Voting
K Factors; F2B Community Report & Invitation.pdf
The latest revision of the rule text(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
The Judge guide(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
Get Acrobat Reader(5.2MB)
Discussion forum | List of registered users | Login/Registration | Home
Voting
K Factors; F2B Community Report & Invitation.pdf
The latest revision of the rule text(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
The Judge guide(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
Get Acrobat Reader(5.2MB)
Discussion forum
| Only registered users can add comments. |
| Peter Germann | Re: How to promote building in F2B | 23.09.2008 - 11:24:07 |
| Perhaps the "reward" issue boils down to the question of how important, in F2B, the material (the airplane and its motor)really is?
Well, I do not really know for certain, but from what I have found myself I can clearly state that whenever I had a reasonably good airplane/motor my placings in contest always went up considerably. This, plus the fact that we now see many pilots all of a sudden climb the ladder rather quickly once they enjoy the privilege of flying one of the excellent Yatsenko machines, might be evidence that the material plays a major role in F2B. Admitting a significant influence of the material on the outcome of the contest, modestly rewarding those who go (or must go) the extra mile seems to be an almost natural consequence then. | Tree | 412 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: How to promote building in F2B | 23.09.2008 - 06:22:11 |
| Quote from Claus: "Our sport is UNIQUE ! Why? Correct me if I’m wrong - but as far as I know we have the ONLY sport where competitors build their own equipment ! "
Actually mate, you are incorrect. There are sailing classes that promote building - the Moths and the measurement classes (such as the America's cup yachts) do. Here in Australia, ther are still sailing classes such as the Heron where the top boats are still hand made out of timber because the fibreglass boats can't match them. There are other sports too. What you're referring to are competitions where the equiptment has been standardised for some reason (usually to conserve cost but not always). But that's a minor point and doesn't affect your agument at all. Richard | Tree | 411 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: How to promote building in F2B | 23.09.2008 - 06:12:28 |
| Cripes Claus, and people call ME an old grump (for those of you who don't speak Australian, that was said with a smile, more than a dash of affection and is a sort of a back handed compliment).
How's this for a thought - stunt ALREADY promotes building and building well. Why? Because the model is such an integral part of the final result. You can't be a world champ with a poorly built model. Nor can you be world champ with a poorly trimmed model (which is another discipline altogether). BUT, regardless of the model,it still has to be flown. Even there, many top pilots are already accepting outside assistance in the form of flying coaches - what's the difference between a flying coach fine tuning your flight and someone assembling a dead flat wing for you? Then there's the powertrain - I'm sure no-one would suggest we be forced to make our own engines or even propellors, but getting the power train to work correctly is an art in itself. Stunt is a multi-disciplinary sort. The model must be DESIGNED correctly. The model must be BUILT correctly. The model must be POWERED correctly. The model must be TRIMMED correctly. The pilot must be COACHED correctly. And in competition, on the day, it must be FLOWN correctly. Yet, at the moment, we judge only the FLYING. But, any flaw in one of the preceeding disciplines is reflected in the FLYING score. Therefore, although no points are given for designing, building, powering, trimming or coaching, the affects of those disciplines are reflected in what we do give points for, the flying. Maybe we've got it right after all. Richard | Tree | 410 |
| Claus Maikis | Re: How to promote building in F2B | 22.09.2008 - 13:03:11 |
| I’m a little disappointed.
As pointed out in the original article (on my website www.clacro.de ) - and for late entries into this discussion - the topic was: should we give any reward to F2B pilots who build their own airplanes, YES or NO, and how can we do this. The main idea was to keep, promote, and further the idea and value of building in this modern ready-built world. Discussion about BOM or appearance points was neither necessary nor wanted. It seems that my article was completely misinterpreted, and even after a second note the arguments still centered around those topics which have already been beaten to death in the USA since many decades. Really boring. The “discussion” was mainly a big NO vote on topics which were not even on the agenda. So far, except for one idea no new ones have been offered. I hope we have left this stage behind us now. I’m especially disappointed that none of the “big shots” made a contribution. Those people who are generally respected for their clever ideas and positive influence on our sport. Don’t they want to make their opinions public because they are afraid to get some opposition? Are they just too lazy, or is it that they just don’t care? That would be even worse. By discussion I understand that ideas, opinions, and suggestions are given and discussed. Until now not much has happened. Before we get into the details about how we do it we should first decide on whether we really WANT to do something; remember: “Reward Building” is the topic, not how to judge appearance! There was mention of a separate trophy. In fact this is not a new idea. I have had a busy correspondence about this topic several decades ago with American pilots ( as we know the majority of them doesn’t like this idea and prefers to keep their present system). Also, Peter Germann has already pointed out that this will not bring enough motivation. Those who prefer to buy airplanes will not go through all the work and effort to build a beautiful one - just for a trophy. And we’ll instantly run into the problem of required manpower, criteria rules, time etc. This doesn’t mean that the “reward appearance” idea is wrong. Every contest organizer can arrange such an event. If he feels like doing so he can run a contest and present a trophy. He doesn’t need our permission or a rule. But the motivation for BUILDING can only be created by some reward for exactly THAT ! How we define the criteria is another question and can be discussed later. Peter has already made a suggestion. There’s that old argument “ stunt is a flying event”. At first glance this sounds quite logical. However I feel this statement stays pretty much on the surface only. I want to make it quite clear: I do not support the American “tradition” argument ( “it’s never been a flying event ONLY”). There’s more in our sport than what meets the eye. Our sport is UNIQUE ! Why? Correct me if I’m wrong - but as far as I know we have the ONLY sport where competitors build their own equipment ! I should say: CAN build ! I mean the great possibility to create, design, and build our own thing. Where else is this possible? Look at other sports where technical tools are used for competing: be it sports with ( full size) cars, boats, airplanes, bicycles, parachutes, skis, bob-sleigh, guns, bow and arrow, sword fighting, etc. I’m sure you’ll find still more. You say: they don’t need to build? I say: they’re NOT ALLOWED ! For several years I’ve competed in catamaran regattas. You can be sure that many sailors would have liked to modify the sail and the rig in order to sail faster and beat the competition. But they are restricted to “sailing only”. They are not allowed to realize their ideas and build their own creations. WE ARE ! That makes our sport unique! And since it is unique - why not consider this uniqueness and form the rules accordingly ! Rules which put some attention on designing and building. By the way: there’s a sport where “building” is HIGHLY rewarded. In Formula One Racing they have the “Constructor’s World Championships” !!! Okay, still no new thoughts about how to reward building. You may say so far I haven’t given some myself. That’s right, and I had reasons. I do have a few ideas, but I didn’t want to offer them in the first place. I expected that the instant reaction would be a simple voting “yes” or “no” (mostly no). That’s not a discussion, and I didn’t want to influence other people’s opinion before they had offered their own ideas. The intent of the story was to make other people start to think and to make suggestions. I’ll offer mine here. Before thinking about details you have to think about methods. Peter has chosen the pragmatic method. A simple, quick, and most effective way. Promise somebody a reward and he will do something to get it. It’s the way animals are trained: promise your dog a sausage and it will do the trick. It works, and it works with people, too. I’m fully convinced that this method is a very good way to success. It has only one tiny drawback. As soon as the reward is no longer provided, the motivation quickly fades away. I tend to prefer another method. I would like to CONVINCE people; convince them of the better way, the higher value. If people are convinced a reward is no longer necessary, and motivation for keeping these values (=building) continues. I’m fully aware that this way takes much longer and this goal is harder to achieve. In order to not ask too much and demand an unbearable load on contest organizers, the chosen reward needs not be given to every competitor, on every day, on each flight. In can be given in certain instances and special situations, especially in those cases where there’s some relation to building. This can be situations which do not occur very often. But when they do the “reward” can be extremely helpful for the particular flyer. In my story I’ve used the word “privilege” (for lack of a better word, then). Maybe we should call it advantage, permission, kindness, facilitation, allowance, alleviation, etc. ( English speaking people should find a suitable term). I’ve considered a few examples. 1) In case of a crash the competitor could be given another extra flight ( not a second attempt), regardless what caused the crash ( wind or pilot error). 2) When the lines are ripped or the model is damaged from pull test, the competitor could be allowed sufficient time to replace and/or repair damaged parts; even if this takes more than 30 minutes/ 3 flyers. He could be given the choice of when to fly. 3) In case of loss or damage of the model (theft, destruction, crash, transport) the competitor could be allowed to buy a model on the site or loan a model from another competitor . 4) In case of loss or damage of model during official practice the competitor could be allowed an extra practice flight with this bought/loaned model during official practice ( especially when open practice circle is not available). 5) In case of loosing parts during rollout no Zero-score. I have some more thoughts in the back of my head, but those presented here are what I feel are the most appropriate. I do not see these examples as perfect ideas. They may serve as an impetus for you to start thinking and offer other or even better solutions. At least these thoughts might help to get out of the rut, to leave the cage of endless BOM and appearance thinking. There are other ways to concede rewards, and I’m sure that more than those mentioned here can be found. Yes, I know - installing such kind of rules will conflict with other rules in the book. So what ! If we sincerely want a change or a new goal, a rule addition will not be the problem that can hold us back. I have intentionally chosen these examples. The common main aspect of all of them is to avoid a direct addition of points to the flight score. Using the above listed measures doesn’t noticeably change the running of the contest, is no burden for the organizer, and if not applied ( in case there is no urgency) it’s no disadvantage for the buyers at all. But - whatever advantage for the builders it may have - even if small it might be sufficient to cause some doubters to consider building the model. And the benefit SHOULD be small. I have already heard a few critical voices, and I’d like to address these aspects. 1) I can already hear the complaint of some indignant buyers “this is an unfair advantage for the builders. I have no time to build. I don’t want to be penalized for something which is not my fault”. Well, as can be seen from the examples given above, the advantage is so small and is given so seldom that I cannot see a reason for serious complain. After all, if we want to reach a goal we have to pay for it; there’s no way we can get something for nothing. If we really want to support building and keep these skills and values, we have to honour these values - and that means reward these skills. Or is the general agreement only lip-service !? 2) for the instance: extra flight in case of a crash. In German we have a sentence “show mercy over right”. Is it really so bad to offer a second chance to a comrade who has just lost his airplane? At the World Championships in France the young son of Kaz Minato crashed his model. I’ve seen the disappointment and desperation in Oki’s face, and the disconcerted faces of all onlookers. I just cannot imagine that anybody around would have denied a second chance for this poor guy. And - how do you feel if you’ve beat your (better) rival because he has crashed ? Do you feel okay? If yes, sorry, I do not discuss this point; that’s below my level. 3 ) installation of a rule must never be decided on whether it’s good or bad for me. If a rule is good for the sport it must be installed without consideration of the consequences for me. So, regardless the benefits or penalties for one or a few individuals - if the rule supports our common goal we should accept it. Please remember, my modest suggestions are not just simple rewards for busy builders. They - and yours - should support those high values which our sport has to offer and which you’ll hardly find anywhere else. One last thought. I’m always a little doubtful about those ”flying event only” supporters. To me they seem to keep saying that wine is unnecessary, that it is just another “beverage only”, and that water is all you need to slake thirst. That’s right - as long as your tongue isn’t able to tell the difference between water and wine, and unable to taste the enjoyment and delight a glass of precious wine can bestow. I said I’m a little disappointed. In fact I had not expected much participation in this forum on this topic, and in fact it has been less than expected. One of my friends called me a pessimist. With lots of contribution from your side you can prove him right. | Tree | 409 |
| Peter Germann | Re: How to promote building in F2B | 21.09.2008 - 13:42:59 |
| I am not trying to be valiant, Richard. Instead I am searching for effective measures, as opposed to ineffective and elaborat "beauty" contests, preserving what I consider being the essence of c/l stunt, designing, building and flying.
Of course there will inevitably be problems with the principle of self-declaration but why should a couple of such rather easy to handle difficulties prevent the support of building in general? By the way, wether a system was broke or not can only be found after it has been improved. (Electrics, multiple circle flying,...) | Tree | 408 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: How to promote building in F2B | 21.09.2008 - 03:36:57 |
| It's a valiant effort Peter.
For the record, I would be happy to operate under it. I would be happy for no change to be made (as I feel it's something that doesn't need to be 'fixed'). You will get people who try to push the definition of 'built' and you will get people who will argue about it. It does create work for contest organisers, not a great deal I admit but having run contests, you really don't to be chasing up competitors who haven't ticked a box on the form or settling arguments afterwards where some idiot is arguing about some other idiot who might have ticked the wrong box. It's a good compromise though. Richard | Tree | 407 |
| Peter Germann | Re: How to promote building in F2B | 20.09.2008 - 11:34:03 |
| Dear Friends
In order to illustrate my personal point of view and to bring this discussion one step forward, I would like to submit the following to your kind attention: a.) The current FAI rule status as per September 2008 Sporting Code Volume ABR Section 4A, Section 4B, Section 4C, 2008 Edition Page 12: B.3.1. Competitor Unless stated otherwise, the competitor named on the entry form must be builder of the model aircraft entered. Volume F2 Control Line Model Aircraft, 2008 Edition Page 32: 4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft h) Rule B.3.1. Of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B. ---- b.) Here is a hypothetical FAI rule change proposal intended to motivate flyers to build while not really discriminating competitors using RTF’s: Sporting Code Volume F2 Control Line Model Aircraft, 2008 Edition Page 32: 4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft h) Rule B.3.1. Of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B. Suggested Amendment: i.) If the competitor named on the entry form is the builder of the model aircraft entered, the final scores of all his flights will be multiplied by a bonus factor of 1.01 (+ 1 percent) k.) The use of an industrially manufactured model aircraft such as, for example, ARC (almost ready to cover), ARF (almost ready to fly) and RTF (ready to fly) types or of a model aircraft built by a third party is permitted. It does not qualify the competitor for the bonus as per i). l) In order to qualify the competitor for the bonus, the model aircraft (but not its power train) entered must have been built by the competitor from scratch, from own or third party plans or from a kit containing raw materials and/or structural components prefabricated to a minor level and requiring substantial effort to complete and finish. Kit components could be, for example, cut ribs and formers, control system parts, unpainted sheeted foam parts, unpainted laminate wing and/or fuselage halves, landing gears, canopies and such. Reason: To preserve, support and promote the value of model design and building in the F2B category and to allow the use of models built by third parties. --------- At this point I must declare that the hypothetical proposal above reflects my personal opinion as a builder and flyer of F2B competition model airplanes for almost 50 years, as well as my inner attitude towards our common cause. It is however important to state that the above has nothing to do with the opinion of the members of the F2B Working Group, the point of view of the F2 Subcommittee or the FAI in general. Peter Germann | Tree | 406 |
| Brett Buck | Re: | 20.09.2008 - 05:19:27 |
| >The problem with adding appearance points to the flying
>score arises in the case of very close scores - the >outcome can be determined by the appearance points That's exactly how it is in AMA at the Nationals. I would guess, that over the last 10 years or so (although not as much recently) that the range of flight scoring and the range of appearance scoring works out about 50/50. I have missed the top 5 flyoff several times by about my appearance point deficit. > reducing the event to a pretty plane contest - no thanks!!! But you are completely incorrect about "reducing it to a pretty plane contest". You still have to fly very closely to the other top pilots to even get in the position that it matters. That lets out the vast majority of pilots anywhere in the world. And there have certainly been people who thought and still think they could polish their way to a Walker trophy and have been sorely disappointed. You have to build a nice airplane *and* you have to fly it at a World-class level. That's the point of stunt, and as below, its a shame that this is not valued. Brett | Tree | 405 |
| Brett Buck | It's a shame | 20.09.2008 - 05:03:08 |
| As the chief "quote generator" for Claus' original article, I have pretty much said all I could say on the value of BOM/Appearance Points, and I know this entire discussion is not really going anywhere.
But I think it's a darn shame so many people have missed the point of stunt - i.e. to build a model and then compete with it. *Both* are aspects of the event as designed. I feel bad for those who have only know it as a flying event, as not only has it been watered down, it has been turned in to a simple handle-waving affair. As near as I can tell, no one has ever won the W/C with a buy-and-fly model, but sadly I can see the day that it could happen. I sure hope I don't live to see it. Brett | Tree | 404 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Re: Reward for Building | 15.09.2008 - 09:48:35 |
| Richard,
I couldn't have said it any better. This is exactly why we shouldn't want a BOM rule. Bruno | Tree | 403 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: Reward for Building | 15.09.2008 - 09:21:08 |
| Is rewarding building so important? (theoretical discussion following, I'm not trying to step on anyone's emotions here)
With the current state of technology, at top level competition, models built by someone else are either going to be hideously expensive or a labour of love by the builder ... and they will NOT offer any competitive advantage. The largest part of the result will still be the dedication and effort put into flying the thing. That's top level. Further down the ranks, such as at a local competition, it's irrelevant because people pursue this sport for all sorts of reasons and swapping and buying of models is common. For most events, it's not really a problem if Dad (who gets his kicks out of building but can't fly too well any more) builds the model for his son - the results still depend on the amount of effort the pilot puts into his practice. Even in America the BOM rule only applies to their national championships (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). Further, people flying other people's models has been happening since modelling started and you won't stop it happening. I'm sure all of us have used a model built by someone else at some point simply because we ran out of time to build something. At an intellectual level, it's nice to say 'you should build it yourself', but does that really matter in the real world? I say it doesn't. I argued earlier in this thread about the definition of 'building' - I admit I took a puritanical view, but I do believe that's valid IF you are looking at top end competition ... which, I suggest, is the only place a BOM is relevant. I'll take that further. I prefer to build and fly models that I have designed myself. No, not just minor modifications to someone else's work or rough sketches on the back of an envelope - my designs are fully detailed and include individually plotted and drawn ribs. Why would I do that? Because that is where I derive my pleasure - building and flying the things is no more than an excuse to design something else. For what it's worth, I admit I'm rather weird in that respect and in no way suggest that other fliers should be forced to become designers. However, if you want to award points for 'building', why should someone who has bought all the components (including pre-sheeted foam wings and tail with controls and landing gear installed) to someone else's design and just assembled them, get the same bonus as someone who designed the model and them made every component himself? If you wish to reward building, you must reward all aspects and all levels of building. I personally think that to do so is impractical in any real sense and so you are better off either having no reward for building OR keeping it as a seperate event (which is something I do support). While a modeller can build a competitive model for a fraction of ARF models, most will choose to build their own model. Yes, I know the cost of the ARF Nobler and her sisters, but they aren't a top level model are they - in this context, we're talking models such as the Yatchenko models (I hope I spelt that right). The problems arise when you need the factory built machine to be competitive - in that case, I suggest a better move would be to restrict the technology that makes the factory built model better. A similar argument could be applied to cost. Or you could choose to apply a BOM rule ... but those reasons are not relevant yet so I suggest we do not need a BOM yet. I think that the arguments FOR a BOM are largely emotional, and I don't disagree with the sentiments. However, until we reach the point where not having a BOM affects the results at top level, we don't need it. While the definition of 'building' remains so difficult to define in any meaningful way, I don't think we should introduce a rule we don't NEED. Richard | Tree | 401 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Reward for Building | 14.09.2008 - 11:39:35 |
| Thank you, Xaver, for sharing your point of view on how to support and promote building of airplanes among current and future F2B flyers.
You have absolutely no reason to apologise for language. On the contrary,your effort will undoubtedly motiviate others to let the community know what they think. The Internet in general and this Forum in particular is a wonderful tool and we should make best possible us of it. | Tree | 400 |
| Franz-Xaver Bauer | Reward for Building | 13.09.2008 - 18:01:16 |
| I think the idea of a separate evaluation of Konstruction, Design or Beauty is extremely useful and worthwhile.
This would probably people of us to motivate built a model itself. However, such evaluation should not combine with the execution of flight figures. Reasoning: For me, still full in working life (10 to 14 hours daily) I've no time to build my models. Currently i'm dependent to fly ARF models, or those who have built others. So I would like not do disadvantage in comparison with designers and builders. Therefore I am for a separate evaluation of different disciplines. Very good i like the idea of a "Concours d'elegance" or a "Prix d'elegance" as it, very happy and to stimulate the actors, exist in Pepinster. Please, pardon me my bad english. Kind regards, Franz-Xaver Bauer | Tree | 399 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Appearance Points? | 12.09.2008 - 15:55:32 |
| I must obviously apologise for not being clear. Wht I meant to initiate was a discussion on whether the flyer should receive Something like a "builder-bonus" when he built his own aircraft. He should not be rewarded for the "beauty" of the model which means no appearance points. | Tree | 398 |
| Jim Hatch | | 12.09.2008 - 11:56:14 |
| I see this has become discussion on appearance points. In my first post I said that I was for a B.O.M. rule and made no mention of awarding points for such.
I still believe that there should be a B.O.M. rule to encourage modellers to be modellers and not just flyers but would be against the awarding of points. You either built the model or not. If you built it then you can fly it. If not then don't enter the contest was what I envisaged with no competition being decided on how pretty a model looked. Jim | Tree | 397 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Pretty Airplane Contest | 12.09.2008 - 11:33:58 |
| Yes, a separate "beauty contest" is vey nice indeed and I would definitely like to see it arranged by organisers more often. I have participated in a couple (without overwhelming success,I am afraid) and it was always great fun. Those separate contests did, however, not reduce the number of RTF's showing up. Which is, I must add, fine because I am fully convinced that the availability of reasonably priced RTF airplanes is the best thing what happened to the C/L stunt community in the last 10 years. Whatever we plan to do to promote building, we must act very carefully not to discriminate the RTF flyers.
From experience gained so far, I do believe that a separate contest is not really what we need to successfully address the key isssue of the discussion here, which is the search for effective means to support and promote the building of the aircraft by the competitor. In F2B, like in every sport, the behaviour of those participating is defined by standards set by those leading. Because I doubt very much a top flyer's readiness to abstain from the purchase of "the best" airplane just because this would not allow him to enter the separate "beauty contest", the insertion of a related set of rules into the FAI Sporting Code will most probably remain without great influence. On the other hand, the same top flyer might think twice before purchasing the latest ready-to-fly model if building his own aircraft would influence his flight score. Which, by the way, would be fair because the design and the building quality of the airframe (not so much its beauty...) has major influence on flight quality. Therefore, if we earnestly want to support and promote the building of the aircraft by the competitor, the builder must be rewarded for his effort even if the reward would only be a very small one. Such as a multiplication of his flight scores by, for example and for the sake of this discussion, a factor of 1.01 (one percent) To be granted for having built the aircraft, not for the appearance or beauty of it. As I see it, this may very well influence the behaviour of the opinion building top flyers while, at the same, it would not not significantly discriminate the middle and upper middle class flyers who may carry on using their nicely perfoming RTF's. What it will do,too, is motivate the owners of RTF's to start building their own competition machines, just like the top guys. Which is, I suppose, what we would like to promote, isnt' it? | Tree | 396 |
| Dave Simons | | 12.09.2008 - 03:39:34 |
| Definately keep flying and appearance seperate! The problem with adding appearance points to the flying score arises in the case of very close scores - the outcome can be determined by the appearance points, reducing the event to a pretty plane contest - no thanks!!! Just imagine writing the judges guide!
However, a seperate event is worth considering - we have tried this at our Nationals in Australia with great success- judging was by "pilots choice", nothing complex. I think that the only rules were that the entrant must be the builder and that the model had to be used on at least one flight making up the final score. Simple, interesting and fun. | Tree | 395 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Re: Reward for Building | 11.09.2008 - 23:33:49 |
| Uhh, no....
I think it should be in a separate contest. Under no circumstances anything else than the flying scores should determine the outcome of a flying contest. But a separate concours d'elegance would be agreat thing. Anyone who feels like joins in, anyone else doesn't, easy as that. Only homegrown models allowed. I think quality of building should be judged. Extra points for home built hardware (engine, motor?) could be considered. | Tree | 393 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Reward for Building | 11.09.2008 - 10:02:23 |
| Interesting point, Bruno. Could the reward you would like to see for building (not neccessarily for the quality of it) consist of a small bonus beeing added to the flight score? Small enough to prevent significant discrimination of the bulk of those middle class flyers using ARF's (or RTF's) and large enough to encourage the top guys (and opinion leaders)to carry on building? | Tree | 391 |
| Peter Germann | F2B Judging/Scoring Committee formed | 10.09.2008 - 11:52:03 |
| Since the revised set of rules for the F2B category was set in force in 2006, a level of acceptance and reliability has been reached. A period of calm and stability is now of great importance for competitors and organisers.
While current practices in this area have served us well in the past, further efforts must be undertaken to ensure that the future implementation of both judging and scoring complies with the precepts of equality, fairness and accuracy with respect to both the individual competitor, from competitor to competitor within a given competition and to the human factors governing the physical act of judging. In order to provide the F2B community with improved tools for all aspects of judging and scoring, the F2B Working Group has now formed a committee of experts to examine Judging and Scoring as a holistic entity with recommendations being vetted for compliance with the precepts stated above. The committee’s deliverables will be the creation of a draft version of a revised F2B Judges Guide as well as recommendations concerning the implementation of judging and scoring methods and procedures that fully embrace the stated precepts. The new documents will be based on the 2008 version of the F2B rule and shall be submitted to the F2 Subcommittee in summer 2009. It should be noted that the committee accepts the results of the F2B rule book review in its entirety and considers such issues as “K” factors and the “100 point range” as “settled law”. No actions, discussions or recommendations will be made by the committee in this area. In September 2008 the Committee members are: Joan McIntyre, Australia Keith Renecle, South Africa Kim Doherty, Canada Roger Ladds, United Kingdom Keith Trostle, USA Massimo Semoli, Italy Peter Germann, Switzerland Aimé Gilbert, France Miguel Tur, Spain Stefan Kraszewski, Poland Andy Sweetland, Switzerland Kim Doherty has volunteered to become the responsible leader/coordinator of the F2B Judging/Scoring Committee and was accepted by the Committee by end of August 2008. Moderated discussion among group members will be held on a dedicated Internet Forum with read-only access for non committee members. Kim Doherty, F2B Judging/Scoring Committee Leader / F2 Subcommittee member Peter Germann, F2B Working Group Coordinator / F2 Subcommittee member http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/f2/news | Tree | 390 |
| Lou Crane | Re: BOM | 31.08.2008 - 01:01:29 |
| Hee yourself, Bruno! :-)
Looked up the original AMA CLPA Appearance Scoring scheme. Complicated. Three categories - realism, workmanship and finish. Each to be awarded from 1 to 4 points. One flier, at least, must get a 10 point total. Totals for these categories for each flier were then multiplied by 8 - resulting in at least one flier getting the maximum 80 points. Each flier's Appearance Points were added to his flight score. Glad that changed to the present simpler 20 points including finish and workmanship... By the way, a quick count of the flight points available - including 25 Flight Pattern points - was around 300 or so. As Claus mentioned, some USA contests present a large array of beautifully executed (occasionally also beautifully shaped) stunt models. Close inspection allows the truly outstanding models to be noted, and among them, the minor excellences, or minor flaws, to be seen. The judges, ideally, and always at large meets, are not the flight judges. The extra work is not that much, really, even at very large meets. At AMA Nationals and VSC, for example, a separate time and location is set aside for just this one aspect. At smaller meets, the flight judges generally examine the models briefly, on the circle, as they are prepared for flight. This usually works to most everyone's satisfaction. Gross flaws are obvious, subtle excellences take but a few seconds more, a closer look, to assure they are worth high marks... And besides we are used to it... That is probably the biggest factor. A 'concours d'elegance' as a side activity, added to an International F2B competition might become a burden for the organizers. ...and the competitors... However, I think the fliers are fair and honest judges of the quality of the work of others. What award, other than designation of "Best in Show" and a few "Honorable Mentions" would really be needed? Still, I don't recommend doing that. F2B has its own established and beloved traditions. Why meddle with something so many consider essential to what, exactly, F2B is? The 1951-52 AMA CLPA rules also included a variant of K-Factor scoring. The max scores possible for the maneuvers reflected their difficulty. Takeoff: 5 points; 2 level laps: 5; climb and dive: each 10; round loops (ins & outs each series) 30; eights and square loop: each set 40, and landing 15. Uh-oh, I mentioned *-Factors. Sorry! ;-) BESTLOU | Tree | 389 |
| Bruno van Hoek | | 30.08.2008 - 22:42:13 |
| Aha! That clears some confusion. I indeed understood something different.
Now on Claus' question: Yes, I would like to see a reward for building, maybe in a similar vein as the Americans do. We could call this event, in proper English, 'Concours d' Elegance'. At least one other question arises: Will organizers take up on the extra work that this brings? And what will be the criteria to judge this event? I for example, have seen models that were highly regarded by many of my fellow pilots, while I thought these not to be attractive at all. (I don't like deep fuselages, used to hide tuned pipes) So how do we exclude 'individual judges' taste' from the equation? I can't think of objective criteria to judge these virtues. The total time spent on making a model? It's certainly proportional with the effort put in, but is that the size of things? Can't think of an easy solution here..... | Tree | 388 |
| Lou Crane | Re: Re:BOM | 29.08.2008 - 23:11:01 |
| Claus,
...and any other interested F2B fliers... (apologies for the length of this) CLPA was "stunt" for a while, after WW2. Show-off maneuvering, very high speed, very dare-devil stuff. Those were the years when much of the world was too engaged in rebuilding from the ravages of war, to play silly toy airplane games. The USA was spared almost completely from the damage of that tragedy, and we DID have time, and, soon, material, to play silly toy airplane games, while others labored to pick up their lives from the ashes and rubble. Early CLPA models were quite crude. Few were finished with the care for appealing shape and trim painting that even many Free Flight models received in those days. As model performance and modeller skills advanced, the appearance of models was included in judging contest entries. If it seems too heavily weighed now, the 1951-52 AMA CLPA Official Rules offered 80 points (max) for appearance, divided into four categories, if I recall correctly. Total flying points were around 250 to 300 (max) - could verify what , but it is not at hand just now. One thought that may have encouraged use of Appearance Points is that AMA was organized as a group for model [u]builders[/u] and fliers. A small jump from that to rewarding building skills as well as flying performance... CLPA evolved here, and its flying requirements in the mid-1950's offered a template for modellers in other nations. The basics of the (AMA) pattern credited to George Aldrich are still in use. As fliers around the world came to what is now our F2B, few, if any, other nations had that tradition of regard specifically for building skills. It wasn't necessary; most top-rank fliers brought lovely models just because... Anything less would diminish their effort, in their own appreciation of things. So, this is the history as I recall it. I was not active during all of the evolution, and not at all in FAI F2B competition, so far. I agree - due to the AMA builder/flier basic (and very old) concept - that entrants should build their models. The best generally do. Today also, for the many reasons (or excuses) you've listed, Claus, many fliers can't be bothered. That is with us today. My opinions are my own. If I feel others would agree readily, I'm willing to share them for consideration. If not, I can respect the opinions of others as being just as valid for them, as mine are for me. And, mine are firm, but not too rigid to flex enough to add better ways as they are established. By the way: As of January 2009, AMA CLPA no longer awards a Pattern Points bonus... That also dates to the far distant past, when equipment, technology and skills did not assure the entire schedule would invariably be completed. (Added with this change are stiffer scoring guidelines for incomplete or out of sequence figures.) So, even the USA's AMA can adapt incrementally... Much thanks, Claus, for this discussion. I doubt Appearance Points will vanish soon, or ever, in the USA. Competitive people often discuss things in a combative manner. At end, "rules is rules." We all have some method to make our wishes known to our national aeromodelling clubs, and to the FAI Reresentatives... If we can do that in a way that reflects a consensus of what is desired, so much the better... | Tree | 387 |
| Claus Maikis | Re: | 29.08.2008 - 22:12:21 |
| Uh, oh - something’s going wrong. Completely.
My intention was to start people thinking about a topic which has appeared recently. I thought I had explained it clearly in the story on my website, but now there seems to be quite some misunderstanding. Maybe it’s my fault. Maybe I haven’t laid out the idea precise enough ( sorry; English is not my mother language). And I have to admit: the title of the story was chosen to make it very short and maybe to catch your attention Mentioning all these pro- or con-BOM arguments was meant as a basic remembrance for FAI flyers who usually don’t care and don’t think about such topics at all. The cause for starting a discussion has another reason. I think that in the second part of the story the real concern was detailed at great length. So let me explain again: the desired discussion should not (repeat NOT ! )) be about whether or not BOM is a good thing, or whether or not it should be included in FAI rules. I don’t see a chance that this would ever happen. The discussion shall be about how we can easily include these RTF/ARF models into the present system without loosing those high values I have described in the article. If we want to keep these values and don’t want to see them disappear, we must do something. One way of doing is to reward those who accept the required efforts. The desired discussion should be about whether we would accept the IDEA OF A REWARD, and what kind of reward might be appropriate ( preferably not adding points to the flight score; my opinion !). This is a totally different topic. So there’s no place for the usual BOM quarrel and we can renounce on a discussion about this topic here. Please apologize if I have confused you. Kind regards, claus | Tree | 386 |
| Bruno van Hoek | | 29.08.2008 - 20:33:39 |
| Excellent! Very good job, Claus!
There hasn't been an article that good so far, dealing with this issue. As long as there are rules like BOM, there will be discussion, check the (locked) threads on the Stuka forum. As soon as some anti-BOM sounds were detected, threads were quickly locked (to prevent more support to this -apparently- politically incorrect point of view?) I personally think it's something of the past. Aerobatics is about flying, not building. Or else we should award extra points as well to people who: Travel to contests by train. Fly with very old, wornout material because they can't afford any new stuff. Participate against their doctor's advice. And you could probably make up more examples of people who put in more effort than others. I do stand up and applaud, but I don't want to see them being awarded better in a contest just because of that. It doesn't matter.... It's how well you do your schedule, that's why it's called aerobatics or stunt for that matter. And not precision balsa sanding or extreme airbrushing.... Note: I would instantly vote for a separate contest that deals with the other modelling skills, apart from flying. I'd love to see these skills being rewarded too! Appearance judging could be a great extra event on continental or worldchampionships. But having these all together in one contest is just wrong, imho. | Tree | 385 |
| Richard Spurling | BOM? | 29.08.2008 - 01:33:07 |
| I'm firmly against a BOM rule. Why? Because, especially in America where the BOM rule exists, far too many 'builders' are little more than 'assemblers'. While people can buy tanks, control systems, wings and tail sets, then assemble, they are not builders. I don't have a problem with that, it just makes the BOM rule a bit of a farce - the ARF models are just extreme examples. If you start to roll back the dividing line between 'built' and 'assembled', you start to run into all sorts of dilemmas. The decisions about which components are acceptable will be cultural (who can remember the Russians having to build their own motors?) and I don't believe we should be trying to force one country's culture on others.
Stunt is not just about the flying - I grant you that. However, nor is it just about flying and building. It's about flying, building, designing, committment, effort, desire and a huge chunk of personal flair. I think the important elements are those last four with flying, building and designing coming in as 'secondary' because if those who have the committment, who put in the effort, who have that personal flair, will shine in any of the three mechanical disciplines. The truly gifted will shine in all of them and will do so regardless of a BOM rule. While judging flying only is to judge only one part of the set of three disciplines (flying, building and design), it is something that can be judged cleanly, on a particular day, with no opportunity for 'cheating'. Those who excell in the personal attributes will excell in the flying and so I believe that judging the flying only (as per the current FAI rules) will lead to discovering the best competitor (note, I didn't use the word 'pilot') on the day. Flying competition only - it's not a perfect solution, but it is a clean one. | Tree | 384 |
| Jim Hatch | Re: BOM for FAI F2B? | 26.08.2008 - 17:56:29 |
| I would like to see a B.O.M. rule in FAI Aerobatics but not the awarding of appearance points.
However if we are to attract youngsters to the sport then perhaps the "ready to fly" models at a price more like that of the "off the shelf" RC models has a place. Jim | Tree | 383 |
| Peter Germann | BOM for FAI F2B? | 26.08.2008 - 10:45:15 |
| Dear Friends,
may I draw your attention to Claus Maikis' very interesting article on the "Builder of Model" issue published on his website http://www.clacro.de/ a couple of days ago. Claus invites the c/l stunt community to use this Forum here for related discussion and I look forward to your contributions. Kind regards, Peter Germann | Tree | 382 |
| Peter Germann | F2B Judging Committee Leader wanted! | 08.08.2008 - 14:28:35 |
| August 2008; The F2B Work Group is looking for an F2B Judging Committee Leader
With the F2B rule re-write project having reached a stage where the F2B Work Group may limit its ongoing efforts to the monitoring and editing of the rule, time has come to address the judging topic, an important issue where work remains to be done. I do believe that it is the F2B Work Group’s obligation to serve the c/l stunt community by providing instruments enabling judges to function with the same degree of expertise as the one demonstrated by the competitors. At this point in time, both the elimination of hi-lo dropping and the extension of the marks range have significantly improved the ability to differentiate. Furthermore, tools such as Keith Renecle’s simulator and the F2B judging guide are available to support quality level and standardisation of F2B judging on an international level. What we need to do is make use of what we have and I am therefore now looking for an individual being willing to dedicate part of his time and all of his expert knowledge to the taking of the lead when it comes to coordinate the implementation of procedures supporting the international standardisation of F2B judging. The future F2B Judging Committee Leader shall be, or become, a member of the F2B Work Group. He or she shall be responsible for: • The editing of the F2B judges guide • The organisation of judges meetings at World and Continental Championships • Supporting those providing training tools, such as, for example, Keith Renecle. • The providing of standardised judges training basics • Supporting the implementation of standardised judges training and selection criteria The above is not a trivial task and those being interested to contribute must be aware that working in an international field will be a political challenge, too. Control line stunt has always been a major part of our live and has given all of us many unforgettable moments. I have no doubt that many of you do agree when I say that sometimes you must give something back… Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to answer questions you may have. Peter Germann CIAM Subcommittee F2 F2B Work Group Coordinator | Tree | 381 |
| Peter Germann | 2008 F2B Meeting Report | 08.08.2008 - 14:26:27 |
| W/C 2008 F2B Meeting; Report to the F2B Subcommittee
During the 2008 World Championships for Control Line Models in Landres, France, the F2B Work Group of the CIAM F2 Subcommittee has held an international meeting on July 28. The event was coordinated by Peter Germann and recorded by Andy Sweetland. Participants Bene Rodriguez, Brazil. Ma. Angels, Spain. Pierre Alberola, France. Serge Delabarde, France. Louis van den Hout, Netherlands. Roger Ladds, Great Britain. John Bonner, Great Britain. Peter Catlow, Great Britain. Igor Burger, Slovakia. Keith Renecle, South Africa. Patricia Pichot, Belgium, Luc Dessaucy, Belgium. Michel Caillaud, France. In his opening statement Peter Germann expressed the F2B Work Group’s appreciation for the substantial supporting efforts provided by both the F2 Subcommittee Chairman Bengt-Olof Samuelsson and W/C organiser Jean-Paul Perret. He went on stating, undisputed by those present, that the current status of the revised F2B rule has meanwhile reached a stage where future work may, at least for a couple of years to come, be limited to minor “maintenance work” and/or clarifications where found necessary. As a consequence of the rule status reached, Peter Germann suggested to now direct the Group’s attention to issues such as judges selection and qualification by actively supporting the implementation of the recommendations as suggested in Annex 4 B of the Class F2B Judges Guide (Page 44, 4B2, 2008 SC) on NAC level. General Findings Related to Annex 4 B it was found that there are a number of national organisations, such as the ones in France and in Great Britain, having established excellent structures and procedures corresponding to the recommendations of the SC. However, what was found, too, is that there are a number of NAC’s where more needs be done when it comes to issues such as the providing of rule translations and the establishing of structures supporting the selection and qualification of judges. What was also agreed, is that NAC’s are responsible for the level of qualification and proficiency of F2B judges being placed on the list of FAI judges. Judges Guide With the rule being strictly competitor (and organiser) oriented, it was found that the F2B Judges Guide in its current form does need a bit of editing work to be done. In particular when considering manoeuvre diagrams those present have suggested to include diagrams displaying the manoeuvres as seen from the judges point of view. Future Judges Training Tool The meeting was concluded by Keith Renecle lecturing about the issues of spherical geometry. Based on his 3D graphics simulator software, Keith currently works on a PC based multi-language judges training tool and looks forward to demonstrate a prototype version within one year from now. The F2B Work Group considers Keith Renecle’s efforts as being truly instrumental for the common cause and wishes to express its thankfulness for his ongoing efforts. Conclusions Peter Germann suggests the establishing of a group of expert judges initiating work eventually leading to a revised F2B Judges Guide. This “F2B Judging Committee” shall be led by an experienced F2B judge as per the “F2B Judging Committee Leader” document attached. Individuals wishing to contribute to the editing of the Judges Guide are kindly invited to contact the F2B Work Group Coordinator: peterdgermann@bluewin.ch August 8th 2008, Peter Germann, F2B Work Group Coordinator | Tree | 380 |
| Peter Germann | K-factors trial | 31.03.2008 - 17:01:23 |
| Dear Friends,
please take note of the follwing extract from the 2008/1 report of the F2B Work Group: --- K-Factors: At their meeting in Lausanne on Friday March 28th 2008, the F2 Subcommittee withdrew Proposal f) paragraph 4.2.14, for conducting a 2 year trial with all K-Factors set to value 1. As per the Minutes of that meeting, it was also agreed that further work needs to be done in the area of F2B Judges’ Training and related matters. --- Peter Germann F2B Work Group Coordinator | Tree | 379 |
| Dave Simons | Trial or rules change? | 12.03.2008 - 08:03:11 |
| I read with interest the agenda for the CIAM meeting this month. It seems that the proposal for the 2 year trial of K=1 has been amended:
it now reads "....trial period of not less than 2 years". There is no limit to the period of the trial - it could go on forever. This proposal is in effect, a permanent rules change. Seems like we all wasted our breath and typing discussing a 2 year trial - I believe that the proposers of this agenda item are not being entirely straightforward with the F2B community. It looks to me to be a "back door" to a rules change..... | Tree | 378 |
| Peter Germann | Judging Methods Status Report and Appeal | 14.01.2008 - 11:34:52 |
| Thank you for your contributions related to judging methods and being posted on SSW and Stunthangar, too. Comments and method descriptions received so far can be summarized as follows:
a. Points Deduction Method (FAI Judges Guide) It is common understanding that the definition of error weights plus the ongoing adding up of points to be deducted from 10, is diffcult to manage within the availabe timeframe per manoeuvre. With the now expanded judging resolution, from 0.5 to 0.1 points, doubts are whether the Points Deduction Method, such as described in the FAI F2B Judge’s Guide, really offers the degree of accuracy and reproducibility required. However, (simplified?) error counting is considered as being a valuable method. (Randi Gifford, Claus Maikis) b. Picture Method (Dave Cook) Looking at maneouvre elements such as size, shape, bottoms and intersections and comparing the picture observed with the mental picture of the rulebook manoeuvre is a commonly used judging method. Quality is expressed by the degree of correlation between the two pictures. It is likely that the Picture Method is based on some form of non standardized mental error quantifying. c. Curve Method (Ted Fancher) Here, the term „curve“ translates to gaussian curve, a graph displaying +/- deviations from 0 (zero or normal). Used for to display and/or predict deviations, the normal distribution could possibly be used to rank judged competitors. Whether the gaussion distribution could be used in the actual judging process I do not know. The Objective When, as the rule makers should, we try to agree on binding instructions on how to judge, I do believe that the predominant imperative is reproducibility, meaning that a flight of a given quality should always be rewarded with the same score, regardless of (judging) circumstances. Therefore, methods and tools used for judging must be as objective and standardized as feasible, leaving as little room as possible to subjective rating. At the same time, the resolution of the marking range must be such that it covers the entire range of flight quality. When suggesting the Points Deduction Method, the authors of the current FAI F2B Judge’s Guide have made an effort toward reproducibility. Should it be that the method as described is too demanding to be feasible, then perhaps the joint development of a commonly accepted error counting method, as described by, among others, Tamàs Tokaji and Doug Moon, may be a project worth to be discussed. High resolution objectivity will lead to repeatable results and will, and this is where the circle of this discussion thread closes, eliminate the need of the debatable k-factors. As attracting visibility is instrumental for our common cause, we should furthermore consider the value of instant realtime score display for the added benefit of both spectators and competitors. As a side effect, using counting methods may open a door here. I will be happy to coordinate efforts leading to the improvement of the judging method suggested by the FAI F2B Judges Guide. For practical purposes, I would like to suggest that discussions will be held on the F2B Discussion Forum. http://www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/diskusia.php Again, thank you for contributing, I look forward to hear more from you. | Tree | 376 |
| Peter Germann | "Curve" or "Picture" Judging Method | 28.12.2007 - 10:18:10 |
| On December 21st, the following was published by Dave Cook on Stuka Stunt Forum:
Quote: The thread by Peter Germann brought out some good comments on judging and I got a couple of emails about more detail on scoring and how do I set my point values. Now understand this is an art not a science and every good judge has to develop their own style and keep improving it. Well here goes a try at explaining how I approach it. The three basic elements that I consider are shape, size and position. The scores for these as a group are done in my head and a number comes up without much conscious effort. The brain’s capability to give you that number comes from comparison, study and experience. It is automatic – the more study, experience, practice and confidence the better the number. The more you put everything out of your mind and concentrate only on the maneuver in front of you the better the number. The principals I use for evaluating. Shape is the most important with size and position being equal but lesser value than shape. Errors in these basics cost a flyer major points: Shape - is it a good picture of the required geometry - smooth, round/square proper geometry with sharp corners and straight runs where required. Multiple maneuvers should have consistent overlays and intersections. Size - is it at the required angular size - 0, 45, 90, etc. Position - is it in the proper position relative to the level flight plane with bottoms at 5’ or “0” degrees and are 90’s directly overhead. There are other factors that make up the remainder of the point award. The rule book lists brief small errors or deviations from the prescribed flight path that should be deductions these are kinks, wobbles, etc. Errors here are in the 1 or 2 point range and I do a quick deduct for them. I know Brett doesn’t agree but another factor is Lack of consistency in hitting heights and sizes from maneuver to maneuver. This is not addressed directly but can be derived from the rulebook requirement for doing maneuvers to approximately the same angular dimensions and to judge them on the degree of perfection with which they are performed. I take this to include level flight or 0 degrees, 45 degrees, etc. This means for example holding at exactly 5’ in level flight is better than wandering from 4’ to 6’ in the tolerance zone. The same goes for 45 degree heights. The reason for this is most expert flyers and top 20 flyers are easily capable of holding to 4’ to 6’ but there are some who can hold exactly 5’ lap after lap and hit 45 degrees exactly maneuver after maneuver. All else being equal these are the better flyers and should be scored accordingly. This is added as I go through the flight as consistency makes me more generous as the flight progresses. Giving 40 points to a maneuver would require satisfying all of the above criteria and that does not happen very often. Another concern in getting experience is to compare your scoring range and point spread against others. This has to come from experience. There is nothing wrong with being a high judge or low judge within reason as long as you are not in a situation where hi/lo scores are being tossed out. Also there is nothing wrong, within reason, in having a narrow point spread or broad point spread as long as you are tracking well on placement. To assist getting a handle on this I have included a page out of the Stunt Book that I used in training judges. The whole Stunt Book is available on the PAMPA web site. Let’s hear from some others on how you judge. Unquote | Tree | 375 |
| Peter Germann | Deduction Method | 27.12.2007 - 11:09:57 |
| On December 26 (Post 67) Doug Moon posted on Stuka Forum (http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=294431&mesg_id=294431&page=) as follows:
Quote: I talked many times about coming up with a maneuver number with Bob Gieseke. He said he used the counting method many times. He had a counter in hand, like you would see at the entrance to a party or something where the door man is counting the people coming in. When he saw an error, if small he clicked it once, if large he clicked it more times depending on the size of the error. He then glances at the counter and makes the simple calculation and moves to the next one. He said he was confident in his judging but when he used the counting method he always felt it those were where he was the most consistant throughout the day. The deviation is less becuase the picture method can get blurred as the day goes along. He was and is very concerned when giving scores that they are as fair and balanced as possible and if you are slapping a number on it then it can slip up or down as the day moves along. But I am sure it can happen in error counting as well. Unquote | Tree | 374 |
| István Travnik | Merry Chirstmas! | 24.12.2007 - 12:13:03 |
| Dear All,
I would like to wish you peaceful, merry Christmas! (In the name of Hungarians:) Istvan | Tree | 373 |
| Igor Burger | ne thread on stuka stunt | 22.12.2007 - 15:27:55 |
| http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=295170&mesg_id=295170&page= | Tree | 372 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Simulator | 22.12.2007 - 02:03:47 |
| Thanx Keith,
So I just add that the sim is available at: http://www.slovanet.sk/orsia/CL_Sim_1-0.exe and the manual is here: http://www.slovanet.sk/orsia/CL_Sim_manual_June_05.doc | Tree | 371 |
| ted fancher | Re: A response to Randy's comments | 22.12.2007 - 00:54:07 |
| Randy
Hmmm. I didn't realize your quote wouldn't come through in that last post. My reference was (I hope) obviously to your comment about the nitpicking of the Bell Curve tome by so many people who pass themselves off as open minded. Ted | Tree | 370 |
| ted fancher | Re: A response to Randy's comments | 22.12.2007 - 00:51:48 |
| Hi Randy,
As an aside, I read the whole thing pretty much cover to cover. Fascinating stuff. Funny thing is that the incentive to do so came from watching none other than Phil Donahue "review" it on his old TV show. As I recall his review consisted primarily of comparing the authors to Hitler and his other brother Darrel. Kidding about Darrel. The Hitler reference, however, was straight out of Phil's precious little mouth. After hearing that from that source it seemed not reading it was not an option. Merry Christmas, Randy (and all) Ted | Tree | 369 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: Simulator | 21.12.2007 - 07:19:55 |
| Hi Igor, My PC crashed a few days ago, and I had to re-format the main hard drive. I backed-up almost everything well, and then I realized that I forgot my e-mail contacts, addresses, messages etc. Please drop me an e-mail when you have some time.
The sim that's on your website is still the latest version. I said that I would make a new one when the rules are finally making good technical sense. We are indeed getting closer to this point now, so I'll update the sim soon. | Tree | 368 |
| Randy Powell | Re: A response to Randi's comments | 21.12.2007 - 07:14:27 |
| One note: comments weren't aimed at anyone in particular, just observations. | Tree | 367 |
| Randy Powell | Re: A response to Randi's comments | 21.12.2007 - 07:13:20 |
| >> It is “sort of like” the Bell Curve to which Randy alluded but really much less scientific and much more subjective (much like human beings determining how much a square eight is worth). <<
Yes, I was just giving a reference for the concept. Certainly, judging can be in the same mode, though not to the extent. (amazing how many people either cite, laud or degrade the book, "The Bell Curve" without having ever read it) I suppose it's sort of like a ranking system. You look at a maneuver and determine both how close it is to the ideal and is it better or worse than the others you have seen, both at the contest you are currently judging and historically. I did a lot of research in visual perception and pattern recognition when I was working on my graduate degree. Most research I read determined that someone with average to above average spacial perception, pattern recognition and shape metrics can see the difference in shapes or variation in line to as little as 1/64" ... almost instantly. Using an approach similar to "curve" grading, it isn't too hard to determine that one shape is better than another if you have a reference point (the rule book). Placing those shapes in an order sequence (that set of loops was better/worse than other previous sets) and deciding where the overall maneuver falls both against the rule book and in comparison to others is actually quite a bit easier than trying to keep count of the type and severity of errors, doing the math in your head while comparing the errors seen to the ideal modeled in the rule book. | Tree | 366 |
| ted fancher | Re: A response to Randi's comments | 21.12.2007 - 06:11:33 |
| Good Morning, Ted.
Thank you for the eye-openig post on "curve" judging, it is very interesting to read and certainly plausible. As I have learned from the ongoing k factors debate it could be that the factors are somehow used to support the actual judging process, rather than to compensate manoeuvre complexitiy. Therefore, with the deduction method being considered very (too?) demanding, the F2B Judges Guide should perhaps recommend using the deduction method as a learning tool only, finally leading to "curve" judging. Would you possibly know where I could read more about the curve judging method? Again, thanks for publishing on the F2B Discussion Forum. Well thought-out, as usual, if I may say so. Kind regads, Peter Germann Hi Peter, I think perhaps calling judging by the curve a “method” is giving it a bit too much credit. I used the term because – at least in the USA – grading by a “curve” is a well known practice among educators for subjectively evaluating performance that is not readily quantifiable. It is “sort of like” the Bell Curve to which Randy alluded but really much less scientific and much more subjective (much like human beings determining how much a square eight is worth). The ultimate outcome of a competition may well meet the criteria of a Bell Curve in that there will be a few at the very top, a few at the very bottom and many clustered in the middle somewhere. That is not, however, the expectation of the judges going into a comp. Qualifying rounds will be much more apt to reflect the “Bell Curve” outcome than will the finals where the quality of flying will almost certainly lend itself to more closely clustered numbers. That’s why I feel it is inappropriate to use the “Bell Curve” analogy. When I use the term in reference to judging stunt I do so as a recognition that experienced judges “know” what a perfect maneuver looks like and they all have a pretty good idea of what a barely recognizable maneuver looks like. They also realize that consistently counting and calculating the value of errors –especially over long hours and multiple day formats – is a nearly superhuman undertaking. The number and complexity of major, minor and compounded errors is simply overwhelming. (Consider, for instance, that a square eight maneuver has literally hundreds of possible errors and error combinations but is performed in a matter of a few seconds, literally between five and ten if my WAG is close. Given the reality that a given maneuver could be “worth” as little as 10 points or as many as 100 (put the decimal points wherever you like) that means that a bad maneuver would require the judges to literally count to 90 during the performance of truly bad maneuver while simultaneously attempting to monitor the maneuver from start to finish. Not very realistic. The “curve” process, on the other hand, requires only that the informed judge closely monitor the performance of the maneuver and, only after doing so, assign a number to it that as closely as possible defines how close to perfection it was in the judge’s estimation. The “curve” comes into the judges’ decisions to the extent that his/her task is to assign numbers that reflect the relative degree of perfection of the maneuvers performed by a number of flyers of varying skills. Like grading essays, he awards the equivilant of As, Bs, Cs etc. The beauty of such a system is that it frees the judge up to use the entire range of scores available to him/her without the mentally debilitating process of counting, evaluating and computing the appropriate number (which, as I think we must agree is unlikely to be done rapidly and accurately enough to allow use of the full scoring range). In addition, the judge’s entire concentration is freed up to observe the maneuver presented and determine whether it represents an “A”, a “B”, a “C, D or F”. No counting. No haggling over whether an observed error is major; minor; something in between or part of a compound error. He/she must only make a single determination: i.e. how the maneuver meets the required presentation between perfect and unrecognizable. The process is little different from what has been sarcastically referred to as “pick a number” judging, an approach which pretty routinely gets brickbats thrown at it. At one time I was among those throwing the bats. No longer. Years of exposure to quantifying maneuvers has led me to believe that there is great merit in having experienced, informed judges concentrate solely on observation of each maneuver while it is flown and only afterward making an informed judgment on how closely the path of the airplane met the prescribed criteria. The number thus assigned is a value judgment based on that close observation, unfettered by ancillary mathematical calculations. Now, I don’t pretend to believe that curve judging is inherently superior to error counting in terms of quantifying a maneuver. It’s advantage is in its relative ease of both maintaining consistency over long periods and in allowing the use of a greater degree of the scoring range to allow finer distinctions. However, the deciding factor in favor of the curve method, in my opinion, is the fact that it allows the judge to focus his/her entire mental capacity on the observation of the maneuver. There is no mental division of labor between observation, counting, evaluating and calculating. No need to consider whether the maneuver is a “hard one” or any “easy one” and wonder whether considering the relative difficulty should enter into the decision on the raw score since the tabulators are going to mathematically do so at the scoring tent. Peter, what we are after at the end of the day in a stunt/F2B contest is to know which pilots flew maneuvers “better” than the others. It really makes no difference what the raw number associated with each maneuver is because the number is arbitrary and means nothing more than ABCDF or six gold stars versus five gold stars. The only thing that is important is that better maneuvers are ranked ahead of inferior ones. Belaboring the means by which we determine which are better and which worse is a waste of time. Give the judges a tool to “rank” rather than quantify and the process becomes easy and the debates go away. Ted | Tree | 365 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Point Deduction Method | 19.12.2007 - 17:11:02 |
| Thank you for posting Dave Cook's reply to your questions, Igor. Please carry on encouraging people posting on Stuka to carbon copy the F2B Forum.
The issue seems to be of great importance and I would really like learn what F2B judges form all parts of the world think about the use (or not) of the points deduction method. | Tree | 364 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Point Deduction Method | 19.12.2007 - 14:43:01 |
| I am posting the answer for my questions:
Igor Burger Tue Dec-18-07 10:28 PM : Thanx for replay Dave, can I ask you some additional questios? 1/ can you tell us what is your >>>conventional systems<<< to make it all more clear? 2/ can you you tell us if or how you apply it to complex figure like square eight, and for simpler figure like square loops to make error in ONE detail of figure (like one missed corner) the same value in both? 3/ can you tell us if you can use your system 4 days long keeping the same level in scale of 100 points? Davc2 Wed Dec-19-07 01:37 PM: Igor, There are three basics in scoring – Shape (is it smooth proper geometry), Size (is it 45 Deg, etc) and Position (is it in the proper position relative to the level flight pane). Added to that are brief small errors or deviations from the prescribed flight path. Shape size and position are the main goals. Errors in these three basics are significant. Small errors - bumps, kinks and bobbles are of lesser importance but still deducted for. Error counting scoring systems can get a judge concentrating on the small errors while ignoring major errors in the three basics. The picture system uses experience and the brains comparison capabilities to arrive at a score in one or two simple steps rather that counting each error, evaluation it and then the computation for a deduct. Through experience a judge forms an image of a perfect rule book maneuver then modifies it by the best maneuver he/she has ever seen. The perfect rule book maneuver is worth 40 (or 10 for F2b) and if the best ever seen is, in the judges estimation, a 36 (this leaves a little growing room) that becomes the standard that the judge compares the subject maneuver to. Confidence is an absolutely necessary part of this process and that only comes from practice and experience. Maneuvers seen that day are compared to the brains established standards and awarded appropriate points. A good, well experienced judge does see all errors and may do some minor adjustment for oddities, but the award for the maneuver comes quickly. We recommend that the judge write down the number and go on to the next maneuver. The first impression is usually correct and too much agonizing or indecision can screw up the score. Randi, Good points but the Rulebook section lists only errors in the maneuver descriptions. It does not say anything about deductions or computational systems to arrive at a score. All of that is listed in the guide under judging procedures and it says that it should be used not it shall be used. Many judges disagree with the error counting and computation method and prefer some version of the picture system or a combination of the two. Trying to impose a mandatory error counting and deduct system would lose us a lot of judges. Good discussion Regards, Dave Cook | Tree | 363 |
| Peter Germann | Point Deduction Method | 19.12.2007 - 12:01:22 |
| On December 18, Post 40, Dave Cook published on Stuka Stunt: http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php
Quote: Peter, From my experience (60 years of judging and flying stunt, as well as 20+ years of training judges for Nationals and Team Trials) I offer the following: I am not in favor of error counting systems. They are difficult for many judges to handle and can distract the judge from concentrating on the overall quality of the maneuver (can’t see the forest for the trees syndrome). Two extremes of arriving at a score are the picture system and the deduct system. The picture system relies on the judge’s experience and to see the maneuver as a complete picture and put a subjective single number on it. The deduct system requires counting errors, evaluating each error as to severity, putting a value of each error, totaling deducts then subtracting them from 40 (or 10 for FAI). This is OK in simple maneuvers but suspect in a complex maneuver like a square eight. Some judges use a combination of both systems very successfully. It is very suspect in the lower skill classes where you could be overwhelmed by a multitude of errors. As I have said many times stunt is an art form, not a science. Judging, in my opinion, cannot be turned over to a calculation - it was designed to be scored by subjective human judgment. Unless somebody changes the rules that will always be a part of the event. This limits the accuracy of scoring to the capabilities of a human judge. At best I would estimate judging accuracy to +/- 5 to 10 points depending on the judge’s experience. Averaging scores of multiple judges’ helps to reduce this span and improves the accuracy of placement, which is the goal. I do not see error counting as having any advantage over conventional systems. Regards, Dave Cook Unquote Under Post 45, Mrs. Randi Gifford responded: Quote: Dave, With all due respect, I beg to differ. Please read the rule book. It constantly refers to "deductions" for errors. Left pretty much alone out here in the heartland when I started judging, I had to come up with a system that worked. Point deduction was it. While the original method I arrived at (quantifying errors) was later modified by observing Keith Trotstle's counting scheme, the bottom line is that point deduction works. Ask anyone here in the Midwest who has been on the receiving end of one of my score sheets. I started from scratch. The only thing I had to work with was the rule book. Using that, there is no better way to score a maneuver than point deduction. Randi Unquote | Tree | 362 |
| Igor Burger | Simulator | 18.12.2007 - 23:32:22 |
| This is probably for Keith R.
Keith can you post here link to actual simulator? I got few requests to send it, but I am not sure if I have nevest wersion, so I think it will be nice to have link to newest version also here. | Tree | 361 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Input From a USA Judge | 18.12.2007 - 23:17:48 |
| new input is on Stuka Stunt Forum:
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=294431#294871 | Tree | 360 |
| luc | To Randi Gifford and Ted Fancher. | 18.12.2007 - 19:28:24 |
| Thanks for the correction Mr Fancher and sorry for the misunderstanding Ms Gifford.
Luc. | Tree | 359 |
| Randy Powell | Re: Randi! | 17.12.2007 - 21:51:38 |
| >>Would you possibly know where I could read more about the curve judging method? <<
"The Bell Curve" by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. It includes a lot of other stuff, but speaks extensively to judgments based on a curve. You can also look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_curve_grading | Tree | 358 |
| ted fancher | Randi! | 17.12.2007 - 17:48:04 |
| Luc and all,
Just to keep everybody up to speed: Randi Gifford is a lady, and quite an attractive one at that ... not that any of us chauvinist flyers has noticed. She is also an effective, dedicated and hard working judge at many middle America local meets as well as at our Nats and the last team trials. She is extremely well informed, stays current with the rule book, and actively pursues improving her skills and sharing her expertise with both the flyers and other judges around the US. You can count on her input being well thought out and reflective of significant experience. Her expertise will be a welcome addition to the discussion. Ted Fancher | Tree | 357 |
| Peter Germann | Re: A response to Randi's comments | 17.12.2007 - 10:18:41 |
| Good Morning, Ted.
Thank you for the eye-openig post on "curve" judging, it is very interesting to read and certainly plausible. As I have learned from the ongoing k factors debate it could be that the factors are somehow used to support the actual judging process, rather than to compensate manoeuvre complexitiy. Therefore, with the deduction method being considered very (too?) demanding, the F2B Judges Guide should perhaps recommend using the deduction method as a learning tool only, finally leading to "curve" judging. Would you possibly know where I could read more about the curve judging method? Again, thanks for publishing on the F2B Discussion Forum. Well thought-out, as usual, if I may say so. Kind regads, Peter Germann | Tree | 356 |
| ted fancher | Re: A response to Randi's comments | 16.12.2007 - 20:29:37 |
| In her comments, Randi Gifford stated the following:
>>snip> >That's when I knew what a perfect inverted maneuver looked >like. I hear what you're saying about the 4'-6' foot margin >on level laps, inverted and otherwise. But to qualify for a >forty, at least in my book, the airplane has to remain >perfectly level for the two scored laps. Any deviation from >that, however minor, will cost points on my score sheet. How >many points it costs is dependent on the amount of variance. >The rule book gives the 4'-6' range but if your level flight >varies by two feet, even if it stays within that range, I will >deduct at least three points for each time it does that. Any >"hiccup" in the path of that airplane, however >minor, will cost points. >snip Randi, Peter, Igor et al. I've been hesitant to express much opinion on this discussion (including Peter's very worthwhile long term project at rcmodely) for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is my lack of experience judging expert level flyers with either the AMA or FAI formats. I have, however, judged thousands of flights at local meets and, particularly at VSC including some very good US and International flyers. So I've some experience from which to express an opinion. Nonetheless, into the breech ... I think the comment I've excised from Randi's post above highlights the difference between what I feel judges actually do versus what they intend or believe they do. As pointed out by many (and believed by myself), attempts to objectively evaluate departures from the (perfect) norm and to mentally calculate the degree and valuation of such deviations simply exceeds the ability of the human mind. Especially given the lack of specificity of what constitutes major/minor/moderate and (more important to my estimation) "compounded" errors. I.e., a soft square corner, less than the nominally required 90 degrees and low with a bobble on the pullout -- is that one big error, several minor errors, some combination thereof, what's my multiplier and what is the result after adding other errors, subtracting the total from 10,100, 40, etc? With all due respect, I don't think such decisions are possible, especially over a span of hundreds of flights and thousands of maneuvers. When you throw in the difference in difficulty of the various maneuvers and the question of how much deduction each error will generate the demands become overwhelming and ... IMHO ... probably isn't done to the extent that many believe. To suggest that any two judges (let alone an entire panel) could do so with any degree of agreement (on the ultimate number -- not the quality of the maneuver) is pretty much pie in the sky. The reason I think Randi's comment is so valuable is the phrase "... That's when I knew what a perfect inverted maneuver looked like ..." That recognition underscores my personal conviction that, ultimately, most judges score maneuvers largely on a "curve" rather than by the aforementioned superhuman observations, determinations and calculations. If any of our overseas readers aren't familiar with the "curve" method of grading, it describes a means used in educational testing evaluations wherein the "best" responses to a query are graded with an "A", those that fail miserably an "F" and those that fall in between "B's, C's, and D's". This form of evaluation is used primarily in subjective evaluations of student's creative efforts as opposed to objective grading on subjects not open to "opinion" such as math, science, etc. Those doing the grading, of course, also must apply their subjective evaluation of how well even the very best responses meet the criteria required to "massage" the grading. In other words, if the best response is awful, no "A's" would be given. This level of ineptitude, like stunt pattern maneuvers, essentially never happens, of course. This sounds to me like what judges do. It is my opinion that the most accurate means of evaluation of thousands of maneuvers over hundreds of flight is the result of doing what Randi just described. Knowing what "perfect" is supposed to look like and subjectively evaluating the sum total of the maneuvers presented with respect to how closely it meets those criteria. You give the very best tricks the "A's" and the worst ones the "F's". I think the clearest proof of the reality of "curve" judging is the often discussed variations in scoring at local contests versus those same flyers competing at major national and international meets. Flyers who routinely score very highly at local meets will often find their scores substantially lower when competing against superior flyers at such meets. I don't believe this is because either local or national level judges are better or worse. I believe it is simply because even very competent judges utilize a curve to evaluate the flying on a given day. (Parenthetically, this is "precisely" the reason we have the ongoing "controversy" about local "Experts" flying "Advanced" at the Nats. We are flying an event that utilizes subjective evaluation and states the outcome using objective descriptors . The resulting distortion is entirely predictable and should be recognized as the reason the "controversy" exists, not due to attempts by the individuals to subvert the outcome of the competition.) I don't doubt that counting can be used as a tool to help inform the correctness of the final number but, I feel strongly, that relying strictly on such intensely mentally demanding tools as the primary source of evaluation cannot be maintained over a long period. Here is where I believe Keith Renacle's hard work can truly bear fruit for the event. By providing a tool that can accurately inform judges as to what Randi's " ... perfect inverted maneuver looks lik ..." (as well as the other 14), judge's will be better able to apply the essential skills of evaluating which maneuvers are "better" than others in duplicating what the " ... perfect inverted maneuver ..." looks like. They can then assign their A's, B's and C's appropriately. Sorry, as usual, too long Ted Fancher p.s. Forgot to mention why I copied the rest of Randi's paragraph. Her comments clearly indicate the (intended or not) use of a "curve" to arrive at her inverted flight score. The rule book defines errors with respect to deviations outside of the four to six foot level prescribed. Yet she (and, I believe, the vast majority of judges) will give superior scores to pilots that fly two perfect laps at either four, six feet or anywhere in between than to a pilot that stays within the rule book parameters but does so as though the journey is a steeple chase. | Tree | 355 |
| luc | | 16.12.2007 - 19:34:50 |
| Dear Mr Gifford,
Thanks a lot for your comments on your way to judge. They seem to me very interesting and precise. But I wonder if this technique has not its own limits. For instance, what about a very bad eight square with several rebounds, no intersection, no proper height, without any compliance to 45 ° and with faces inclined? Do you have enough time to calculate or in such a case you simply let yourself score the maneuver according to some general evaluation? As you said in the post 350. "I've wrestled with this for ten years. There does not seem to be any way past it except to adjust scores for the difficulty of the maneuver. In this respect, I'm applying my own personal k-factor to maneuvers." This reveals something really interesting. It means that you cannot get away from k-factor. Now, if this the way all AMA judges proceed, i.e. applying the K-factors in some personal way, I wonder if it would not be much better and more equitable to have a common denominator, a common K -Factor basis? Luc. | Tree | 354 |
| Dr. Geza Egervary | K-factors | 15.12.2007 - 21:49:24 |
| Es war einmal… , über Jahrzehnte hinweg war Frieden und Freude im F2B Kunstflughimmel.
Kleine Änderungen, alles lief schön und wir alle hatten Freude und Spaß an unserem Hobby und unserer Sportart, in den USA ohne die K-Faktoren und in Europa oder anderen Ländern mit der FAI - Regel mit den K- Faktoren. Niemand hat dies gestört, die F2B Welt war in Ordnung! Zunächst ein Lob an die F2B Arbeitsgruppe. Ihr habt schon vieles erreicht um den Fesselkunstflug nach vorne zu bringen. Ein großer Fortschritt für alle Teilnehmer bei Welt- oder Kontinentalen Meisterschaften sind die 4 Vorrundenflüge. Nun hat man die Möglichkeit sich 4 mal zu präsentieren, denn nicht jeder Pilot kann das Finale erreichen und weitere 3 Finalflüge absolvieren. Auch ein Dankeschön an die Veranstalter und Organisatoren welche diesen erhöhten Aufwand (2 F2B Pisten, 6 Punktrichter) uns Piloten zu liebe durchführen. Weiterhin sind auch die neuen Antriebsmöglichkeiten unserer schönen Modelle eine gelungene Bereicherung. So gibt es eine stärkere Vielfalt in unserer schönen Sportart, z.B. Elektromotoren. Doch aufgepasst, diese Motoren sollten nicht so perfekt regelbar sein, dass der Motor in jeder Figur andere Drehzahleinstellungen annimmt und somit das Fliegen, welches eigentlich vom Piloten abhängig ist, nun erheblich erleichtert wird, denn schließlich wollen wir uns ja besonders durch die körperliche Aktivität von anderen Modellflugklassen wie dem RC-Flug absetzen. SPASS: Laut Reglement wäre auch ein Turbinenantrieb möglich, nur schade ich weiß nicht was für einen Schall-dämpfer ich benutzen kann, ansonsten würde ich das gerne mal ausprobieren. SPASS ENDE. Ich bin bestimmt nicht derjenige, der gegen alles was neu ist Widerstand leistet, aber alles soll einen vernünftigen Sinn haben und F2B vorwärts bewegen. Zu den K-Faktoren: K-Faktoren wirken wie ein Multiplikatoreffekt, und erzeugen somit sehr wohl eine Streuung. Diese Streuung fällt natürlich geringer aus, wenn die Abstände der zu multiplizierenden Zahl geringer wird, anstatt 0,5 nur noch 0,1 als kleinste Erhöhung. Die K-Faktoren sind sehr wohl ein Schwierigkeitsgrad mit einer Berechtigung. In F2B haben wir zwar keine Auswahlmöglichkeiten der Figuren, d.h. wir fliegen alle dieselben Manöver in der gleichen Reihenfolge. Aber schauen wir mal in andere Sportarten welche eine Olympische Disziplin sind, das Turnen. Hier gibt es eine Auswahlmöglichkeit verschiedener Figuren mit jeweils unterschiedlichen Schwierigkeitsgraden. Doch was sieht man, die Turnen alle neben den Pflichtkürelementen bei den Wahlelementen die Bewegungsformen mit den höchsten Schwierigkeitsgraden, also dasselbe Programm. Wenn nun ein Turner A in einer sehr schwierigen Figur mit einem hohen Schwierigkeitsgrad einen Fehler macht bekommt er aufgrund des Schwierigkeitsgrades einen größeren Abzug als ein Turner B der besser dieses schwierige Element geturnt hat. --> Kein Unterschied zu F2B Jeder Pilot hat vor Beginn einer Figur im Kopf des Punktrichters eine 10, und durch Fehler gibt es Abzüge. Wer weniger Fehler in einer schwierigen Figur macht wird belohnt, da sie besonders schwer zu fliegen war, und dies ein besonderes Lob verdient, wenn man sie exzellent geflogen hat. Es steht hier nicht zur Debatte ob die Figuren (z.B. quadratische Acht) so wie sie jetzt stehen den Schwierigkeitsgrad verdienen den sie haben. Weiterhin sind künstliche Nachrechnungen eines vergangenen Wettbewerbsergebnis "mit oder ohne K-Faktoren", nicht realistisch und nicht maßgebend, es müsste auch besonders auf Veränderungen im Mittelfeld geachtet werden und nicht nur auf die Top-Fifteen, denn diese Sportart lebt von den Piloten und nicht nur den besten 15 der Welt. Man sollte auch schwächere Piloten mit einbeziehen, wo es wichtig ist, dass dargestellt wird, dass komplexe eckige Figuren schwerer zu fliegen sind als runde Figuren. Ein Punktesystem mit einer Spannweite von 1-100 halte ich für nicht sinnvoll. Denn im Vergleich zu dem jetzigen System mit 0,1-10 würde dies im Ergebnis nur eine absolute Änderung bezwecken, für uns sind aber relative Änderungen wichtig und die bleiben hier gleich. Es stellt also keine reale Streuung dar sondern nur eine absolute Streuung. z.B. 0,79 --> 0,8 = Differenz 0,01 (absolut) = prozentual 98,75%(relativ) 79 --> 80 = Differenz 1 (absolut) = prozentual 98,75% (relativ) Ohne K-Faktoren erscheint mir die Arbeit und die Verantwortung für Punktrichter viel schwieriger, weil nun die Punktrichter die Schwierigkeit einer Figur in Bezug zum Fehler setzen müssten, einschließlich der Ausführung und Exaktheit und all das in 8-10 sec, dazu schreiben und auf die nächste Figur achten. Niemand kann bestreiten, dass ohne die K-Faktoren die Aufgaben und Leistungen der Punktrichter umfangreicher werden könnten, ausser man vernachlässigt den Schwierigkeitsfaktor einer Figur. Wäre das ein gerechtes System? Sicher nicht! Die Abschaffung der K-Faktoren erleichtert nicht die organisatorische Arbeit, denn jeder Organisator verfügt heute über Computerprogramme, somit muss man sowieso nur die vom Punktrichter gepunktete Zahl eingeben und der Rest rechnet das Programm aus. Es tut mir sehr leid und sehr weh, dass mit diesem ganzen Ereignis um die K-Faktoren ein Konflikt entstanden ist und sich ein schlammschlachtartiger Kampf entwickelt hat, dies ist in unserem schönen Sport nicht nützlich und schadet sehr, vor allem dann, wenn zu unmoralischen, unfairen und unsportlichen Methoden gegriffen wird. Man könnte ja SPASSESHALBER die Verwendung von K-Faktoren bei den Registrierungen in Betracht ziehen, wer nach seinem Wissen und Kenntnis das Recht hat bei dieser Wahl abzustimmen. - Punktrichter, Piloten F2B und Organisatoren erhalten K- Faktor 3, denn die betrifft es direkt. - Keine F2B Teilnehmer, keine Punktrichter oder Organisatoren erhalten K- Faktor 1, denn sie betrifft es gar nicht! SPASS ENDE. Ich bin froh, dass ich solche oder ähnliche Situationen während meiner vielen schönen Modellfliegerjahre nie erleben musste. Ich bitte Euch alle, lasst Eure egoistischen Ideen fallen, kommt zurück ins reale Leben und kommt bitte zur Vernunft. Bleibt, wie in den meisten der Beiträge, bitte sachlich. Macht unsere geliebte Modellflugsportart nicht noch mehr kaputt, mit Beschuldigungen, Beeinflussungen oder Beleidigungen, diese sind in einer von Fairness geprägten Sportart wahrlich nicht erwünscht. Jetzt ist die Gelegenheit und ein schöner Zeitpunkt dafür da, es kommt Weihnachten, das Fest des Friedens und der Liebe und schließt eure Kämpfe entsprechend friedlich ab. Das ist eine Bitte und ein Rat von Eurem Dorfältesten. Gleichzeitig wünschen wir Euch allen fröhliche und besinnliche Weihnachtsfeiertage und ein friedliches, gesundes und erfolgreiches Neues Jahr. Eure Alice und Geza Egervary Once upon a time over the last decade there was peace and joy in F2B heaven. Small alterations, everything was ok and we all shared the joy and fun of our hobby and sport, in USA without the K-factors and in Europe and other countries with the FAI- rules and the K-factors. Nobody was disturbed, the world of F2B was ok. First of all, the F2B workgroup is honoured by me. You have achieved a lot to get control line stunt to the top. A big progress for all participants in world - and continental championships are the 4 qualifying flights. Now participants have the opportunity to present themselves four times, because not every pilot can reach the final. Thank you very much to the organisers who took great efforts in preparing 2 F2B circles and 6 judges for us pilots. Moreover the possibilities of the new engines of our models are a great enrichment. So there will be a wider variety in our wonderful sport e.g. electric motors. But be careful, these engines should not be so perfect to handle, that the engine follows blindly the instructions of the electronic devise in every manouvers, because normally it should be depended from the pilot. We should keep an eye that the physical activity of the pilot which is on of our most outstanding features will be kept. That is what distinguishes us from other model qualifications like Radio Control. JOKE: What the rules are concerned, jet engines will be possible, but it is a pity that I don't know what kind of silencer I should use. Otherwise I would like to try. END OF THE JOKE I'm certainly not one of those who oppose against everything new, but everything should make sense and move F2B forward in the right direction. Now to the K-factors: K-factors work like a multiplier and thus cause a kind of wider dissolution of points. This dissolution diminishes when the distances between the points which are multiplied become smaller, instead of 0.5 only 0.1 as the smallest increasement. The K-factors are certainly a kind of difficulty which is completely justified . In F2B we don't have any choice concerning the manouvers which means that we all fly the same manouvers in the same order. But let's have a look at another sport which is Olympic: gymnastics. Here we can find the possibility of choosing different figures with different difficulties. But you can see, that all gymnastics do the exercices with the highest difficulties in their voluntary elements which means, they do all the same program. If a gymnast makes a little mistake in a difficult element his points will be diminished on a larger scale than his opponent who did this difficult element better. There is no difference to F2B. Before the manouver,each pilot is evaluated 10 points by the scoring judge and during the manouver every mistake then leads to a deduction of this ideal score. Naturally, the pilot who does fewer mistakes in difficult manouvers is rewarded by the jury. Here I do not intent to discuss whether certain manouvers, such as the quadratic eight, merit to be judged as difficult manouvers. Additionally, artificial recalculation of the results for past events are not realistic and not decisive – no matter whether K- factors are considered or not – because one would also have to take the middle field into consideration and not only the top 15 furthermore, one should also consider the pilots at the lower end of the ranking in order to show that complex angular manouvers are more difficult to fly than round ones. I do not think it makes sense to have a scoring system ranging from 1 to 100. The reason for this is that in comparison to the current scoring range from 0.1 to 10 there would only be a change in the absolute numbers and not a change in the relative numbers, which is the most important measure in competitive events. Here an example: 0.79 --> 0.8 = difference 0.01 (absolute) = percentage 98.75 (relative) 79 --> 80 = difference 1 (absolute) = percentage 98.75 (relative) It seems to me that without K- factors the task and the responsibility for the scoring judges would become much more difficult. A scoring judge would have to put the difficulty level of a manouver into relation to the mistake itself - including the execution and the accuracy of the manouver. This all would have to happen within the time frame of 8 to 10 s while he additionally would have to take notes and in parallel would have to start to concentrate on the next manouver. Probably no one denies that the tasks and performance for scoring judges would have to increase if we did away with K- factors – unless one ignores the difficulty level of a manouver. Would anyone consider this as a more just system? Probably not! The abolishment of K- factors does not make the administrative work easier as every organiser disposes today of software programs specifically tailored for these calculations. The scoring judge only has to enter the score and then the program does all the calculations. It hurts me to see that a mud-wrestling conflict has developed around the topic of K- factors. This does not help our delightful sport, especially, if immoral, unfair, and unsportsmanlike methods are employed. JUST FOR FUN one could use K- factors also during the registrations to determine who is allowed to vote in the elections. - Scoring judges, F2B pilots and organisers get the k factor 3 as they are directly affected - Everyone else gets the K- factor 1 as they are not directly affected END OF JOKE I am thankful that I did not have to encounter these or similar conflicts so far during all my most beautiful years as a F2B pilot. I would like to ask you not to be egoistic, to find a path back to reality and to reason. And overall, please stay factual (most of you do anyway). Please do not continue to destroy our beloved F2B Aerobatic with allegations, manipulations and insults. Christmas, the feast of peace and love is approaching and I think this is a perfect opportunity to end all our quarrels in a peaceful manner. This is a plea and an advice from your village elder. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Your Alice and Geza Egervary | Tree | 353 |
| Jeff Smith | K factors. | 15.12.2007 - 21:28:16 |
| I am returning to this forum after a long absence.
