mccordia

The cool thing would be that the tollerance level could be named navel-fluff! JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

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?

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?

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?

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?

On the subject of big suits>small planes. Ive also taken the biggest of suits out of C182/c206 hundreds of times, and never got into scary situations. But sometimes it is a bit of a strugle. The biggest thing is, ask the pilot to fly as slow as he is comfortable with on jump run. Not dangerously slow. But normal. Some pilots tend to hardly cut the engine, and fly at a ballistic pace that shows the intent to break orbit, and head for the moon in terms of speed. That aside, its hard to buy a 'bad' wingsuit these days. But it is a BIG thing to make sure your wingsuit is tailored to your body size. With more surface, also comes more drag. An effect heavy/bigger people suffer less of (even the opposite, they tend to fly a good glide, but at insane forward speed on smaller suits). But one that could mean always having to flex wings back to fly with others. Even though the flock may be flying at a good glide, lacking the wingload for proper forward speed/penetration. Something that can turn problematic on bigger formations, as a late diver. Judging your bodysize, Id definately aim at something swift and agile.. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

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?

Not sure... I think for a lot of people, the agreeing part wont happen till they see proof, and its been tried on real formations. Current and future ones. Test/try, report, analyse, modify and try again :) JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Yea, agreed. The polka-dot-grid also allows for other formations than grid-spaced ones. And also beginning to think more and more, deviations in angle shouldnt be allowed. Its needed because the flying is like that now, but its not a bad think to set a standard higher than the current one, in terms of whats allowed and what not. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

The distorting in terms of scaling DSE is talking about, is the one measured on certain records, on a point to point (flyer to flyer) analysis, and different from the this method. So different vallues (non linked). JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

I think its not a bad thing to have the bar set a big higher, even though it may mean a different/difficult to reach standard, with regards to the current records. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Just playing with some pictures, Id say 10% is already a conciderable amount, and close to the max. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Within software, that could just be an easy thing. Allowing the polkadot judging grid© to have the few % scale in/out automaticly, up to a certain degree. Doing some fake photoshop formations, and asking for feedback with regards to 'wat goes and what doesnt' would again be a good thing, to find out which % of stretch would be acceptable.. Good stuff.. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

I think thats an added difficulty, earlier noted by Pendragon (Richard): We need a good description on WHAT makes a wingsuit, formation wise. Is it the fallrate? A minimum glide? We noticed in the first edition of the wingsuit competition, the trend was to go more and more towards freefall, to get quicker docks (something fixed by adding performance/style points in last years edition). The last (backflying) rounds ended with most teams doing a wingsuit version of sitflying. Which is not what you'd want here. I think for the 'un-official' challenge Justin also suggested (for which Phoenix-Fly gladly offers all 6 or more participants a 25% discount on any suit, besides the V3), a nice rule would be: Participants in a docked formation should clearly show the added vallue (performance wise) of a wingsuit, (in video) showing actual flying. Much like the Atmo video posted in the first thread. The difficult thing is, where do you draw the line. Is 50 mph fallrates wingsuit flight? 80 mph? 120 mph? The atmo stuff often cruises allong at 90 to 100 mph. Ideas? Suggestions? (important, as this definition would also be valid for bigways etc) JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Pretty cool. I think in general, the stetch is the only thing which can occur, even with perfect sightlines. Allowing a minimal scaling of the grid sideways (in/out) to conform the formation (within a certain limit, of a few %) seems reasonable. As it means you can have perfect spacing, flying and distances between each jumper, a formation thats as pretty as you'll ever see, yet a formation thats not 100% confirming to the planned dive. All other forms of stretch and skew, seem like things that can be fixed by just keeping eyelines/rows in check during flying. In short, all a result of bad flying, where-as the stretch can be good flying, yet just a misjudgement of a few degrees in terms of angle. I think it would also only work, if its symatrical. Too extreme, asymetrical scaling (in short> looking like shit) to the point of visually spotting it instantly, should be a big no in my book. Its just subtle angle tollerances Im interested in. Lets chat more via mail on this after the FAI stuff, so we can ask Tom (our programmer) to maybe give this one a go JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Its 100% our intent to make the basic application available to everyone, without any cost, in terms of the judging/planning/debriefing application, even if it never makes it as a true judging thing, just having it as a possitive and easy thing to use for everyone during briefing/debriefing of big and small dives would already be awesome. As thats where the tool really shines right now. We started out trying to make a quick and easy, on screen, debriefing application, to allow organizers quick turnaround times when doing small formation and bigway events. Giving direct feedback on slots, positions, relative distances etc. Some more advanced options such as a timeline (for multiple points, seperation), a distance tool (allowing real world measurements, or approxisations) and dock/snap functions are only 3 of about a hundred things we want to try and incorperate. There is (of course) some cost (and A LOT of unpayd time) involved in making it, but we hope to sort that out by trying to get an advertisment/banner or something similar into the software (where playing even is already more than we expect). As you may know from your book "wingsuits in motion", trying to make a profit in the skydiving industry (especialy such a minor sub-dicipline as wingsuit flying) is useless. If that your intent (making money), doing a full weekend of tandemvideo or similar is probably already more lucrative. These things are made, trying to just do something enjoyable which helps everyone. See it as a continuation of the free articles, instructional videos, and other stuff available for free on our website. Only this time, coming from a much bigger group. So to make it clear, sales or profit are both NOT our intent, and regardless of its small and big formations, no END USER (thats all of you) should have to pay a penny for use of the briefing/debriefing application. But this being our baby, I also hope people have a bit of an understanding we want to show it when WE think its ready for a first public (full) presentation. You also dont release 25 pages with words and images missing from your next book or DVD. Next month, we hope to show everyone a lot of things beyond the concept version (which we are showing at the FAI, as part of a presentation ment to show not just ours, but also briefly show all other methods available, postives and negatives). And whatever judging we do arrive at, we can incorperate ALL methods that are deemed succesfull into the software, to make judging/checking easy for ANYONE. Regardless of it being an official or avg. joe on the dropzone. That aside, the judging METHODS (PLURAL!) being developed by multiple people which we hope to incorperate, are a SEPERATE thing from the software. The software is just a quick and easy way, for every idiot on the DZ (thats you, me and everyone) to use during debriefs, especially on bigger groups. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

