Jen: Jeremy clarified that Jen had never said that a DZ couldn't safely integrate with the airport's operations. If we're supposed to believe that Jeremy was sent on a nefarious competitor spying mission, why would he correct Mr. Haig on this point and thereby effectively defend the prospects of your operation? -Nathan Henry
  3. After reading about Sony's GPU acceleration quite a bit, it seems that Sony's implementation was optimized for the NVidia 5xx series cards and AMD's HD 6xxx cards. Buying the latest and greatest card will actually yield significantly slower render times than these older cards which Sony specifically developed the acceleration for. The GTX 570 is your best bet for GPU acceleration (yielding 3x faster rendering than CPU only for some people). On the GTX 570, which seems to be the best supported card, certain (old) drivers apparently work best http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=868248
  4. jamesfreefall: Yes, the leaves will follow a similar path along the bank, but they will maintain the separation they had due to the time between when they were released, thus they don't ever occupy the same "piece" of water (the "piece" of water that the other leaf is in is already downstream). Think of watching all of this happen while you are floating down the river in a life jacket with your favorite beverage. If you passed the boat from which the leaves are dropped at the same time that the first leaf was dropped, the first leaf would remain beside you, and the next leaf dropped would remain behind you as it floated down the river, never ending up in the same "piece" of water that you and the first leaf are in (unless you started swimming up-river, analogous to tracking directly up jump run or flying your canopy directly up jump run = bad idea as Melissa points out in the article).
  5. NWPoul: 1) As you mentioned, the airmass movement at different altitudes is what actually determines what is going on - but it still doesn't matter what the ground is doing relative to the aircraft in determining minimum exit separation. 2) There would of course be nothing wrong with giving yourself more time if you can afford it - my problem is with people that think the MINIMUM safe exit separation changes based solely on ground speed, which is an incorrect and dangerous assumption (the MAXIMUM separation should logically change with ground speed as you are implying)
  6. clsalo: In my example, a second group leaving a few seconds later (assuming same body positions etc...) would follow a similar looking path, but WOULD NOT end up opening in the same place - their path in the sky is translated over by aircraft speed*exit separation. I probably should have used a leaf instead of a stick to illustrate what I was talking about with the stream analogy. I'm attempting to show the folly of ignoring motion relative to the air mass. The sphere or massive object sticking to bottom of the stream is not representative of a skydiver in an air mass, as we can all agree that the skydiver will "drift" with the air mass (eventually reaching essentially zero speed relative to the air mass in a neutral body position, regardless of whether the wind is 1mph or 1000 mph relative to the ground. Scrumpot: Yes, of course. And what does that have to do with ground speed? It's all a function of speed relative to the AIRMASS, not the ground. The reference frame for this discussion on exit separation is the air that we are playing in - the ground does not influence where we end up relative to each other (other than our landing pattern obviously). Think of it this way: during your skydive, does the ground exert any force on you other than one acting straight down? How then can it physically influence the horizontal separation between you and another group?
  7. This is great, except for the reference to the widely accepted and yet completely false theory that exit separation should be a function of ground speed. An example to illustrate why it's false: imagine an 80 mile per hour headwind on the aircraft (uniform to the ground - keep it simple for the sake of illustration), if the aircraft has an AIRSPEED of 80 miles per hour, this would mean the aircraft is not moving relative to the ground. According to the ground speed theory, the second group could never go as they would supposedly end up right on top of the other group. That is a false conclusion, as exit speed relative to the air mass is what determines horizontal separation, and has nothing to do with ground speed (wind shear could be a factor, but that is not typically factored into the fallacious ground speed theory). You can also think of the boat with a motor pushing against the stream, with no speed relative to the ground. If you are in the boat, and drop one stick into the stream a few seconds after another, would the second stick land on top of the first?
  8. Have you guys seen this? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/04/08/Blackmagic-Design-Pocket-Cinema-Camera-1080-Raw-ProRes-CinemaDNG-Micro-Four-Thirds Pretty cool eh?