I can't read 351 comments to find out what everybody else has been saying although I have read a few of the more recent ones. Therefore I am assuming that this forum is about K factors and should they be abolished for a trial period of two years. I don't see any harm in not having K factors for the trial period. I am neither for or against the trial period but I do think it will be interesting to see if the same flyers come out on top using the new system (I suspect that they will) or if a new batch of flyers will start coming to the top. I know nothing of the American AMA system of scoring so my experience is entirely as a judge of F2b to the FAI rules. It does sadden me to hear experienced judges saying that they have a different method of point’s deduction for different manoeuvres. i.e. being harder on inverted than they are on square eights. The FAI rules are quite clear that all manoeuvres are treated in exactly the same way by deducting points for errors. At the moment the K factors take care of this and no other input other than deducting points is required of the judge. Indeed even without a K factor the procedure will be the same. Another contributor commented that judges should have the courage to award points in the range of 1.2.3 and 8.9.10. Whether doing this is brave or foolhardy I don't know but I do it. As judges are not allowed to take weather conditions into account it is easy to give a 10 for the easier manoeuvres when the flying conditions are perfect (shall we say take off, landing and inverted?). But, even in good weather, it is always possible to give a low mark for the horizontal square eight! There are so many things to go wrong and I find that, on occasion, it is possible to deduct enough marks to get down to one (1) before the flyer has finished the manoeuvre. HAPPY LANDINGS. | Tree | 352 |
| Randi Gifford | Final Comment On Inverted Flight | 15.12.2007 - 14:39:23 |
| In response to a question from Don Hutchinson, this is my last post:
>Randi, with all due respect for your skills as a judge, I am >curious as to what you consider a "minor" error for >the inverted flight maneuver. The rulebook defines an error >for this one as "height varies more than .6 meter (2 >feet)." This implies that if one does not deviate the >flight path by greater than this amount, and is at the proper >height, there is no rulebook defined error, therefore it >should score a 40. This particular item has been discussed >here in Texas on more than one occasion. I would like to know >how other judges score this maneuver, what with the somewhat >"loose" specs in the book. >Don Don, I tangled with this for years. It wasn't until I saw Jerry "Who" Meyer fly inverted at a contest in Peoria that I understood what a forty should be. Jerry's Magnum went around the circle like it was on rails. It didn't deviate by one inch from the elevation he had established at the beginning. (Let it be noted here that Jerry was flying Intermediate (!) at the time. Let it also be noted that this was the first "40" I ever wrote on a score sheet, though it would not be the last.) That's when I knew what a perfect inverted maneuver looked like. I hear what you're saying about the 4'-6' foot margin on level laps, inverted and otherwise. But to qualify for a forty, at least in my book, the airplane has to remain perfectly level for the two scored laps. Any deviation from that, however minor, will cost points on my score sheet. How many points it costs is dependent on the amount of variance. The rule book gives the 4'-6' range but if your level flight varies by two feet, even if it stays within that range, I will deduct at least three points for each time it does that. Any "hiccup" in the path of that airplane, however minor, will cost points. You need to remember that when I started judging the rule book said something to the effect that "if the airplane simply motors around the circle in a stable path, give the devil his due and score it a 40." For me, the word "stable" was the key. An airplane is not stable if it's deviating in any respect from the height established at the beginning of lap three. This all goes back to what I wrote before about "personal k-factors". There's just no way I can bring the same standards to a square eight that I do to inverted flight. If I did, I'd be handing out forties willy-nilly on inverted and scoring square eights routinely at fifteen. I believe Dave Cook wrote the inverted flight description quoted above. What I learned from his words is that it's okay to score a forty on a maneuver but it had better be a darn good one. Every judge brings his/her own interpretation of the rules to the circle. As I wrote before, I have no problem writing down a 40 but you have to "earn" it. With a hat tip to Big Art, Randi | Tree | 351 |
| Randi Gifford | Follow-Up Post | 15.12.2007 - 14:37:53 |
| Igor asked two questions. Here is that exchange:
>Hi Randy, this kind of answer is exactly what we wanted to >hear. I have two questions to make it more clear. > >1/ >If I apply your methode to complex figure like square eight, >you will probably give less points then to sipler figure like >two square loops as it gives half chances to do errors, or >just it takes half the time to "count down". Is it >right? > >2/ >Can you tell us if you can use your methode or methode of >Keith 4 days long keeping the same level in scale of 100 >points? ... Or if I apply it to Keiths methode - can you count >down by variouse speed regarding seen quality of flight with >accuracy of 1% and that all 4 days long? Igor, Thank you for your reply. It's nice to know I hadn't misunderstood Peter. I think I understand your question regarding square eights vs simpler figures. In truth, the method I use is adjusted for difficulty of the maneuver. It's simply impossible to apply the same standard to a square eight that you do to, say, round loops. Quite obviously, if you did that you could easily wind up with a square eight that scored zero. I've wrestled with this for ten years. There doesn't seem to be any way past it except to adjust scores for the difficulty of the maneuver. In this respect, I'm applying my own personal k-factor to maneuvers. Take inverted flight, for example. Using the point-deduction method, I'll deduct at least three points for any minor variation from level flight. More likely it will be six. Using FAI scoring, that would be five or ten. Unless the airplane goes around the circle dead nuts level at somewhere between 1.2 and 1.8 meters it won't get a perfect score. Happily, many of them do. (I love giving perfect scores but you have to earn them. It drives me crazy to hear another judge say, "There's no such thing as a forty-point maneuver." I know better.) Going back to those square eights, a minor error in one of them will usually result in a one point deduction from me. I just can't bring the same standard to a square eight that I can to inverted flight. There aren't enough points available to do that, given the difficulty of the maneuver. This is where the "personal k-factor" comes in. I must admit, this comes as a revelation to me...I hadn't considered the parallels between k-factors and adjusting for difficulty, as I do, until now. What constitutes a "minor" error in a square eight is, in reality, a major error in inverted flight. In the end, the score for any maneuver will still be near the rule book recommendations for range of marks if you've counted correctly--40 for perfect, 34-39 for very few minor errors, 26-33 for some minor errors, 18-25 for medium errors and 10-17 for major errors. You'll need to adjust that for FAI, or course. The difference is in how you quantify an error. Let me give you an example of what you might hear if you stood beside me while I score a maneuver using AMA scoring: "1-2...3-4-5-6...7...8-9-10." Translation: Minor error, medium error, tiny error, medium error. Final score: 30. It's pathetically simple. I've cited Keith Trostle as the architect of the point deduction method I use. I stand in awe of his skills as a CLPA judge. But I've also been fortunate to have learned from a handful of excellent judges, notably Bill Zimmer (my mentor at the beginning), Jim Lee, Jim Renkar and Art Adamisin. These gentlemen all use the "slap a number on it" method. They're not wrong. With every maneuver I judge, after I've arrived at a score using point deduction, I ask myself "Was that a 32-point maneuver?" Invariably the answer comes back "Yes." In the end, Art Adamisin's advice at a judging clinic years ago alway comes back to me..."I am not here to take something away from you. I am here to give you what you have earned." Rereading your questions and on thinking about what I've written so far, it dawns on me that I might not be the best person to be posting here. The reality is that FAI has k-factors which overcome precisely the difficulties I've pointed out here. AMA scoring does not. However, if you're going to do a trial period in FAI with no k-factors, what I'm describing will work. Regarding your second question, I'm not sure I follow you...but if I'm reading it right you're wondering if the point-deduction method remains consistent over a four-day period. The answer is "Yes", provided the judge can divorce him/herself from everything but the track of the plane. Nothing clouds a judge's scores more than the temptation to take into consideration what he/she knows of the person holding the handle. CLPA is NOT about people...it's about airplanes and the patterns they fly. As an aside, this can make for some interesting conversations post-contest. Invariably a flier will ask me, "What did you think of my hourglass." And I'm stuck for an answer, because I don't attach maneuvers or even whole flights to individuals. I'm just not conscious of who is holding the handle. All that matters is what the airplane is doing. Yes, long days do enter into the equation. So does every judge's personal situation...health, rest, hunger, heat. But that's going to be the case no matter what method a judge uses. A confession: Yes, there are times when I wonder if I'm bringing the same standard to every flight. That 1% you mentioned is every judge's goal. We probably fail at that more often than we succeed. But we keep trying. I have one final thought in regard to your trial period without k-factors. FAI scoring allows, essentially, one hundred points for each maneuver. That would seem to make it superior to our AMA scoring system insofar as having to adjust for the difficulty of a maneuver is concerned. I don't know that you could completely discount the complexity of a figure, even with a hundred points to work with, but from my experience at our Team Trials this past summer it makes things vastly less complicated. Randi | Tree | 350 |
| Igor Burger | Technical note | 15.12.2007 - 14:37:21 |
| It looks we are more or less over with voting, and I know several of us do not want to be disturbed with other mails. So If anyone do not want hear from this site anymore, just go to:
http://www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/upravlogin.php and ucheck the email notiffication checkbox (Report by e-mail). Mails will be stopped, but entering this site directly will be still possible and all inputs and messages are available at: http://www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/diskusia.php | Tree | 349 |
| Randi Gifford | Input From a USA Judge | 15.12.2007 - 14:36:25 |
| Peter has asked me to move comments I made on SSW to this board, and so I shall. I apologize in advance for the lengthiness of them. Sometimes when I get started it's hard to stop.
First post: Peter, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. I use a point deduction method, cobbled together originally out of my own experience and study of the rule book, and later refined with input from Keith Trostle, who uses the same method. This, of course, involves counting. As I initially did it, I figured deductions for errors using the rule book recommendations of two points for a "minor" error, four for a "medium" error and six for a "major" error. I quickly realized that one, three, and five points were also valid deductions. The drawback to this method was that it was necessary to keep a mental total of points deducted. Keith fixed that for me. His method is breathtakingly simple. He simply counts...and the bigger the error the faster he counts. That has worked for me over the past four years at our Nats. This year I judged our Team Trials. It was a bit of a challenge at first, till I figured out that it would be necessary to count twice as fast, the FAI score for a perfect maneuver being 100 (decimals aside) and the AMA score for a perfect maneuver being 40. I wish there were some sort of hard-and-fast rule to help judges determine a proper score for a maneuver. There isn't, though I maintain that there IS a "correct" score for any given maneuver. More than anything, skill at judging is derived from watching thousands of flights and learning from the very best judges. I hope Keith will weigh in on this thread. There is no better judge in CLPA. Randi | Tree | 348 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Judging; Deduction Method | 15.12.2007 - 14:33:01 |
| We got one good input to the topick here (alsso before and hopfully also after):
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=294431#294495 | Tree | 347 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Judging; Deduction Method | 15.12.2007 - 13:40:09 |
| Here is what was published on german speaking www.fesselflug.eu:
Punktrichter F2B, Mitarbeit erbeten Die auf dem F2B Diskussionsforum www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/diskusia.php laufenden Gespräche zur Durchführung des Versuches ohne K-Faktoren haben jetzt einen interessanten Punkt erreicht und ich denke, dass es sehr sinnvoll wäre wenn sich erfahrene Punktrichter zu den gerade diskutierten Aspekten äussern würden. Die aktuellen Themen sind zum Einen ob es überhaupt machbar ist die Note für ein Manöver durch den Abzug bestimmter Werte, vom Maximalwert 10, pro Fehler zu bestimmen (Siehe Judge’s Guide) und zum Anderen wird die Anzahl sinnvoller Abstufungen der Note diskutiert. Beides sind Themen zu denen sich Punktrichter äussern sollten und ich füge hier deswegen den Aufruf zur Mitarbeit in englischer Sprache an: And the follwing waa posted on Stuka Stunt and Stunthanger: Stunt judges point of view solicited Dear F2B Judges On the F2B Discussion Forum (www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/diskusia.php) the ongoing discussion related to the question of whether to do the k=1 trial or not has taken an interesting side turn. At this point in time posts addressing the feasibility of the Points Deduction Method (As described in the current F2B Judge’s Guide) as well as the manageable number of grading steps have been published. I believe it would be of great value if experienced judges (FAI & AMA, of course) would share their point of view with the community and I therefore solicit your much appreciated input. Thank you for contributing, your effort supports the ongoing development. Peter Germann F2B Work Group Coordinator | Tree | 346 |
| István Travnik | Judging; Deduction Method | 14.12.2007 - 21:42:55 |
| Peter,
By my side, direct invitation of judges into ongoing discussion is highly appreciated. I am really curious about their opinion and "self report" on their working/thinking method,* supposing that that will be sincere. (..why not?!:)) *in reality this is not so simple question, as it seems to be at first sight... | Tree | 345 |
| Peter Germann | Judging; Deduction Method | 14.12.2007 - 17:43:35 |
| It is with great interest that I follow the current thread related to judging issues in general and to the deduction method in particular. Because of the topic brought up by Istvan Travnik being perhaps related more than I thought to the question of whether to do the k=1 trial or not, I now believe it would be of value if judges would join the ongoing discussion. I will today publish related posts on other Forums and I will address judges direct, too.
Peter Germann | Tree | 344 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: It is so simple... | 14.12.2007 - 16:41:10 |
| Thanks again, I will contact you on your e-mail. I saw a thread on Stuka Stunt about how many stunt fliers also play music, so maybe many stunt pilots see the stunt pattern as artwork! I look forward to talking to you about Hammonds | Tree | 343 |
| István Travnik | Re: It is so simple... | 14.12.2007 - 14:09:46 |
| Dear Friends,
I started to find some easy-to-understand paper from psychology, for us, modellers. Putting into Google search window this "Human Decision Making" fixed expression, between " "-s I found more than 90.000 articles. Please, let me give some time for browsing... | Tree | 342 |
| István Travnik | It is so simple... | 14.12.2007 - 13:07:10 |
| Dear Keith,
I am smiling and laughing! (how small is our World -as Hungarian prowerb says...) You can find me privately: travnik_at_index.hu | Tree | 341 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: It is so simple... | 14.12.2007 - 12:38:32 |
| Dear István,
Now we speak the same language! I repaired organs for many years, and still my favourite is the Hammond with drawbars. I have a T-500 in my workshop that needs to be re-built after someone messed it up some years ago. We will speak more about this on our own e-mails. I will also look on the net for some more info on quick decisions, so if you find a link, then please send it to me. Thanks very much. | Tree | 340 |
| István Travnik | It is so simple... | 14.12.2007 - 11:01:12 |
| Dear Keith,
If a judge does not "glue" himself to give 6, 7 or 8 points, a 10 -degree interval is quite satisfactory. We must strengthen their braveness, to use 9, 10 (!!!) or 5-4-3-2-1, when needed. (offtopic: think on a Hammond Organ: it has 9 different harmonics, adjustable by only 8-degrees drawbars, and NEVER sounds in the same way...) I really consulted with labour- and traffic- psychologists, but pls. do not load me to translate their papers fom Hungarian, to English. But, if this topic really interests you, I look for some papers by Internet in topic of Mechanism of Creating Quick Human Decisions. I underline, the confidence is the most essential parameter in judging job, NOT the grade of resolution, i.m.h.o. | Tree | 339 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: It is so simple... | 14.12.2007 - 06:23:21 |
| Thanks István,
I now understand the technical problems that you have. The manoeuvre definitions can be explained properly and that is the first way to go forward and improve things. If we all work together and improve judges training, then maybe we can get better and more accurate results. The BIG problem of over-loading the judges with too many flights per day is what causes many of the problems of drifting accuracy etc. As pilots, we all enjoy flying as many flights as possible, and the new system of 4 flights to qualify is much better for pilots, but no help to judges. The scoring resolution of 10 points with 0.5 increments is possibly the most human judges can resolve. Zero to 10 is maybe a bit coarse, and just not enough. It is intersting that you say that psychologists mention the number of 12 maximum. On the electric issue, unfortunately we have so many places that have noise issues these days, so I agree with Igor. We have to find alternatives, and electric does work very well. At this stage of development, I do not believe that electric brushless motors have any unfair advantage. If you look at the last US Nats results, Orestes Hernandez won with a Retro .60, which is considered by many as old technology with long stroke, deflector plate piston etc. (Sorry Yuri!) Paul Walker was flying a large electric Impact with a very powerful Plettenberg motor, and he placed third. The weather conditions were also bad with plenty of wind and turbulence. Of course, it is possible to have sophisticated control systems, like the one on Claus Makis' site with the accelerometer that adjusts power according to centrifugal force. We also saw a little unfair advantage in Spain in 2006, where some controllers were programmed to slowly reduce power for landings. The rules have now neen adapted to say that the propeller must be stopped before descent. I am sure that in the next few years, the rules will certainly adapt to be fair to everyone. | Tree | 338 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: | 14.12.2007 - 05:53:55 |
| Sure.....the Americans as well. I simply wanted to hear from judges that regularly work in the F2B system with k-factors. It would interesting to hear from experienced American judges like Gary McLellan to see if it is necessary to somehow adapt to FAI rules because of k-factors. To my way of thinking, the k-factors should be transparent to the judges. Their job is to give a score of 0 to 100%. | Tree | 337 |
| István Travnik | Self regulation... | 14.12.2007 - 00:52:47 |
| Dear Igor,
I did not mentioned that electric power comes from devil...:) But, looking at the technical chapter, nobody can say that it uses equal measures, furthermore, it is unnecessary biassed against all other techniques than electric power. My convicton is that a rulebook ought to be fair, and stable, at last for a couple of years... | Tree | 336 |
| Igor Burger | electronic self regulation | 14.12.2007 - 00:27:29 |
| This is not related to actual topic (K=1 factor trial), but I will jump in anyway.
I want replay to: >>>if some self-regulating etc. electronics is allowed for electric motors, such apparatus MUST be allowed for piston, steam, etc. etc. engines, too.<<< This point was mentioned several times here, I fully agree, but I feel it is interpreted with little tendency to "disallow others to use what I am not used for". We must consider two important points: 1/ We simply must go slowly to electric because several of us just cannot fly IC engines anymore because of several known reasons. 2/ Electric power train simply needs some electronics controlling run of motor having computer inside. Simple brushed motors are simply not useful. Reality resulting from those 2 points is that we more and more see electric power train having automatic control of RPM. This cannot be called unfair trick, because IC engines has EXACTLY the same regulation inside. I hope no one will be surprised that pipes extensively used on our models AUTOMATICALLY stabilize rpm; fuel pressure AUTOMATICALLY adds rpm of IC engine pointed nose up. Actually we do not allow sensors of flight parameters for power train controlling. But what is tank and fuel pressure which depends on nose position and thus controlling of prop rpm on actual IC engines? My personal meaning is that all kinds of self-regulating should be allowed, simply because some of us like investigation, progress, development and not only flying with Jurassic equipments which I flew since I entered world of c/l stunt. But I also understand if someone else does not want to race in equipments. So I think the important point is to have balance between those two ways and I think that since new alternative power trains are still less powerful and does not bring significant advantage in power delivery we can allow some bit of development in this area. If we will see that some of them will be superior we can easily change rules do disable or enable on opposite side some properties or devices which make something unfair. But actually I do not see anything like that necessary. This is all about flying and aerobatics, not contest in quality of power train, the result is still about flying, so we see all types of power train competitive even they deliver different power of different quality. | Tree | 335 |
| István Travnik | It is so simple... | 13.12.2007 - 20:58:04 |
| Dear Keith,
I am really grateful to you, reading and reflect to my post in reality. You have to know, my aim was never to cross anybody's personal aspirations, but I saw enough harmful changements/degaradations in our sport, F2B, to be anxious enough about. My answers onto your questions (what changements in rules I see to be false, fallen, or unfair) is more than simple: 1. Concerned to tehcnical chapter: let us open the doors for technical innovations, but, let us control all techniques by equal measures: if some self-regulating etc. electronics is allowed for electric motors, such apparatus MUST be allowed for piston, steam, etc. etc. engines, too. We are not a blind crowd in the hands of battery-lobby, or so on, to push up their goods/interests. 2. Scoring system: a) it was a false modification, a really fallen "innovation", when every single manoeuvre lost their own scores: less decisions (by judges) lead to worse judging job. It is more than simple to bring back the "old" scoring sheet/system. b) As psychologists stated, only a maximally 12-stage interval of decision is repeatable in our circumstances. My deep conviction is that that the confidence of judging is far more essential, than anything else. In other words: the same flight MUST get the same score early in the morning, after dinner, or in the evening, when all judges are at the end of their mental possibilities. Our present 100-degree interval do not serves anything else, but compression of results, and possibilities for the not-well-trained judges to hide themselves behind the average. ("Eveverybody likes to seem to be a "Good Boy"...:)) Let us realize, we need to bring back the 10-degree system. To encourage the judges not to remain at 6-7-8 scores, only the better trainings, the really well-based knowledge and skill is aid in our hands. Let us help them! c) As I see, the definitions of manoeuvres -thanks for the Judging Guide- is far more exact, than before. Only one thing is to be harmonized by my humble opinion: descriptions are written in the aspect of centre of flying hemisphere (almost the pilot's eye), and the perspectivical distortions/modifications must be worked out for the aspect (and sake) of judges. This field I cannot see severe problems: some geometrical tasks, nothing else... | Tree | 334 |
| luc | | 13.12.2007 - 19:47:02 |
| Accuracy Keith,
Not only the judges European or Australian ... the Americans as judges. Luc. | Tree | 333 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: Mistaken principles-->erroneous conclusions-->false argumentations... | 13.12.2007 - 16:03:02 |
| Dear István,
I have said before that I personally don't mind if the k-factors stay or go. The reason that I say this, is because after checking the spreadsheets from Bruno and others, it does not seem to make the difference that you talk about when we remove the k's from the results. If judges are in fact taking k's into consideration when they judge, then this may make a difference. I have spoken to most of our regular judges, and they all say that they do not do this. None of our rules from now or the past (as far as I am aware) have ever told the judges to allow for the k-factors when they give their scores. As Luc says........it would be interesting to hear from some of our judges, like Roger or Joan. >>>b) "The scoring GOES by deduction method: the judge makes as many subtractions, by properly decided figure (as Judging Guide determines it) as many errors observed..." No, Gentlemen, a human never shall be calculate as a numeric calculator, (dozens of subtraction steps within seconds), particularly, when his decision must be stated immediately. Judging guide is a marvelous tool to train judges, but, will not change the decision-creating mechanism of a human brain. You do not have to believe me, but in doubt, please, ask a pychologist. Or, try to find some articles on the Internet concerning this theme. You will..."<<< Here I can only agree with you 100%. For a human to be able to calculate (remember flight path, subtract, and compute) in the time allowed is not very easy to do, if not impossible. Once again, I would like to hear from the judges on this point as well. >>>It is time to revise all changes made during last 20 years, stop further experiments, and turn to real tasks: really improved and controlled training of judges as very first step.<<< I agree with you about the "controlled training", but I would like to know what particular changes that you would like to be revised. We still need to revise a few more manoeuvre shapes like the understanding of the square shapes, and the 4-Leaf clover that simply cannot be flown according the new rules and also the old rules. So, while I am working on the judges training system, at the same time I need to find better ways to define and to understand what it is we are all trying to do when we fly these particular manoeuvres. So, please let us know if any of the rules that you would like to see revised will effect the manoeuvre shapes rules. Hopefully, if we get the necessary feed-back then we can all understand the rules the same way.......and I can make the training program that everyone agrees with. Thank you very much for your well thought-out comments. | Tree | 332 |
| István Travnik | Mistaken principles-->erroneous conclusions-->false argumentations... | 13.12.2007 - 01:05:01 |
| Dear Friends,
we are going round and round basically one theme for months. Please, pay me a little bit attention, I try to analize and explain, as precise as I am able to... 1. The mistaken principles: there are several kinds of them, at least 3 (three). Let us name them a), b), and c): a): "K-factor reflect the difficulty of the actual manoeuvre". b): "The scoring GOES by deduction method: the judge makes as many subtractions, by properly decided figures (as Judging Guide determines it) as many errors observed..." c): "K-factor is an artifical item, distorting the natural result" 2. The erroneous conclusions: a): "Since everybody flies the same pattern, the difficulty does not have any role" b) "Certainly, the more complex manoeuvres WILL get lower scores" c) "There is no need to distortion, because only the natural result can only point onto the best pilot" 3. The false argumentations: a) "Since difficulty does not have any role, we do not need K-factors, which reflect only the difficulty of the actual manoeuvre b) "There is no need to enlarge the punishment coming out by flying more difficult manoeuvres, we do not need K-factors" c) "We do not need distorted results, so we dont need K-factors"... 4. The facts, the logical conclusions, and fair argumentation a) "K-factor reflect the difficulty of the actual manoeuvre". (It is typical, how often emphasizes the "anti-K-Party" this not-too-precise interpretation of K-factors...) Yes, it reflects, -there is no doubt- but this fact is not enough to decide to keep, or decline them. But K-factors have really vital function: K-factors reflect the COMPLEXITY of that moueuvre. In other words: "how many single, different scores I could give onto elements, what that (branch of) manoeuvre(s) contains... ...if I had a camcorder to replay as many times, as it is needed to precise analysis, as Judging Guide says, and enough time, certainly..." So we need to keep the K-factors, for weighing, upon the amount of flying job have been done. (n. b. I feel the figures of K-factors is very well-stated, anyhow, and the "inventor" was anybody...) b) "The scoring GOES by deduction method: the judge makes as many subtractions, by properly decided figure (as Judging Guide determines it) as many errors observed..." No, Gentlemen, a human never shall be calculate as a numeric calculator, (dozens of subtraction steps within seconds), particularly, when his decision must be stated immediately. Judging guide is a marvelous tool to train judges, but, will not change the decision-creating mechanism of a human brain. You do not have to believe me, but in doubt, please, ask a pychologist. Or, try to find some articles on the Internet concerning this theme. You will... c) "K-factor is an artifical item, distorting the natural result" All the maoeuvres are "artifical items", you never see any bird, flying square or triangle patterns, furthermore NO inverted fligths. We play F2B, NOT F1A. "Distortion" touches all competitors, and yes, many times expands the differences. Looking at present days' final results' table, (that terribly, ridiculously compressed dozens of results), EVERY kind of expansion is welcome i.m.h.o. Please, look at results table of a W.C. 20 or 30 years before, and start to cry: nowadays our sport is very-very close to a Roulette, or someting else: this degeneration is hardly could be considered as "improvement", "development" or something positive changement. It is time to revise all changes made during last 20 years, stop further experiments, and turn to real tasks: really improved and controlled training of judges as very first step. PS: I can imagine that our friends in the States have far better trained judges' body, than the average of the rest of the world, and the question of scoring system simply does not matter... | Tree | 331 |
| luc | re:re: request | 12.12.2007 - 22:06:22 |
| Thanks Andy,I think it's interesting for every, we wait the response in the forum.
Best regards. Luc. | Tree | 330 |
| Peter Germann | Wer ist der bessere Pilot oder wie funktioniert Differenzierung? | 12.12.2007 - 18:36:06 |
|
Here is a post in german language. It deals with the issue of k factors being used to reward the flying of difficult manoeuvres. I hear this very often and in my reply to the post I am trying to illustrate the risk of distortion resulting from the policy of rewarding by factors. Both sides have been discussed on this Forum repeatedly in English and I therefore thought it might be helpful to publish this exchange in german language: ------- Hier ist ein interessanter Diskussionsbeitrag zum Thema Differenzierung durch K-Faktoren. Er stammt von einem aktiven Kunstflieger und wurde mir kürzlich direkt zugeschickt. Der Beitrag ist mit Sicherheit von allgemeinem Interesse und ich darf daraus, mit Zustimmung des Verfassers, wie folgt zitieren: Zitat: Ich habe zu diesem Thema einen anderen Standpunkt. Dazu mein Kommentar : Falls nach Weglassen der K- Faktoren nur mehr die Summe der Bewertungspunkte (0 bis 10) die Gesamtpunktzahl ergibt ,fehlt die Differenzierung zwischen einfachen - und schwierigen Figuren. D.h. daß zB. bei Punktegleichstand (ohne K- Faktoren) zwischen 2 Piloten der wohl vorne liegen sollte, der die schweren Figuren besser bewertet bekam. Mit den K- Faktoren gibt es eben diese Differenzierung. Das ist eine einfache mathematische Sache die keinen Versuch bedarf. In der Praxis wird sich in den Rangreihenfolgen doch etwas aber nicht viel ändern. Wenn man jedoch die Leistung der Piloten unter Berücksichtigung der schwierigen und einfacheren Figuren bewerten soll, sind K- Faktoren nötig. Ein Beispiel: 2 Piloten haben ( ohne K- Faktoren ) für ihren Durchgang die gleiche Punktezahl .Der eine bekam für die runden Loopings je 8 Punkte und für die quadratischen nur je 6 P. Der andere Pilot wurde genau umgekehrt bewertet, er bekam für die runden nur eine 6 er Bewertung und für die eckigen je eine 8. Sie sind ohne K - F. aber punktegleich. Wer sollte jedoch in diesem Falle vorne liegen? Die K - Faktoren lassen nun diesen Piloten vorne der die schwierigeren Figuren besser flog. Ist das nicht sinnvoll? Somit kann mit den K - Faktoren besser differenziert werden. Somit bin ich für K- Faktoren, werde aber trotzdem für einen Versuch stimmen um noch " unbekannte Effekte " zu entdecken. Zitat Ende Ich habe diese Zuschrift wie folgt beantwortet: Zitat: Vielen Dank für Deinen kritischen Kommentar und für die trotzdem offene und positive Haltung zum geplanten Versuch ohne K-Faktoren. Hier meine Antwort zu Deinem Beispiel: Gemäss den aktuellen Reglementen werden nicht ganze Manöver als Einheit beurteilt, sonden es wird die Übereinstimmung der einzelnen Elemente des Manövers mit der genauen Beschreibung in der Regel geprüft. Dabei werden die in den einzelnen Elementen begangenen Fehler registriert, bzw. summiert. Die Summe der registrierten Fehler führt dann zu einem mehr oder weniger grossen Abzug von der maximal möglichen 0-Fehlernote von 10 Punkten. Gewisse Manöver bestehen aus deutlich mehr einzelnen Elementen (Quadratacht; mehr als 20 zu beurteilende Elemente) als Andere (Rückenflug, 4 zu beurteilende Elemente). Deswegen sind sie schwieriger zu fliegen und so werden in diesen Manövern in aller Regel mehr Fehler geflogen. Was, bei Bewertung nach Reglement wie oben ausgeführt, zu deutlich tieferen Noten führen muss. Damit bietet das aktuelle Reglement, auch ohne K-Faktoren, mit einer Bandbreite von immerhin 0 – 100 Einheiten wohl ausreichend Spielraum zur Differenzierung. Dein Beispiel ist interessant und lässt, bei reglementarisch korrekter Bewertung, darauf schliessen, dass beide Piloten insgesamt die gleiche Anzahl Fehler begangen haben. Wenn nun aber derjenige der bessere Pilot ist, der insgesamt weniger Fehler begeht, dann ist die Punktegleichheit im Beispiel eben richtig. Ob ein Fehler in einem einfachen oder in einem schwierigen Manöver begangen wird ist nicht relevant, denn jeder Fehler wird einzeln registriert und gewichtet. Oder, in anderen Worten, die Schwierigkeit eines Manövers definiert sich mit der Anzahl der zu bewertenden Elemente des Manövers. Die im Reglement beschriebene Methode der Bewertung führt bei schwierigen Manövern zwangsläufig zu tieferen Noten. Werden nun diese tieferen Noten mit K-Faktoren multipliziert, dann wird die Beurteilung des Punkterichters, mehr oder weniger willkürlich, verändert. Dies kann dazu führen, dass ein Pilot welcher in einem Manöver mit hohem Koeffizient recht viele Fehler begeht, und dafür vom PR richtigerweise eine tiefe Note erhält, dafür trotzdem sehr viele Punkte bekommt. Viel mehr als sein Konkurrent, welcher in einer einfachen Figur gar keinen Fehler begeht und dafür mit der Maximalnote 10 belohnt wird: Pilot A: Mässige Quadrachtacht: 10 Fehler festgestellt (je minus 0.5 Pt.) Note: 5 Punkte: 90 Pilot B: Perfekter Rückenflug: 0 Fehler festgestellt, Note 10, Punkte: 20 Wer ist jetzt hier der bessere Pilot? Wie Du siehst, man kann in der Sache K-Faktoren durchaus geteilter Meinung sein. Allerdings ist es, nach meiner Auffassung, so, dass K-Faktoren die differenzierte Beurteilung unserer PR willkürlich verändern und dies in einzelnen Fällen sogar recht deutlich. Wir bemühen uns seit vielen Jahren die Reglemente immer exakter zu gestalten, unsere PR dauernd weiterzubilden und verbesserte Instrumente zur Darstellung der Manöver und deren Bewertung entwickeln. Ich kann deswegen nicht nachvollziehen, dass wir es nach wie vor zulassen, die Beurteilung qualifizierter Richter mit willkürlich festgelegten Koeffizienten massiv zu beinflussen. Ich halte dies für nicht richtig und der Versuch soll zeigen, dass die Auschaltung dieser willkürlichen Beinflussung möglich ist und dass davon keinerlei negative Auswirkungen zu erwarten sind. Peter Germann Zitat Ende Und hier noch die abschliessende Rückantwort: Zitat: ...Natürlich kannst Du mein Kommentar im F2B Forum veröffentlichen. Die Schulung der Punkterichter,so wie Du es mir beschrieben hast, ist der eigentliche Schlüssel zur Objektivierung.Ob dieses herunterzählen von Fehlern bei einem großen Teilnehmerfeld den PR auch psychisch zumutbar ist, wird eine Kernfrage beim Versuch sein.Die Konzentrationsfähigkeit hat ihre natürlichen Grenzen. Man wird sehen. Beide Systeme mit und ohne K- Faktoren funktionieren. In zwei wichtigen Punkt sehe ich ohne K-F. auch Vorteile: Nämlich den, daß einerseits das System einfacher wird und daß andererseits ausschließlich die PR-Bewertung für das Resultat herangezogen wird, Basta. Anm. : Im Vote System scheint sich eine gewaltige Polarisierung zu entwickeln, deshalb auch unbedingt der VERSUCH ! Zitat Ende Zur Erinnerung; ob der Versuch, nicht die Abschaffung von K-Faktoren, durchgeführt werden kann, hängt erstens von der Stellungnahme der Landesvertreter im F2 Subcommittee ( http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/f2 )und zweitens von der Abstimmung unter den Delegierten der Aeroclubs an der CIAM Generalversammlung vom 28./29. März 2008 ab. Beide Gruppen sind zur Meinungsbildung auf Experten angewiesen. Peter Germann | Tree | 329 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: request | 11.12.2007 - 22:39:43 |
| Hullo Luc,
I know that Roger Ladds (GBR), and Joan McIntyre (AUS), both judged F2B at the Muncie (USA) World Champs in 2004. I think that they both also judged at the Stunt contest (US Nats I think) that was either the week before of the week after the US F2 World Champs. I'm sure there are other Judges too, but they are 2 that spring immediately to mind. Both are members of this Forum, but just in case they haven't seen this, direct E-mails are: Roger: Buster@Ladds.wanadoo.co.uk Joan: joanmc@ozemail.com.au I hope this helps. BTW, I'm pretty sure that Joan does not want to stop K factors; I'm not too sure about Roger (how's that for being "even-handed!). Krgds Andy Sweetland | Tree | 328 |
| luc | request | 11.12.2007 - 22:17:33 |
| Good evening,
I would like to ask if it would it be possible to have the assistance of one or more judges who have participated in competitions abroad and had to evaluate according to a different system from that used in their own countries (example: A judge who ruled Americans in Europe and vice versa). Although they may be used to applying different criteria, the differences they have experienced during the trials will surely enlighten us. Thank you in advance. Luc. | Tree | 327 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: Reply to Dave Simons | 10.12.2007 - 07:21:15 |
| When I look at the list of people on the voting page, it is good to see that so many are actually getting involved. This shows plenty of "passion" for each side of the story. Igor usually has a simple, logical way of explaing everything about our sport, and he says that each system is not better or worse than the other, it is just DIFFERENT.