The same here.. And who-ever may be in Swiss, if anyone is bringing rig. Join us for a potential chopper or airplane valley jump on Saterday! JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

No, but while you fiddle and play with your method, I have to find a way to explain 4 methods briefly within a 1 hour timeframe. So a slightly compressed/brief explanation would be handy, depending on how well you want your concep explained. Ill gladly do the brief write-up myself, but dont want to get shit afterward for explaining it wrong.. A simple PM would do just fine.. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Being an asshole has nothing to with the dicipline you practice hehehe You get that 'you're backsliding' 'you're not fast enough' 'you're floating' in any dicipline, if you pick the 'right' people to jump with JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

By the one simple standard we should set: DOES IT WORK. At the point where ANY system gives us a 100% failsafe result, in terms of YES/NO records. At that point, no real critique should be possible anymore, with regards to improvements needed. If we dont get to that stage, of a reasonably failsafe judgement method. Than why waste ANYONES time trying to get it accepted. Unlike you, some people have other things to do. And I think you know quite well who and what that is. Just like you wont be attending the proposed meet at flock and dock, maybe you're not interested? That aside, I do see promise in what you designed, and (like I said before) after the FAI hoopla is over, and we are not screaming towards the edge of a cliff anymore in a car without brakes, (with your approval) I would gladly shoot you an email or (skype)call, and talk about setting this method of judging up in our software as well, so we can make it available to the whole community in easy accesable/quick way (if people dont like doing it by hand), and compare it with other methods (I had some more submitted by email as well). If you could do me a favour, and shoot me a brief explanation of your method, in 'dumb people language' so I can also show part of it as the FAI as one of the methods proposed/in development, you'd do me a great favour JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

We have an FAI presentation, which only shows the need and intend to work on ANY community based, WORKING judging standard. Not caring for one bit who's, as long as its a working one. 'get something out there now, and fix it later' is an approach I hope no gear manufacturer wants to adopt. The whole creation of 'camps' is nonsense, as EVERY proposal, once fully matured (the concept and people proposing it), STILL has a 100% chance at acceptance. Just not this coming week, as that would be (blunt force trauma style) pushing one proposal through, by hiding its shortcomings and not looking beyond the horizon for better things. Marylou (USPA FAI rep) called, and said she also wants to give the FAI a work scedule for a future proposition, instead of pushing for immidiate acceptance, which is what we intend to do and ask for. Certain people didnt agree, and as a result, wont be presenting. Nothing but praise for the recent actions, allowing a more senseable work-scedule, instead of rushed and incomplete. As long as the USPA is wrestling with the system, and forced to accept a 7 way formation over a valid 8 way record, it clearly shows the system needs more work. There are several processes going on at the same time, and one seems to mix a lot of them up deliberately to discredit certain people, and tearing a community appart. Whats the rush? The lack of an official status didnt serm to give the 2008 bigway attempt ANY other status over the 2009 one. And if the 'official' tag (which the same group of people was offended by in 2008) is the thing thats worth ignoring and drnying a whole community input, and having a say in rules that affect us all (when it comes to FAI), than do your thing. The lack of an official standard is not worth loosing friends, not smiling, not enjoying flying, donating to charity or organising events. If it is, re-evaluate why you're doing all this.. Dont stress and rush our one chance at recognition, by proposing a flawed/incomplete proposal. Work as a community...with eachother instead of against.. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Its the reason some skydivers (in general) dont progress as quickly as they could, because they only want to talk about smiles, wow and jay. You can do that, while at the same time discussing who could IMPROVE this and that part of his flying. But its quite difficult when people loose the objective aspect in debriefing, and turn it into personal comments. And for those people, its often mentioned as a black/white thing. You either smile and have fun, or you're an asshole and say what went wrong. Its not always the person giving the debrief, who is the cause of a bruised ego. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Jumping the wrong videocamera, messing with editing suites and not getting AVCHD to work, and having nobody else stand up, and say the things most people are to chicken shit to say out loud.....most likely...? JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

I often hear this one mentioned, though am curious to which bad vibes people are talking about. I see a lot of good stuff enforced in RW, which (to me) seems more about skills, safety and progression than it is about being an asshole.. JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?

Agreed with Matt, just in terms of layout, ankle docks would be the only place you could take docks in order to form a complete diamond. The comedy bit aside, interested in Scotts take on bigger docked formations as well We played a bit with ankle grippers (20 cm gripper, hanging on the ankle, coming out from underneath the booty), and had some made a while back. Ill try and get a picture online, to see what people think about that one. And a general question: would docks made through an intermediate object/material like prescribed, a 'trailing' gripper (instead of direct contact) still be regarded 'docked' flying? JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete?