Request for pictures

[kallend 2,146]

In another thread I proposed a method for evaluating the perfection of unlinked formations.

I'd like to see how it evaluates some marginal cases to help in determining a good value for the allowed error threshold.

If anyone sends me photos of wingsuit formations (up to 36 way) whose success would be considered marginal (everyone there, but some clearly not in their slot to the extent that the formation doesn't look pretty), I will analyze them and post the results.

Photos need to be taken from above or below. If the formation is NOT based on squares or diamonds, that is OK, but you will need to let me know what it should look like.

PM me for email address.

Thanks in advance.

...

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

[DSE 5]

I'd recommend looking at Matt Hoover's site and Jeff Donahue's site, and of course, scottyburns.com for the best access to pictures.
That's where I got most of the photos I've used in evaluating the three methods I've seen to date.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I'd recommend looking at Matt Hoover's site and Jeff Donahue's site, and of course, scottyburns.com for the best access to pictures.
That's where I got most of the photos I've used in evaluating the three methods I've seen to date.

Have you posted the results of your evaluations?

The trouble with taking pictures from the web is that you don't know for sure what the formation was supposed to look like, and not many are taken from directly above or below.

Also, it is important (as Andreea pointed out) to know what people consider to be marginal so the threshold can be drawn in the right place.

...

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

[mccordia 74]

Matt had a nice 'compressed' 9 way, that optically was a beautifull formation, but grid-wise, caused issues. Not fitting the 1:1 aspect ratio the judging method only recognised.

That would be a nice one to test with your method.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Matt had a nice 'compressed' 9 way, that optically was a beautifull formation, but grid-wise, caused issues. Not fitting the 1:1 aspect ratio the judging method only recognised.

That would be a nice one to test with your method.

Was it supposed to be compressed?

Hard to evaluate unless you know what it was supposed to look like.

...

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

[SuperGirl 0]

Quote

I'd recommend looking at Matt Hoover's site and Jeff Donahue's site, and of course, scottyburns.com for the best access to pictures.

for Scotty's go to scottyburns.smugmug.com cause you can download bigger pictures. they've got a big semitransparent watermark but who cares, it won't interfere with testing judging methods... it's not like you need to publish them...

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I'd recommend looking at Matt Hoover's site and Jeff Donahue's site, and of course, scottyburns.com for the best access to pictures.

for Scotty's go to scottyburns.smugmug.com cause you can download bigger pictures. they've got a big semitransparent watermark but who cares, it won't interfere with testing judging methods... it's not like you need to publish them...

Yes, size IS important! But I also need to know what people consider marginal. Not obviously shitty or obviously perfect, and not just my opinion.

...

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

[SuperGirl 0]

Quote

Was it supposed to be compressed?

this brings up an excellent question.
if there is a certain compression factor, should that invalidate the formation? you plan it as a diamond... but there is only so much you can do when you spraipaint dots for dirtdiving and so on...
if you achieve a beautiful formation, all symmetrical, but it turns out that it's a bit compressed, should that not be a valid record?

[SuperGirl 0]

I remember someone once asked this question to some organizers, and he was told to organize his own events if he wants to test his own method... and then this picture was given (see attached)
Just something kinda funny this thread reminded me of...

but agreed. pictures are needed and it would be sweet if people wanna volunteer them... even if they have giant watermarks... an extensive collection of pictures will help compare and test all present and future methods.

[Birdman_Mike 0]

If Jarno is talking about the nine way diamond that we built over the Houston Space Center during the Ballunar event last October, then it was not supposed to be compressed. This jump was a simple nine way diamond with the standard three meter record spacing that was used at Summerfest, Pepperell, and Elsinore among other places.

It is my understanding that this particular jump passed the grid test, but one of the participants had not renewed his USPA membership. So, the attempt was disqualified as a USPA Texas State record.

Purple Mike

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

Matt had a nice 'compressed' 9 way, that optically was a beautifull formation, but grid-wise, caused issues. Not fitting the 1:1 aspect ratio the judging method only recognised.

That would be a nice one to test with your method.

Was it supposed to be compressed?

Hard to evaluate unless you know what it was supposed to look like.

Oy. No wonder you don't like computers, you don't understand them.
"Compressed." Means they're squeezed so they fit on the internet, and they're dimensionally smaller than the camera output was. But they are dimensionally accurate. Just squeezed. Some color loss. Minor detail loss, depending on the compression ratio applied.
Maybe this wiill help

[mccordia 74]

I actually ment compressed, accordeon stylee.
Small variations that will happen, even more-so in bigger formations. Stretch, skew and squash/compression may affect a whole or part of a formation, so its not square (even though it should), or may have one wing/stinger/whacker be a little off.