The way the voting is going now, unless something drastic happens, it looks like the majority will not vote for the trial period. Well, that is how a democratic voting system works. I just hope that we get the same amount of "passionate" input from everyone when it comes to correcting the important rules that concern the manoeuvre shapes and how they should be viewed from all perspectives. After all, as I have stated before, as pilots we are all trying to perform perfect shapes, and as judges we certainly have to be able to recognize these shapes and give them fair and reasonably accurate scores. If we can give judges better, and also more interesting training methods, that can be understood easily and all the major languages, then I sincerely believe that this will make the major difference that we all would like to see. I fully understand that this will not create some kind of "Stunt Heaven", because this kind of sport will always be a subjective type of competition. BUT......it will certainly make it a little better, and a little better may just be a GIANT leap forwards! In the next few months, I will have the first version of my interactive judges training system ready. This will use real-time 3-D graphics like my last CL-Sim, but will have voice tracks that explain everything. These English voice tracks will be simple .wav files that each country can change into the required language and re-insert into the program. I will include a video tutorial on just how to do this. I could produce a video training DVD, but this would not allow the user to interact with the screen graphics. The added problem, is how the end-user will change the voice tracks, because this would require video editing software plus the expertise in using such software and getting the timing right. This is why I am going to use video game type software. The animated pictures tell most of the story, and the extra voice-over tracks will help to explain everything. Thanks again to everyone for sharing the views on this forum, and I see the next few years of F2B as most interesting and exciting. | Tree | 326 |
| Randy Powell | Re: Reply to Dave Simons | 10.12.2007 - 01:57:10 |
| Dave,
Well, there you go. I suppose it's all in what you are used to and what you find difficult. Many find the square eights difficult and so, the K factor is high. I don't. To me the reverse wingover is a much more difficult maneuver. But it's all in what you find hard, I guess. I know some guys that find the outside squares the most difficult maneuver to execute correctly due to the entry. In bad weather, it can be quite hard. In really strong winds (we get that and monster turbulence a lot where I fly), the hardest maneuver to complete well is the landing. It's why I like the AMA system. All maneuvers are seen as equally difficult. Now, I agree, inverted flight is easier than the square eights. But for some it's difficult and I suspect that most judges are more critical of badly flown inverted laps than they are of a less than perfect square eight. It's human nature and judges are still human ... mostly. But that said, I do not believe that the F2B system is in any way superior than the AMA system. Just as I don't believe that the AMA system is superior to the F3B system. They are just different ways to go about it. I'm comfortable with my system and you are comfortable with your. Great. The question here seems to be if you (meaning all F2B fliers) are open enough to try something different. If not, then I guess you will all continue in the current F2B system. If you are, then you will give a 2 year try to something else. It's pretty much that simple. But then, I'm not sitting in your place so it's easy for me to say so. If someone proposed an F2B system here in the states, I'm not sure how I would come down. Be worth a try, I suppose. You never know until you fly for awhile under a system. Just one general comment: Where I fly, we generally fly two flights in a typical local contest and take the best score as "the score". Other places (and some contests in the states) they average or add scores from both flights to obtain a score. I suppose in the first system, you have the chance to pull off one really good flight and win where the other takes a pilot that is more consistent. Repeatable good flights. I don't know that either way is better, but they are different and will may result in a different winner. It depends on what you are looking for. In the same way, I think the K factor is biased toward people that can fly certain maneuver very well and the rest acceptably where in a K=1 system, the pilot that is the most consistent over an entire flight, maneuver to maneuver, is favored. Not sure either way is superior, just different in approach and a comment on what you are looking for. OK, that's my bit. Since this decision doesn't effect me one way or the other and I don't want to take up anymore bandwidth with opinions that don't really effect the decision. Have fun. Randy Powell | Tree | 325 |
| Dave Simons | | 10.12.2007 - 00:31:43 |
| Randy (post 320), I guess that it is a question of experience and perspective - you might consider it absurd that manoeuvres have different values - but guess what? - I think it is absurd to have them the same value....2 laps inverted is worth the same as a set of sq8'S?.
I grew up with the f2B system, and I think it is fine and superior to the US system; the recent tweaks have made it better, but removing k factors would change the whole flavour of the event. I am against the introduction of a 2 year trial, because: - If the majority of people wish to retain k factors, why bother with a trial? - No one has yet specified how the trial results will be evaluated - seems to be a bit of "trust us, we'll let you know how it goes". Sorry, but that sounds like either no one knows what is being sought, or it is simply backdooring a rule change against the majority opinion. - What happens with "trial" w/champs?will it not count? who knows/ has it even been thought about? Generally I agree with Ray, except that I like the 100 increment spread, as a judge - I find it more "natural". Of course, k factors have nothing to do with judges, I certainly never consider k factors when judging. When flying, thats a different story..... I think that Keith has the right idea - work on judge training and expertise - by far the most important aspect of the whole F2b event IMO. | Tree | 324 |
| Andy Sweetland | Reply to Ray Lloyd | 07.12.2007 - 09:04:46 |
| Gents,
Just by way of explanation, I now see that while I was drafting my reply to Ray, Keith had already posted, covering the same areas that I have in some cases. Sorry about that, I do my post drafting off line, and only saw Keith's input after my own was posted. So where I address the same points that Keith has Ray, my post was NOT intended to be "the sledgehammer to crack the walnut"! | Tree | 323 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: K factors | 07.12.2007 - 09:00:36 |
| 7th December 2007
Good morning all, Thanks for the comments Ray, I’d like to reply (“short & sweet” & NOT intended to be impolite). I’ll take your points as you numbered them: 1. The k factor is vital to f2b as it recognises the difficulty of each manoeuver. No recognition of the relative difficulty of each manoeuvre is needed – all pilots fly all manoeuvres. The Judges are “simply” required to mark what they see each pilot do/not do on each one. Certainly the introduce of “arithmetical fudging” AFTER the Judges have done their job can in no way be described as “vital”. Wrong word Ray. Try “the way we’ve always done it up to now” instead. (Grin!). Seriously, “Stunt”, “Precision Aerobatics” (or whatever else you want to call it) has been flown in the USA using EXACTLY the same manoeuvres as we have in F2B (with a couple of VERY minor differences involving timing and dead-stick whipping for landing) – always WITHOUT K factors. K factors are certainly NOT “vital”! 2. If the k.factor does not have the correct values then they should be adjusted not scrapped. How would YOU adjust them Ray? Using what criteria to distinguish the actual relative difference in difficulty between each manoeuvre? An area for “some discussion” there all right!!!! 3.If there is a distortion created by the k factor then it is the same for all competitors. Not necessarily – do pilots tend to “favour” one manoeuvre over another, according to the (artificial) K factor weighting? Who KNOWS? That’s why we need a trial to get some real-world practical data. 4.F2B pilots do give their best performance in all manoeuvers at all times. That is a matter of opinion Ray, NOT a matter of fact. Many believe the reverse to be true, at least with SOME pilots (see point 3. above). Again, who KNOWS? So again, a reason for holding the trial. As to the rest of your point Ray, you MAY be correct there. But once again, who KNOWS? But a trial (and only a trial) will show if that is really true or not. 5. Simularly the dropping of k,s could influence the judge to give more for a manoeuvre that he thinks is more difficult. Again MAYBE (although the Rules and Judges’ Guide both specifically require Judges not to do that – as we all know, they are, in essence, asked to mark what they see, and ONLY what they see). But as per my 6th December post, many THINK that exactly the opposite is true today. So yet again, a reason FOR the trial Ray. 6. I use a laptop in open fields no power supply other than batteries or portable generator in 3 day events and a good calculater can be programmed with k,s so no problem there. All, true Ray. And good for you and the contestants at your contest. And please note, on 6th December I did say that generally speaking this is no problem (although there HAVE been some glaring examples where contest organisers got it all badly wrong). BUT that’s not the point at all. All I said in my 6th December post was that producing individual final scores and placings would be easier without K factors, and as I said then, that is indisputable fact – it would be easier without K’s whether individual contest organisers use laptops, hand-held-calculators, or even Abacuses (“Abacusii” - sp?). Ray, you also wrote: QUOTE: So to sum up retain the k,s but adjust the values, drop the decimal point scoring system and go back to .5 minimum (its easier for the judge), and it will save having to retrain judges ……. UNQUOTE: Ray, I believe that your points above about retaining K’s and adjusting the values are already answered – “not applicable”; and “impossible”. Re your point about the number of points to be awarded and re-training of Judges: Ray, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the keep the K factors/do away with K factors discussion, so is irrelevant to this discussion, which (once again) is simply “do we try no K factors for 2 years or not?”. Andy Sweetland | Tree | 322 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: K factors | 07.12.2007 - 07:15:33 |
| Hi Ray,
Thanks for the comments. Your opinions are shared by many as we have seen through the years of debate on this subject. I would like to comment on some of the points. 1."The k-factor is vital to F2B as it recognises the difficulty of each manoeuvre." I think that the word "vital" here is a little strong. The USA folks have no k-factors and have been running successful stunt competitions for years. 5. "The dropping of k's could influence the judge......etc." The judge should merely give a score out of 100% and should not be concerned at all about k's. Here I would like to add my own factor that I call the "JT-factor". This means the "Judges Training-factor." This is the single biggest problem in F2B since the event was started. One of the reasons for the dropping of the high and low scores is the fact that we are trying to allow for the "not-so-good" judges, that could give extremely high or low scores, or even be biased. Better training so that we can keep all the scores, is a much better way. The more data that you have will provide a better average for this most subjective sport. If we all go back to the basic principle of judging C/L stunt then this will give us a much better perspective on this whole issue. We have a set of manoeuvre shapes in a book of rules that the pilots must perform, and the judges must observe these shapes and score them according to how close the track of the model is to each shape. This requires that the judges and pilots must have the same understanding of these requirements. This would be easy if the models flew on a flat surface and even easier if it would leave a nice trace in the air. We do not have these luxuries unfortunately, and have to put up with observing spherical shapes that mostly don't look like the rule-book shapes. This takes training, and more importantly, uniform training across the world, so that we are all trying to achieve the same goals. So, rather than k-factors being "vital" to F2B, I would sincerely suggest that the "JT-factor" is the vital issue for our event. Properly trained judges see the finer points of just how far off the rule-book shapes we fly.....even the world's best pilots. Trying to find ways to spread the points between so many good pilots in a big competition is not helped by k-factors. We have the mathematical analyses done that seem to show this clearly. To emphasise the point of this present debate, as Andy and others have stated, it is not about getting rid of k-factors for all time, we would like some actual, practical data to work with, and not merely the theoretical data. Doing this trial will provide this data. It certainly will not cause any distruction or chaos to the event. The better pilots will still be at the top. | Tree | 321 |
| Randy Powell | Re: K factors | 06.12.2007 - 22:51:45 |
| OK, this doesn't really effect me since I'm a US flier and we have our own system (for good or ill). But I have been following this discussion through the emails for some time. I find a certain cosistency in these comments to similar discussion had on board in the US on any number of topics. There are those that are attemtping to be agents of change. To look to ways to improve the program. there are those that seem to dislike change simply because it is change and some that don't want to consider even a trial of K=1 because, well, the reason is unclear to me.
We, as most of you know, use the AMA scoring system. Each maneuver worth the same amount of points (at least potentially). The system has it's benefits and drawbacks. It seems fair to me, but then, it's the system I grew up with and I am used to it. To me, there are not 15 separate maneuvers, but just one maneuver that begins with take-off and ends with landing and so, deciding that one maneuver is more difficult or more important than another just seems absurd to me. But as I say, that mostly comes from my own experience and doesn't have much to do with absolute worth. Had I grown up with the FAI system, I'd probably feel the same way about that system. Seems the point here is supposed to be who is the best flier of the day and whatever system is used should be designed to do that. I can say from a judges prespective that trying to keep track of anything past number or errors in a maneuver can be pretty tough. | Tree | 320 |
| Raymond Lloyd | Re: K factors | 06.12.2007 - 20:55:55 |
| 1.The k factor is vital to f2b as it recognises the difficulty of each manoeuver.
2.if the k.factor does not have the correct values then they should be adjusted not scrapped. 3.If there is a distortion created by the k factor then it is the same for all competitors. 4.F2B pilots do give their best performance in all manoeuvers at all times but if k factors are removed and the mark is out of say 20 and he can score that easily in inverted flight but when he comes to the square eight he has to work his socks off to get an average mark and he will be rewarded with a score of 10 so he may as well concentrate on the easier manoeuvers to create a good score, so dropping the k,s will cause pilots to select manoeuvers, where as the k factor rewards the pilot for his attempts at perfecting the more difficult shape thus encouraging him to try harder. 5.simularly the dropping of k,s could influence the judge to give more for a manoeuvre that he thinks is more difficult. 6.I use a laptop in open fields no power supply other than batteries or portable generator in 3 day events and a good calculater can be programmed with k,s so no problem there. So to sum up retain the k,s but adjust the values, drop the decimal point scoring system and go back to .5 minimum (its easier for the judge), and it will save having to retrain judges. the present system of deducting points for errors made is wrong because in some manoeuvers there are more errors to be made than points available so there is a need to mark out of 20. I dont know who invented the k,s but i think it was very well thought out at the time and the people who did it used inteligence not random selection as suggested, it can be adjusted scientifically and should be. If you have a car with a busted piston you dont scrap the engine and fit peddles you repair the engine. This is in answer to Andy,s post dated 6 dec. Ray Lloyd | Tree | 319 |
| Andy Sweetland | K factors | 06.12.2007 - 10:42:17 |
| Gents,
For some strange reason (no doubt my personal limited Internet expertise) the following message which I attempted to post on 22nd November did not appear. I have therefore repeated it below – please note that I originally attempted this post BEFORE Peter Germann’s own post a few days afterwards. AND this message was sent WITHOUT any collusion with, or the prior knowledge of Peter Germann. QUOTE: 22nd November 2007 Hi all, Thanks to Keith for some wise words. As one of those most involved with the production of the new Rules in the first place I have deliberately resisted posting on this subject up to now (though I have registered my vote, unlike many who have posted but apparently not voted unfortunately - and others who have not done anything!). But I think that while a number of the posts up to now have clearly stated a reasoned point of view one way or the other (and a number of other posts have seemed to wander far away from the point), there are a couple of points that have so far not been fully covered: 1. While we all know what the numerical value of the K factor assigned to each manoeuvre is today (those values have remained unchanged since the beginning of F2B), and while we all know that there is (of course) a difference in the difficulty between, say, the Reverse Wing Over Manoeuvre (K = 8) and, say, the Two Consecutive Inside Triangular Loops Manoeuvre (K = 14). But who amongst those who are now arguing strenuously for some sort of "scientific proof" are now prepared to "prove" that (using the above example), the degree of difficulty between the 2 Manoeuvres used in the above example is really is 1.75 (K = 14 divided by K = 8)? Why isn't the Two Consecutive Inside Triangular Loops Manoeuvre TWICE as hard as the Reverse Wing Over Manoeuvre? Or continuing to use just these same 2 manoeuvres as an example, why isn't the Two Consecutive Inside Triangular Loops Manoeuvre K Factor 1.5 times harder than the Reverse Wing Over Manoeuvre (using some sort of "logic", there are 4 corners and 4 straight lines in the Wingover, whilst the Triangles has 6 straight lines and 6 corners; so 6 divided by 4 = 1.5)? Why not THREE times harder? Surely, as Keith points out, there is no "scientific" or "engineering" or "mathematical proof", and in fact I strongly suspect that right at the beginning, when someone first introduced K Factors into F2B, the values assigned to each separate Manoeuvre were pretty much random guesses - there is certainly NO "proof" or even any logic that I can find in any of today's K Factor values. As just one more example, why is the Two Consecutive Square Horizontal Eights Manoeuvre (K = 18) NINE times harder than the Take-off Manoeuvre (K = 2)?? Why not TEN times harder (or, say, SEVEN times harder; or even just about any other number that one cares to think of)?? It really does seem to me that in essence, those who argue in favour of retaining K Factors are really only saying "keep things as they are, it ain't broke so why fix it?" But if it isn't exactly "broke", surely it's not all that far off being at least "often unsatisfactory" - how many times have we all heard MANY contestants saying "I wuz robbed - the judges don't know what they're doing - the judges are biased"; etc, etc? Which brings me to the 2nd point: 2. It has already been suggested that because of K Factors, at least some pilots tend to "favour" some Manoeuvres over others. And it is broadly agreed that this is NOT what we want - what we want is the pilot who flies the ALL Manoeuvres as well as he/she possibly can. But there is also a danger of "judges' mindset" inherent in K Factors - i.e. because the Judges all know the K factors just as well as the pilots do, there is a likelihood that some Judges in some way "slant" the points they award to each Manoeuvre flown according to it's perceived difficulty - i.e. according to the numerical value assigned for Manoeuvre difficulty, as per the examples above. They may be doing this unconsciously, but that's NOT what we want - we have clearly ALL said that we want each Judge to mark each Manoeuvre flown by each pilot according to the mistakes made/perfection achieved. That's what the Rules and the Judges' Guide clearly says. So in summary: We need to see if all these theories are real or not. We've already looked at result of contests flown with today's (with K Factor) rules and then arithmetically changed those results to see what difference it would make if we had no K Factors. The answer was, in short, "not too much difference at all". BUT, as above, this was a theoretical exercise performed arithmetically, and NO allowance could be made for point 2. above, Judges' "mindset". So now we are all simply being asked to have a practical 2 year trial of contests at all levels using all the F2B Rules and judging exactly as we do it today EXCEPT that for the fact that all K Factors will be value 1. The results of that trial will NOT, as Keith says, offer "engineering proof". But surely, what it WILL show is whether or not we need to complicate the flying of model aircraft through a series of precision manoeuvres by intervening in the "pure scoring" by inserting "artificial arithmetic rigging" to end up with a fair set of contest results where the best man wins? Further: The results of this present series of discussions (not to mention all the other many millions of words spoken and written about all the new F2B Rules changes made since the exercise started in 1999) clearly shows that if the "Do away with the K's" group have got it wrong, then the "Keep the K's" group will create such pressure at the end of the 2 years that we'll end up with K's again! If nothing else, please ALL remember that despite the often VERY insulting "slings and arrows" that have been cast at those attempting to give us all a level playing field in F2B, this is actually the FIRST AND ONLY TIME that the "rank and file" of all contestants, judges, organisers (and all the "interested observers") have had the chance to play such a major role in defining a set of rules for a model aircraft competition. But this particular discussion is NOT about the builder of the model rule; Europe against the USA; allowing electrics to "creep in"; or whether or not a group of self-serving idiots are trying to rail-road your favourite event (I wonder what benefit those who are accused of doing that are going to gain)? It's ONLY about a 2 year nil K Factors trial and NOTHING ELSE! So please just stick to this subject. As for the future: If using K Factors is shown to be an essential part of F2B then undoubtedly K factors will be back. But without a practical trial we're all just posturing in the dark. As many have pointed out, we've had K factors since the start of F2B - and we've ALSO had MANY moans about unfair contests, untrained judges, judges' bias, bad sites, bad weather, etc, etc, since the start of F2B. The whole purpose of this nearly 10 year exercise (so far!) has been to see if we can keep the (many) good parts of F2B whilst improving the event overall. As Keith so wisely says, what have the "keep it as it is" group got to loose if they are correct and we show by practical demonstration that K factors are indeed an important part of F2B? Andy Sweetland UNQUOTE: In the light of some of the posts I’ve seen since 22nd November, I’d now like to add a couple of further thoughts: First. those who feel that the new F2B Rules are a backward step when compared with the previous versions are much in the minority, based on the number of off-the-cuff comments I have heard. Certainly, as one of those responsible for producing the new rules, I can assure everyone that we would not have gone to the complete F2 Subcommittee with those new rules unless and until we ourselves felt that what we had produced was an improvement. More to the point, apart from the K factors, the whole of the F2 Subcommittee must have felt the same way as we did – they accepted the new rules, as the full CIAM Plenary meeting. Those who feel that the new rules are actually worse than the old rules have 2 choices – accept them as they are; or make specific proposals for change in the “offending” areas. But to return to the subject of K factors: My main “complaint” about the posts that I have read which want to keep K factors is that there do not seem to be any concrete reasons put forward for keeping them – as above, these arguments all seem to boil down to “keep it as it is, I don’t want change”, with these points often being put forward in a manner which to me at least is emotional and often unnecessarily personally insulting. Whether the K factors are kept or not is NOT a question of one person’s egoism (or that of a small group). Whether they are kept or not IS a matter of those who were invited to take on the massive task of trying to improve what we already had in F2B are simply STILL trying to finish that job to their best of their ability. It is a 2 year TRIAL that is being proposed, and nothing else. And I have said already in my original 22nd November message, we can all be quite sure that if, following that trial, K factors ARE shown to be necessary, then no doubt they’ll be back. Above I have offered criticism to those who have not in my opinion offered concrete reasons for keeping K factors. Now I’ll offer my own reasons for why it seems to me that K factors should go: 1. K factors are not necessary since every contest has to fly every Manoeuvre. There are no optional Manoeuvres in F2B. 2. There is no logic whatsoever by which the present K factor numerical values ascribed to each Manoeuvre do in fact bear any relationship to the “real world” difference in the difficulty of flying each of the Manoeuvres. 3. The use of such K factors therefore apparently “artificially” distort the result of every contest by using this “special arithmetic”. 4. The presence of K factors MAY well “influence” at least some pilots as to the amount of “importance weighting” they themselves give to the flying of each of the individual Manoeuvres (whereas it has long been accepted by the vast majority that what we are looking for in every F2B contest is the best performing pilot in ALL of the Manoeuvres). 5. Similarly, the use of K factors MAY well “influence” at least some Judges as to the number of points they award for each Manoeuvre (albeit unconsciously). 6. While no one disputes the fact that F2B contest organisers have coped very well with the use of K factors (usually, but not always!), it is equally indisputable that removing K factors altogether would make the task of every F2B contest organiser that much easier – even today, some organisers do still have problems with having PC’s/laptops on site at all venues. Please note that points 3, 4, and 5 above cannot be proven, either for or against. For me these alone are enough reason for voting for this 2 year no K factor trial – let’s all stop arguing on bases that cannot be proven. Andy Sweetland 6th December 2007 | Tree | 318 |
| Peter Germann | Re: re:re: | 05.12.2007 - 14:35:14 |
| Dear Luc, your attititude of not entering discussions where emotions took control is highly respectable, thank you.
I do sincerely apologize to those who feel too much obliged to express their point of view here. It was not my intention to apply pressure on anyone. However, we have to bear in mind that this platform serves the purpose of laying out as many as possible objective reasons, for or against the trial, in order to back up the opinion forming process. Peter Germann | Tree | 317 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: re:re: | 05.12.2007 - 05:47:51 |
| Luc, Thanks again. I do share many of your viewpoints, especially about keeping everything as simple as possible. I also understand your point about electronics autoregulating the flights. I simply believe that a good pilot without all of these gadgets will still be able to win. This is why I mentioned the win by Orestes Hernandez witha Retro 60 over the expensive set-up of Paul Walker. I know that the Yatsenko Shark model is expensive, but the engine is a stock, long stroke "old -technology" engine. The added factor was that the weather was really bad in the US Nats.
I still enjoy my diesel engines, and after playing with some electric motors, I still believe that my diesel MVVS .49 performs as well as any electric motor when it comes to running at one solid speed. The diesel is such a simple engine without glow plugs, tuned pipes etc. The only problem for me at world champs, is getting the right fuel, and ether is very expensive in Europe. I saw the electric speed controller on Claus Maikis' site with the accelerometer that adds power when centrifugal force becomes lower. This an interesting project, and I believe that the rules should allow for innovation. However, I do not believe that this particular gadget will be a significant advantage over a good stunt model design with a good engine run. Do not worry Luc, the simple, low-cost models will still be in F2B for a long time. | Tree | 316 |
| luc | re:re: | 04.12.2007 - 19:56:41 |
| Dear Mr. Germann, as a matter of fact, our divergences do not date from yesterday, they have always been patent whenever we chatted in french.
I think I am not the right example to follow. I become really very reluctant to take part in such discussions, when I see the turn that have taken recently some posts in the forum with a lot of exaggerated words. Please, do understand that people are not concerned, it is not necessary to push them all the time, if they want to express themselves they will do it! Dear Keith, we are all concerned. The F2B in CL is the only category at the moment that allows competing with little financial means. This category is still within the reach of everyone, but you have answered for me when you say that Paul Walker was using a high-tech controller. We already have a resurgence of ARF in F2B competitions at a high price. The use of advanced technologies will further increase the prices. If you are not able to use them yourself or if you do not have friends experienced in electronics, then prices will slowly arise and you will have to pay as much as one pays today for RC. What about the price of 10,000 € for a stunt plane? The difference with the RC is that we are not as many pilots. If you do not have the necessary means, you can by no means be competitive on high-level RC. In F2B on the contrary, you can still build your own plane with limited means. I recently participated in the Dutch nationals with a profile powered with a ST G34. For me, it was one of the most enjoyable competitions of the year, because I had to make the best of myself in flying. Despite everything I was competitive in relation to other pilot. I am afraid that this will not be any more possible within a few years. We must not forget Keith that we are at the dawn of the introduction of electronics in F2B. Tomorrow, we will have undoubtedly cars without driver, then why not F2B without pilots? I am obviously exaggerating, but we can all the same imagine that in the future that, thanks to some super technology, a mediocre pilot could become really competitive. In Holland, there was a pilot who used for the laps in relation to centrifugal force controller this shows us one of many possibilities of electronics. Let me reaffirm my conviction that in F2B there should not be allowed electronic devices for autoregulating of the flight. Keith, just a slight precision: when I speak about the bleak prospects of F2B, I have in mind but my personal future in this category and not of the category itself. As for the changes in F2B, I did mention that the first one who comes to mind, i. e. the panel of judges without elimination of scoring the highest and the lowest, is very damaging and we lost more than or without the Factor K. I know that this is a matter of numbers of flight, but… I know that both of you are both passionate controlliners, and I congratulate you for your being thoroughly invested, but I cannot unfortunately share your point of view. Luc. | Tree | 315 |
| Igor Burger | Voting... Who is who? | 03.12.2007 - 14:55:22 |
| Dear Tamas (and all others feeling the same ... didnt I wrote it already? :-) )
I am very sorry if you feel I try to make anyone quite. I hope you did not feel I am trying to limit inputs on this forum, it is here make the communication easier, and more clear. My previous post was more hoping and request to keep all users, and voting correct than making someone quite. Sorry again if you understood it that way. I believe your in post is constructive and so I am responding that way. Technical point of view: We have actually 106 voting users. As I wrote I try to keep voting users correct, so I do all what I can to avoid such things, result is, that actually we have all users beside one new user easy to track because they posted Email address or real address or at least another ID (FAI licence or so) allowing to check if the user is real person. That unknown user is ‘Gruendel’, I am writing his name just because I do not know him and I do not have any other chance to contact him. I do not want just to delete any voice, so please if anyone can tell him to fill some more data, it will be nice. Practical point of view: Tamas, you are right that “names” play some role in this voting, if for nothing else than at least to understand each others. I fully agree that we should know who is who. The registration page has enough space to fill in not only formal identification, but also other useful data giving us chance to know who is who. Several of us filled if they are pilots, judges, beginners or so. So this is my request to all those who did not fill it yet, to do so. If we know who is who, it makes your voting more valuable. One note on end. In passed few weeks I got several requests to unsubscribe from mail notification. I also found that several of us have invalid email addresses, probably because of the same reason. I note that email notification ca be disabled on page with personal settings (the only checkbox). Allowing or disabling email notification or extending of personal data is easy to do here: http://www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/upravlogin.php . igor | Tree | 313 |
| Peter Germann | Issue of Discussion on this Forum | 03.12.2007 - 14:05:02 |
|
While I am glad to see new posts coming up, it seems important to me that we try to keep the discussion well centered I believe side tracking into issues such as grouping of manoeuvres is of little value here. Even the question whether to use k factors or not is of no interest at this point in time since we are now dealing with a proposal suggesting a trial, NOT the elimination of k factors. Please allow me to quote from the actual proposal, as submitted by the F2 Subcommittee in August 2007: „Supporting Information: The F2B Subcommittee is aware that there is disagreement within the c/l stunt community when it comes to the value of K factors in F2B. Concluding the many years of intensive work on the 2006 F2B rule revision, the Subcommittee has therefore found it appropriate that for a trial period of not less then two years the influence of K factors shall be eliminated (by setting all factors to value 1 as proposed above). During this trial period, contest results shall be analysed in order to determine from actual results whether the removal of K factors should be permanent, whether modified factors should be used, or whether the current 2006 K factors should be reinserted.“ We have seen a number of quite interesting and highly respectable posts, published by reputable and qualified persons and being directly related to the trial issue itself. I do look forward to read more of those dealing with the the issue in an objective and open minded way and I gladly repeat my invitation to publish such posts, in whichever language. It remains to be the purpose of this Forum to support the opinion forming process of those who are in charge to decide whether to conduct the planned K=1 trial or not. Peter Germann | Tree | 312 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Aspirations, obsession, elegance... | 03.12.2007 - 13:50:12 |
| Tamàs, you are saying:
„Only that modifications can be supported, which ones improve judging-evaluating job. (At least: no further compression, but expansion in final results). Cancellation of K-factors surely does not serve this aim, just like stopping scoring of individual manoeuvres, and the 100-degree scaling did“ I would like to comment the „Compression/Expansion“ or differentiation issue, since it keeps to be used to justify the application of k factors: Compression: Simulations performed on recent top level contests results have shown that k factors have no significant effect when flyers of close to uniform, high level qulity are competing. Using compression or expansion effects as an argument for or against k-factors is not correct. Of course, using the same argument against the trial want hold water either. Expansion: Flyers qualifications must be based on judges adjugement alone and judges finding must be final. Mathematical tools, be it for artificial expansion or for judges assistance, are influencing the judges finding and remain to be highly questionable, Since the beginning of its work back in 1999, the F2B Work Group understands this very well and therefore following measures have been taken: A wider range of scale: Enables judges to express minute detail errors observed. Elimination of hi-low dropping: Encourages judges to make use of the full bandwith. Standardised judges training; Recommendations for NAC’s, as per „Judges Guide“ The F2B Work Group is determined to carry on supporting NAC’s in their effort to improve judges selection, qualification and proficiency. Those wishing to contribute are invited to contact me anytime at peterdgermann@bluewin.ch Peter Germann | Tree | 311 |
| Tamás Tokaji | Aspirations, obsession, elegance... | 03.12.2007 - 07:27:55 |
| Dear Luc,
Congratulations to your post, analyzing all essential items! I not in 90, but up to 100 percents agree with you. -I feel like speaking into the air: no aswers onto our questions! -The need for using of K-factors is confirmable (and confirmed) either theo retical, or practical way, and this cannot be matter of NOBODY's personal a spiration. -Only that modifications can be supported, which ones improve judging-evalu ating job. (At least: no further compression, but expansion in final result s). Cancellation of K-factors surely does not serve this aim, just like sto pping scoring of individual manoeuvres, and the 100-degree scaling did. Voting... Who is who? Dear Igor, After my previous post, you made me quiet: "all new (and old) registrations are serious, and controlled". Today I am not so calm. Do you think, a pure nickname, or firstname without any further data covers an existing pilot-j udge-trainer-organizator?? Try to imagine, nowadays only Hungarian firstnames make 1163 different male , and 1443 female ones... I do not want to accuse nobody, but this tactics is not too elegant... Anyway, -as Istvan offered- we REALLY can issue a valid "who is who" of us. I say again: we must not let outsiders to decide our business! Tamas Tokaji (translated by Eva Tokaji) | Tree | 310 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: | 02.12.2007 - 14:16:30 |
| Hi Luc, Thanks for sharing your view with us. Your English is good enough for us to understand. We all learned so much from Big Art Adamissin, and we had him here in South Africa for 2 weeks in 1997. From what you say here, it sounds like you are saying that the rules should have been left as they were before the changes brought about by the working group under Peter Germann and Andy Sweetland.
You said: "For myself I see my future in F2B rather dark in view of all the changes that I consider important. This is, amongst others, the venue of the electronics autoregulating the flight. This does not reflect my vision of aerobatics." May I please ask which changes that you consider important, and that make you consider the future of F2B to be dark? You see, what I have learned after flying in my first 2 world champs, is that you cannot fly to the rule book and expect to get good scores at the world champs. After seeing just how bad the scoring was in Kiev in 1998, I asked Big Art, what I should teach my new pilots and judges back home. He said that we must fly to the rules because that was all that we have, and maybe one day someone will teach everyone to understand the rules properly. You mention the language problem. It is indeed sad that we all do not speak just one language, but that is what we have and we just have to make the best of it. This is another good reason for using more animated 3-D graphics as we showed in Belgrade at the workshop. If we keep K-factors, or we remove them, it will make very little difference to who wins and loses in our competitions. I just believe that we will be able to make a more objective decision if we do a 2 year trial without k-factors. When you mantion "electronics autoregulating the flight", if you are referring to the electric motor scene, then I don't think that you need to be too concerned. Sure these systems can use electronic feedback systems, and they are impressive. If you look at the last US Nats, then you will see that Orestes Hernandez won with a Retro 60 with 0% nitro. As you know, this is an old design with deflector plate piston, long stroke etc. No tuned pipe, no carbon prop, just a low-tech design in the hands of a good pilot. Paul Walker was flying his new electric Impact with super powerful Plettenberg motor and high-tech controller etc. The rest of the top performers were using big powerful PA/RO-Jett engines. I believe that in the end it is the pilot that will count if the basic airplane design is good. I do not see a dark future for F2B, if you see how the event has grown over the last 10 years or so. Early next year, I will offer an interactive pc-based training system with a voice track that can be changed into any language. I sincerely believe that this will help to create a universal understanding of the rules. Once we are all in sync, then I believe that the next set of F2B rules will take a big step towards our goal of being able to fly to the rules, and being scored accordingly. | Tree | 309 |
| Peter Germann | Re: | 02.12.2007 - 12:15:28 |
| Thank you, Luc, for sharing your point of view on this Forum. While I do not agree to what you say and to your conclusions drawn from possibly misinterpreting the language, I do appreciate your translation effort very much. I would hope that yours is an example to be followed by others, perhaps then posting their objective reasons why the K=1 trial should not be done as planned. | Tree | 308 |
| luc | | 01.12.2007 - 20:44:41 |
| Accuracy: translated today written ago 8 days.
I am sorry but my English is not good enough to make my opinion clear. A friend has to translate it all. I do not wish to abuse his patience hence you will find only few messages from me. I want to say that I join for 90% Istvàn Travnik’s ideas. He is brave by taking the role of inquisitor. Sometimes his messages are a little bit direct, but at least he clearly defends his opinions. Some of his questions are still unanswered. About the voting date many of my contacts understood the same time schedule - mid November. Mr Germann in the message 281 you said this: “The discussion forum will open and will in future be available for exchange of experiences made once the k=1 trial will be in force. When the trial will be approved by CIAM in March 2008, I intend to form a group of people developing the tools required to monitor the trial from January 1 2009 on.” If my translation is correct you give here the confirmation of the introduction of k=1. I still think this is very premature even if in my opinion I think you influential. Mr Germann please remember a seminar in Piennes with mr Adamisin how he made allusion to all the writing around the aerobatic rules. For him the rules were only the few pages in the FAI Sporting Code book. I have the same conviction. Reading between the lines is not necessary. All this to say its not necessary to revolutionize aerobatics. During the common discussions one of your arguments for all these changes was an effort to bring back pilots to the aerobatics scene: I am not sure that you succeeded in doing this in the last years or maybe the elapsed time span has been too short to see already any results. For myself I see my future in F2B rather dark in view of all the changes that I consider important. This is, amongst others, the venue of the electronics autoregulating the flight. This does not reflect my vision of aerobatics. Keith regarding the message 290, this is not a question of confidence but rather the fact that a majority says “no” to a change. This change is pushud through in a indefatigable obsessive way. This all is very tiresome for people like me not mastering the English language but this counts also for others I think. For me it’s of no help to enter in discussion “for or against K factors”. Arguments “for or against” can be found everywhere. Aerobatics will always remain a “lottery” for variuos reasons. Otherwise one should start in F2A and even there meteorological influences are not excluded. Anyway, the present vote is only indicative like the vote taken in Sebnitz. Every NAC delegate will cast the final vote at the Plenary Meeting in 2008. Luc | Tree | 307 |
| István Travnik | Re: 54:22 | 27.11.2007 - 23:59:07 |
| Dear Uwe,
I think you choosen a very slippery way (i. e. your informations of present days' competitors is a little bit outdated.) in other words: "Si tacuisses, philosophus manisses..." I think it is a common sense, or simply basement of our conversation, not to question anybody's mandate to speak and vote here. Shall I issue a brief "who is who" for your pleasure? | Tree | 306 |
| luc | | 27.11.2007 - 23:17:03 |
| Good evening,
Uwe you dream a bit I think, I can confirm to you that 10 people of my country to vote, 6 stuntman and 4 judges Regards. Luc. | Tree | 305 |
| PERRET Claire | | 27.11.2007 - 23:16:33 |
| Uwe,
I do not accept this remark. To fly F2B the competitors need organisers and judges. For example: in the Perret's family (we voted twice, Claire and myself). When you come to fly in Landres you are happy to find organisers like us. We have an interest in F2B, to welcome modellers who fly another class than our class. We have two schools to teach young modellers and they fly Stunt firstly. If you think we are not allowed to have an advice on the matter so I shall stop to organise F2B competition in Landres and to come in the competitions organised by F2B specialists. Don't remember that it is the same for the Dessaucy's family (pilot and judge) Beringer's family (4 pilots) Gilbert's Family (judge and organiser). So Uwe I totally disagree with you. We have our opinion and I think we are cooler than some of the participants (even German) in this forum. Our sport needs pilots, judges and organisers. All may have an opinion ....different of yours. Best regards JPP | Tree | 304 |
| Uwe Kehnen | 54:22 | 27.11.2007 - 21:32:18 |
| Hi all
At the first moment it is a very large difference 54 against and 22 for the trial. But if you clear the list of all people with a double voting(up to 4 votes from one family )or people who were never seen in a stunt circle it is more or less still an equal situation. People voting for the trial are all more or less active stunt flyers. Kind regards Uwe Kehnen | Tree | 303 |
| István Travnik | Maniac writers vs. opinion of F2B community... | 26.11.2007 - 21:34:37 |
| Dear Peter,
I would like to draw your kind attention, onto some essential things. Please, don't mix posts of maniac writers* (e.g. me, You, and other friends of us) published here, with the not fully passive, voting part of F2B community. Present state of voting: 54 "against", and 22 "for" the 2-year trial period. I think it is speaking for itself, and there is no kind of any ambiguity. This result means that it is not possible to submit any proposal about any "trial period" without K-factors, since that proposal would be explicitely against the opinion of community. If anybody tried to comment this proposal as a "common sense" of F2B community, it would be a cheating, in other words: lie. I am sure, you take our common "game" and your personality far seriously, than trying that. Sincerely: Istvan *we use "graphomaniac" to this, but am not sure it works in English... | Tree | 301 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Do K factors compensate complexity? | 26.11.2007 - 13:41:35 |
|
Yes, Igor, discussing the issue of complexity, as well as other objective k topices, here and now is of little relevance to the issue of whether to conduct the trial or not. Repeating here what was said many times before will (agree, Istvan) not bring us forward. After all it was the ambiguity of opinions leading to the trial and, with all due respect of those opposing, nothing has meanwhile changed. Except, of course, that the formal requirement to submitt a related proposal was fulfilled by the F2 Subcommittee on August 28 2007. | Tree | 300 |
| István Travnik | No compensation, weighing... | 26.11.2007 - 11:27:29 |
| Dear Peter,
Why should be there any need for some "compensation" between different manoeuwres? I cannot rememeber, if somebody spoken about compensation (at least, me not...) The K-factor gives into the judges' hands the tool, which helps to express that "I could give 10, or 20 different PIECES of scores to this manoeuwre, since it has so many individually judgeable movements, but, in lack of time, I must write only ONE figure onto my paper..." This is NOT compensation , but weighing: K-factor gives the complex, multi-movements manoeuvres the proper weight. However it was written so many times, recently, in (264). Pls. take a look. I.m.h.o. it is a little bit ridiculous, to win the WC by brilliant plain inverted flights, I hope, you did not mean that in last post...;)))) | Tree | 299 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Do K factors compensate complexity? | 26.11.2007 - 11:17:08 |
| I think it off topick now at this point of deciding if to have or not to have the trial. But I will answer shortly, may be evening I will write more.