  9. A little LCD screen would probably be a nice visual option since they can be had for less than $20. I considered this as the interface for the pilot, but I'm extremely wary of the inherent distraction from altitude awareness that visual outputs would introduce. The GPS / accelerometer combination idea is very interesting, and it's funny that you mention that because a variation of the idea also popped into my head this morning before I looked at your post. The vertical speed measurement via GPS should be reasonably accurate, while being independent of wind conditions.
  10. My device would be mounted as "upstream" as possible (like the forehead area of a helmet) to minimize boundary layer influences.
  11. Wow, no I hadn't. My version would be smaller than that, but I didn't realize that anyone had already built a pitot-tube based system. Kudos to him!
  12. Would you buy a new type of helmet-mounted glide ratio feedback device that is a little bit bigger than a GoPro, but doesn't rely on GPS, and is capable of accurately measuring glide ratio independent of wind conditions (or direction of flight)? The device would be mounted on the front of the helmet, approximately where most people mount GoPros. don't click no because you don't care about getting real-time feedback on your G/R Thanks! EDIT: review the forum rules on advertising.
  13. There are two possibilities as to how you and others have created this completely false idea that Tea Parties are merely a large group of paid-off political pawns - 1: You are blindly accepting what a bunch of decidedly liberal columnists and news anchors have perpetuated, or 2: You know that it's false, and you are therefore lying. So it's really a question of ignorance or impropriety. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply misinformed - but ignorance really isn't something to be proud of, nonetheless. Before you attempt to convince me that the Tea Parties are a hoax, let me ask you: Have you ever actually been to a Tea Party? I have, and everyone I know that attended the Tea Party is a genuine person who showed up simply because they believed in a cause. None of them received any money for their attendance. The nitwits that are tea party followers are pathetic. They read the bullshit on websites bought and paid for with corporate dollars and swallow it, hook, line, and sinker. Rachel Maddow has done an excellent job of researching and exposing the OWNERSHIP of the main websites and the company that sets them up. They are totally astroturf, as in FAKE grassroots websites. The scumbag that takes the corporate money and cranks up the astroturf websites has appeared on her show. Your lack of curiousity and inability to do any research of your own does not make your opinion correct. I went to a local tea party event. What I saw there was a pack of racist white people who had lots of hateful things to say about the current POTUS. I heard a lot of verbal vomit that was repetition of right wing horseshit. I did not see concerned citizens with respect for our government and the constitution. I saw a scared group of easily led white folks that hate the fact that there is a person of color as president. The idea of overthrowing the government was quite popular. The methods discussed had nothing to do with winning elections. The methods were superior arms and intimidating those rotten "liberals". Maybe the quality of people at these events has improved. As the tea party has gotten credit for Rand Paul's primary win, the odds are against it. First of all, I'm not sure why I need to read a liberal TV/radio personality's opinion (excuse me...."research") in order to understand an event that I ATTENDED and PARTICIPATED in. Do we have to read a whuffo's news report on skydiving in order to understand what jumping means to us? BTW - The Tea Party movement has NOTHING to do with the color of the President's skin. Just because you and other liberals have been able to hunt down racists at an event doesn't mean they represent the message of the movement. I'm not racist, I simply take issue with a government and its leaders that flagrantly disobey the group of people they were elected to represent. I find it truly fascinating that die-hard liberals can't or won't believe that a group of regular people are capable of organizing themselves and putting together a powerful, genuine movement. Why is it so hard to believe?
  14. There are two possibilities as to how you and others have created this completely false idea that Tea Parties are merely a large group of paid-off political pawns - 1: You are blindly accepting what a bunch of decidedly liberal columnists and news anchors have perpetuated, or 2: You know that it's false, and you are therefore lying. So it's really a question of ignorance or impropriety. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply misinformed - but ignorance really isn't something to be proud of, nonetheless. Before you attempt to convince me that the Tea Parties are a hoax, let me ask you: Have you ever actually been to a Tea Party? I have, and everyone I know that attended the Tea Party is a genuine person who showed up simply because they believed in a cause. None of them received any money for their attendance.