SuperGirl

why do you think you can't get 20? you're going to be there for the entire duration of the event, correct? last year I got over 20 jumps in and that's with being lazy, without jumping the first day cause it was windy, and then slow calls on the weekend cause 2 aircraft were not enough anymore (and we had a big group so it was harder to manifest)... and still got to jump a lot. I'm sure you can get 20 jumps in, no problem. Going for high altitude loads in the morning helps... cause they determine you to wake up early even after all that partying. 5 jumps a day for 4 days is easily doable. Even 6 a day is not pushing it that bad when there's lots of load organizers to keep you going. I say go for it!

I think this is more to BEGIN discussing a world wide solution. so multiple events is probably a good idea...

consisting of who/what types of people? perhaps we could start a sign-up list, like we do for boogies.

thanks for the report, Jarno. looking forward to more details. There is one thing I would like to throw out there since we are mentioning this Meeting to be had at Flock n Dock. There have been concerns about some people being unable to attend. Keep in mind that no matter what boogie this happens at, there will always be this sort of situation. So we are looking into various web conferencing solutions to allow those with relevant contributions to participate remotely in the conversation. More information will be made available when we know it :)

ok that statement is dangerously misleading. let me rephrase it, just to make sure... Andreea is a girl... but she thinks like a guy... and acts very much so... have you ever seen me wear a dress? (exclude pictures from weddings and halloween parties. wingsuit doesn't count either) man, I brought two dildos to Elsinore and came back with zero. I know Medusa's got the big one. I am still waiting for some video of them flying with the rhino-cam... and docking on it... speaking of ways of docking, maybe if I put a dildo onto a foot mount (the skwrl shoe for smoke would work great) someone can dock on it. just a thought. and then there was the other dildo. the thinner translucent blue one with spiral ribs on it... Whatever happened to that one?? (you sickos!! you stole my dildo!!) Last time I saw it was when Eli ran through the bigway dirtdive with both of them in his hands (Eli - so proud of you, man!!) but I have no clue what happened to it afterwards. Finally, to answer Johan's question, I like head.

since you are saying "another" suit I am assuming you already have one. what's your current suit and how many jumps did you put on it? what percentage of those jumps were solos? If you are considering the Raptor you might want to look at the R-Bird on the Tonysuit side. It's a couple hudred bucks extra for the Bird mod but you get better performance and less arm fatigue for the same size suit. If you're looking at the Phoenix Fly side, I also second DSE's suggestion to look into the Phantom2Z before going straight to the Ghost2. One question first. What's your body like? Tall & skinny? Short and well rounded? It's an important consideration. If you enjoy your burgers and fries and have a less than average metabolism, in other words you'll have a bit of a wing loading on the suit, then R-Bird again highly recommended. First time you put it on you get that "whoa, where did all this lift come from?" feeling. But I find that with most Tony suits (especially as you go bigger and bigger) wing loading makes them fly better. For my body size, though, I would most certainly choose a Phantom2Z. Keep in mind I own a Raptor right now. I have flown the crap out of that Raptor (almost 500 jumps on it) and will continue to fly the crap out of it until it tears into little shreds. It's a great all around suit. But having recently had time to play with a Phantom2Z I have to say I was very pleasantly impressed. It made me wish I had learned aerobatics on the Phantom2... that thing backflies and rolls like a total aerobatic dream. And even though it feels like less wing, I could get the same range in it as in my Raptor, without even having had the same number of jumps on it. Again, it's important to consider your body type and how much you'll be loading the suit. Also consider your current level of experience, and last but not least the type of flying you intend to do in the future. Any chance you can make it to Flock n Dock in March? That would be a good opportunity to test fly both suits you are asking about, as well as the other ones we are suggesting here. Seeing for yourself how the suit flies before you purchase it would be highly beneficial.

but pretty is subjective so we need to accurately quantify pretty to eliminate all the if's requiring a decent level of skill is not a bad thing. Nobody is asking for the impossible. We're saying hey look at the skill we already seem to have, we should at least keep the same standard... all bigways in other discipline require a certain degree of skill. you don't go on the world 400 or 500-way after just doinga couple dozen 4-ways at your dropzone. you work hard to qualify. let's not even think of the VRW formations and how much tunnel time those flyers have, and how much more air time on top of that. Records are not zoo dives. Skill should be required. We shouldn't require the impossible, but some basic skill that seems to already be present in most experienced flyers is only fair.