Actual rules does not speak about awarding, the system is opposite, we have ERRORS leading to subtract points. Means if a judge does not see any error you have to get 10 points. If he see more errors he has to subtract more points from 10. It means for level flight which you fly well you lost 5 points, while in not so well square eight you lost 18x10 - 18x4.5 = 99 points. I think this is what you expected :-) The problem described by Istvan is, that the judge cannot so quickly subtract points as a pilot can do mistakes in complex figure. This is why he (and it is for myself the same feeling) means that it is better for judge to state how well the simple or complex figure matchs (over all) the wanted shape. Let us speak about percents - you fly the level for 75% well - it is not so difficult, while your square eight was difficult and you did in only for 45% ... but those 45% was based on longer and more complex judging (more decesiions during that maneuver - every corner, every segment, every crossection) ... thererore his point in square eight just contains more. | Tree | 298 |
| Peter Germann | Do K factors compensate complexity? | 26.11.2007 - 10:44:46 |
|
Is the two square eights manoeuvre 9 times more complex to fly or judge than two laps of inverted flight? I dont know and perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain on this Forum why the k factor rule says so. As far as I am concerned, when flying my two inverted laps the number of times I can fly out of tolerances given is quite limited. Typically, I do not commit too many errors and the judges may decide to note 7.5 points or so. On the other side, the two square eights manoeuvre is, at least for me, a totally different story. This manoeuvre consists of much more elements and chances are that I do a lot of errors when trying to remain within tolerances while flying through the numerous segments. Consequently, receiving less points for the sq.eights is natural for me and I am not surprised when getting a 4.5 points. After all, the manoeuvre is really difficult to perform and the lower mark simply reflects this. Look now what the k factor does. Its application results in 15 points (7.5x2) for my inverted flight and 81 points (4.5x18) for the square eights manoeuvre where I did a lot more errors. In this particular case the use of k factors actually inverts the assessment of the judge. This is a severe misjudgment completely disregarding judges evaluation and needs to be eliminated. I do not really understand the justification for the use of a system grossly distorting the assessment of the judges and I would really appreciate if the proponents of k factors would share their objective reasons with the readers of this Forum. Thank you. Peter Germann | Tree | 297 |
| István Travnik | About deadlines and posts... | 22.11.2007 - 21:05:27 |
| Dear Peter,
Do not feel yourself to be apologized! However, I do not understand severe things: as I looked back this forum, that posts, as you reported so: "September 9 2007: „.... By approximately end of November 2007, a voting tool related to the k factor issue will be made available on this platform. The voting serves the purpose of supporting the opinion forming process within the F2 Subcommittee and the CIAM Delegates of those nations not being represented with the F2 Subcommittee." I found this post here under the date at 11th of September (not significant difference) And the two others: "October 10 2007 : The voting tool will remain open until April 30 2008." and: "November 11 2007: The K = 1 voting platform will be closed April 1 2008" I did not found here, nowhere. I am sorry, I tried 3 or 4 times, but not. So I think, I have not to apologize myself, too, for "working" from the original invitation material... Istvan | Tree | 296 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: About | 22.11.2007 - 20:53:44 |
| Dear István, Thank you for the extra information, and yes, I do understand what you say. I totally agree that we must learn from previous mistakes, and right now, I think that we are taking steps forward. If the majority decide that we should not go ahead with the trial, then we will still go forward with improving the rules and creating a judges training system that can be agreed upon in all countries.
I look forward to the day when we can expect to fly to the rules and be scored accordingly, and not to individual opinions on how the manoeuvres should look. There are many pilots and judges who feel the same way, and I sincerely believe that we as a group are moving in the right direction......with or without k-factors. | Tree | 295 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Promises, losses, agitation and confidence | 22.11.2007 - 19:38:07 |
| Re: Vote Timeframe
Dear Istvan, in your post 289, dated November 11 2007 you wrote: Quote: Do you think, that prolongation of voting (to April, 2008. instead of promised 15th November, 2007.) was a fair step? Unquote This is quite interesting because it seems that I must apologize for having published misleading information. Following is list of information, relevant to the closing of the voting gate, published by e-mail (and on this Forum) to the members of the S/C, to the members of the F2B Work Group and to indivual flyers and judges worldwide: September 9 2007: „.... By approximately end of November 2007, a voting tool related to the k factor issue will be made available on this platform. The voting serves the purpose of supporting the opinion forming process within the F2 Subcommittee and the CIAM Delegates of those nations not being represented with the F2 Subcommittee.“ October 10 2007 : The voting tool will remain open until April 30 2008. November 11 2007: The K = 1 voting platform will be closed April 1 2008 From your statement, I take it that my above list is incomplete but unfortunately I was not able to find when and where it was said that the vote shall be closed by November 15th. Perhaps you could fill me in? Thank you for clarifying the issue, Peter Germann | Tree | 294 |
| István Travnik | About "Golden Ages"... | 22.11.2007 - 18:42:51 |
| Dear Keith,
I never said that before Workig Group started to work, everything in the F2B rules was perfect. Yes, there were several minor technical and geometrical problems with the definitions, masures, etc. In fact, nothing else, what the peresent Judges Guide cleared. However, the judges were not better trained than now, the final results' table did not look so ridicully-tragically as now. (Roulette, or Lottery-effect). I do not know, who was the "inventor" of that "innovation", 15 or 20 years before, but the Working Group, when started its work, had have to revise this undoubtedly bad, and fallen modification, first of all. The work started to go in other directions, and not against to an explicite mistake. As I see, the modifications (20, further 100 degree scale), gave worse and worse answers. To fall in love with an idea ("let us kill the good-for-nothing K-factors"), is not a question of honesty. But, not to be able to face with our previous mistakes, is dangerous i.m.h.o. To ignore, (furthermore, make to disappear) such an essential and grave document, like the Petition in 2002, Sebnitz, that is impertinence in my eyes. (This document was not a voting: several dozens of pilots -majority of all contestants- claimed with their signature that "hands off from the K-factor", and no need for further (such) work of Working Group. Naturally, I accept your comments, why not? But, the reality is a little bit more complex than it was so easily reparable with some modification of Sporting Code. I hope, now you understand me. | Tree | 293 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: Promises, losses, agitation and confidence | 22.11.2007 - 18:02:35 |
| Hi Igor, Thanks for the background history. I can see why they put it all together in more recent times. That made it difficult for judges. The judges job is make quick decisions based on well-trained experience, and therefore can only score each manoeuvre out of 100%. The K-factors are calculated in tabulation, and the judges that I have spoken to, say that they do not mentally allow for k-factors when giving the score. It is very difficult to really know if this is true or not. This is why I believe that it will be interesting to see if there will be any drastic change without official k-factors. I really do not see that we will see some amazing difference if we leave out these k-factors. I can already hear those voices saying "if it will make no difference, then why take it out??" I think that a reasonable answer would be..."If it makes no appreciable difference, then why bother to use k-factors at all??" Keep everything as simple as possible. | Tree | 292 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Promises, losses, agitation and confidence | 22.11.2007 - 14:29:35 |
| Keith, Fai rules had in past kefficients in range 1-10 combined with 1-10 points for every single maneuver. For example for loops we had k=1 for first, k=2 for the second and k=3 for the third;
sq eight we had k=8 for first and k=10 for the second; hourglass had k=10 every judge had to make separate points for every single maneuver actual rules have those koefficients summed to one single koefficient, as far as I remember reason was that judge is too loaded to be able to make single points for single maneuver ... so for me, that koefficient reflects komplexity of maneuver, not "difficulty" and number of possible decisions of the judge kompressed to one single number. | Tree | 291 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: Promises, losses, agitation and confidence | 22.11.2007 - 13:54:06 |
| Dear István,
You make it sound like everything in the F2B rules was perfect before the working group began its work. I apologize in advance if I understand you wrong. I do not know what happened to the vote from Sebnitz, because that particular year, I could not be there. My history with the world champs goes back to 1996 in Sweden, so I do not know what you refer to about 15 years ago when each manoeuvre lost its own score. The aim of the working group is to improve things to make F2B a better event for all. I am sure that you understand that there is pressure from many sides to make changes. There have been good ideas, and also "not-so-good" ideas. For example, I personally do not believe that the 100 point scoring system is possible with human judges, but the majority seem to feel that it is a good idea. I am confident that if it is proved to be a mistake in the future then it will be changed. To say that the "silent majority" have lost their trust in the working group, is something that I don't really believe is factual. The majority of people in most things in life, prefers not to get involved. This is called "sitting on the fence". In other words they can easily decide to change one way or the other. This does not mean that they have no confidence in the working group. The old rules needed to be changed, because there were many technical errors in them, and if the working group did not get involved then the rules would not have been improved. Nobody in this group gets paid to do this, so they are only doing it out of the principle of giving something back to the sport that we all enjoy. As you say, people have the right to to feel how they do, but I feel that to state that the majority have lost their trust in the working group, is a strong statement. If this is the case, then I would suggest that the majority should state this on the forum, and then replace the working group with something better. I am sure that most of us on the working group could spend the time that we dedicate on this project towards doing something else, like building and flying more models etc. Thank you for your comments, and I hope that you will accept my comments in a positive manner. | Tree | 290 |
| István Travnik | Promises, losses, agitation and confidence | 22.11.2007 - 13:01:17 |
| Dear Keith, Peter and colleagues,
My opinion is that, this discussion is speaking for many years NOT about some tiny professional questions (K-factors to be kept or not, etc.) but -as I observed- about the confidence. Confidence of whole F2B community in reforms, coming or enforced "from above", confidence in Workig Group. It was a severe attack against the democracy, when the Sebnitz 2002 petition was made disappear. Ignoration of the opinion of the majority of a WC pilots, that is mistake, maybe silliness. Nobody answered, who made that. The reaction is readable in the result of voting. Do you think, that prolongation of voting (to April, 2008. instead of promised 15th November, 2007.) was a fair step? Return to professional questions: Why nobody revised the harmful effects, when (ca. 15 years before) every each maoueuvres lost their own score?? Why was not realized that 100 steps scaling made no other results, but further compression of scores? Up till that point, when the reformers, or innovators cannot be able to face to their previous mistakes, the "silent majority" won't trust them further, keep themself far, or silently puts a "no" against any further trial, experiment, innovation, promise, etc. etc. They are NOT closed (or simple-)minded, but lost their trust. They have the right to do that. | Tree | 289 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: | 22.11.2007 - 06:55:20 |
| Hi Dave and others,
There is no real method to conclude that the present k-factor system is doing anything valuable. All we have is plenty of results from competitions, and none of it can demonstrate conclusively that K-factors are helping to seperate the "men from the boys." We don't have any feedback system to state categorically that the judges scores are accurate and that the right pilots are winning because they are flying manoeuvres closer to the rules. All present at the workshop in Belgrade agreed without any argument that there are many misconceptions about the manoeuvre shapes, and that we are finally getting somewhere in creating a better understanding. Not just a better understanding, but also a common understanding between all countries. The animated 3-D graphics can be understood by all without having to translate the English language instructions. Better (and more interesting) judges training is going to improve the scoring in our event........not k-factors. Peter said:"At this point, I need to add that is important to understand that both pilots and judges have done their work knowing that k factors have been in use. It is is not impossible that pilot strategy and judges behavior may change once both groups are aware that k factors will not be applied. It is one of the goals of the trial to find out if and to which extend the elimination of k factors influences pilots and judges." The more data and stats that we have, the easier it is to come to a better conclusion. Sure there is no real, or scientific way to arrive at an exact or "engineering" type of conclusion, because the missing element right now is the human element as mentioned above by Peter. Even if this is the only extra bit of data that may come out of the trial period, then it is still worth doing it. What is there to fear in this trial?? If you look at the trend of the voting so far (54/21) then it will be simple to vote again and re-instate the K-factor system after the trial period. This is why I say that we need to be open-minded on this subject and give it a fair trial. Honestly folks..........what can we really lose?? | Tree | 288 |
| Peter Germann | K factors and differentiation | 21.11.2007 - 12:30:25 |
|
What is the effect of k factors on differentiation i.e. the points ratio between competitors? a.) Here is a set of numbers comparing k versus no-k results and being based on the actual score sheets of the 10 top classifieds at the 2007 Bodman/Germany local contest: With k factors Highest score 2260.73 10th score 1801.1 Ratio 1st-10th 1.255 Without k factors highest score 845 10th score 692.3 Ratio 1st-10th 1.221 Ratio difference: 0.004 At the 2007 Bodman/Germany local contest the points ratio among the 10 best classified flyers has been 1 : 1.225 with k factors and 1 : 1.221 without k factors. ------ b.) 2006 World Championships: With k factors Highest score 1073.94 10th score 1049.29 Ratio 1-10 1.023 Without k factors Highest score 133.74 10th score 130.93 Ratio 1-10 1.021 Ratio difference: 0.002 At the 2006 W/C the points ratio among the 10 best has been 1 : 1.023 with k factors and 1 : 1.021 without k factors. ------ Looking at the above numbers may indicate that k factors expand the ratio between competitors, in particular at local contests where the quality level is highly different. Much less so, about half as much, when the level of pilot quality is more uniform, such as for example among the 10 top flyers at the 2006 W/C. At this point, I need to add that is important to understand that both pilots and judges have done their work knowing that k factors have been in use. It is is not impossible that pilot strategy and judges behavior may change once both groups are aware that k factors will not be applied. It is one of the goals of the trial to find out if and to which extend the elimination of k factors influences pilots and judges. Here is a question to our friends in the United States: A ratio analysis among ranks 1 -10 performed on results from both local and major US contests could give a hint what we may expect, related to differentiation, from flying and judging knowing that there are no k factors. Perhaps you would be able to provide the readres of this Forum with such data? Thank you for commenting on differentiation. Peter Germann | Tree | 287 |
| Peter Germann | Re: | 19.11.2007 - 18:52:45 |
| Dear Dave
Amending to my post 281 from Nov. 18 I would like to clarify that those wishing to contribute to the development of analysis instruments are of course welcome to contact me anytime. Instruments and procedures will of course be published immediatly when available. While I am in fact not really qualified to conduct scientific studies, I will do my best to come up with reliable information for those taking the final decision, the members of the F2 Subcommittee and the Delegates representing their National Airsports Control (NAC) at the CIAM Plenary Meeting. | Tree | 286 |
| Peter Germann | Re: K=1 ? | 19.11.2007 - 16:41:38 |
| Thank you, Tamás,
for publishing the objective reasons why you have chosen to decline the trial. Being one of few to openly raise your voice against the K=1 trial here, you are setting a good example certainly contributing to the forming of opinion. I invite others to follow by using this platform in the interest of the community. You are mentioning a couple of points all being well worth to be discussed in detail and I will try to address your issues step by step by publishing related posts within the immediate future, then again inviting the community to enter discussion of the points to be brought up. Before doing so, and answering your question on whose job it is to train judges, I thought it would be appropriate to address the issue of judging first: While not being directlyI related to the question whether the use of k factors is required or not, judging quality of course remains to be the essential element of our actvity. With the publication of the 2006 version of the Rule and of the Judges Guide, the F2B Work Group provided the judges with a set of tools required to do their job well. Highly accurate manoeuvre descriptions combined with clear diagrams are defining the flight track and the Judges Guide suggests judging procedures matching the clearly defined degree of precision. Also, in order to allow judges to make use of the full width of marks range, the hi-lo dropping method was eliminated. If properly used, perhaps by applying error counting as you suggest, the current system is perfectly able to qualify the entire range from simple to complex manoeuvres being performed by all categories of flyers. It is obvious that the above was a major step forward, last but not least illustrated by the fact that our Canadian friends have very recently chosen to adopt the F2B system (w/o k factors). Now, as far as judges training is concerned, the authors of the rule do in fact understand the problem and this is why very clear recommendations describing the procedures required to implement both Rule and Guide have been added to the Sporting Code. Please check Annex 4B of the 2007 Code. On page 42, paragraph 4B.2 defines each National Airsport Control to be fully responsible and it furthermore describes in detail suggested procedures to ensure quality of judging and proficiency of judges. The F2B Work Group is and remains fully committed to support the NAC’s, such as by the extensive video tracking work and the very helpful simulator done by Keith Renecle, but it must be well understood that the responsibility lies within the NAC itself. Trying to contribute I have, dated January 15 2007 and in order to encourage, support and coordinate efforts related to judging, sent the follwing to the members of the F2 Subcommittee and to a number of qualified individuals: -------------- Dear Friends, Wth the F2B rule re-write project having reached a stage where the F2B Work Group may limit its ongoing efforts to the monitoring and editing of the rule, time has come to address the judging topic, an important issue where work remains to be done. I do believe that it is the F2B Work Group’s obligation to serve the c/l stunt community by providing instruments enabling judges to function with the same degree of expertise as the one demonstrated by the competitors. At this point in time, both the elimination of hi-lo dropping and the extension of the marks range have significantly improved the ability to differentiate. Furthermore, tools such as Keith Renecle’s simulator and the F2B judging guide are available to support quality level and standardisation of F2B judging on an international level. What we need to do is make use of what we have and I am therefore now looking for an individual being willing to dedicate part of his time and all of his expert knowledge to the taking of the lead when it comes to coordinate the implementation of procedures supporting the international standardisation of F2B judging. The future F2B Judging Coordinator shall be, or become, a member of the F2B Work Group. He or she shall be responsible for: • Supporting cooperation of the ongoing F2B rule editing process • The ongoing editing of the F2B judges guide • The organisation of judges meetings at World and Continental Championships • Supporting those providing training tools, such as, for example, Keith Renecle. • The providing of standardised judges training basics • Supporting the implemenation of standardised judges training and selection criteria The above is not a trivial task and those being interested to contribute must be aware that working in an international field will be a political challenge, too. Contol line stunt has always been a major part of our live and has given all of us many unforgettable moments. I have no doubt that many of you do agree when I say that sometimes you must give something back… Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to answer questions you may have. -------------- So far, my appeal has remained without answer whatsoever. While reasons for this may be many, I would find it rather difficult to understand when someone would use the need for judging improvement as a reason to decline the k=1 trial. Peter Germann | Tree | 285 |
| Dave Simons | | 19.11.2007 - 04:28:26 |
| I hope that I have not misunderstood the proposal for the K=1 trial.
There is no method of evaluation of the trial results as part of the proposal? The method of evaluation of the trial results will be determined (by who?)AFTER the vote on the proposal? This is the single best reason I have seen for the rejection of this "trial"!!!! If the method of evaluating the trial results are not part of the proposal or are not known and agreed before the trial - then it is no scientific experiment at all - as an engineer, it is unacceptable to me to specify a "test" or "experiment" without also specifying the means of analysis of the results. The proposal should be rejected until an acceptable method for results analysis is disclosed - or is it still a secret? | Tree | 284 |
| Igor Burger | Re: K=1 ? | 18.11.2007 - 23:37:37 |
| >>>In this voting I see people in the list, who neither took part in a competition, nor never worked as a judge.
What will happen if I ask 100 of my friends, or others, to registrate and vote?? They could do! Furthermore, I see names registrated twice, or 3-times..<<< Dear Tamas (and all others feeling the same) I check who is registered time to time if all users fill data allowing recognizing them. If I see fake registration, I contact those people or automatically delete them. I did it several times (typically mistaken registration or we had also some internet attacks with advertising). I think all or actual users are easy to check so if anyone feel we have fake users, or if anyone things we have anything incorrect, just contact me, I will try to do my best to keep this forum correct. Regarding multiple registrations - we are here people good in flying, making models, or just people helping us to do our hobby. So we are not experts for computers or internet. Some of us are registered in past and forgot passwords, or registered several times from other reasons or some of us was not able to do it and I did it for them for mail request. I would like to believe all of us are correct people and no one tries to use voting several times or to do any other incorrect things. At least until now I did not find such thing and did not need to solve it. Anyway, if anyone see or feel anything wrong (technically :-) ), or if anyone has problems with passwords, or want to delete obsolete registrations then again – just ask me by mail I will solve the problem. Regards igor | Tree | 283 |
| Tamás Tokaji | K=1 ? | 18.11.2007 - 21:12:34 |
| Dear Friends,
I voted "NO" in the matter of trial of temporarily setting K=1, because my conviction is that the K-factor improves differentiative abilities of scoring, in other words: does not diminishes the difference the scores of individual contestants. Furthermore, we do not know, that finishing the 2-years long trial period, which aspects (and which people) shall evaluate as "succesful" or "unsccesful" this trial. I agree with that ones, which asks for reforms. Why? Average age of present days' pilots are too old, there are only a few juniors. The main reason is -amongst others- that present scoring practise is destroying our juniors' pleasure. There are too much subjective factors in the scoring practise. E.g. an "unnamed" beginner's perfect take-off remains not recognized (and gets the usual "7"), while a well-known "star" pilot's faulty take-off gets the usual, too (9.5). The used interval of scoring is too narrow. This was shrinked towards by introduction of "branch-manoeuvres", and the 100-degrees scoring interval. Elimination of K-factors shrinks more the differences between the individual results. Please, look at Bodmann 2007 Competition's results at the www.fesselflug.de page! The results list remained the same, but the differences shrinked by several percents. It looks to be not essential difference, but remember to WC 1996, Norrköping: 30 pilots shared only 100 points difference, or the last EC in Beograd, where only 24 points was the difference amongst 6th to 15th placed contestants. Renewing the judges' body is not really cared about. Why do not sit near the official jury panel a panel of novice judges? Why do not train nobody them? Whos job could it be? Before EC in Beograd, there was drawn the attention of judges, onto the sharpness of square maoeuvres. Well, gentlemen, this warning was not reflcted in the results, at all! There is "no problem", if a manoeuvre is 55 to 60 degrees high, even by the first ten pilots... If we miss well-trained judges body, there is no future! Let us make reforms, or at least try it! The subtractive systeme in present judging guide seems to be good, but it is impossible applicate it by competition. There is no one, who is able during observation a manoeuvre, to count every faults, weigh them by severity, sum up them, and subtract from 10. One idea: let us reverse the process! Give into the hands of judges a pushknob, connected to a central computer! The judge shall push the knob, from the beginning to finishing the manoeuvre+3 seconds, every time, when a fault is observed. Maybe, by severe fault, push twice. Eventually, using 2 or 3 knobs, by severity of fault. Please, think on! The winner became the pilot with minimum (penalty) points. There is no need to subtract, write onto paper sheets, etc. If this suggested method not affordable, that means, the present deduction method is bad, since the basic system is the same, only the need of subtraction goes by. I cannot agree with present methode of voting! There was a WC in Sebnitz, 2002, when a petition was written, signed by the majority of pilots. These people is the really touched, and -there is no doubt- the CREAM of the F2B community. The democracy is THIS. In this voting I see people in the list, who neither took part in a competition, nor never worked as a judge. What will happen if I ask 100 of my friends, or others, to registrate and vote?? They could do! Furthermore, I see names registrated twice, or 3-times... If we want real result, let's ask to vote pilots. Every pilots, if possible. Do not let our business to outsiders! Tamás Tokaji (translated by Eva Tokaji) | Tree | 282 |
| Peter Germann | Re: K=1 trial, or K=1 TRIUMPH ...that is the question | 18.11.2007 - 18:08:38 |
| The K = 1 voting platform will be closed April 1 2008.
The discussion forum will remain open and will in future be available for the exchange of experiences made once the k = 1 trial will be in force. When the trial will be approved by CIAM in March 2008, I intend to form a group of people developing the tools required to monitor the trial from January 1 2009 on. Everybody interested to contribute is hereby kindly invited to contact me at peterdgermann@bluewin.ch The timeframe for the development of the analyzing methods will be May - October 2008. | Tree | 281 |
| István Travnik | Re: K=1 trial, or K=1 TRIUMPH ...that is the question | 17.11.2007 - 19:21:57 |
| Dear Peter,
First of all, I must state, I never spoken about "manipulation" of outcome (say precisely: result) of an eventual trial. This result may bring closer or far the scores related to each other, may change the final list, or may let this list unchanged. But, evaluation, or reporting, commenting the result is a rather subjective thing, since not yet defined the methods for analysis and qualification. Maybe an "anti K-biassed" one will be happy with the expectable further compression of results. This is not a question of honesty, and to suppose that, is not a malicious allegation from my side. About your request: it is forbidden to start a trial,(in other words: experiment), without fixed, objective, well-based evaluation method, without control-group, etc. All these items are missing now, and I cannot imagine any tool of power, to enforce all contest-organizers to make (and financing) double score-processing system. P.S. Today is 17th of November. When shall be the voting closed? | Tree | 279 |
| Peter Germann | Re: K=1 trial, or K=1 TRIUMPH ...that is the question | 16.11.2007 - 14:31:43 |
| Dear Istvan,
While we have not yet defined the methods for analysis and qualification to be used at the end of the trial, your statement saying nothing less than that the F2B Work Group may possibly manipulate the outcome is very close to a malicious allegation. May I suggest, for the sake of the ongoing debate, that you share with the community what you think to be objective reasons against the trial? | Tree | 278 |
| István Travnik | K=1 trial, or K=1 TRIUMPH ...that is the question | 15.11.2007 - 11:18:57 |
| Dear Peter,
I never told that deduction method by itself is reason to decline the k=1 trial. I tried to explain that that the deduction method is useful to train the judges, but cannot be expected to be working consciously, in a live-situation, when the score must be written down in seconds. Since only ONE score will be appeared on the paper, I keep my opinion, to give the proper weight to actual manoeuvre(s), according to its complexity (in other words: the number of movements, or, the amount of flying job done). Essential remark: however it was happened 15 or 20 years before, I consider as a severe mistake, when the identical manoeuvres lost their own scores. I don't care about, who was the "inventor" of this faulty modification, but great harm was made, no doubt. Nowadays everybody see. Peter, forgive me, but I cannot see any guarantial fact, for that the promoted "trial period" remains really a trial, and -anything shall be the result- won't be reported as a TRIUMPH of the K-factor-free system. I see a severe crisis in our scoring-evaluating practise for several years ("Roulette-syndrome"), but the way is somewhere else (pls. look at F3A friends...) Regards: Istvan | Tree | 277 |
| István Travnik | K=1 trial, or K=1 TRIUMPH ...that is the question. | 15.11.2007 - 11:17:00 |
| Dear Peter,
I never told that deduction method by itself is reason to decline the k=1 trial. I tried to explain that that the deduction method is useful to train the judges, but cannot be expected to be working consciously, in a live-situation, when the score must be written down in seconds. Since only ONE score will be appeared on the paper, I keep my opinion, to give the proper weight to actual manoeuvre(s), according to its complexity (in other words: the number of movements, or, the amount of flying job done). Essential remark: however it was happened 15 or 20 years before, I consider as a severe mistake, when the identical manoeuvres lost their own scores. I don't care about, who was the "inventor" of this faulty modification, but great harm was made, no doubt. Nowadays everybody see. Peter, forgive me, but I cannot see any guarantial fact, for that the promoted "trial period" remains really a trial, and -anything shall be the result- won't be reported as a TRIUMPH of the K-factor-free system. I see a severe crisis in our scoring-evaluating practise for several years ("Roulette-syndrome"), but the way is somewhere else (pls. look at F3A friends...) Regards: Istvan I wonder whether you are saying the deduction method by itself is the reason to decline the k = 1 trial? Consequently, there is no need to multiply marks pre-corrected for complexity by the judging process by additional k factors. Doing so eliminates or even inverts the intent of the rule by leading to a situation where a competitor receives a higher score for a complicated manoeuvre in which he committed a higher number of errors. (sq. eights vs inverted) So, while I admit that we may have to do a bit more work on the Judges Guide, I wonder whether you are saying the deduction method by itself is the reason to decline the k = 1 trial? | Tree | 276 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Deduction methode vs. human thinking/judgement | 15.11.2007 - 09:31:26 |
| Well, Istvan, I have personally received stacks of score sheets where judges have added very neat little drawings, most of the unfortuntely showing a bit too much errors...
In order to create such drawings, judges must register, quantify and of course remember errors. This is prerequisite for to determine the mark for the manoeuvre. Wether this process is done exactly as decribed in the Judges Guide or by a mental procedure determinating the mark based on quantity and weight of errors observed is irrelevant. The important thing is that each error is registered and its weight is kept the same, regardless in which manoeuvre it was committed. If I fly off-track one metre, I expect the same penalty when doing so in inverted flight and when missing the intersection in the sq. eight by the same distance. I all comes down to standardized judging procedures producing repeatable results on the score sheets. What remains to be essential, however, is that complicated manoeuvres are much more error-prone and will typically lead to lower marks when judged as per the rule. Which is why the current rule takes full care of the different complexity of manoeuvres. Consequently, there is no need to multiply marks pre-corrected for complexity by the judging process by additional k factors. Doing so eliminates or even inverts the intent of the rule by leading to a situation where a competitor receives a higher score for a complicated manoeuvre in which he committed a higher number of errors. (sq. eights vs inverted) So, while I admit that we may have to do a bit more work on the Judges Guide, I wonder whether you are saying the deduction method by itself is the reason to decline the k = 1 trial? | Tree | 275 |
| István Travnik | Deduction methode vs. human thinking/judgement | 15.11.2007 - 01:37:31 |
| Dear Peter,
There is no doubt, that the deduction (subtractive) methode is a logical, simple and very effective methode in the judges' teaching and training. Furthermore it is very vell based by your judging guide, in theoretical-professional aspects. However, every teacher, trainer, etc. knows very well, that the hardest point in their work is to turn the knowledge into skill. Maybe the judging job of aerobatics is the nicest example for this point. A well-trained, "eagle-eyed" judge can draw down onto a sheet of paper every manoeuvres,with every faults, deviations of the lastly observed flight. A human visual memory can be specialized onto it. (e.g. see training book of family Mórotz, backwards to 25-30 years.) But a human NEVER shall make his judgement (it must be stated in a few seconds), as a result of a series of subtractions. Your experiment written in your post is nice, but absolute not lifelike. My personal opinion (let us say, my taste)says not to degrade the scoring job into "pushing some knobs"... Since I consider the alterations of F2B judging rules of the recent 20 years not to be an improvement, but degradation (in my earlier postst I argumented, why) now I refuse any further experimenting to this direction. Regards: Istvan | Tree | 274 |
| István Travnik | Deduction methode vs. human thinking/judgement | 15.11.2007 - 01:28:13 |
| Dear Peter,
There is no doubt, that the deduction (subtractive) methode is a logical, simple and very effective methode in the judges' teaching and training. Furthermore it is very vell based by your judging guide, in theoretical-professional aspects. However, every teacher, trainer, etc. knows very well, that the hardest point in their work is to turn the knowledge into skill. Maybe the judging job of aerobatics is the nicest example for this point. A well-trained, "eagle-eyed" judge can draw down onto a sheet of paper every manoeuvres,with every faults, deviations of the lastly observed flight. A human visual memory can be specialized onto it. (e.g. see training book of family Mórotz, backwards to 25-30 years.) But a human NEVER shall make his judgement (it must be stated in a few seconds), as a result of a series of subtractions. Your experiment written in your post is nice, but absolute not lifelike. My personal opinion (let us say, my taste)says not to degrade the scoring job into "pushing some knobs"... Since I consider the alterations of F2B judging rules of the recent 20 years not to be an improvement, but degradation (in my earlier postst I argumented, why) now I refuse any further experimenting to this direction. Regards: Istvan Is the Deduction Method too difficult to handle? Rather than looking at the manoeuvre as a wholeand coming with a number, judges qualify manoeuvre elements when looking for deviations from the prescribed flight track. By suggesting „standardized“ deductions the rule provides judges with a means to improve the repeatability of scoring. In a simple form all it takes to do is to count errors observed, multiply the number of errors by, for example, 0.3 points and subtract the total from 10. Here is a little experiment: Check the rule for square eights and prepare yourself to detect all kind of deviations from the prescribed flight track. Type 10 - 0.3 into you ordinary pocket calculator Go to www.fesselflug.eu enter Downloads/Video and watch a pair of square eights performed. Press = every time you observe a deviation When the airplane exits from the manoeuvre remember the sharpness of corners. If round and soft press twice. If hard (but nowhere near 1.5 m radius) press once. Finally, read your mark, note it and reset the calculator. Chances are, the mark will be in the 6 points range, indicating that the two square eights are in fact a difficult and complex manoeuvre where many errors can be committed. Now, do the same with inverted flight. It comes at no surprise that the mark will be something like 9. Because inverted flight really is a simpler manoeuvre with fewer chances to miss the track. The experiment illustrates how the deduction method improves repeatability and how it deals with the complexity of manoeuvres. Enter now k factors modifying what the judge has defined to be the correct mark and you have a system significantly damaging the built-in complexity considering effect of the judging by elements method. As a matter of fact, if you apply k factors to the marks found above the resulting score will assign much more points (6 x 18 = 108 for the sq. eights, vs. 9 x 2 = 18 for inverted flight) to the manoeuvre where more errors have been committed. This is why k factors, when combined with the judging by element method, distort the outcome. With all due respect to the inventors of k factors, I really doubt that this is what they have had in mind. Does simulation of past contest replace the trial? Processing actual results of a number of past major championships has shown that the final standings have not changed very significantly when no k factors (and/or no hi-low dropping) was applied. I however doubt wether such simulation actually would replace the conducting of a wide based trial. It may actually be that both judges and pilots do behave differently when being aware of the fact that no k-factors will be used. It may well be the at the end of the trial we may see a difference resulting from equal manoeuvre values and from lack of (judges) fear to be dropped. How do we qualify the result of the trial? This, to be honest, is a question I cannot answer. As far as the evaluation of contest results is concerned, I am not qualified to perform statistical analysis and I will have to rely on those knowing better how to do this. We will have a bit of time to develop the tools required and the final decision criteria, however. I have no doubt, and the quality level and committment demonstrated on this Forum proves me right, that the C/L stunt community is able and ready to further contribute to the ongoing improvement of our rule system. The k=trial is a major step toward this goal. | Tree | 273 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Compexity Compensation | 12.11.2007 - 14:48:09 |
| Is the Deduction Method too difficult to handle?
Rather than looking at the manoeuvre as a wholeand coming with a number, judges qualify manoeuvre elements when looking for deviations from the prescribed flight track. By suggesting „standardized“ deductions the rule provides judges with a means to improve the repeatability of scoring. In a simple form all it takes to do is to count errors observed, multiply the number of errors by, for example, 0.3 points and subtract the total from 10. Here is a little experiment: Check the rule for square eights and prepare yourself to detect all kind of deviations from the prescribed flight track. Type 10 - 0.3 into you ordinary pocket calculator Go to www.fesselflug.eu enter Downloads/Video and watch a pair of square eights performed. Press = every time you observe a deviation When the airplane exits from the manoeuvre remember the sharpness of corners. If round and soft press twice. If hard (but nowhere near 1.5 m radius) press once. Finally, read your mark, note it and reset the calculator. Chances are, the mark will be in the 6 points range, indicating that the two square eights are in fact a difficult and complex manoeuvre where many errors can be committed. Now, do the same with inverted flight. It comes at no surprise that the mark will be something like 9. Because inverted flight really is a simpler manoeuvre with fewer chances to miss the track. The experiment illustrates how the deduction method improves repeatability and how it deals with the complexity of manoeuvres. Enter now k factors modifying what the judge has defined to be the correct mark and you have a system significantly damaging the built-in complexity considering effect of the judging by elements method. As a matter of fact, if you apply k factors to the marks found above the resulting score will assign much more points (6 x 18 = 108 for the sq. eights, vs. 9 x 2 = 18 for inverted flight) to the manoeuvre where more errors have been committed. This is why k factors, when combined with the judging by element method, distort the outcome. With all due respect to the inventors of k factors, I really doubt that this is what they have had in mind. Does simulation of past contest replace the trial? Processing actual results of a number of past major championships has shown that the final standings have not changed very significantly when no k factors (and/or no hi-low dropping) was applied. I however doubt wether such simulation actually would replace the conducting of a wide based trial. It may actually be that both judges and pilots do behave differently when being aware of the fact that no k-factors will be used. It may well be the at the end of the trial we may see a difference resulting from equal manoeuvre values and from lack of (judges) fear to be dropped. How do we qualify the result of the trial? This, to be honest, is a question I cannot answer. As far as the evaluation of contest results is concerned, I am not qualified to perform statistical analysis and I will have to rely on those knowing better how to do this. We will have a bit of time to develop the tools required and the final decision criteria, however. I have no doubt, and the quality level and committment demonstrated on this Forum proves me right, that the C/L stunt community is able and ready to further contribute to the ongoing improvement of our rule system. The k=trial is a major step toward this goal. | Tree | 272 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Compexity Compensation | 11.11.2007 - 17:25:10 |
| Nice post Peter, I think it finally opens those proper questions necessary for this voting.
It clearly shows that changing k=1 needs several changes especially in judging. We know that judges actually does not reflect complexity in judging process, because they simply know that we K-factor in scoring have, so marks given for example for level flight and square eight are similar, but using of k=1 and taking care to complexity, or as you wrote to make more decisions during one figure and counting every single error in final decision must lead to lower mark for complex figure. This is all clear, those are arguments pro and against and this is what we spoke about in past. Now we have to decide if we want to have 2 years to test if it is viable way. We also know the change is not visible on contests with ~20 contestants (we know, because we have some analysis and our US friends do all their contest this way as far as I know). It means there are only 2 large contests during this period and it is WC and EC where we can really see some effects. I see three very important questions to answer: - Can we make (and train) our judges really count all errors as is necessary for this system of judging? (I would like to hear especially from WC and EC judges) Are they even willing to do it? - Isn’t this system going to load judges much more than old system on those two contests where we can see some difference? (we know that those are two contests with typical ill effects like tired judges, ballooning and so … may be proper question what we can do to prevent it) - What is supposed to see/happen during/after that period, or how we can proof this trial to be successful or not. Who is expected to change mind and under what circumstances to come to some common conclusion? | Tree | 271 |
| Peter Germann | Compexity Compensation | 11.11.2007 - 14:41:52 |
| From a couple of posts read so far, I find it useful to remind the community of the current rule status and its dealing with the complexity issue:
Both the F2B rule and the F2B Judges Guide very clearly stipulate the judging of individual elements per manoeuvre. Point deductions, depending from the weight of errors observed, are defined per element. The total amount of deductions is then deducted from 10 and the result is the judge’s mark for the manoeuvre. The authors of the rule do realize that this is a very demanding process and they know, too, that extensive use of the deductions indicated may be difficult and not always practicable. It is however, the only system taking into account manoeuvre complexitiy by judging. Complicated manoeuvres consist of more elements and it is highly probable that more errors will be committed. Therefore, when judging according to the rule, resulting marks for “difficult” manoeuvers will typically be lower. This means that the rule takes into account the different complexity of manoeuvres. Such as by listing, for example, 3 elements to be judged separately for inverted flight and 24 of such elements for the two square eights. This is how the current rule deals with manoeuvres of different complexity. Using, on top of this, k-factors to multiply marks resulting from judging be elements is entirely contraproductive because it artificially increases marks previously reduced due to complexity. What this means is that the use of k-factors grossly overcompensates manoeuvre complexity. From this, it is more than appropriate to conduct a trial phase where both judges and pilots are aware of the non-existence of overcompensation. | Tree | 270 |
| Peter Germann | Re: About number of authors, and arguments | 10.11.2007 - 11:10:50 |
| In the interest of our common cause, Gentlemen, may I suggest that, at least for the time being, we try not to sidetrack this thread? Promoting power sources compatible with future noise limits and appearence points under the AMA rule are definitely very interesting issues, but do not really have much to do with the conducting of a 2-years trial with k=1.