Especialy a large (100 person) V formation.
If its supposed to fly at 45 degrees, with 1 meter spacing, than just a few degrees off will have people be way of their proposed position.
Yet (like FS) actually DO show a picture perfect formation, with perfect spacing.

In real life there are only few people who can draw a 'perfect circle', but most people are only human...
We dont want to have a system so strict, it punishes people who cant judge an angle or distance down to the cm/degree, in the V formation example, or even in the aforementioned 9 way (for which that same effect could be much more pronounced in bigger formations, or sections/wings of bigger formations.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Matt had a nice 'compressed' 9 way, that optically was a beautifull formation, but grid-wise, caused issues. Not fitting the 1:1 aspect ratio the judging method only recognised.

That would be a nice one to test with your method.

Was it supposed to be compressed?

Hard to evaluate unless you know what it was supposed to look like.

Oy. No wonder you don't like computers, you don't understand them.

You might want to tell that to the 50,000+ people who bought my flight simulation software and the dozens of research labs around the world that use my crystal analysis software

...

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I actually ment compressed, accordeon stylee.

YES, I understood that.

Quote

We dont want to have a system so strict, it punishes people who cant judge an angle or distance down to the cm/degree, in the V formation example, or even in the aforementioned 9 way (for which that same effect could be much more pronounced in bigger formations, or sections/wings of bigger formations.

Indeed, which is why I want to evaluate allowable error tolerance and not keep it secret.

...

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

If Jarno is talking about the nine way diamond that we built over the Houston Space Center during the Ballunar event last October, then it was not supposed to be compressed. This jump was a simple nine way diamond with the standard three meter record spacing that was used at Summerfest, Pepperell, and Elsinore among other places.

It is my understanding that this particular jump passed the grid test, but one of the participants had not renewed his USPA membership. So, the attempt was disqualified as a USPA Texas State record.

Purple Mike

Is this the one referred to? If so, I'll analyze it over the weekend.

...

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

[Birdman_Mike 0]

Quote

Is this the one referred to? If so, I'll analyze it over the weekend.

Yes, that is the nine way over the Houston Space Center. Please note that I never applied the grid to any photos from this jump, but I believe that Matt Hoover did find a photo that passed the grid test. Someone correct me if I am mistaken. Also, I don't know if the photo in the link you provided is the exact photo that was submitted to the USPA. Anyway, I am curious to see what your method has to say about this jump.

Purple Mike

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Matt had a nice 'compressed' 9 way, that optically was a beautifull formation, but grid-wise, caused issues. Not fitting the 1:1 aspect ratio the judging method only recognised.

That would be a nice one to test with your method.

Was it supposed to be compressed?

Hard to evaluate unless you know what it was supposed to look like.

Oy. No wonder you don't like computers, you don't understand them.

You might want to tell that to the 50,000+ people who bought my flight simulation software and the dozens of research labs around the world that use my crystal analysis software

I'm terribly embarrassed. And was incorrect. My apologies.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Was it supposed to be compressed?

this brings up an excellent question.
if there is a certain compression factor, should that invalidate the formation? you plan it as a diamond... but there is only so much you can do when you spraipaint dots for dirtdiving and so on...
if you achieve a beautiful formation, all symmetrical, but it turns out that it's a bit compressed, should that not be a valid record?

An interesting question indeed. Is a pretty formation that is not the one you pre-declared acceptable? If you plan a 9 way diamond but fly a pretty 9-way arrowhead by mistake, is that OK? How about you wanted to spell out the word "LOVE" for your sweetie to read from the ground, but somehow it came out as a picture perfect "SLUT", is that acceptable?

As to the squished Texas 9-way, there is indeed a way of assisting the decision by analysis. Engineers use a concept called "deviatoric strain" to measure shape distortion. In the Texas case, what was apparently planned as a diamond with 90 degree angles ended up long and thin. The ratio of length to width on my print-out is 1.96. That gives, by very simple calculation, a deviatoric strain of 32%

So before ANY further analysis is called for, the judges will need to decide if a formation which AS A WHOLE is distorted by 32% from what was planned is acceptable. Only if that decision is positive is it worth going further to analyze the positional errors of individual jumpers within the formation relative to the now acceptable squished diamond.

...

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

[The111 1]

I'm guessing this is the one they mean by "compressed."

http://www.matthoover.com/gallery/skydiving-photos/2007-03/2007-03_p83.html#navbar

I don't have any shots from directly above, though.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

As to the squished Texas 9-way, there is indeed a way of assisting the decision by analysis. Engineers use a concept called "deviatoric strain" to measure shape distortion. In the Texas case, what was apparently planned as a diamond with 90 degree angles ended up long and thin. The ratio of length to width on my print-out is 1.96. That gives, by very simple calculation, a deviatoric strain of 32%

So before ANY further analysis is called for, the judges will need to decide if a formation which AS A WHOLE is distorted by 32% from what was planned is acceptable. Only if that decision is positive is it worth going further to analyze the positional errors of individual jumpers within the formation relative to the now acceptable squished diamond.

Just adding that the 32% deviatoric strain number in this case means TWO independent 32% shears had to be used to cause the distortion, so the shape is more distorted than might be suggested by the 32% value. A simple shear of 64% would be needed to cause the same distortion.

Is this acceptable as a successful completion? Jarno? Andreea? Anyone?

...

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

[mccordia 74]

Do how would that work in case of a big wedge, with the same shear, increasing deviation to the outside? Allowing the objevtive judging to be cut into pieces you can twist and bend to get the shape you want, allows for quite some deveations to be 'fixed'.

People dont fly like math-grids, with exact placement. Depending on diveplan, quite some bend/twist/skew can be there, while visually flyers may have a perfect formation, and their relative positions to one and another may be perfect as wel..

Judging a formation with the same deviations possible in docked flight (and also obvious 'break' when someone is too far away) is something you should try to incorperate in some way imho, to allow for real life aplication as wel.

Or maybe we should just try and fly docked ;)

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Do how would that work in case of a big wedge, with the same shear, increasing deviation to the outside? Allowing the objevtive judging to be cut into pieces you can twist and bend to get the shape you want, allows for quite some deveations to be 'fixed'.

People dont fly like math-grids, with exact placement. Depending on diveplan, quite some bend/twist/skew can be there, while visually flyers may have a perfect formation, and their relative positions to one and another may be perfect as wel..

Judging a formation with the same deviations possible in docked flight (and also obvious 'break' when someone is too far away) is something you should try to incorperate in some way imho, to allow for real life aplication as wel.

Or maybe we should just try and fly docked ;)

There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Standard methods used in engineering every day can evaluate any shape distortion of any shape object. If you know what shape it should be and you know what shape it is, you can calculate the distortion.

The whole point of trying to fly perfect formations is to fly in the right place and make the formation the right shape.

The Summerfest 25 way shows that it can be done - the average error of the jumpers from the formation as designed was 12%, which on a nominal 3m spacing amounts to some 36cm, or 14 inches.

You appear to be making excuses for sloppy flying.

...

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

[mccordia 74]

Quote

You appear to be making excuses for sloppy flying.

No, far from that.
But adding 5 more rows toward the outside on that 25 way, you will also start seeing bigger and bigger deviations from where people should be.
Mostly related to the ability to draw a straight line through an entire row.

You're approaching formation like they are lego's. Especialy in case of just a single line, there is a big chance it wont be anything like the angles wanted.

And sloppy flying wont be the reason. Just the fact that not everyone has a built in laserguided assesment for distance and angle.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

You appear to be making excuses for sloppy flying.

No, far from that.
But adding 5 more rows toward the outside on that 25 way, you will also start seeing bigger and bigger deviations from where people should be.
Mostly related to the ability to draw a straight line through an entire row.

You're approaching formation like they are lego's. Especialy in case of just a single line, there is a big chance it wont be anything like the angles wanted.

And sloppy flying wont be the reason. Just the fact that not everyone has a built in laserguided assesment for distance and angle.

You ARE familiar with the concept of tolerance for error even though you refuse to disclose the value you use.

I expect the irony escapes you, but you criticize "the grid" for being too easy and now you criticize my suggestion for not being easy enough.

Do you think the "compressed" Texas 9-way is acceptable as a successful completion, even though the formation was not planned that way?

...

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

[mccordia 74]

Quote

You ARE familiar with the concept of tolerance for error even though you refuse to disclose the value you use.

Im not refusing to disclose anything..
Just have different things that actually matter, in terms of the future of this entire concept, your or anyones, on my plate right now.

Quote

I expect the irony escapes you, but you criticize "the grid" for being too easy and now you criticize my suggestion for not being easy enough.

Not really.
A shit formation, or a formation which is (in terms of spacing) perfect, but in terms of ones grasp of math, not 100% in accordance to your system.
Im asking these question in an interested way, trying to see where your concept can be taken.

Take that 25 way, copy the lines/flyers so you create a 100 way.
And also, take into account, the deviations in each line, that will grow/expand as it gets bigger.
And than judge again.

Im not asking these questions to say your system is BS, im asking those question to see/understand how it works on a bigger scale...

Quote

Do you think the "compressed" Texas 9-way is acceptable as a successful completion, even though the formation was not planned that way?

I dont think the picture shown was the one I refered to.

But imagine a formation like this one, but flown tighter (I dont think this one rates as 'good/perfect').

But how would a little (and less obvious, but on a much bigger formation) skew, influence judging.

And could you also judge the base/front 9 way of that 25 way seperate, and see what vallues you get?

again (you really seem to need people explaining the same thing 25 times before they sink in do ya), all out of interest in further expanding on the idea.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?