I am beginning to agree more and more with you that the stretch we allow should not be too much from the preplanned formation. There should be SOME stretch allowed, just not too much. So maybe a 5% will do? Hard to tell without flying a lot more bigways... However, it is important to differ from the USPA grid in allowing one to DECLARE the formation to be flown with whatever angle from the line of flight, not just 45 degrees or 90 degrees. So if we want to fly a thin rhombus, then we can fly a damn thin rhombus. The grid doesn't allow that, and it should, because a thin (or fat) rhombus can be flown just as beautifully and accurately as a square. Just like that Guinness-rated plane formation record posted about a week ago. Whatever angle we plan on the ground, whatever angle we dirtdive, that's what is taken into account. By dirt diving over and over again we should be able to find visual cues on our neighbors' rigs (or, like you did on the 68way, put little markers on the helmet visor) to help eyeball the angles accurately enough that the formation doesn't get stretched too far. There may still be a little bit of stretch. But anything too big ultimately shows lack of skill. Like when we started flying and we were doing head to foot formations and there would be a lot of breathing space at the back... the biggest reason being just that all of us noobs were at the back. This discussion also keeps reminding me of the Texas State Record where I think it was Matt who pointed out that not only were they flying a squished formation, they felt like they had also been dirt diving it that way. In such a case, changing from predeclaring it as a square to predeclaring it as a longer rhombus and redoing the whole jump the same way would validate a record.

we need to take into account not just formation that have been submitted, but also the possibilities that we are allowing for future submissions. while I'm not yet set on my numbers for this, one thing I find is that when you look at a tolerance, you need to always check what is the worst most distorted awful looking formation that you can come up with that still works within that tolerance. if that worst example still fits within the standards of what we wish to call a record, then the values are acceptable. if not, then the values need to be decreased, even if a stricter standard no longer fits all currently ratified records.

you're sick (though I kinda set myself up for that comment, didn't I)

workin on it. sorry I'm slow (busy week) but was just playing with tolerances and uniform skew/stretch as well as non uniform stretch last night

Famous last words... (just kidding! couldn't resist)

and that's a very good point. maybe we want to include something like that in whatever future methods we design. you can easily compute the scale based on the size of someone's rig or something. it has a lot to do with safety. diving to the formation and not taking someone out in the process. being able to break off safely, and so on. it's also a general sense that a record should be something hard to accomplish, not something any newbie can do. You posting history here says otherwise. You have commented on it a great deal prior to a week ago. read again, he was quoting some email that someone else sent. those aren't Spot's words. it's that other dude who sent the email...

psst. don't mean to be a smartypants but... wrong thread, Spot! there's the other one about grid BS. this one's about docked formations :D can you move your post over to the other one, please? just so we can at least try to keep this one clean?

I dunno. There is some history of ass-docking out there... Not that I would recommend building a bigway using this technique. edit: photo credits Scott Gray

I dunno, man... I often wonder where your hands have been... all jokes aside, I think this is an excellent idea! it could span over several months to include multiple boogies so people from all over the place get a chance to get together and build something great.

oh, man! your post combined with Jarno's other thread on docked formations begs for the following question to be asked: Assume we are doing a ws boogie in some state where the current wingsuit state record is small (like a 4way or nothing set yet) And we get, say, a 6way docked line. And it's kinda curved and wobbly so it wouldn't fit the grid. Is that a valid state record? I mean... It doesn't fit the grid. But it's DOCKED. Ahh, the irony :)

now THAT must be some damn good flying!!