Be assured, however, that the F2B Work Group is neither polically influenced nor ignorant on what is going on in other areas. | Tree | 269 |
| Raymond Lloyd | k factors | 09.11.2007 - 17:19:28 |
| I am not in favour of going to K=1.
In the 1950's the K factor was introduced in the UK and we have used it ever since it is a well thought out system that has been used world wide apart from the USA. The AMA system of marking seem's to be an extention of the old time stunt system and as such has no relevance to modern F2B.The builder of the model rule is out dated, and concoures marks have nothing to do with flying a set pattern of manouvers and as such should have no influence on the out come of a competion (just my opinion)I think this proves how dated the AMA system is.So to take up a system so out dated would in my opinion be a huge step back in time.As you may gather from this post i think this proposed K=1 is just a way of introducing builder of the model rule and concourse, mark my words that is the next step. regards Ray Lloyd. Flying F2b for 56 year,s | Tree | 268 |
| István Travnik | About number of authors, and arguments | 09.11.2007 - 13:15:33 |
| Peter, thanks for your positive words!
I never taken any comments, ignorations, etc. here as personal offence. I consider myself, as such one, who is ready to co-operate even with the devil, for any positive target. But, looking at the recent 20 years happenings, I must tell the truth: I am not happy with NOT any modifications in our sporting code, beginned with the cancellation of scoring every single maoeuvres, and ending with the 100 degree interval of scoring. Furthermore, looking at the technical part: now practically everything is allowed to electrical engines, and practically NOTHING to piston engines. (e.g. not a primitive pendulum for throttle, or propeller pitch adjusting.) Why? I cannot find nothing else, but some politicism, to push up the electrical, and push down the piston technique. This is an artifical "evolution" in my mind, and we, in Eastern Europe are full, up to throat with "artifical evolutions": no need to explain, why... You know: Mr. Mórotz's son became a top F3A pilot in Hungary. They told us a lot,that F3A scoring system how could be reformed and normalized. Why are we not able to see and analyze their system? In these moments I really feel me (us) ashamed... Regards: Istvan | Tree | 267 |
| Peter Germann | Re: About number of authors, and arguments. | 09.11.2007 - 11:33:10 |
| Thank you for contributing by translating the point of view expressed by Thamas, Attila and others from your area. This is a lot of work, in particular when also, as you certainly did, translating the posts published here by other top competitors. I appreciate your effort very much. I have noted, too, that some posts remain without answer. Please do not take this as a personal offence since it may simply be a lack of interest and/or knowledge. | Tree | 266 |
| István Travnik | Errata... | 08.11.2007 - 22:33:02 |
| Dear Friends,
unfortunately, I forgot to rub out from mine, the post of Peter, when I edited my post... | Tree | 265 |
| István Travnik | About number of authors, and arguments. | 08.11.2007 - 22:24:31 |
| Peter,
By our side (Hungarians) it is very simple to reflect on your statements. About the "authors" (or debattants, etc.)numbers here. Sorrowfully, neither Mr. Mórotz, Mr. Tokaji, nor Mr. Wadovich DO NOT speak english, furthermore , they don't live in the "cyberspace": they are "only" remarked F2B contestants, for pretty 25-30 years. I think, there is no need to introduce them neither to You, nor to the European F2B community. They need to use my poor English: belive me, words what have been written by me, are carefully co-ordinated with them. Shall I multiply my posts by 4?? :))) About argumentations: I observed that, all my (our) posts were totally ignored. Nobody reflected onto them, the maximum counter-argument was that: "some dozens of contestants of a World Chapionships is not an authentical community" (about the petition, in Sebnitz, 2002.) God, WHOEVER could be MORE authentical?! Several times me and Igor (Slovakia) explained that, that K-factors' role is not to qualify the difficulty of the actual maoeuvre, but give the weight, for the maoeuvres containing more elements (movements). If the jury could use videorecorder, every such movements (corners, lines, shape, measure, tracking the previous - see Judges'Guide) could have its OWN score. Since it is theoretically possible, and really needed, but in lack of time to revise impossible: the K-factor helps. But, all these arguments was written down before, shall we copy them again and again, to beg any valuable professional reflections? Something new arguments: I consulted with professional work- and traffic- psychologists, about the task and working conditions of judges. When they got acquainted with the task (some live flights, some videos, your Judging Guide): ALL they stated, the 100-degree interval is a total mistake, since it is not confidentally repeatable. (In other words: the same flight gets the same score in the morning, after dinner, etc. etc.)They suggested to use an interval with 6 ÷ 12 degrees, no more, if the judgement must be stated in less than 10 seconds. My comment: that is no miracle, that MORE than halfth of contestants of EC 2007, Beograd, were within 5% regarding their scores. Somebody told that this is such ridiculous, just like Roulette in Monte Carlo. And this was our "self development"...:((( My humble opinion: self-murder. I think: Back to more decisions!(as it was 15 years before): every manoeuvre to be judged separately, but NO finer than 10 degrees scale. The judging guide is a marvelous tool to TRAIN the judges, but the judge is not a digital computer, to make several dozens of substractions, within a few seconds. Regards: Istvan Upon my such observations I used that words: "boring", and "harmful"... As per today, the number of individuals voting against the conducting of a two years trial with k-factors set to one is 39. 17 indviduals have voted for the conducting of the trial from Jan. 1st. 2009 on. From the date when k factor discussion was opened (February 14 2003) on the Discussion Forum, 18 authors have posted k-related contributions so far, with the last one being published on October 31st. (No.262). 8 are against and 10 are in favour of the trial. The current standing of the vote process and opinions published on the Forum are controversial. From the number of negative votes cast, one could have expected significantly more forum contributions supporting and explaining the decline of the trial. | Tree | 264 |
| Peter Germann | Intermediate Status Report | 07.11.2007 - 13:20:51 |
| As per today, the number of individuals voting against the conducting of a two years trial with k-factors set to one is 39.
17 indviduals have voted for the conducting of the trial from Jan. 1st. 2009 on. From the date when k factor discussion was opened (February 14 2003) on the Discussion Forum, 18 authors have posted k-related contributions so far, with the last one being published on October 31st. (No.262). 8 are against and 10 are in favour of the trial. The current standing of the vote process and opinions published on the Forum are controversial. From the number of negative votes cast, one could have expected significantly more forum contributions supporting and explaining the decline of the trial. Peter Germann Coordinator | Tree | 263 |
| Brett Buck | Re: | 31.10.2007 - 05:34:23 |
| Dave Simons wrote:
> There has been a great deal of > misinformation on this subject, mostly > from the "new world". Only recently, a > prominent US flyer was urging, on a US > forum, that ALL US flyers should vote > on this board - on the grounds that > there is an opinion in the US that the > adoption of F2B rules would be of > benefit. The individual concerned did > not mention that the proposal to the > AMA to adopt F2B rules EXCLUDED K > factors. I'm glad you paid attention to my post! Of course, the ultimate goal of this exercise is to have the AMA adopt FAI rules. At that point, it does indeed matter to US fliers whether you have K-factors or not. And gee, Dave, I thought you believed in democracy? There are almost certainly more stunt fliers in the US than in the rest of the world. I would think that you would appreciate the input from *all* aspects of the issue, instead of trying to denigrate the effort to engage *all* participants. At any right, you still have the grossly disproportionate representative system to ensure that the tiny minority can control the results. > Why not let our US cousins try out F2B > sans K factors? Uh, Dave, we have been "trying" stunt without K-factors since long before F2B existed. 50+ years, in fact. We fly more no-K-factor flights in the month of July than the rest of the world flies in a year. No trial is necessary, we already know how it works. Outside of that, the net effect of getting FAI rules would be to get rid of the BOM for AMA competition, which is as far as I am concerned would be a tragic and pointless watering down of a highly-successful event. And something I will oppose in any forum possible. Brett | Tree | 262 |
| Brett Buck | Re: | 31.10.2007 - 04:21:35 |
| Dave Simons wrote:
> My remark about trying out F2B rules > with K=1 follows from the current > proposal to the AMA to do precisely > that. Although I suspect that it may > have something to do with the builder > of the model rule... I am aware of > those vocal US F2B flyers who oppose > the use of K factors - they probably > wouldn't be satisfied until the FAI > adopted US rules... Hey, that's a great idea - the FAI could come up to standards in one fell swoop! ;-) I expect that the current AMA rule proposal, if it passes the "screening" vote, will cause nothing less than a mutiny in PAMPA/AMA This based on the comments I have had when discussing it with modelers as PAMPA VP. The effects will not be so great at the national level, but at the local level, there are already plans to hold contests with the current rules and bypass the "modified rules" if this proposal should pass. Note also that there are two proposals for AMA that *increase* appearance points - a clear reaction to the the attempts to eliminate BOM. Those have a much better chance of passing than the no-BOM proposals. Everyone working this issue and relating FAI F2B to AMA rules should be very clear - FAI is not even on the average US pilot's "radar screen". That's one reason that you haven't had a proportional representation here. Very very few people have ever had *any* connection or interaction with FAI, and many have never heard of it. They feel it just doesn't concern them. I have been trying to raise awareness of the existence of this proposal to drum up support for eliminating K-factors in FAI, since that's clearly the correct way to go, but not many people care, unless they go to the team trials. Brett p.s. - We just had a pretty strong earthquake here in Northern California, no damage here. But I take it as a sign that the Earth itself thinks the FAI should delete K-factors! ;-) | Tree | 261 |
| Dave Fitzgerald | Re: K-Factors Y/N | 30.10.2007 - 22:58:11 |
| Dear Peter,
Let me first say, thank you for all the hard work you have done over the years and for starting this discussion. I feel there are not many flyers that have experience flying without K-factors, other than the US F2B participants, so experience is limited. This is a trial period and I agree that this is something that should be looked at. I support the trial period. Having now flown quite extensively in both systems, here are my comments supporting the trial of no K-factors: 1. The basic question has not really been addressed by any of this discussion so far. The question is, what is the goal of a F2B competition? I do not ask this rhetorically, I ask because this is the heart of the issue. Is the goal to select the best overall pilot as champion, or is it to see who can fly a few particular maneuvers better than the rest of the field? I do not mind the differences, in fact, those who fly with K-factors most of the time often do better than our US flyers that don't have this experience. 2. Factors being effected by having K-factors. The physical demands of judging are no small contributor to the discussion, also not talked about yet. Over the period of a long multi-day contest, weather will vary significantly and your ability to fly the best square 8 is dramatically affected by the weather and length of day as a pilot. Perhaps a greater influence is the fact that at the end of a long hot day, judges will tend to balloon in their scoring. This is a volatile topic at best, but we have to face our physical limitations and ability to concentrate over long periods of time. This is an element of chance balancing the effect of afternoon weather versus your draw position in a round. To ignore this factor is not being realistic. When you look at the ballooning problems of judging, I feel the K-factors exaggerate the ballooning problem. A very small balloon on this one maneuver can make all the difference in the outcome. The fact that this doesn’t happen very often is a testament to the abilities of our judging core—but it does still happen. 3. There has also been a discussion about the fineness of the scoring system distorting the results. Since the F2B scoring system has essentially gone to a 100 point per maneuver system, I feel the fineness issue is no longer a valid argument for retaining K-factors. The more difficult maneuvers have more elements, as has been stated, and I feel are scored appropriately under the new system. The K-factors will tend to exaggerate the awards for maneuver difficulty, which leads us back to the basic question of what is the goal, a two or three maneuver contest, or overall best flyer. 4. This next topic has been addressed but I would like to add it as emphasis. The element of chance. This goes hand in hand with the long multi-day contest format. The weather will change; the wind and temperature will change. This may lead to over or under runs in the time limit, excluding either the Cloverleaf, or landing maneuvers. I feel these are just as important as the square 8, but due to K-factors, this is not the case. I feel that every maneuver should have equal weight; that is just my opinion and has been mainly my experience with US AMA pattern. Perhaps an extreme example would be the world Championships in China, 1994. My friend and flying partner, Ted Fancher, ran out of fuel in the cloverleaf. Ted, I’m sorry, but without K-factors, this would have been the end of your campaign in China. The clover would have equal weight as a square 8. As it was, he had enough points to still qualify for the finals. My opinion is that this disastrous happenstance should not have enabled a continuation in the contest. An unfortunate event, but the outcome would have been very different-those were the rules. Since we now have starters, the ability to use fuel shutoffs, and electric power systems, maybe this harsh a penalty should be revisited as another topic for the future. The most obvious element of chance is the wind. As has been stated, a large gust of wind during the square 8, will end your prospects in the current system. That is ok, this is the rule, but leads us back to the basic question again; do we want the element of chance to enter into the contest results. You cannot really track this effect statistically unless you keep weather records for each competitor and each maneuver. I see the way out of this problem as the elimination of K-factors. So, in conclusion, I favor a trail period of no K-factors for the above reasons. I feel that the goal of a F2B contest should be to select the best overall flyer at a particular contest and we should be working to eliminate the external factors that affect the results. One possible solution to minimize this effect would be to eliminate the K-factor and see how we like it. Let’s see what happens. If the consensus is negative, then the trial period expires. Again, I will fly whatever the rules say; it is we as a group that has to decide what those rules say. | Tree | 260 |
| Lou Crane | Re: K-Factors Y/N | 26.10.2007 - 05:13:09 |
| Dave,
By the way, Keith Trostle - who you may have heard of elsewhere - is a member of my "local" club. Without the exact wording before me, I consider it possible Keith T made the "FAI/K=1.00" proposal in our current rules change cycle. ...Might be wrong on that... If it was Keith T, I consider it a test balloon, to see what favor it might draw from our event rules reps, or the membership at large. (...Which is not particularly intersted in AMA, much less FAI, rules matters...) Ah, politics - love them or...? | Tree | 259 |
| Lou Crane | Re: K-Factors Y/N | 26.10.2007 - 04:57:08 |
| Dave,
Thanks for illuminating my comments as a NOT F2B involved observer. BTW, I don't see any large contingent of US(of America) stunt fliers commenting in here... I'll agree that "we" mostly are comfortable with our long-traditional AMA scoring scheme, but I don't think there's a groundswell opposed to FAI doing its own thing with K-Factors, nor a sentiment that wished the rest of the world would just shut up and obey AMA's 0-(or 10-)40 scheme. I'm glad to hear that the proposed K=1.0 scheme is based on a presumed 100, or 1.00, basis. That responds nicely to my concern about coarse- or fine-grained range for judges to discriminate between excellent and ultimately superb. However, IF there IS latitude for an NAC (National Aeromodelling Club) to either score flights in parallel to the official F2B K-Factor scheme with a K=1.00 basis, much might be learned. Just in my personal opinion, in concern for the world-wide growth - at least, maintenance - of CLPA. In my USA, we've had a very contentious year, recently. We survived - I hope to the eventual success of interest in CLPA, but it was not pleasant to live through. I certainly would not wish that kind of experience on the world CLPA community! Thanks, again! BEST LOU | Tree | 258 |
| Dave Simons | | 26.10.2007 - 03:45:19 |
| Lou,
My remark about trying out F2B rules with K=1 follows from the current proposal to the AMA to do precisely that. Although I suspect that it may have something to do with the builder of the model rule... I am aware of those vocal US F2B flyers who oppose the use of K factors - they probably wouldn't be satisfied until the FAI adopted US rules... Just for information, the F2B scoring system uses 100 increments (decimal points), where the US system uses 30 points, so the F2B way is "finer" As a one-time CIAM delegate, I have always found the CIAM processes to be entirely democratic! But sometimes people try to short cut the process - it usually doesn't get too far because, in the end, it is the vote of delegates that counts, not unofficial polls to "form an opinion". Such polls are easily manipulated.... Keith: Agreed, we in Australia are indeed very lucky to have Joan as a hardworking contributor to our sport! | Tree | 257 |
| István Travnik | Re: cynicism- or realism? | 25.10.2007 - 21:34:18 |
| Dear Dave,
There is no cynicism, to see that changing back would be difficult after this "trial period". This "trial period" is nothing else, but "Trojan Horse" in the hand of "anti-K-factor" party. Why must I say these strong words? I remember very well, that sentence what founder and co-ordinator of the Working Group told me, still in 2000 (!!), during the technical process of WC, in Landres: "Istvan, the K-factors will be cancelled." I think, no further comment needed... | Tree | 256 |
| Lou Crane | Re: K-Factors Y/N? | 25.10.2007 - 20:30:52 |
| I reply to me to keep the posts near each other:
In the USA, our national aeromodelling club rules allow innovation and experimentation with published rules events - so long as: safety is not compromised, and any variations from Official Rules are made known to all potential participants. FAI may not have such a provision, as entrants may be from several different countries - an infrequent consideration here in US of America... IF F2B fliers wish to try K=1.0, it would be easier with the approach MY national aeromodelling club allows. If there is a way to either run separate, parallel scoring at an FAI meet, or to offer a K=1.0 meet as such, with FAI permission, that could allow the desired trial period, without necessarily affecting WC's. It could work. E.g., AMA adopted, as Official, PAMPA's rules for Skill Class CLPA competition, after 20 or more years of active and well-attended Unofficial Skill Classes success. The Skill Classes are still far more popular than the core event. AMA Event #322, CLPA, defines the schedule and standards, but also requires that each flier has built the model he enters. Further, it involves competition by Age Classes - Junior (under 15 by July), Senior (15-19 by July) and Open (19 and up). FAI has no BOM requirement, but does make some acknowledgment of younger fliers. BEST LOU | Tree | 255 |
| Lou Crane | Re: K-Factors Y/N? | 25.10.2007 - 19:57:49 |
| Dave,
I haven't done F2B, but note its similarities to USA(merica)'s AMA CLPA event. I gather that several who DO fly F2B, wish, very vocally, to try doing away with the K-Factor scheme. You suggest that we, in the USA try F2B sans K-Factors. Why? Since the early-1950's we've used an identical score range for each figure in the pattern (or schedule, as many call it): 0-40 points. (In recent practice, it is actually more like 10-40...) That may be a carryover from the previous scoring scheme, still seen in Old Time Stunt (Unofficial) CLPA event rules, here, at least. Those rules recognized maneuver difficulty and varied the possible score range accordingly. Our current, uniformly 0 (or 10)-40, point range has worked without major problem for at least 50 years. Inertia? or a practical, simply understood and applied formula? It has advantages. It is "fine-grained" enough to allow judges to reach a score distinguishing among small errors in the more complex figures, late in the schedule. It also exaggerates the impact of minor errors in the simpler, early figures. Where there are few judgeable criteria, each has, almost automatically, greater impact. E.g., Round loops have essentially size, simple shape and track to be judged; inverted is merely level flight. Is a deviation of 80cm, in inverted, a minor, medium or major fault? Of little moment when the K for inverted is small, but with no K (or a K of 1.0, in effect) it gains weight. By contrast, the monster, Horizontal Square Eights, has many, many described points and paths. Is a ninth corner, wide by 80cm, a minor, medium or major error? And, how does that weigh against the figure's overall quality? When I first read through a FAI F2B schedule decades ago, I had the impression that the "low value" figures could be 'skated through', i.e., not taken all that seriously, as they have less effect on a flight's total marks and score. When I spectated at the Woodvale, UK, 1978 WC, that impression, from reading the F2B descriptions, seemed not far from accurate. My two points on this, as a non-F2B stunt flier, are: A 1-10 score range for all figures appears to me too coarse-grained to allow judges to award marks that distinguish very good from excellent in the complex figures, AND, A relatively small number of F2B fliers are in this debate. I don't see reference to "great numbers" of their nations' fliers cited as in support. (Is this really broadly based? ...or the opinions of a few leading and influential fliers from each of the participating National Aeromodelling Clubs?) I know CIAM is not a democratic thing, but it does rely on the delegates from the national clubs. And, finallly, as a non-F2B flier, I offer no recommendations, offering only my own experiences and impressions of what I've seen and heard (recently). BESTLOU | Tree | 254 |
| Lou Crane | Re: K- | 25.10.2007 - 19:18:37 |
| Tree | 253 | |
| Keith Renecle | | 25.10.2007 - 15:26:18 |
| Dave,
I think that many of our stunt community do not like change, so the easiest way to vote (like in Sebnitz) is not to rock the boat. There are an equal number of advantages and disadvantages in the k-factor system. The stats seem to suggest that removing them would make no difference to the results. (I know that you get lies, damn lies and then statistics) This means that k-factors are not really helping to seperate the closely matched competitors. Someone suggested that if removing them makes no difference, then simply leave things as they are. Here I must agree with Claus and the KISS principle. Joan correctly stated that voting should be done properly, and I suggest that it should be done "per country" and not on a free-for-all individual basis. This whole system is surely based on democratic voting, but it has to be orderly. I would therefore like to suggest that each country's representatives put forward a single vote that is based on their country's majority votes. I sincerely believe that we owe it to everyone to have more actual data from a trial period, and then we can be a little more objective. Just by the way, you guys down-under must pat Joan on the back for her efforts in Belgrade. She was really enthusiastic and totally involved. The Serbian guys also put her to work on the stunt circles. Such dedication and enthusiasm can only be of benefit to the stunt community! | Tree | 252 |
| Dave Simons | | 25.10.2007 - 08:09:07 |
| Keith,
I doubt whether many people have lost sight of the fact that the proposal is for a trial period! However, no doubt some, or perhaps the majority, are cynical enough to believe that changing back would be difficult. Consider this: If the majority of people want to retain K factors, why bother with a trial? Since the 2 year period would include a w/champs, does this make the winner a "trial" world champion? How about 2 years of trial world cup events? This proposal was unofficially rejected at the gathering at Sebnitz in 2002 - I was there. The fact that we are again debating the subject - "only to form an opinion", mind you, is evidence that a few vocal individuals are unwilling to accept the views of the majority. There has been a great deal of misinformation on this subject, mostly from the "new world". Only recently, a prominent US flyer was urging, on a US forum, that ALL US flyers should vote on this board - on the grounds that there is an opinion in the US that the adoption of F2B rules would be of benefit. The individual concerned did not mention that the proposal to the AMA to adopt F2B rules EXCLUDED K factors. Why not let our US cousins try out F2B sans K factors? Efective training of judges is a far greater concern than k factors anyway, in my opinion. Dont forget that the proponents of "non-k factors" use poor judging as a reason to remove k-factors. Why not fix the real problem, and leave an event that is to the satisfaction of most, alone? | Tree | 251 |
| Keith Renecle | K-Factor TRIAL perid | 25.10.2007 - 07:23:45 |
| Thanks to all the have offered their comments, but I feel that we are not focussing on what the working group is trying to put forward. This vote is merely for a 2-year trial period to give us all some objective data to work with. Claus has summed this whole story up very well, and he has been involved with this stunt business for longer than most of us. There is plenty of evidence around to prove that K-factors do not really make any major difference to the position of the competitors. If you study Bruno's analysis spreadsheets from the last Euro champs, as well as others available on the net, then you will understand what I am referring to.
The single thing that will indeed make a significant improvement to stunt competitions, is a better judges training system that is understood the same way in each country. If you were present at the workshop in Belgrade, you would understand this better. The presentation has been placed on the internet, and Peter Germann sent out the details some months ago. Anyone that needs more details or information is welcome to contact me. We are also planning to hold another workshop just before the next world champs in France, and I really hope that more will attend. What we need now is to work together and not get into the debate as to which system is better. We need more data to make this decision objectively, so I would urge everyone to vote for this trial period. What's the worst thing that can happen? The idea does not work well in practice........and then we can all vote it back again. It's like the 2-circle system we are now using. If it does not work well in the future, then we change it again. At least we tried it out, it seems to be working, and we have some prctical data........let's all work together and try the same priciple with the K-factors. | Tree | 250 |
| Joan McIntyre | The proposal to eliminate k factors | 25.10.2007 - 03:53:57 |
| There is no doubt that frank open discussion is always a positive approach to any subject.
However, this particular issue was looked at in depth when the F2B Working Party,(representative members of which were invited to express their nation's views on all issues), were involved in the Rules rewrite. It was unequivocal that the co-ordinators from each of the representative countries expressed their country's majority viewpoint on each proposed variation to the old rules, as I did. The results of each proposal to change existing manoeuvre descriptions etc. were to have been decided in a democratic fashion. From the responses to each question, and, in particular, the issue of k factors ( the removal of which had been pre-empted in a well known magazine before the discussion even began) there was strong support by Working Party members,on behalf of their particular countries, to retain k factors. The Sebnitz meeting,held after this,comprising a number of F2B fliers who attended the Championships that year,was not representative of all nations who fly the F2B event under the FAI rules, and any vote of the attendees taken there,(whichever way it went), or signed document,as suggested by one of the forum contributors, cannot in any reasonable way be held up as the overriding opinion of the world stunt community. There have been subsequent forums discussing the pros and cons of this issue, but inevitably, it has to be decided by a majority decision of the individual countries, not on the number of contributors to a forum. It behoves the representatives of each nation to diligently seek out their country's majority view and in due course the doctrine of one nation, one vote should apply. The Australian F2B fliers have overwhelmingly supported the retention of k factors, both initially, and in response to the latest request to put the case once again before the Stunt community. All documentation has been widely circulated to our rather large group of fliers, who were requested to express their opinion on this matter. I trust that this matter will be determined in accordance with due process by all the countries who fly F2B under the FAI Rules, and that the final opinions submitted to the F2 Sub Committee and to CIAM will be the result of proper process, and not the opinion of individuals. Joan McIntyre. Member F2B Working Party.(Australia) | Tree | 249 |
| Claus Maikis | Re: Small correction to (245) | 24.10.2007 - 02:03:53 |
| What a discussion !
These words ( “what a discussion” ) are not meant in a positive way. Actually I feel more and more bored and frustrated. At first I didn’t want to contribute at all. Why should I ? All proponents of Non-K ( no K-factors ) have brought their convincing arguments. The opponents ( with K ) have repeated their arguments ( = difficult manoeuvres deserve more points ) despite the fact that this argument has been refuted enough several times. All arguments have been offered for several years now and a solution doesn’t seem possible. Recently some comments have caught my attention. Comments which may shed a new light on the discussion, so I’ve decided to answer. First of all I’d like to comment on a few thoughts offered recently. Uwe Kehnen clearly recognized the “Las Vegas gambling” character of the K-factor system. If using K-factors ( especially those crazy values as used today ) the score of a competitor strongly depends on weather conditions. A fraction of a point - caused by a wind gust - multiplied by a factor can unjustified change the score of a flyer to a level which does not at all resemble the quality of a given manoeuvre. Basically, a factor is an artificial distortion of the score which the judge has given to the pilot. In reality the score of the judge is manipulated to a degree the judge has no control over. Generally - I as a judge don’t want any system to manipulate my scoring, because the result bears not much resemblance to my scoring. Holger Suchi said it quite right: KISS ( Keep it simple, Stupid ). Since K-factors are not needed, we simply can omit them. Do I really need to repeat the age old argument ( factors are only needed in sports where competitors can choose from manoeuvres of different difficulty; like in ice scating ). We CANNOT choose. When will the opponents finally understand this ! We all have to fly the same manoeuvres. If some manoeuvres are more difficult to fly, more errors can ( will ! ) occur. The judge will see these errors and score accordingly. So the difficulty of a manoeuvre is already cared for. The argument “ we all have computers” ( to calculate the results ) doesn’t have much merit. Very often organizers of local contests don’t have access to computer equipment. So the KISS principle still applies ( it applies forever and under all circumstances ). Thanks, Keith Renecle, for your open minded view. I’d really appreciate if more people had this opinion. It is my conviction that many people haven’t ever thoroughly thought through this whole concept. They are caught in a mid age way of thinking; a kind of “ we’ve always done it a certain way, so why change it “ attitude. Some recent comments are a clear indication of this mood. Surprisingly enough the respective arguments came from two exactly opposing corners. Example 1 : when the results of the World Championships 2006 in Spain were calculated afterwards without inclusion of K-factors, the results were pretty much the same. There were some changes in position, but not more than 3 places. Oh yes, there were two pilots who would have changed 8 places. These were pilots down the result list. Nobody knows how this can happen, but we all know that bad pilots are very difficult to judge. Differences in scores for these pilots among judges can be quite high, including a 2 or 3 point difference ( out of 10 ). It’s easy to see that differences at the end of the result list can be quite high. We also know that judges can have short moments of reduced concentration, or momentary disturbed attention. Because of this a ( wrong ) judgment of a 1 point difference ( for one manoeuvre ) can easily lead to a 3 place change or even more in the end results. This means that a placing change of 3 ( three ) places is just NOTHING. It happens everyday. Now there was a voice complaining about the “ huge changes” in results when not using K-factors. The conclusion of that voice was: if changes are that huge, the new system is wrong. Answer: 1) as I’ve pointed out, the difference is not huge; in fact it is negligible. 2) the conclusion is wrong. If the new system shows different results, it should be necessary to check the old system if something is wrong THERE. A “difference” doesn’t mean a new system is wrong; it should cause the responsible minds to “think”. Maybe the “old” system is wrong. Example 2 : when the results of the European Championships 2007 were calculated WITHOUT K-factors, there were almost exactly the same results as WITH K-factors. In fact the differences were even less ( than in example 1 = World Championships 2006). Now another voice tried to argue: if there’s no difference we don’t need to change the rule. Again this conclusion is wrong. If there is no difference, then we can use the system which is more easy to use, requires less equipment, avoids possible errors. May I remember of the tabulating in Spain when a bottle of Coca Cola ruined all tabulating work , which had to be done all over again with corresponding delay !! Interesting to see, isn’t it !? The same situation, the same facts, and two different views. Totally opposed to each other - and both of them are wrong ! Both try to support their own preconceived opinions, and both overlook the KISS principle. If it were not the reason for a lot of work for the few bright minds in the CIAM committee - it was a perfect topic for the satirical cabaret. Until now we haven’t even touched the actual reason for this discussion. When it was decided to update our current FAI rules, the suggestion for the two years Non-K trial period ( beginning in 2009 ) unfortunately was not given as a “rule proposal”. This suggestion was accepted by the CIAM committee, but not voted on by the plenary meeting. So a hair splitting individual (who seems to try to support the ideas of his National Super Star flyers ) has forced us to AGAIN decide whether a two year trial period shall be held or not. A decision which already has been made some two years ago! There’s one big question: why have the trial period at all ? The “calculated” results easily show that basically there is no difference. The simple solution would be: either a) keep the old K system, but require all contest organizers to recalculate the results of their contests with the non K system, and send this information to CIAM ( or whatever place should be decided on. World Cup organizers have to do this anyway ). Should the non-K calculations proof this system unacceptable ( which they will not ) we could simply go ahead with what we have now. Or b) switch to the non-K system immediately ( the logical solution ). The problem is that at this moment some organizers just don’t know what system they should prepare their computer for in 2008. One thing should be made quite clear now. There are always voices who lament “ we didn’t know” - “nobody told us” – “we got no information” etc.etc.etc. If you are interested in how things are run, then care about the necessary information for yourself. There are enough sources where this is available. “I’ve not been asked” is a silly excuse ‘To not ask’, ‘ to not get informed’, ‘to not vote’ is a suitable way of having things run in a way you do NOT like. And ‘ TO NOT THINK’ is the perfect way to allow minds of yesterday and egoists to rule our world. Recently we had a contest with some 25 competitors from several European countries. After the contest the organizer calculated the results again , this time without K-factors. There was a slight difference in score points. The final placing of competitors was EXACTLY the same !! Isn’t that proof enough?! | Tree | 248 |
| István Travnik | Small correction to (245) | 24.10.2007 - 00:55:57 |
| Dear Friends,
I made small error by translation, the right sentence is: ...Simple think on the petition, SIGNED by dozens of top pilots at WC 2002, in Sebnitz... | Tree | 247 |
| Carles Mas | K Factors | 23.10.2007 - 21:18:53 |
| Dear CL friends,
In my opinion, I am not for this two years trial period because I think there is no reason to work without K factors. K factors, as any factor in any formula, gives the right weight to each component and therefore allows for a more accurate result, value or in our case flight score. More accurate individual values allows for a more accurate comparison between two or more flights. Let’s see an example: Two very good pilots have scored 10 points in all the manoeuvres except in one of them. Pilot A has made a mistake in inverted flight and scored 9.5 points and Pilot B has made a fault in the square eights and scored 9.5 points. Without K factors both have the same score, with K factors the winner is Pilot A. What do you think is fairer or just more precise? I think that it is clearly visible that “greyscale” is narrowed without K factors and I would be concerned that judges tended to compensate this being the K factor themselves, thinking about the difficulty and the importance of errors in the different manoeuvres during their job, making it more difficult yet. Carles Mas M. Àngels Oller Spain | Tree | 246 |
| István Travnik | About honesty... | 23.10.2007 - 15:30:23 |
| Dear Uwe,
I think, it is better to handle very carefully the expression "Honesty" in this 7 years long, very-very boring and harmful discussion. Simple think on the petition, subscribed by dozens of top pilots at WC 2002, in Sebnitz. This petition "disappered" somewhere, somehow... Do you remember?? see post(205) Best regards: Istvan | Tree | 245 |
| Uwe Kehnen | K-Factors | 23.10.2007 - 15:18:21 |
| Hi
I totally agree with Stephan. I like to add,that the current system is for me like gambling in Las Vegas. Everyone of the topflyers is able to fly the pattern at a certain level. If we would have two identical pilots flying the pattern and one will get a strong windburst in the square eight and the other one in the inverted flight,who is in front? The pilots are identical,but not the result. With no K-factors they would be identical again. We want to find the best flyer and not the luckiest one. And please ladies and gentleman remember: We are talking about a test for a 2 year period and not to remove the factors forever. This to do was an agreement a few years ago.It is not very honest to block later given promises. Regards Uwe Kehnen | Tree | 244 |
| Keith Renecle | K-Factors | 23.10.2007 - 06:59:16 |
| Hi All, We have bashed this all out some years ago, and there are indeed reasons to keep k-factors and reasons to get rid of them. This discussion as suggested by Peter Germann a while ago is whether we should have a 2 year trial period to have some real data to determine if there is indeed a real need for k-factors. It is not a vote to get rid of them for good.
I have always supported the group that wants to keep k-factors, but I am open-minded on the issue and this is why I have voted to do this trial period. This will give us some real data to work with in the future, so let's give it a fair chance and do this trial period. | Tree | 241 |
| Stephan Raetsch | K-factors | 22.10.2007 - 20:57:29 |
| I think simplicity is best. Therefore I vote for skipping the K-factor. I also think that without the K-factors the most consistent flier will win, which of cocurse is what we are looking for. The drawback of K-factors is that weather conditions might help the lucky one who did not have eg. strong wing during the square eight. | Tree | 240 |
| Barile S | K-Factor | 22.10.2007 - 01:26:56 |
| I believe changing the K-Factor won't change things,so why changing? I believe more in a better practice for judges. | Tree | 239 |
| alberola | k factor | 21.10.2007 - 18:02:07 |
| I think k factor is a nonsense; the question is the consistency of the notation; it is the aim of the rule, but the k factor does not change anything ifthe notes are applied with consistency; in other cases, the k factor is a sort of lottery. the k factor is usable at school or university where the result is a combination of different subjects and examiners. | Tree | 238 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Complexity & Expansion | 12.09.2007 - 18:09:55 |
| Thanks, Dave.
Inverted flight consists of 4 elements. Do one barely visible error per each of the elements and earn a deduction of 4 times 0.1 point. and Your score now must be 9.6 The square eights consist of 21 elements. Do the very same barely visible error per each of the elements and you will end up with a score of 7.9 Same error comitted "earns" same deduction. | Tree | 237 |
| Peter Germann | Re: F2B K Factors Update & Invitation | 12.09.2007 - 17:59:24 |
| Thank you, Lou
Actually, the FAI Judges Guide obliges judges to deduct points (or fractions thereof) whenever a deviation from the prescribed track is observed. The meaning is to sum up all (element) deductions and to deduct the result from 10. Therefore: more elements = more deductions = lower score | Tree | 236 |
| Dave Simons | | 12.09.2007 - 03:38:32 |
| Peter, thank you for inviting comment on the proposal and also, for all your hard work over the last few years. We have already seen the benefit of changes in Spain, with the 2 circle format and decimal scores.
However, I cannot agree with the proposal.When you use the term "2006 rule" I assume that you are referring to the current rule, that came into effect January 1, 2007. To address your points: 1. the number of manoeuvre elements have not changed, but they are spelt out with clarity now, and explanatory information added. The number of elements and the difficulty of the manoeuvre has not altered. In any case I do not believe that the difficulty of a manoeuvre is always related to the complexity. 2. As the number of manoeuvre elements has not changed, neither has the opportunity for judging errors changed. On the contrary, now that the manoeuvre diagrams and descriptions are much better, the opportunity for judging mistakes should be less. Certainly, if more emphasis was placed on training of judges, mistakes would be fewer. 3. I agree that the (effective) 100 score increments is a good improvement. As a sometime judge, it is more natural to work with decimal or percentage increments. However, as we know, the performance differences between the very best flyers is very small, so that "something more" is needed to show the difference between these flyers. The "something more" is the k factor. 4. The use of K factors expands the differences between the very best pilots. Conversely, equal maximum scores for each manoeuvre encourages the "mid field" pilot (like me!), because he is not so much penalised for the number of mistakes in the more difficult manoeuvres. So, I think that we should keep the K factors (maybe adjust their value?), because of the expansion of those small differences between the very best pilots is of great benefit. I would be careful of taking a vote from this forum, though. Many of the participants that I see listed have never flown in a FAI F2B contest, and probably never will. In the end the only vote that will count is the vote of CIAM delegates. | Tree | 235 |
| Lou Crane | Re: F2B K Factors Update & Invitation | 11.09.2007 - 19:15:30 |
| Peter,
Thank you for inviting comment! Not being familiar with FAI scoring by actual participation, I am unsure of one aspect of this proposal: Will the judges still mark each element, as in the current and traditional FAI rules, or will the maneuvers be marked with one combined score, with the same maximum possible total, for all elements? As I am sure you are aware, CLPA scoring, per AMA rules in the USA, has a possible maximum score of 40 points (arbitrarily set long ago) for ALL figures, regardless of difficulty or complexity. I expect that judges and competitors used to the element by element FAI scoring would adapt more easily to keeping that approach, than some other. It will be interesting to see what others have to say! BESTLOU | Tree | 234 |
| Peter Germann | F2B K Factors Update & Invitation | 11.09.2007 - 13:07:23 |
| Dear All
The F2 Subcommittee has recently submitted, to the Bureau, a formal proposal suggesting the implementation of a 2 years minimum trial period during which the current k factors shall be set to one (1). With a suggested setting in force by January 2009, the proposal shall be incorporated into the Agenda of the 2008 CIAM Plenary Meeting. The F2B Work Group hereby re-invites the worldwide C/L stunt community to contribute to the opinion forming process of the F2 Subcommittee members and therefore uses this Internet platform to recapitulate the reasons for such a trial as follows: • As defined by the 2006 rule, the complexity of manoeuvres is expressed by the number of manoeuvre elements to be judged separately (see current Rule and Judges Guide). • More manoeuvre elements means more possible errors, leading to lower marks for complicated manoeuvres. The application of k factors on top of this leads to a distortion of results by overcompensation. • The range of available marks bandwidth, expanded from 1 - 20 to 1 - 100 in 2006, grants judges sufficient range to qualify all levels of competitors performing all manoeuvres and their elements. • In an event where all competitors are obliged to fly the same manoeuvres in the same sequence and in all rounds, there is no need to assign different complexity weighting to each manoeuvre. While of a number of simulations performed on major contest data from the last two years has not shown clear “pro” or “con” evidence and because the opinions within the F2B community are ambiguous, a worldwide trial (in front of judges being aware that their marks will not be modified by k factors) of sufficient duration seems to be appropriate. Please feel downright invited to express your points and reasons whether to support or not the planned 2-year trial on this platform. Should you prefer to address yourself to the F2 Subcommittee direct, you may use this e-mail address: ciam-f2@fai.org By approximately end of November 2007, a voting tool related to the k factor issue will be made available on this platform. May I suggest that you make use of the time until then by communication and discussing the topic within your community? The voting serves the purpose of supporting the opinion forming process within the F2 Subcommittee and the CIAM Delegates of those nations not being represented with the F2 Subcommittee. Thank you for contributing; your effort for the common cause is much appreciated. Peter Germann, F2B Work Group Coordinator | Tree | 233 |
| Juraj Madar | Semi scale Zlin 526AFS in full F2B config :-) | 17.06.2005 - 12:54:48 |
| ...by Alexander Schrek
http://www.rcmodely.sk/Zlin/ | Tree | 232 |
| Dave Simons | Re: engine capacity | 09.02.2005 - 06:45:33 |
| Brian,
This will be voted on at the March 2005 CIAM meeting, for application from Jan 2006. It is part of the global rules rewrite - the agenda for this meeting, with the current revisions to the proposed F2B rules are available on the FAI/CIAM website. Should be required reading. Only thing I cant find is any reference to is the supposed trial period of K factor removal - that doesn't seem to be minuted anywhere. Anyone know any different? Dave Simons | Tree | 231 |
| Brian Gardner | engine capacity | 31.01.2005 - 23:25:14 |
| Does anyone know what is happening with the FAI F2B engine capacity rule change?
I recall reading something about January 2005, but this was some time ago. | Tree | 230 |
| Igor Burger | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 02.12.2004 - 19:58:30 |
| Hi All,
Keith sent me new version of simulator. Here is attached text: --------------------- I have added new features: The fixed (Non-follow) camera moves better, and tracks the centre of the circle. New pop-up maneuver shapes for all maneuvers except clover. Markers are now also "pop-up" and also can be moved from flight line to a point further back. Better sky background I improved some of the animation paths.(The flashes on vertical 8 and hourglass are not yet fixed!) ----------------------- The resolution is 1024 x 768 on this version. And as hesuggested I am keeping also old version with lower resolution. The file is avalable here: http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/sim/sim.zip and it contains also users manual. igor | Tree | 229 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 18.11.2004 - 05:28:21 |
| Thanks Igor,
I hope that we get some response to this, because it is most important that we do not miss this opportunity to fix the rules properly. I apologise in advance for the "jerky" simulation of the clover, but it does indeed show the difference in the two ways of drawing the clover. Right now, the proposed rules and the drawing do not agree with each other, and the simulation clearly shows the difference in the "straight line and parallel to the ground" horizontal lines. If the accepted version is the parallel to the ground line, then we have to change the understanding of one loop being tangent to two others. Please let us have some comments on this issue, especially from those involved in judging and judges training. Thanks. | Tree | 228 |
| Igor Burger | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 08.11.2004 - 18:57:51 |
| Hi All,
I actually uploaded some documents regarding four-leaf definition problem and especially fly simulator showing figures as defined by rulebook and some problematic points of four-leaf. I think the simulator done by Keith Renecle shows it really well. Files are downloadable here: Simulator of whole pattern except four-leaf http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/sim/CL_Sim1_C.zip Simulator of four-leaf http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/sim/Clover_sim.zip Control keys description for simulator http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/sim/keys.zip MS Word document with description of four-leaf for simulator. http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/sim/4-Leaf_Clover.zip MS Word document with description of problems in four-leaf figure. (again the same, which was mentioned in past already) http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/sim/4-Leaf_Clover_problems1.zip Keith is online here so if you have any questions / suggestions / idea or anything else please write it here. regards igor | Tree | 227 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 29.05.2004 - 07:22:02 |
| I totally agree with the simplicity of Igor’s definition. In fact we could leave the new rules as they are with one simple change, and the rest could be explained in the judge’s guide. Just change the definition of the first horizontal joining line from being “parallel to the ground”, to a “straight line.” All the maneuvers have a recommended point of entry, so we may have to leave it at the 42 degree point. Some month’s ago, I wrote to Peter Germann and suggested this, and he did rectify this problem in the tops of the squares, but left the problem in the clover.
I also agree with Keith T that the absolute angles are virtually impossible to perform, or be seen by the judges, but the judges can see if you are flying this horizontal path parallel to the ground with no problem at all. Intersections and bottoms are dead easy for judges to see, and this is why pilots lose so many points in these areas. The ground is a ready reference, and also makes vertical lines easy to see. The horizontal lines are one of the important references for judging according to the present judge’s guide, that I downloaded from the FAI website. “4B.37.4 Judging upright level flight at 38 degrees line elevation angle: At 38 degrees line elevation angle the model aircraft should follow a “straight line” flight path parallel to the ground in upright level flight. The length of this segment should be equal to the diameter of the first (inside) loop.” I have spoken to many judges, and they most certainly look for this line to be level flight, or parallel to the ground. This appears as a upward curve to the judges, and flying it as a straight line, appears as an downward curve. Go out to the field, and test this for yourselves, it is easy to spot. This line is long enough to have a good look at, and it is performed twice (upright and inverted). This is the same problem as the tops of the squares, and square eights. They should also appear slightly curved. The reason that we don’t see this, is simply because the maneuver happens too quickly. The other reason is because our airplanes do much bigger corners than 5 foot, so there is no time to spot this. If our models flew slowly enough, and we could perform 5 foot corners, we would see this. This brings me back to the squares. Do our present judges realize that the squares as described in the rules (present and new) must have sides that are vertical to the pilot? This means that the tops will be much shorter than the bottoms, and the judges should see a shape with sides that are slanted inwards. The old rules call for squares with sides that are of equal length, and should look as if they are slanted outwards to the judges. I have met judges that count the corners in a sort of rhythm, and having a much shorter top, really throws this out. What do the AMA rules ask for? I think that there is going to be some confusion at the coming world champs. Do we not have a situation where there will be a mixture of old “accepted” ideas, and new ideas? Doing both squares and the clover incorrectly will cost a pilot many points. Maybe we should ask the organizers for some clarification. It would be nice to know before we get there. What do you think? | Tree | 226 |
| Keith Trostle | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 27.05.2004 - 11:01:12 |
| This is in response to Igor's post on how to define the four-leaf clover. On his idea, I completely agree in the way he proposes to define the maneuver. It is simple to understand in that the loops are to be the same size and the overall size is described by the base and where the top loops are supposed to be as in tangent to the vertical plane through the center of the circle. This is fairly easy to visualize, and with Keith R's graphic, it is very clear what the four leaf is supposed to look like. There will be very little value to get into the details of how the tangent points slope between the top and bottom loop pairs.
It will be difficult for the very best of pilots to fly the four leaf clover as shown in Keith R's graphics. Even if this idealized four-leaf clover maneuver is perfectly flown, a judge will have a difficult time being able to see it or determine how well it was flown even if the judge were in the center of the circle with the pilot. There is simply no reference points a judge or a pilot can use to determine if those tangent points are at the proper inclination. The standards used by even the best and most experienced judges to score a four-leaf clover are not and cannot be that refined. On the other hand, a judge can evaluate if the loops appear to be the same size and apper to meet all of the tangency requirements and fairly accurately assess the relative point value of the four-leaf clovers from one flight to another. So why complicate a description for this maneuver when Igor's wording is very elegant and quite complete and very simple to understand. The 42-degree loop definition will be a vast improvement in how the four leaf is to be flown. This coupled with Igor's description will be another significant improvement in how the maneuver is described. To get into the details of how the "near horizontal intersections" are to be flown and to precisely describe those inlination angles (if it is exactly on a "45-degree inclined great circle path" or something else. The "45-degree inclined great circle path" may be the exact figure, it "looks" about right. But is it really something else, like 47.238-degrees or maybe 42.1168-degrees? It makes no difference what it is in the concept described by Igor. | Tree | 225 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 27.05.2004 - 06:54:00 |
| What would be nice now, is to hear from some of our judges out there about how they judge the squares and clover. What points are important to them, and also their understanding of the actual shape they expect to see. How about it ladies and gents? | Tree | 224 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 26.05.2004 - 20:43:36 |
| Yes, Igor, the new rules do indeed say that the squares must have sides that are vertical, and does not mention that the sides should be equal. The problem is that the 2-D drawing indicates that the sides are equal, so the rules should say that the top is shorter than the bottom. This is important because many of the present judges will need to be informed that it looks different to the old squares. | Tree | 223 |
| Igor Burger | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 26.05.2004 - 10:52:45 |
| Keith, I think the actual wording for square loops has already ommited that "equal size" expression and sides should be vertical. I do not have rules at hand now, but I remember such change in rules some years ago.
Isn't it so? Can someone check? | Tree | 222 |
| Igor Burger | Re: We need to fix some more rule problems | 26.05.2004 - 10:31:48 |
| The last weekend I spoke to many people about the four-leaf definition and after all I tend to redefine the four-leaf as four loops of equal size fitted to some space defined by boundaries (level and overhead), but not with specified entry altitude. It automatically gives all angular sizes and intersections. Entry point defined as tangent point of first al last loop is quite enough. It is very similar to definition of round horizontal eight, which is also defined as “fit to” maneuver between level and 45 deg elevation level. It also does not need to define tangent point at 22,5 deg and overall width 45 deg.
That “fit to” definition is easy to define and after all it is response of flyer if he comes to first loop on 38 level to tangent point or 42 degrees continued by corner or any other approach leading to erratic four-leaf. I think that “fit to” definition can be easier to write and to understand than defining several angular altitudes like “begin of first loop at 38 deg” or top point of lower loop at 42 degrees or center of figure at 45 degrees or even redundant statements leading to confusion. It will also allow entering the figure by choice of pilot – including great circle path approach as mentioned by Keith R. The rest of definition and explaining what is going on could be in judges guide. That is proper place for redundant information, additional angular descriptions and possible entry methods. I would really like to see Keith’s picture in judges guide, because that schematical plain definition from rules could be helpful for DEFINITION, but does not give OVERWIEV for real understanding of four-leaf derived from that analytical “fit to” definition. | Tree | 221 |
| Keith Renecle | We need to fix some more rule problems | 26.05.2004 - 09:09:06 |
| Hi All,
We still need to do some more work on the new rules as far as the manoeuvres descriptions go. If we correct the problems, then we will have taken a big step in getting the common understanding that we are all striving for. Peter Germann has changed some of the “straight line and parallel to the ground” problems, so we are getting there for sure. I have outlined the concerns that I have below. 1. The inside and outside squares. 2. The 4-leaf clover. 3. The Judges Guide 1. The square loops The existing rules, that will be used in the coming world champs this July, describe square loops that have sides with equal lengths, and a top that is flown as level flight, or parallel to the ground. This will show squares with vertical sides that slope outwards. The old Judges Guide, in fact, explains this as well : ”If flown as per the book, the judge being placed exactly upwind shall expect to see a square shaped manoeuvre with slightly outward slanted verticals.” The new rules describe squares with vertical sides when viewed from the pilot’s point of view. This shows squares with a shorter top section, and sides that slope inwards. The 2-D drawings are a good idea to simplify the understanding of the manoeuvres, but unfortunately, they do not show the difference, or the actual shape that will be seen. Does it really make much difference anyway? You bet it does! Get a good stunt flier to demonstrate the two methods, and you can easily see the difference. There have been many articles written about how to make the squares look exactly square to the judges, and yet the rules do not ask for this. As Peter Germann has pointed many times, it is impossible to make squares on a hemisphere look perfectly square to all five judges at the same time. The rules must tell us exactly what the shape must look like, so that there is no need for anyone to make any assumptions. I believe that the squares in the new rules are correct, but it should be explained clearly, that they are different to the old, or present rules. The new shape is more logical, because it can be flown more accurately by the pilot, and then it can be duplicated for the square eight. The “equal length side” squares, cannot be duplicated to form a square eight, so it makes good sense to use the new definition. We should add in the wording, that the top section will be shorter than the bottom. This type of wording is used in the definition of the triangles where it describes the width as being “slightly wider than 1/8th of the circle.” 2. The 4-leaf clover The clover definition in the old and new rules is incorrect. It cannot be flown as described. If you have any doubt, then please read my short article on Igor’s site. If you need a more detailed article, then I would be happy to supply one. The new rules actually come close to being correct, except for the horizontal joining lines that are “parallel to the ground.” They can only be flown as “straight lines” as per the “straight lines” that form the sides of the triangles. They are in fact, great circle paths. Maybe we need to define the straight line and great circle definitions a bit more clearly in the preamble to the rules. The point of entry is a problem right now. The loops must be approximately 42 degrees, but as you will see from my article, the entry point must then be back at the old 38 degree level. I am aware that we could debate this point forever (as per SSW), because it is close to impossible to see the difference between 38 and 42 degrees when it happens so fast, but we need to make sure that the rules are at the very least, technically correct, and not wrong. If we don’t get this right, we will continue the ongoing problem of who is actually flying the pattern to the rules. For those of you who do not know, I have been developing a 3-D simulation of the stunt pattern that is flown 100% to the rules. That was the idea anyway, until I found that I could not program certain manoeuvres. The most useful feature is that the camera viewpoint can be moved anywhere in the virtual scene while the model is flying the pattern. I have preset positions for judges, and pilot’s viewpoints. Everyone that has seen the sim running so far, has commented that this is certainly the most useful tool for training judges. It is almost finished now except for the clover, which as I stated cannot be performed as described. Once we can decide on how it should be done, then I can complete my work, and it will be available for all to download and use. 3. Judges Guide This has always been the absolute reference for training judges, and I am afraid to say, that the new judge’s guide is actually of very little use. I mean no disrespect to Peter or Andy, but without a description of each manoeuvre and all of their intricacies, where is the value? The new rules describe the manoeuvres from the pilot’s point of view, so it does not help much to refer back to the rules when training judges. We need to add the manoeuvre descriptions and include good drawings that will show the correct perspective from the judge’s point of view. My work in drawing all of the 3-D wire-frame hemisphere drawings that are needed for my simulation, has helped me to develop a good tool do make the necessary drawings. I would be prepared to do proper drawings if required. Let’s get together and sort out the rules once and for all! | Tree | 220 |
| Igor Burger | Problems with the 4-Leaf Clover | 09.05.2004 - 21:50:17 |
| (sorry for confusion in previous message, now with proper links)
Keith Renecle did this eye opening document with VERY nice pictures. It is available on: www.slovanet.sk/orsia/f.doc the most important picture: www.slovanet.sk/orsia/f.jpg igor | Tree | 219 |
| Igor Burger | Re: New F2B Rules, Status Report | 24.03.2004 - 16:13:16 |
| Sorry for little delay ... the text is already available.
igor BTW, we should be thanxfull especially to Juro Madar who did this page for us on R/C site http://www.rcmodely.sk | Tree | 216 |
| Andy Sweetland | New F2B Rules, Status Report | 23.03.2004 - 18:35:00 |
| Dear Forum Participants,
Switzerland, 23rd March 2004. Following the technical meetings of the F2 Sub Committee held in Lausanne on the 11th and 12th of March 2004, those present decided to incorporate the following changes into the New F2B Rules document that we published on November 3rd 2003: A: Removal of all imperial measurements B: Removal of numerical tolerances C: Defining the marking range (points) as 1 to 10 with minimum fractions of 0.1 (one tenth) D: Use of K-factors, as per the current Rule F2B A new document version incorporating the above changes was prepared on site, was provided to the F2 Sub Committee chairman (Doc Jackson) in its original MS Word format, and is now being distributed to all members of the F2 Sub Committee. A .pdf version has been provided to Igor separately and should be available on this web site soon. Further, it was decided in Lausanne that some elements of the New F2B Rules which we proposed belong to other part/s of the Sporting Code and shall therefore be relocated accordingly. It was also understood that this process of relocation shall be undertaken by those F2 Sub Committee members who are able to provide the expertise to do so properly (i.e. not by Andy and Peter). The time frame is such that a finalised version, including the above re-located parts, shall be ready by the time of the November 2004 Bureau Meeting in order to allow a formal approval at the 2005 Plenary Meeting with a setting in force date of January 1st 2006. In addition the F2 Sub Committee meetings agreed to arrange that provisions will be made to remove (for a trial period of yet to be defined length) the K-factors with effect from January 1st 2008. This concludes the work of the F2B Working Group and we wish to express our sincerest thanks to all who have, in whatever form, contributed to the making of what definitely was a major project. The F2BWG has contributed to a remarkable project and the outcome, after a 5 year period, will undoubtedly prove to have been a valuable first step in the right direction. The new F2B rules, while fully supporting the fine traditions of this beautiful and challenging sport, has now opened a window of opportunity for innovation and progress. Again, thanks to all of you for sharing your expertise and for the various efforts provided. Thank you in particular to Igor Burger for the providing the superb Forum tool. We could not have done without it. Please keep it up in whichever form you find appropriate. Yours sincerely. Peter D. Germann F2B Work Group Coordinator A.E. Sweetland, Assistant and Co-Author sent by Andy Sweetland, Sales Director, Financial Institutions _____________________________________________ SR Technics TVF CH-8058 Zurich Airport Switzerland Phone: (+41) 43 812 0039 Mobile: (+41) 79 638 9942 Telefax: (+41) 43 812 9010 E-mail: asweetla@srtechnics.com | Tree | 215 |
| Andy Sweetland | Happy Xmas and a healthy and successful New Year to you all | 23.12.2003 - 09:22:03 |
| Ladies & Gents,
Just a quick Seasons Greetings message from me, together with thanks to everyone who has ever bothered to post here (or otherwise contact us) - Yes, both Peter and I DO know that there are a number of people to whom replies are owed, and they ARE being worked on - (you do believe me, don't you?)! Now the rush of getting the "finished" docs off to CIAM is now over it shouldn't be too long now. Krgds Andy Sweetland | Tree | 214 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: New version of Proposed Draft New F2B Rules | 10.11.2003 - 18:13:00 |
| Hi All,
I have studied the latest draft proposal, and I’m happy to see that we have at least one “throw-away” round back again. (Thank goodness!) The general rules that we have debated for some time now seem to be according to the wishes of the majority of stunt competitors. I have however, just recently, picked up some problems in the manoeuvre descriptions, and one major problem in the way that we view certain angles, or widths. I sent our South African inputs and suggestions to Andy and Peter, and I’m not sure whether they received them or not. Unfortunately my explanations of the manoeuvre problems were quite “long-winded” and contained many drawings, so maybe there was just not enough time to digest all of it. However, it is not good to go ahead with the new rules if they are not quite correct. It must be technically possible to fly the pattern 100% to the rules, and right now it is not completely possible. Here are the points: 1. In 4.2.3 c), it is recommended that the circle should have markers erected at 1/8 of the circle intervals. I have also seen recommendations for markers on the surface of the circle. The normal loops are the absolute standard for a huge part of the pattern. A perfect loop performed with a bottom at 5 ft. and the top at 45 degrees elevation, will have sides that are wider that the 1/8th markers when viewed from the pilot, or judges point of view. The horizontal eight is also considerably wider than the markers indicate. If you drop a line down perpendicular to the ground from the extreme edge of the loops, and then measure the angle from the pilot, you will see what I mean. Judges that are not aware of this will mark fliers down as if the loops, or eights are too small. The only markers that of any use to pilots or judges, are the height markers. Markers on a safety fence cause parallax errors to the judges. The markers can work for the bottoms of the triangles, squares and square eights, if they are close enough to the model, but then it is confusing because the round loops and eights will appear wider if performed correctly. 2. The squares have always been a problem to define. The new definition calls for a square with a considerably shorter top section than the bottom. If this is what is going to be required from pilots, then it should be clearly stated that this is the case. Just like the triangles are described as being as “a little wider than an 1/8th of a circle,” we could state that the top section will be shorter” etc. In 4.2.23 e) it states that the “total length of the bottom segment, including both turns, should be exactly 1/8th of a lap.” However, in the outside square description in 4.2.24 c), it states that “the total length of the top section, including both turns, should be exactly 1/8th of a lap.” Then further on in the square eights in 4.2.17 i) it states, when referring to that first outside square, that “the length of the bottom segment, including both turns, should be exactly 1/8th of a lap.” This is most likely a “typo” that has occurred, but I feel that for once, we should make sure that the rules describe exactly what the pilot is expected to do. The alternative is, of course, to just carry on trying to “fudge” the corners so that it looks better to the judges. 3. The 4-Leaf Clover cannot be performed as described in 4.2.31 c) with a “straight line that is parallel to the ground……” A straight line is exactly like the joining lines in the triangles. It literally means no heading change to the model. A line parallel to the ground at anything higher that the pilot’s hand, will require elevator input, and is therefore not a “straight” line. If you try to perform the clover with a joining line from loop 1 to 2 that is parallel to the ground, then the loops have to be smaller than the 42 degree loops referred to in the definition, and they are no longer tangent to each other. By simply removing the words “parallel to the ground,” will make the clover description correct. This can then be further explained in the Judges Guide. Ladies and gents, I hope that you will accept these inputs of mine as an attempt to improve the understanding of the pattern, and not as trying to open another “can of worms,” at this rather late stage. If the rules are 100% technically correct, then it will go a long way towards reducing the age old argument of subjectivity. I sincerely believe that the rules must state exactly what is expected of the competitors. In my ongoing pursuit of trying to train judges and pilots to see the pattern in perspective, I have only recently developed a 3-D simulation on the PC of the pattern, and this is how I discovered that the pattern has some “peculiarities” in it. When my simulation is completed, I will make it available to any interested parties. If the points that I have put forward are totally incorrect, then I stand corrected, and apologize for wasting your time. Thank you for your patience in reading this letter. Sincerely, Keith Renecle | Tree | 213 |
| Igor Burger | Re: New version of Proposed Draft New F2B Rules | 06.11.2003 - 19:58:41 |
| The rules text is already uploaded and available. The "Judge guide" will be available soon. At present time it could be downloaded from:
http://www.slovanet.sk/orsia/rules.pdf igor | Tree | 212 |
| Andy Sweetland | New version of Proposed Draft New F2B Rules | 06.11.2003 - 18:48:19 |
| Ladies and Gentlemen,
The latest version of the Proposed Draft New F2B Rules will very soon be available for downloading from this Forum, in Adobe Acrobat .pdf format as usual. Please note that all previous versions should be destroyed and replaced with this one which is dated 2nd November 2003 on every page header (and which includes ".... 2Nov-03 .... " within its file name). A very big thank you to everyone who has taken the trouble to post their views about the previous (18th September) version, and our apologies that we have not yet had time to respond to everyone personally. Our personal responses to many of you will follow on as soon as possible. But it was clear from many of the inputs here that there were several areas where the 18th September version just did not "cut the mustard", particularly concerning the procedures for number of flights, calculating scores, and working out placings when Multi-Circle format contests were involved. These and a number of other valid criticisms raised have now all been incorporated into this latest 2nd November version. To assist everyone, the MAJOR changes are in paragraphs 4.2.10; 4.2.11; 4.2.12; and 4.2.17. But there are also a number of minor changes -mainly simplified wording - in various paragraphs too, so do please take time to review the whole document if you possibly can. As per the requirements of CIAM, the deadline for submitting rule change proposals for acceptance at the next Plenary meeting (which is in March 2004) is November 15th of this year (i.e. next week!), so assuming that CIAM need at least a couple of days clear before that final deadline we will now have to forward the completed document to CIAM by early next week (say 10th November).So this really is now your "last chance" as far as the F2BWG is concerned - it all becomes a matter for CIAM officials and not Peter and I after we have made that final submission! Please also note that as a result of (finally!) putting this Proposed Draft New F2B Rules document forward to CIAM, there is also a need for some changes to the present Annex 4B (i.e. the F2B Judges Guide). These are all quite simple and mainly involve removing all the Manoeuvre Diagrams from the present Judging Guide (there's no point in having them in both the New F2B Rules and in the Judging Guide as well), plus some relatively minor text changes (such as changing the Judging Guide suggestions on awarding points to match up with the New F2B rules (which give a maximum of 100 points per manoeuvre). That new Judging Guide, revised as described above, is also dated 2nd November and will also be available for download from this site. Thank you all once again. More later ....... Peter Germann and Andy Sweetland | Tree | 211 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Multiple circle procedures | 28.10.2003 - 20:00:41 |
| Brett, rules are for local contests as well for championship. So I agree that the WC contest will need final flights – does not matter what the number of circles is. I just wanted to say that there is chance to make a contest (not championship) with 50 or more flyers on two circles without final. It gives chance to make successful and fair contest on two circles – gives good chance for „weekend“ type contests.
So I completely agree with you that WC or EC will need final – just to be sure that the winner is really the best flyer of all contestants – does not matter how many circles we use. However I cannot agree that the WC or EC is contest ONLY to find that best pilot. There are pilots coming to compare each other, even they do not have real chance to win or get to final. Does not matter if they place at 50, they still believe that the guy who placed at 51 did little better and that on place 49 did little worse flight. Otherwise we should not make ranking at all and just to say „unsuccessful“ and to do ranking only in final. But this will disallow ranking of teams – and this is very specific for WC and EC and this is also one of reasons why to have teams of 3 flyers. You are also right that 3 circles are sometimes better than 2 circles, but I do not think that automatic usage of 3 circles is good idea. I think 2 circle solution is very good and should be used if possible. You say such a round is long – yes, but still only half of present. My problem with 3 circles is, that it can be well true it eliminates luck in some way, but it brings another source of luck another way. BUT!!! Again – that is very true that with growing number of contestants that first un/luck is eliminated better and that second un/luck is present less. So I really agree that with high number of contestants the 3-circle system can be beneficial. igor | Tree | 210 |
| Brett Buck | Re: Multiple circle procedures | 25.10.2003 - 06:26:54 |
| >1/ The multicircle contest (3 and more) is fair for
>finalists. It is good way to find winner and also top 3 >places, but it is not fair for those who did not get to >final. The placing on lower places is based on luck – it >happen always, the best flyer lovers percentual points given >to all other flyers in his group in comparison to other >groups. I can imagine fixing the score by placing of best >flyer from every group in final – it is relatively simple >recalculation because we know real score all three best >flyers front of one jury. But there is still question WHO >goes to final. > >2/ I think all flyers pays the same fee and they have right >to be scored fair – also those on lower places. We also do >not speak about championship contests only. Depends on what you think the purpose of a W/C is. I think it's to find the best pilot, period. Beyond that, you aren't getting a "world ranking" for the rest - it's only the ranking of the people who happened to make their National Team and thus get there in the first place. If you really want a "world ranking" you would have to let *anyone* enter - not just 3 from each country. I actually don't see a problem with that, in principle. I think it would certainly close the "one circle" discussion for once and all! >In my eyes, the >two circles system (2 circles, 2 flights on every circle, 1 >best flight from every circle counts) is fair, saves time >and not needs any final. It gives also opportunity to flight >4 times instead of 3 times – this is very valuable for >flyers not having enough chance for practice – at least as I >see it on contests here in Europe with limited chance for >practice on good circles. I think we should take this >2-circle solution as basic. Actual system on one circle >should be used on small contests or on places where the >second circle is not available, and three circle format only >and only with final and only if absolutely necessary because >of time. But 2 circles with no finals is unwieldy with 90 or so entrants. 45 per circle, 10 min per flight = 450 minutes, or 7 and a half hours, even before lunch and judges breaks. That's just not a workable situation - it's FAR TOO MANY FLIGHTS in a day. You then get one exceptionally long round per day, (which really doesn't work any better than 90 on a single circle). When you add it up, it's around 10 hours - and I defy anyone here to stand on the blacktop in Muncie for 10 hours in the summer and still even remember their name by the end! What you will wind up with is *exactly* the same situation that you have now - judging that only recognizes very simple-to-identify elements - i.e. bottoms and intersections. And the rounds are so long that the conditions have a great chance of changing from beginning to end, adding the luck factor. Use 3 circles, and it becomes a much more tolerable and beleiveable 5 hours of actual flying time, more like 6.5 hours with breaks Take the same calculation for *one circle*, and it's just absurd. Does anyone genuinely think that this is a reasonable way to pick the right world champion? I also strongly repeat my opinion that *this sort of organizational detail (how many circles, etc) does not belong in the rule book* since there is too much local variation in factilites. Why not just describe the patterns and scoring and let the individual hosts determine the format (with some oversight by the jury to make sure it's fair). I think it's a crying shame that the "2-circle" situation described above is the one we will be stuck with for Muncie - with 3-4 empty circles just sitting idle. I might also add that what might be fine and dandy for a W/C might be completely inappropriate for a local (assuming you still use FAI rules at locals). But I guess everyone is bound and determined to throw something in there. Brett | Tree | 209 |
| Claus Maikis | contest format | 23.10.2003 - 13:57:04 |
| Hello friends,
this discussion seems to go on forever. I'm not going to continue it now. Actually I do not insist on any particular procedure. After all I cannot reach the final anyway, and whether I place 47th or 59th doesn't make any difference for me. Just some comments on recent thoughts. If we are going to more than 2 circles it can easily happen that there are more top pilots in one circle than in the other. Whatever method of placing we use, the system is unfair, and we need some kind of "seeding", as the Americans do ( or did?). This may be practical within one nation where most of the pilots are known well ( at least the top pilots ). However this is not possible for a world championship, not even for a continental championship. As for me, I wouldn't know a solution. Does anybody have one? There must be people who have suggested this method, otherwise it wouldn't have crept into the proposal. My old argument. There are people who still insist on 5 judges for each circle. Of course I can understand that the more judges we have the better the sgoring. However we've always had a problem to find even 5 judges for a WCh ( plus 1 reserve !). I can remember a WCh where only 3 judges showed up, and some team managers had to fill the ranks. Please can anybody explain me how we can find 15 ( plus at least 2 reserve !). AND - who can pay the cost ?! This may easily add up to a high 6 figure number. In Dollars !! I'm sure those people who suggested this format never consider to run a WCh . Regards, claus | Tree | 208 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Multiple circle procedures | 23.10.2003 - 10:22:08 |
| Yes Brett, that is exactly what I think also. The results should not be based on given score. It should be based on percentage in your description, or on my “10 000” score for best flyer on the circle. My solution suppresses decimal places what is nice if we already suppressed decimal places in points for figures, but does not matter - it is only cosmetic difference. I guess you also mean that the result is based on only 2 better from 3 flights.
However I have two notes: 1/ The multicircle contest (3 and more) is fair for finalists. It is good way to find winner and also top 3 places, but it is not fair for those who did not get to final. The placing on lower places is based on luck – it happen always, the best flyer lovers percentual points given to all other flyers in his group in comparison to other groups. I can imagine fixing the score by placing of best flyer from every group in final – it is relatively simple recalculation because we know real score all three best flyers front of one jury. But there is still question WHO goes to final. 2/ I think all flyers pays the same fee and they have right to be scored fair – also those on lower places. We also do not speak about championship contests only. In my eyes, the two circles system (2 circles, 2 flights on every circle, 1 best flight from every circle counts) is fair, saves time and not needs any final. It gives also opportunity to flight 4 times instead of 3 times – this is very valuable for flyers not having enough chance for practice – at least as I see it on contests here in Europe with limited chance for practice on good circles. I think we should take this 2-circle solution as basic. Actual system on one circle should be used on small contests or on places where the second circle is not available, and three circle format only and only with final and only if absolutely necessary because of time. In this case the scoring should be “normalized” either by percentage like Brett wrote either to 10 000. But certainly not on absolute number of points and certainly not all three flights. I think the 2-circle format is useful also with actual amount of flyers on EC or WC contest - up to 90-100 flyers. 90 flyers on two circles makes 45 flyers on one circle, what is exactly the same time as for 3 flights of 15 finalists. I do not see any reason to use not_so_fair 3-circle format. The 90 flyers WC can be done in 3 days (2 whole flights every day plus one final) unlike actual 4 days (3+1). If we have up to 150 flyers the three-circle format looks necessary, and also “luck” on “unluck” at such amount of flyers is limited. igor | Tree | 207 |
| Brett Buck | Multiple circle procedures | 23.10.2003 - 04:49:39 |
| >More circles
> >I have problem understanding rules regarding “rounds on >several circles”. I think the previous version speaking >about two circles in model 2+2 while 1 from each count was >very good. It allows to split contestants to two groups and >to fly separately. I think this system is fair, allows >flying 4 times to all contestants and saves 1/3 of time >necessary for the contest. The new text is extended to more >than two circles. It is itself OK. My problem is >understanding exact procedure – is that true that now it >allows only 3 flights on 2 circles and ALL of flights counts >to result? Does it mean I cannot fail? > >If yes, we do not have too much problem, while it is fair, >but I really think we should have a chance to fail >sometimes. > >If not and I just do not understand properly, and if there >is a statement which flights counts, then we think 2 flights >front of one jury and 1 flight front of another is unfair >because of unequal levels of two different jury. > Multiple circle stunt events are not exactly a new idea, so there's no need to re-invent the wheel. The proper procedure is well understood and well tested. Multiple circles work because you never use the absolute scores between groups. Example - with 3 circles, you divide the group of pilots into 3 groups, who fly together on the same circle for each round. Maybe you have group 1 fly on circle one, group 2 on circle 2, group 3 on circle 3 for the first round, then rotate them for the next round. Or just keep them on the same circle for all the rounds, or any combination. When it comes time to pick the finalists, pick the top 5 in each group. That way, it doesn't matter that the judges might not all be "even" in terms of absolute score. Maybe the winner in group 1 has a total of 3300, and maybe the winner of group 3 has a total of 2700 - doesn't matter, as long as you keep the groups together in rounds. To place the non-finalists, take the percentage of the top score on the group. The finalists obviously fly one only one circle with the same judges and the scores are "heads up". Its my opinion that the ideal situation is probably 3 circles for a W/C. Nicely divides to get 5 finalists from each group, nicely lines up with 3-man national teams (so you spilt up the teams so they don't flay against each other in qualifications). It also results in a very large, but managable, group size of around 30 per group. That's about the most you could get through reasonably in one day. 4 circles works better for the judges, and you could consider 2 rounds in a day, but then you probably have to take 4 off of each circle to get 16 finalists. The more groups you have, the fewer people you take, and the more "seeding" the circles begins to matter. 2 is borderline absurd due to judge loading and round length with 90ish pilots. One circle is just ridiculous. I can't imagine how any argument could be made to support it. Brett | Tree | 206 |
| István Travnik | Hungarians' input | 08.10.2003 - 01:21:55 |
| Dear Friends,
Hungarian flyers completely agree, and join Slovak input (see below). We would like to underline, that the suggested changes MUST NOT be appeared as a "collective" or "completely accepted" opinion of the Working Group. See voting table: approx. 5/6 of the Group is silent all along, and the strongest acceptance is not higher than 1/9 part of the group*... The author(s) can submit their suggestions theirself, under their own name, no problem, but not under ours, please... *and the Group does not embody the entire C/L aerobatic community... (á propos: where is the petition, signatured by dozens of top pilots, at 2002 World Championships, in Sebnitz?!) Regards: István Travnik | Tree | 205 |
| Igor Burger | Slovak inputs | 06.10.2003 - 10:44:16 |
| Hi All,
Here are our inputs. I note now I write for Slovak team. First of all I would like to express that we do not agree to omit the "K" factor. I think it was written lot about it and everybody knows what is going on. Our meaning is that at present situation, the omitting is counterproductive and downgrade quality. We also think that this decision was done without serious analyze. ================================== Now two “meaning” point: 1/ The automatic regulation I still think that “remote” control of engine and “automatic” self-regulation is not distinct in many inputs about it. We really recommend NOT to allow remote control of engine power at all (we are definitely not against but we think it is good compromise). While to ALLOW automatic self regulation – just because we all can not live without it and we do not see any reason why to allow some kind (tank, pipe) and not to allow another kind (centrifugal pendulum). 2/ More circles I have problem understanding rules regarding “rounds on several circles”. I think the previous version speaking about two circles in model 2+2 while 1 from each count was very good. It allows to split contestants to two groups and to fly separately. I think this system is fair, allows flying 4 times to all contestants and saves 1/3 of time necessary for the contest. The new text is extended to more than two circles. It is itself OK. My problem is understanding exact procedure – is that true that now it allows only 3 flights on 2 circles and ALL of flights counts to result? Does it mean I cannot fail? If yes, we do not have too much problem, while it is fair, but I really think we should have a chance to fail sometimes. If not and I just do not understand properly, and if there is a statement which flights counts, then we think 2 flights front of one jury and 1 flight front of another is unfair because of unequal levels of two different jury. We recommend following: 1 circle mode (full time): 3 flights 2 better counts (usual system) 2 circle mode (saves 1/3): 2+2 flights 1 better from every circle counts 3 circle mode (saves 2/3): 1+1+1 flights, round results proportionally recalculated to 10 000 for the best flyer on the circle (this eliminates “level” of jury); 2 better counts (still 100% fair but acceptable) ================================= Here are some bits in wording we found: 4.2.2.f The definition of "automatic" is not clear. It is not very clear if even flaps coupled with elevator is not that “automatic” control. And isn’t it expo crank? We recommend. [No self executed or timed control] instead of [automatic]. With conjuction with “performed manually” says all. 4.2.2.g Remote secondary function. We think it is better to say "no wireless" instead of "no remote". We think wire control is allowed and it IS remote. Or did I understand it wrong? 4.2.7.b Pull test What means "not less than 20 minutes before contest flight"? I think it should be “no more”. 4.2.9.a Registered helper. We have problem wit this point. Why a registered helper? Does it mean I must travel over half of world in two persons? We recommend at least to say “any” registered helper or contestant. 4.2.16.c.iv - points itself ("see paragraph c)") 4.2.17.h.iii We think juniors should fly together with seniors. The only way to fly separately is, that no one junior is qualified to senior final. In this case they can fly separately, because those flights does not play role in senior final – like done in Sebnitz 2002. 4.2.23; 4.2.24; 4.2.27; 4.2.31 We have problem understanding definition straight segments on 45 deg elevation. Rules ask for "straight line" level flight at a height of 45 degrees line elevation angle, but level flight at 45 degrees line elevation is not straight (just imagine level flight at 80 degrees – it is pretty small loop overhead). The difference between “straight” and at 45deg can be up to 1 meter, what is more than judge can accept. Current practice is I think “straight” in square figures and “level” in four leaf. So we recommend to state “straight between points on 45 deg elevation” for square figures and to state “level” but not “straight” in four leaf. 4.2.32 - landing with stopped engine We think it will need better definition I would say “engine in power off mode”. The problem is with electric and turbine engines. What is “stopped”? You can switch off the power for electric engine, and prop is still rotating till landing. Who knows how long turbine rotates after switch off? | Tree | 204 |
| Brett Buck | Z-Tron | 04.10.2003 - 06:10:39 |
| I feel compelled to point out that at no time have I heard Windy suggest that these rules were aimed at him. I have heard the complaint from numerous other sources - particularly after I mentioned that Keith and I supported the idea. This couldn't possibly be true, since my input to the process was *prior* to me knowing of the Z-Tron's existence!