A huge accusation is being brought to the people opposing the grid, by claiming that they wish to stop wingsuiting from progressing. I personally am very offended by such statements! This is simply not true!! We all wish to see wingsuiting grow and reach new heights, but we want to see this done the right way. We wish to see the whole community have an opportunity to get involved. Nobody ever asked for input on the grid rules. They were just given. This is it, deal with it. Some tried to offer some input and were either not listened to (the less vocal ones), or told to fuck off (those more vocal ones). These people are not trying to steal anyone's organizer slot. They are not trying to stop bigway events from happening. They are simply volunteering some intelligent input on a method that obviously needs to be worked on, and acknowledging that there is much work left to be done, and we are not as close to being "done" as we think. We also need to separate stuff related to Raise The Sky, charities, good deeds from the grid as a judging method. One has nothing to do with the other. It wasn't the grid that enabled us to help a bunch of kids in need with a $5k donation towards their education. It was the people: the organizers, the participants, everyone who collaborated and worked hard, donated money. We didn't donate money for the sake of the grid. We didn't fly that formation for the grid. Some of us didn't even believe much in the grid at all. Yet we still flew with the same passion. And we're ready to do it again, no matter what happens with the grid system. So let's not try to influence people's opinions about the grid by talking about Raise The Sky and wonderful charities. It's apples and oranges. The fact that we had some amazing formation jumps in Elsinore doesn't mean that the grid is a successful method and ready to be implemented soon, given the list of flaws we have all seen. The way that formation was flown could be judged in many ways. Do I think the grid is ready for just a year of patching up and then it can then be implemented worldwide in 2011? Absolutely not!! We won't even have another US national record attempt until maybe later in 2011! Until now you were able to shut me up by saying "well, it's the only method we've got and it's the best we've got, so we might as well push for it". Sorry but that's no longer the case. We have seen various methods of judging emerge, and there are still a few I've heard of that are in the works that haven't been presented to the public yet. A lot of these alternative methods show a lot of potential because they address specific problems that the grid suffers from. Nobody's saying to stop wingsuit records from happening. We're just saying that perhaps it's time to think outside the gridbox for a while, evaluate some alternatives, too, and not rush things too much. The grid has't done shit. The organizers and the participants did it all, as Jarno also pointed out. As far as I'm concerned, it could have been any method of judging, you could've measured the Elsinore formation by the color coordination of everyone's underwear, I still would've supported the events with my participation. The accomplishments were possible because there were a whole bunch of people willing to work hard and fly together as a team. Not because of the grid. I am proud to have flown in a beautiful looking 68way formation. I am not really proud that I was inside my grid box. That doesn't really do much for me. I remember being in that debrief room in Elsinore. The emotions that were shared when we watched the video of the record formation were incredible. But that didn't come from seeing the grid on the picture or hearing that the USPA judge has successfully placed a grid on there. It came from watching an entire video and seeing a beautiful formation flown consistently that just showed what amazing things we were able to accomplish as a team. The grid only added uncertainty at times, as we were unsure of when exactly we had a record, and how much more we would have to improve it. You think the skills camps made us better skydivers due to the grid and the occasional state record? I never learned a damn thing from the grid. I learned by listening to and flying with great fliers like yourself, Justin, Jarno, Jeff N., Scott Calantine, Scott Bland, Purple Mike, and many others (I'm sure I'm forgetting a few important names who have played a major role and I'm gonna feel stupid about it later, but you get the point). At the larger scale, there is a big difference between the GRID and the big achievements we've seen in wingsuiting. We are just maturing as a discipline, we are seeing great progress from one year to the next, and who knows how much more progress we are going to see in the coming years. It is not the grid that governs it, it's the flyers, the improved skills, the load organizers that push people to do incredible things. With or without a grid. We all want this progress! Even those that yell "fuck the grid!" or "end gridlock". With or without the grid, we are not stopping any of the momentum our discipline has achieved. People will keep flying, and skills will get better and better. I'll happily fly on anyone's formation, to test any kind of judging method. We should still work hard as a community to refine our judging standards and accomplish bigger and bigger achievements. But we need to understand that having a solid judging method is just icing on the cake. First we have the great accomplishments, then the judging method that simply looks at the flying and rates it. We don't want to have a standard that then locks us in. The method should model our flying, instead of our flying being adapted to the method. That's one of the biggest reasons why I and others have issues with the grid. It's nothing personal. It's not meant to discredit anyone's achievements. We want the achievements to be recognized. We also want to think ahead and make sure we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot as far as future bigger achievements are concerned. You know, trains rolling are a great thing, but sometimes if a train rolls too fast it can derail. We don't wish to stop any train. We just want to make sure it's going at the right speed. Keep the wigsuit flying train rolling, but keep your minds open, too! Just look at the multitude of judging methods that are emerging out of all this! Past all the drama and the politics, we are seeing a lot of progress here: there are many new creative ideas that only emerged over the past few weeks, and they are just waiting to be tested and explored. There are many skills waiting to be developed and pushed to new levels. That is the true train here, let's keep it rolling the right way!

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.

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?

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...

I think the rules should be strict enough not to allow that kind of error. I don't care that I was in it. I'll fly any formation for anyone's method, regardless of the heated up discussions on here.

this is awesome. that formation has everyone pretty much completely inside of their grid square. you can scale the grid a bit more to actually get that even better. so basically you have just added another good counter example to the grid, cause here is a formation that perhaps should NOT be a record, yet according to the specifications set forth by the uspa, it should, cause it doesn't break any rule. it even goes as far as to fit the improved grid criteria, like the suggestion of everyone completely inside the box. precisely the point of this thread. the grid is not yet ready... (the only other option would be that your method is flawed and needs refinement...) Another thing I've been meaning to bring up (not addressed to you specifically) is that when we design a method for judging formations we may want to check if it's a solid system by using some basic notions from propositional logic. 1. Soundness [i.e. If the system claims to prove something is true, it really is true.] If the method says that a formation is a valid record, is the formation always one that the wingsuit community would consider record-worthy? 2. Completeness: [i.e. If something really is true, the system is capable of proving it.] If a formation is undoubtedly worthy of being called a record, will our method always validate it as a record? Just something to keep in mind when evaluating people's various methods.

as far as I understand, the difference lies in the way it is presented to the governing body. the grid was never presented as something that the whole community would have a chance of refining and working on. the software method is simply being presented as an alternative... to show that there ARE alternatives being worked on and that no single method should be adopted right away. nobody's giving any plans of implementing it within a year. if it proves to be the answer,then so be it, but we are far from knowing that. details will be made public before anyone accepts it as an official method of judging.