I wouldn't suggest losing a lot of sleep over this, in any case. Somebody's always going to be unhappy. Brett | Tree | 203 |
| Peter Germann | The "Purists" versus the "Inventors" | 03.10.2003 - 17:11:31 |
| Dear Friends:
Due to job circumstances I was not able to follow-up completely what was going on the Forum and, as many times before, much work was left on Andy’s shoulders. Following the recent publication of the Proposal in what I believe is close to the form in which it will go to the F2 Subcommittee, it was again Andy who checked the various Forum inputs and copied me accordingly on my current e-mail address: peter.germann@imagingsolutions.ch. From what I have read, it seems to be appropriate to me to add the following thoughts which, not with Andy’s language expertise alone but supported by his on points of view, too, read as follows: Ladies and Gents, Both Andy and I have been watching the recent series of posts between Brett Buck, Claus Maikis, and Igor Burger carrying on some very interesting arguments which represent both sides of what we will call (simply for convenience), the "Traditionalists" (or would "Purists" be better?) on the one hand and (again, just for convenience) the "Inventors" on the other. In our view both "sides" have made some very valid points, but to us it is equally clear that simply due to differing viewpoints and differing approaches to the Stunt event, we can never reach complete agreement between the representatives of either "camp". Long may such diversity of thought and approach continue! This is precisely what Andy meant in an earlier post when he mentioned that we have been trying hard to tread what turns out to be a pretty fine line between quite disparate viewpoints. However, whilst we do actively encourage and welcome the posting of all these differing views, we also strongly request that ALL PARTIES do not get carried away to the point that we all loose sight of the many other areas where the Draft Proposed New F2B Rules document does indeed provide the FAI Stunt community with a significant step forward compared with today's rule book - we're thinking here of much improved manoeuvre diagrams; precise manoeuvre descriptions; very clear information and guidance on judging, staffing contests, venues, multiple circle contest procedures, weather, noise, etc. In other words Ladies and Gentlemen, please do not let us grow the pros and cons of this particular argument (or any other) to the point where we loose sight of the overall goal and end up "throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater" - to return to the "Purists v Inventors" point briefly, we do today have "Inventor's Tweaks" such as "funny bellcranks", Rabe rudders, differential and/or asymmetric flaps (to name just 4 off the tops of our heads) as fully accepted "Stunt Tweaks". Generally these things are written about and discussed and refined and some people end up using them in their contest models and some people don't. So what? In our view the rules should give scope to allow those who want to "play around" to do so - but as ever in life, there has to be some limit. What we have tried to do is to set those limits on a purely practical basis. That leads me to an area of one of the earlier posts on this theme that did concern both Andy and I very much, and that was the point raised by Brett Buck regarding the Z-Tron throttle device (and just to confirm here, Brett, we DID both realise that you were simply quoting what you believe to be a view that others may take up when reading the Proposed New F2B Rules - i.e. what you wrote then was not necessarily stating your own opinion in that area). So let's look at that point and let me start off by saying that both Andy and I have read a great deal about Windy Urtnowski's activities and excellent writings in Stunt News; we have both had direct E-mail contact with Windy on general matters (NOT rules!); we have both profited from Windy's activities (more than once); and we both have a great respect for Windy and his modelling achievements (from reading Stunt News, that B25 must be a simply glorious sight). So when drafting the present model restrictions, Windy (or anyone else) is just simply WRONG if they think we were trying to outlaw any particular person - that is just plain UNTRUE. However, what we were trying to do is be practical and prevent any possibility of INTERFERENCE. Before anybody groans (again), please just take the time to read the following slowly so that we can all be completely clear here: 1. Any "non-mechanical" system could be subject to external interference (either from other similar systems operating nearby, or from completely unrelated items such as, for example, "remote control" toys, mobile phones and pagers, domestic items such as garage door openers). 2. Any "non-mechanical" system could itself create interference for other fliers with similarly equipped models flying at the same site at the same time. Since some details of the Z-Tron system had already been published at the time Andy and I were first drafting in this area we at first thought that here was a system that would at least not suffer from nor create the problems outlined in 2 above - according to the information published, not only is the Z-Tron control beam very narrow and directional but is also of rather limited range. But as part of our research we contacted a number of technical experts in the "electronic wire-less control" field and found out the following: A) NOBODY can definitely GUARANTEE that a system such as Z-Tron (or any other remotely controlled device using any form of radiated control signals) would not interfere with other similar systems under ALL conceivable circumstances - possible scenarios included, as examples, component drift or other internal fault allowing beam width or transmission distance to change, unknown to the operator (until it is too late!); a "signal-reflecting" object in the signal line of sight accidentally deflecting and/or reflecting such a control beam (even a limited width and range beam) sufficiently to allow it's operation to inadvertently interfere with a similar system operating nearby. B) NOBODY can positively GUARANTEE that a system such as Z-Tron (or any other remotely controlled device using any form of radiated control signals) would not, under certain circumstances, be subject to external interference from "external sources" such as those listed at 1. above. C) The ONLY "remote control" equipment which is PROVEN to the satisfaction of any aeromodelling governing body not to cause interference to other similar equipments and not to be subject to interference from external sources is current RC equipment (and as we all know, then only when 2 equipments are not operated on the same transmit/receive frequency within range of each other - hence the RC peoples' need for frequency pegs or similar controls, plus the impounding of transmitters at contests). D) The technical specialists we consulted also pointed out that the tests which the manufacturers of RC equipment perform are extremely technical, expensive, and time-consuming, and that such testing can only be commercially justified in view of the large sales value of the RC market. They could not conceive that any manufacturer, whether fully professional or part-time cottage industry, could possibly justify a similar level of testing in equipment destined for a low volume market like C/L. E) As a final point, the technical specialists we consulted pointed out that even with "signals down the wires" control, the frequency of those signals MUST be set not to exceed a certain limit, otherwise in some circumstances the wires themselves can act as a broad-range "scatter antenna" (again leading to possible inadvertent interference to similar equipments operating nearby). Yes, we can all appreciate that many of the possibilities put forward above represent various extremes of (un) likelihood! But we are assured that they COULD happen. So Ladies and Gentlemen, all of the above seemed to move C/L into a realm which is certainly not C/L in any form which either Andy or I felt could be in any way acceptable to the vast majority of C/L fliers, be they past, present, or future. We therefore drafted this area of the Proposed New F2B Rules with precisely those thoughts in mind - and with NO other thoughts in mind - most certainly NOT with any names in mind. October 3rd 2003 Peter Germann + Andy Sweetland | Tree | 202 |
| Brett Buck | Re: reply | 01.10.2003 - 06:45:05 |
| >By the way, Brett and Igor, none of you have opposed my main
>argument about the rules allowing " the largest possible >number of participants" in our sport. While I can fully >understand your viewpoint and wishes, I have some slight >doubt how we can fill our ranks with opening ALL doors for >technical progress. Man shouldn't always do what he CAN do. I don't think that I would completely disagree with the "attracting the largest number of participants" - although I would prefer not to grossly alter or limit the event in order to simply get more numbers. Our numbers will be absolutely miniscule in a "real world" sense, compared to other hobbies. There is no rules change we can possibly make that will attract as many people as soccer, real football, baseball, or even ping-pong or basket weaving. But I question what exactly you mean by "participation". Allowing engine controls, to take one example, does not outlaw uncontrolled engines. There is nothing at all in the current proposed rules that prevents anyone from taking any airplane built in the last 50 years with a 60 year old engine from still entering and participating*. It might be somewhat more difficult to win with such a combination - so I suspect that "participate and be competitive" is closer to what you actually mean. But, to me, that's a far different issue than merely participating. My previous point was that limiting the technical aspects is actually *exclusionary* rather than *inclusionary*. I used myself as an example. Taken to an extreme, it becomes simply a hand-eye coordination event, and I'm for sure out of it, because I can't possibly compete with most people on that level. The way it is now, I can easily make up for my limitations in one area by compensating in another. I suspect that this is in fact THE REASON that stunt is so healthy, and the other events are bnordering on dead. Take away everything but the handle manipulation, and it's very limiting. Stunt has never, ever been about simply flying the airplane through some geometric patterns. It has always been far, far more than that. Limiting the technical side greatly reduces the value of the event, in my opinion. Second point (and closer to what I originally asked) - Why have we, in the current proposal, limited one very minor technical aspect, while allowing very wide latitude technically in other, almost certainly more esoteric and potentially valuable area. In short - why are we picking on the engine? I can't see any reason at all to limit throttles as long as whatever control signal goes through the lines and doesn't create an RF source that would have to be legally regulated. I can't see any reason at all to limit the possibility of on-board closed-loop mixture control (presumably through EGT). These are trivial issues that don't conflict with the spirit of the event, and are simple to implement, and frankly, have very little competitive value. Current passive techniques (tuned pipes, prop load feedback) are adjustable over a range of far too little, to far too much, and work perfectly well. People have fiddled with engine gadgets for 30+ years - most effective being Scott Bair's exahust throttle coupled to the bellcrank. Nobody uses it because it was not necessary, and I can get a much more responsive system by sliding an exhaust pipe 1/8" shorter. I could run onboard mixture control and an accelerometer-controlled variable throttle in an AMA contest next weekend - but I don't bother because it seems completely unnecessary. If it's unnecessary, where is the "threat" that everyone seems to fear if we allow it? At the same time, it's perfectly OK to to put gyro/air data probe stabilization on roll and yaw. It certainly takes "special high skills" - I can envision how it would work, but not how to find or make acceptable components, and I do that sort of thing for a living. This is far more difficult, complex, and also more potentially beneficial than anything you could hook to the engine or prop. But these are perfectly OK under the old and proposed new rules. If nothing else, this division of engine/not engine seems extremely inconsistent. Brett *excepting of course, the (to me) absurd noise limitations. Neighbor complaints of noise, in my experience, have NOTHING to do with noise, and everything to do with people not wanting to have others doing something they don't care for or approve of. But I know that this argument is tilting at windmills... | Tree | 201 |
| Igor Burger | Re: reply | 01.10.2003 - 00:45:33 |
| Claus, I definitely do not want to exclude someone from flying stunt by calling for difficult / complex / expensive equipment. What I mean is equipment, which makes life easier, and so I think it is way how to “allow”, not way to “keep out”. I can have model full of clever devices and you can still come with trivial “Jurassic” power train. I do not see any problem to allow model full of electronic or mechanic devices from R/C or computer or rocket technology if you can still come with very simple model and still have good chance for successful result. I must say that I very like that idea of “primary mechanic” function in new rules which keeps the soul of c/l stunt flight and eliminates automatic, computerized flying of flying by wire, while allows free those “other functions” which do not have direct relation to what the judge observes. He looks what you do with handle, not how many miracles you have in your fuselage.
You wrote it well: “keep F2B simple". For me as a technician, the model with centrifugal regulator or logarithmic bellcrank or gyroscopic stabilizer is „simple“ because it costs me one afternoon to do any of those devices. But as a technician with 30 years of experience in model building, I still cannot satisfy myself with look of my model. Something what is easy for designer like you are, but very difficult for me. So if _I_ see something difficult on our models for a newcomer, than it is its look, its finish, not its clever and easy to copy technical design. I saw several people looking to our models saying „no chance“ – just because of finish. So shall we change rules to allow only ugly rectangular grey models? Just to make life easy for newcomer? Can you _designer_ live with such a rule? To make whole thing short: We definitely see it from opposite points of view, but I completely agree with you that such a thing should NOT keep out from „participating or competing“. I even think it should not give too much advantage – in meaning, „can not win without XXXX“ (it is the same I think). In my eyes such automatic devices out of „primary function“ does not break that idea. I think we all know what is going on here – you have to do exact and well aerodynamically designed model, you need sharp eyes, firm hand, well working power train and you have to trim it all together. If you do it 20 years, if you have luck and if you remember what judges like to drink, you are the winner. :-) igor | Tree | 200 |
| Claus Maikis | reply | 30.09.2003 - 21:47:37 |
| Not for defence, just for clarification.
I've seen again that I didn't say very precisely what I meant. With "Special high skills" I didn't mean born in talents or extraordinary intelligence. Example: if you are a certified engineer, or a toolmaker , or similar, you have learned knowledge which a baker or a butcher ( or in my case a decorator ) cannot have. In team race or speed you NEED this knowledge ( or skills ), and you are well advised to choose such events. In Aerobatics, however, the emphasis is on flying, and you can get along quite well without these "special skills". They sure help, but they are not decisive. I think the majority of stunt flyers is this kind of modeler, and - again - this is the reason why aerobatics is the most popular control line class. After all, most control line fun flyers start in this area. And that's the reason I'd like to keep F2B "simple". I'd prefer to have a huge number of flyers without "special skills", instead of a handful of extraordinary technicians spread all over the world. What I mean: if the lack of these special skills ( whatever they are ) keep me from winning , that's my problem, and I can stand it. If it keeps me from PARTICIPATING or COMPETING, then I'm strictly against rules which require those skills. By the way, Brett and Igor, none of you have opposed my main argument about the rules allowing " the largest possible number of participants" in our sport. While I can fully understand your viewpoint and wishes, I have some slight doubt how we can fill our ranks with opening ALL doors for technical progress. Man shouldn't always do what he CAN do. Regards, claus | Tree | 199 |
| Brett Buck | Re: latest comments | 30.09.2003 - 06:34:38 |
| Claus wrote:
> It’s not just by chance that aerobatics is the most popular > control line event. It’s the most simple class! I can > understand that technically oriented people like to > experiment, to develop, to create ( I’m a creative type > myself, even if not on a technical level ). However rules > shouldn’t be formulated so that special high skills will be > rewarded. Everybody must have a fair chance. I read this about 20 times to make sure I read it correctly, and I have to say that my mind is well and truly boggled. "Special high skills should not be rewarded?" What about special high motor skills? All that limiting the technical side of the event will do is reward *only one type* of special skills. A "simple" event (i.e. technologically limited) will be won by the most physically skilled pilots. Taking the concept to it's logical conclusion, this would result in a very limited number of potential winners, who possess the natural gifts and also have the free time and inclination to practice. In my opinion, one of the beauties of the event, and one of the reasons it *hasn't* gone the way of the dead or near-dead events (in the US, all FAI events aside from stunt, with T/R in particular on life support) is that stunt has always rewarded a wide variety of skills. If you aren't the slickest guy at the handle, you can still be recognized and rewarded for your building skills, for your trimming skills, for your areodynamic knowledge, your engine setup skills, etc. The best thing about this is that a lot of these "other skills" can be learned - not merely innately acquired by an accident of birth! Eliminating or severely limiting the technical aspects of the event greaty narrows the focus to simple handle-waving capability - and results in the rewarding of only very particular "special skills". Is a simple physical skills contest really what we want? This is a subject near and dear to my heart - I have some neuro-muscular difficulties as the result of a genetic disorder. This limits my physical capabilities slightly. I'm not complaining, and I can be quite competitive with anyone I have met - because my physical limitations can be overcome by other skills in the technical side. Skills that can be learned and cultivated by (as far as I can tell) anyone. Why in the world should we be striving to come up with rules for the event that *doesn't* reward *all forms* of skills. How much more inclusive could we be? The "cost and expense" aspect is, I think, a red herring. You don't have to buy "stunt special engines" anymore. R/C engines, with minor mods, work just fine. The US Nationals were absolutely dominated in the 90s by Paul Walker with a *box stock* OS40VF R/C engine with an $85 tuned pipe. He's set to repeat it with a *box stock* Saito 72 R/C engine with only the addition of a $45 venturi. Yes, many people use semi-custom engines, but not necessarily for performance reasons. Engines like the PA61 and RO-Jett 61 are preferred mostly because *they need very little fiddling and last close to forever*. Much cheaper than the so-called "good old days" when you had to buy 6-7 ST46's and continually maintain them just ot get through a few seasons. I think it's very clearly cheaper overall to buy 1 $300 engine (or in the case of the VF, $125) that lasts for 10 seasons! Most of the potential engine controllers take the form of a few absurdly cheap electronics parts. Of course, you have to know which parts and how to connect them, but I see absolutely no reason that know-how should not be rewarded by the event. Listen, I'm all for limiting the event to a pure definition of C/L (controlled through the lines) models. I'm also all for not creating an event where the models are flown via computers. But why shouldn't someone be rewarded for coming up with a technique that makes his performance better? Or are we striving for an event where we all build some standard design with very limited modification ability, and then the only way to compete is to go out and grind out 200-300 flights a week (and make no mistake, that's what some people will do), and have had the good fortune to be born with talent for it? Brett | Tree | 198 |
| Igor Burger | Re: latest comments | 29.09.2003 - 15:28:49 |
| Claus, I mostly agree what you wrote (well … beside one point), so here are my notes:
1/ I did not heard serious call for remote control of engine power output. You wrote: >>>Why should we allow elements of other categories? There’s no need to do so.<<< Well, I fully agree, but I do not know why exactly you wrote about it and I afraid we speak about different things. So I think it can be good idea if you write what exactly you mean. 2/ You also wrote: >>>A class has to be defined in such a way that the largest possible number of people can participate.<<< Exactly! And this is I think about those automatic „self controlling devices“ and so I think it is related to my previous input. It would be mistake to mean that I am speaking about >>> highly sophisticated, complex, and sometimes expensive material ... certain percentage of potential new participants will be cut out right from the beginning.<<<. I am speaking about very trivial devices which we ALREADY HAVE installed in our ships like clever undercambered props modifying engine output or very effective regulation appearing because of 4-2-4 run of 2-cycle engine, which is altered just by different load of engine and thus self-controlling. The actual wording of rules is very precise (compared to the old) and thus I would expect that also interpretation should be precise. So if the wording is based on enumeration of possible devices, there is very high probability there is something forgotten or not discovered yet (see my two examples). So I would really rather specify what is NOT allowed. Otherwise we risk that someone just come and disqualify all flyers using muffler pressure just because it is another such an active device (even worse - with feedback!!!) controlling fuel pressure and thus explicitly disqualified (by mistake I think). But there is also another story - more explicit self controlling devices based for example on pendulum measuring centrifugal force and throttling of USUAL AND THUS VERY INEXPENSIVE engine. It is very trivial, well working device allowing successful entry to this hobby for newcomer who do not want to invest 400$ for special C/L stunt engine if there is an easy way to use any available R/C engine. I personally means that just replacing of R/C carb by stunt ventury and trying to reach proper stunt run is more difficult that make such an easy think like pendulum with a spring on common R/C engine from shop without any modification. I can present my solution from time when we did not have any source of useful stunt engine (20 years ago), and it was the only solution for me, and it can be it is the reason why I fly it now. Those devices are also explicitly disqualified (by request I think). I do not think it is danger, or it kills that „c/l stunt soul“ or it executes any technological war. This is that “leave everything as it is” as Andy wrote. 3/ You wrote >>>I’m already hearing the argument “you can buy it”. Oh - and where is the creativity left then?<<< :-) Good question, but I know for sure that there are highly creative persons – either on level of deep aerodynamic design or color design or design of hardware or design of engines. No one does all and we just must buy something. If I buy an engine in shop, why I cannot buy a color finish :-)? If I can buy a bellcrank why I cannot buy a centrifugal regulator? Especially if the difference is only one arm less? There are also those who do not want or just cannot invest any bit of „creativity“ and anyway want to come to field just to play with toy or meet friends or make a trim for healthiness. I think rules should allow to PARTICIPATE all of them, to those who push development somewhere, those who do all usual way (means those who saw something on models those from first fraction), and also those who want just buy and come. I do not think it is very fair to tell people where to invest creativity and where not. Claus, you are VERY creative person, we all know all your models are somehow new or unusual – it brings freshness to our eyes seeing very similar models on every contest, but colors and dimensions are not the only attributes of model. There are also aerodynamic and technological attributes. I like to see you „different“ models, but I would like to see also different models on base of aerodynamic solution (pushers, canards, double deckers ...) and also models with very clever technical solution like automatic regulators, retractable gears, gas turbines ... While layout, shapes, colors and also aerodynamic solution is almost unlimited, we are making very strong limits in the technological solution of power train ... why??? igor | Tree | 197 |
| Claus Maikis | latest comments | 28.09.2003 - 18:08:38 |
| Re: latest comments
After reading the latest comments I’ve got the impression that there are still a few misunderstandings. Also there seems to be a tendency to support ideas (= solutions ) which are mainly suggested to fulfil ones own wishes. I’ve talked to several people about several topics recently ( for example : contest organization ). When I explained in detail how many things and what kind of things have to be considered, most of these persons had to admit that they just “ had not known” or forgotten to consider. And the same is true for many arguments in this forum. Please let me offer some basic thoughts. 1) I don’t think there is a “ leave everything as it is” group. Even the most determined diehard will have to accept that our changing world will cause changes in our sport, whether we like them or not. I think this is basically accepted. 2) When discussing rules some people seem to get carried away . They are enthusiastic about their own ideas, and about the successful results of these. However it appears that they just forget the meaning and content of our sport: “control line” in general, and “precision aerobatics” in particular. Why should we allow elements of other categories? There’s no need to do so. Why should we look for any kind of wireless control? We have chosen “control line” because we like to control our airplanes with lines. No need to add other means of control, which will obviously water our category. You may call me a purist. Okay, so what! What’s wrong with this? Take one example: football ( the European kind ). The rules say it’s not allowed to use hands. Even if man is more apt with his hands - no, hands are not allowed! And rightly so. The use of hands would destroy football, it wouldn’t be football anymore. 3) By the way - the prohibition of hands is exactly the fascination, the special attraction of football ! A restriction shouldn’t be seen as an unpleasant limit only. At the same time it is an exciting challenge. What can I do, and how well can I perform within given borders . In our case with two lines. A gun can shoot a much longer distance and can hit the goal much more precisely , both at the same time, than a bow and arrow. And yet archery is still a challenging and popular sport. Very often restrictions allow to execute a sport AT ALL ! ( just consider practicability, danger, noise problems, cost etc.) 4) Don’t tell me that we cannot find enough challenge and excitation within our frame. The development of airplane design, construction methods, and engine technology during the last decade will tell you the whole story. Progress has sometimes even taken such steps that some of us cannot follow even now! 5) Which brings us to ( in my opinion, and not only mine ) the most important point. A class has to be defined in such a way that the largest possible number of people can participate. If the rules allow highly sophisticated, complex, and sometimes expensive material, then a certain percentage of potential new participants will be cut out right from the beginning. Even some old hands ( with some of them being experienced persons, at that ) will leave the sport ( I know quite a few in control line and free flight ). Just look over to the other circles, F2A and F2C ( and F1C )! In some countries these events are dying, in some countries they already have! It’s not just by chance that aerobatics is the most popular control line event. It’s the most simple class! I can understand that technically oriented people like to experiment, to develop, to create ( I’m a creative type myself, even if not on a technical level ). However rules shouldn’t be formulated so that special high skills will be rewarded. Everybody must have a fair chance. Still the best will win, but the largest possible number should have the possibility to take part. In football only the very best will reach the champion’s league, but everybody can kick a ball. You are crying that no new blood is joining our ranks, and you still want to allow complex technology? I’m confused. 6) I’m already hearing the argument “you can buy it”. Oh - and where is the creativity left then? 7) It seems to me that many arguments are not much more than just supporting the writers desire to shape the rules just as he likes them to be, for his own comfort and success. That’s not the way rules can be found. Rules have to be formulated so that they further and promote the respective sport - even if they are not fulfilling all my wishes. What’s wrong with a basically simple event? I can easily renounce on scale warbirds, engine throttles, retract gears, landing flaps, sliding canopies, waving pilots, and what have you. If I want to have this there’s still the scale circle. All sports have rules, and most of them are restrictions. For good reasons. Let’s discuss rule proposals and change Control Line Aerobatics to HOW it should be - but don’t change WHAT it is. Sokrates ( some 2500 years ago, imagine! ) said: “It’s the simple things which are the most difficult ones”. regards, claus | Tree | 196 |
| Brett Buck | Re: Engine Controls | 23.09.2003 - 19:07:06 |
| >Thinking of developments such as infra-red (or whatever) control of
>throttles (for example), we are not against such developments per se, >but took a lot of highly-qualified technical advice and ended up with >the conclusion that for purely practical purposes, nobody could >GUARANTEE that such equipment system would not accidentally interfere >with someone elses similar system (or be inadvertantly affected by >radiation that just happens to come from nearby - such as garage door >openers, mobile telephones, kids with toy-shop RC cars, etc, etc, etc). >So the new text bans all such (or at it least tries to), but WITHOUT >shutting the door to people who are inclined toward technical >innovation in Stunt. > As you may or may not know, I was at least one of the people who suggested the distinction between IR or other wireless control vice "through the lines" control, so I'm with you that far. I agree that we shouldn't be smearing the definition of "control-line" into some hybrid C/L/R/C model . The interference problem doesn't even enter that line of reasoning - it's a matter of defining what it means to be a C/L model. Several of my countrymen disagree*, but what the heck, it's a free country... But I do have a bit of a problem with restricting on-board, non-interactive systems like regulators, roll and yaw stabilizers, engine controls, etc, or anything that you send down the lines, or with extra lines. These types of items are conceptually different from radio or other EM links. The proposal allows active yaw or roll stabilizers, but prohibits active engine regulation. I honestly don't see the distinction. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the primary counter-point is that it's a potential technology race and conflict between the "haves vs. have-nots". I would contend that given if this is the argument, workable active roll and yaw control would be FAR more beneficial than an active throttle or mixture control regulation. Whether one likes it or not, given that you will be able to use up to a piped .90/(15 cc) 2-stroke, the engine and HP *is not likely to be an issue*, and therefore, active regulation or control will prove to be almost entirely moot. But actively stabilizing the trim would be a potentiall HUGE advantage that could easily become mandatory if one had a workable system. My point is not to argue against active stabilization. But if you are willing to allow that (practical or not), allowing active engine regulation seems like a minor side issue given the rest of the proposed engine rules. It was my opinion (when Keith asked for it a year and a half or so ago) that there should be essentially *no* restriction on regulation and stabilization systems as long as: 1 they didn't violate the concept of a C/L model (either operated throught the lines, or operated with no inflight-contact like an engine regulator) 2 they didn't act in pitch (because if they did, you would never be able to tell without extensive analysis whether or not some unknown electronic device attached to the elevator was a damper, or an autopilot). This still seems like the approach that results in the best combination of allowing innovation without violating the basic precepts of the event. Brett *As I am sure some of you are aware, there are US fliers who beleive that the restriction in IR controls (in other words, the Z-Tron) proposed here is aimed at particular individuals. Like I said, it's a free country... | Tree | 195 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Engine Controls | 23.09.2003 - 12:36:58 |
| Hi Andy,
You are right >>>"people" tend to fall into 2 quite sharply divided camps<<<. I wrote lot of inputs about engine controlling in this forum – I wanted to have this thing as open as possible, so I am from that >>>strongly pro<<< group. If I like something on this hobby then it is technical challenge and development. I do not enjoy conservation of actual status quo, doing three flights a week and sleeping well with 5 years old model hanging on wall above me. I also do not think that such devices can lead to technical war or lead to danger models. But I can imagine that someone wants to conservate rules for models they actually have. So I feel limited but life is hard. :-) However, if the actual situation is really as you wrote: >>>"leave everything as it is" brigade<<< (but I never really heard it directly and I did not see any such input on this forum), and those devices are acceptable on electric and gas turbine power plants, then I agree, and I say I go for electric ASAP, but I afraid this WILL be technological war of battery burners and this will end up at >>>an RC model which also just happens to have it’s pitch manually controlled<<<. I still think that allowing of them also on combustion engines will leave the situation patient. Lot of those devices on combustion engines are very trivial and well working. I think they can satisfy most of us, who wants to try something new, and they still not bring any significant advantage to old style, so it does not push to build new models immediately. Remote control by pilot is another story, and I thing disagreeing with engine control is just misunderstanding between remote control and automatic self-stabilization of run. But my real problem with actual text is on another place. I understand you are under pressure of disagreeing with regulators on one side and legalization of actual regulators in use. You mentioned pipe and tank self regulation. But we have many others, not mentioned but used, like change in combustion under load, prop with clever airfoil loading engine if unloaded in thrust, tank behind the engine making lean run nose up and many others – may be even not explored yet, but certainly present. I understand you would like to say, “everything not used yet is disallowed”, but your try is not thorough – and cannot be - just because our limited knowledge. I know there is already lot of invested time to bring this to perfect succesfull conclusion, but I afraid it is under current circumstances not possible. The old rules are imperfect in this point, new rules are much better (means more precise, not more acceptable for me), but there are still holes. I hate saying we do not use self-regulation, if we all use it and we cannot live without it. I am also very sorry I do not bring better wording. I can not, because I really do not understand well what and who do not like to allow. What exactly is problem on some kind of self-regulation? I would really like to see some arguments or inputs on this forum to clarify it and allow well specified wording in usual form: “all is allowed beside: xxxxx ….”. At present time I see the only way: to make a three of four exact pictures of allowed configuration - nothing lese – something like description of speed pylon and handle in F2A rules - but it is the last think I would like to see. This is technical sport, which have to ask for technical invention (AND ALLOW!!!), not throwing of well-described iron balls differing in color scheme. (sorry just joking :-) ) Rules must satifly both groups - those who like push development somewhere and also those who do it just to come time to time to field, meet a friends and make (or even by) new model every 15 years. I do not know why to limit some of them/us ??? Yes, I mean I feel limited, I am from that group of >>>strongly pro<<<, but I understand if there is a >>>group of strongly against<<< I must accept some compromise, but voice of that groupe never reached me, what they exactly say beside >>>leave everything as it is<<>> leave everything as it is<<< we not need new rules, if they do not like to present it here, can we at least know what exactly they mean? I believe there IS a way how to well specify solution which makes both happy. Another thing: I understood the higher volume of combustion engines as way how to get less aggressive, more silent and friendlier power train with regular cheap R/C engine. I understood the way to do it was proper regulation. It is now disallowed ... I am little bit confused ... regards igor (this is not official Slovak input to rules, it will come later – just my thoughts) | Tree | 194 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: Engine Controls | 23.09.2003 - 07:55:38 |
| Hi Brett,
I'm glad you found it. I think this item is pretty much like several areas in that "people" tend to fall into 2 quite sharply divided camps - there's the "leave eveything as it is" brigade, and then there's the "lets have everything new" people (that's a bit of an over-simplification, but I guess youi know what I mean). As far as engines (and model spec generally) is concerned, quite a few want nothing at all changed, whilst others want pretty much "no technical limits". What we've tried to do is to try and incorporate as much of both elements as we can - e.g. we feel that "new ideas" are not necessarily bad (the Stunt model "spec" has developed over the years already, and with the possible continual improvement of, for example, electric power, we want to try and ensure that the new rules do not artificially inhibit future technical development). But on the other hand, neither do we want Stunt (or any other C/L class for that matter) to "develop" into something which could, in a few years time, look like "an RC model which also just happens to have it's pitch manually controlled". In other words, to try to make sure that the "technical spirit of C/L" remains as it is now/always was, but ALSO, for purely practical reasons, even though we are not against those who want to try "new technology", we certainly do not want a situation to develop where we would have to take "anti-accidental interference" steps like they have to in RC (e.g. impounding of transmitters, frequency pegs, etc). That to us would NOT be "the spirit of C/L" (apart from any purely practical/organisers staff considerations). Thinking of developments such as infra-red (or whatever) control of throttles (for example), we are not against such developments per se, but took a lot of highly-qualified technical advice and ended up with the conclusion that for purely practical purposes, nobody could GUARANTEE that such equipment system would not accidentally interfere with someone elses similar system (or be inadvertantly affected by radiation that just happens to come from nearby - such as garage door openers, mobile telephones, kids with toy-shop RC cars, etc, etc, etc). So the new text bans all such (or at it least tries to), but WITHOUT shutting the door to people who are inclined toward technical innovation in Stunt. The above is something of a shortening/over-simplification of the reasoning that led to today's text, and I'm sure that you'll appreciate that it isn't an easy path to tread (either technically, or from the viewpoint of the emotions of both the strongly pro and the strongly anti). But with the inputs that you found in the archive in this Forum, together with a number of other inputs that I believe Peter got at around that time, I believe (hope) that we have (more or less anyway) managed to tread that fairly fine line. Again, thanks for your comments, and about an earlier comment of mine, Yes, of course you're quite right, many of us (most anyway) have full time jobs, plus "own modelling", plus families, plus all this "other stuff"! Krgds Andy Sweetland | Tree | 193 |
| Brett Buck | Re: Engine Controls | 23.09.2003 - 06:21:15 |
| My apologies - I found the engine control discussion, way back from a year ago. I just missed it before.
I really don't agree at all about the danger of a "technology war" based on engine regulation, but if the proposed passage is reasonably agreeable to everyone, I wouldn't want to impede the progress just to make an issue of it. I don't think it's a vitally important detail. Several of my fellow countrymen would probably dispute the point, however. Brett | Tree | 192 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: Engine Controls | 21.09.2003 - 12:27:07 |
| Thanks for the comment Brett - nothing ANYBODY says falls on deaf ears I assure you!
The reason it has taken so long is that a) both Peter and I have full-time jobs to do; b) we're both active modellers; c) it's a pretty fundamental re-write (one of the reasons for that being the request - yours wasn't the only one, and I'm NOT being snide here - to have more than 2 circles). Re the engine thing, most of that happened late last year when I was still unable to use the PC for very long after my back operation. Consequently Peter has most of the info on that so I'll pass your comment on to him for an answer. As above though, do please understand that that may take a little time - but everyone who asks questions will get answers eventually, certainly before the "real final doc" goes to CIAM in November. Krgds Andy Sweetland | Tree | 189 |
| Brett Buck | Engine Controls | 21.09.2003 - 00:15:23 |
| Thanks very much for the update. I see that my concern about limiting it to only 2 circles has been addressed. Outstanding, I think it's the best way to go for all concerned. And, I had thought it had fallen on deaf ears.
I am curious about the new paragraph on onboard engine controls (i.e. piston motors cannot have any control, even onboard feedback). I haven't formed an opinion about it, but could you perhaps explain the reasoning. Last I heard, it was pretty much "anything goes" as far as it concerned the engine, roll, or yaw, as long as it was not in-flight adjustable from the outside. I understand the reasoning for mechanical controls for pitch (since I was at least one of the people who suggested it). I agree that the engine should at least be limited to pilot control via the lines, but the proposal is far more restrictive. Brett | Tree | 188 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Latest and | 19.09.2003 - 09:47:41 |
| Hi All,
The new text is already uploaded and available for download. igor | Tree | 187 |
| Andy Sweetland | Latest and "Final" Proposed New F2B Rules | 18.09.2003 - 22:26:51 |
| Ladies & Gentlemen,
I have just sent a separate E-mail direct to Igor Burger providing him with a .pdf copy of the above document (which dated 18th September 2003). In that message to Igor I have asked him to delete the present version of the Proposed New F2B Rules from this Forum and replace it with this new, 18th September version. I'm sure that it will appear there soon after I have posted this message. Please look out for it. When you get read/download copy please study it carefully. As suggested in the heading above, Peter Germann and I believe that this really is now the "final" version that should be presented to CIAM (by the way, the deadline for presenting it is 15th November 2003), but just to give everyone here a last chance to make any more suggestions/spot any errors (!), Peter and I ask anyone who wants to comment on this new version to does so NOT LATER THAN MONDAY 27th OCTOBER PLEASE. Since the last version was published here (I seem to remember it was dated something like Jnauary or February of this year), Peter and I have received a lot of inputs, many of them very useful indeed (but some perhaps a little less so unfortunately!). But anyway, thank you to everyone who did take the trouble to contact us. As you will see when comparing this new September 2003 version with the previous version, we have made a number of changes, ALL of which have been in reponse to the above valuable inputs, and NOT just as a result of Peter and I "dreaming in the bath tub"! But rather than bore everyone with a long list of the differences between the old and new versions, we'll just leave you to look for yourselves! Please do feel free to make any comments/suggestions on this new version as soon as possible, but as above, do please respect the above 27th October deadline otherwise Peter and I will have trouble meeting that CIAM 15th November deadline. Thanks to everyone for their interest. Krgds Andy Sweetland, Assistant F2BWG (with Peter Germann, Leader F2BWG). | Tree | 186 |
| Bruno van Hoek | To Andy | 08.07.2003 - 19:57:05 |
| Dear Andy,
It won't be much of a surprise that I disagree with you on some of the points you put up, but I found your historic overview not boring at all and it makes me believe that we agree on many more things than we differ. I'm Dutch, by the way... I had a good conversation with Claus last weekend and we parted as the best of friends, still having different points of view on some matters, agreeing wholeheartedly on others. But that's like real life, isn't it? I also had a brief chat with Peter about this all, and we'll continue communication next week. I proposed to have a meeting like last years', not with much preparation tough. Just a place to sit all together and talk things over. From your remark about 'having the Euros in front of you' I deduct that you will be in France too, so that would be great! I'm about to pack now -we always like some extra time to adapt to a new site when there is so much at stake-, so I won't write any further, but I'm looking forward to a healthy discussion (and good Championships of course!)next week! Yours sincerely, Bruno | Tree | 185 |
| Andy Sweetland | Internet Wars? | 04.07.2003 - 10:35:56 |
| Dear Bruno,
On behalf of "the F2B Working Group" (i.e. Peter Germann, the CIAM-appointed leader, plus myself, Andy Sweetland, Peter's assistant) I'd like to reply to the first part of your message. First, a bit of history if I may. It's over 2 years ago now (March 2001), when, following the work Peter and I did for the F2B Judges' Guide in 1999 and 2000, CIAM asked us to "go the next step" and produce a complete new set of rules for F2B. The prime criteria were (in NO particular order) remove the "grey areas" in the present rules; "open" the F2B contest to make it more "accessible" to beginners and to new technology (but at the same time without destroying the "spirit" of the present event – and certainly NOT to change the manoeuvres themselves); try and do something about the quite wide inconsistencies in judging/scoring standards; try and allow for a significant increase in the number of contestants appearing over the last few years at many of the larger F2B events (example - but NOT exclusively - at World and Euro Champs). Just to make one point clear here - like everyone else involved in aeromodelling administration, Peter and I are volunteers and receive not 1 penny for any of the costs involved. And just like everyone, Peter and I have to work in full-time jobs to earn our respective livings, meaning that this work is done in our “free time”. Perhaps unlike some others in aeromodelling administration though, both Peter and I are active C/L contest participants, and also perhaps unlike some others, neither of us are "all that hot" when it comes to modern IT technology (we neither of us have the time or knowledge to run our own web site home page for example). So right at the start we asked ourselves how we could perform this rule change exercise AND involve the max number of active F2B participants (note please, not "just" the fliers but the F2B judges and contest organisers as well), but at the same time keep our workload to a minimum (we had already seen during the F2B Judges Guide exercise that by trying to involve as many other people and ideas as possible we ended up with large E-mails, phone calls, and letters loadings - both in terms of phone bills etc and especially the VERY large and time-consuming work load). The idea we hit on was, first, do everything by E-mail; and 2nd, work to only 1 "F2BWG National Representative" per country, the idea being that we would simply send out "topics for discussion" to each Nat Rep, an |