[F3A-Discussion] 2023 Sequences

Thu Feb 1 16:34:43 AKST 2018

Thanks for the feedback, Jon.... I’m playing devils advocate here to see what the tolerances are for changes.

I do think 1/2 points will make a huge difference provided the judges use them.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: F3A-Discussion <f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us> on behalf of Jon Lowe via F3A-Discussion <f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 5:18:10 PM
To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] 2023 Sequences

Winners should be easier to figure out now with half points. A lot easier for a judge to downgrade a half vs. a full point for a minor error, even for mediocre judges who typically only use a small range of points. Should help negate the need for ever increasing difficulty of manuevers. FAI doesn't need IMAC style sequences that are anything but smooth and graceful to differentiate skill levels.  We also need sequences and manuevers that take into account the ability to really be accurately judged, ie, no more "barrel rolls" or the triangle sort-of rolling circle of the past with impossible to judge angles. If it can't be easily recognized and accurately judged, it shouldn't be in a sequence.

It's not just 150 meters that's an issue, it's also manuevers height exceeding 60 degrees because they can't be done lower without endangering the airplanes or completely screwing geometry. Manuevers don't need to go to the stratosphere to separate pilots.

Jon

________________________________
On Thursday, February 1, 2018 Derek Koopowitz via F3A-Discussion <f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us> wrote:

If we keep the F level the same difficulty and don’t touch the unknowns, how do we distinguish the clear winners in the finals?  In the past, there hasn’t been much of a separation when flying the F sequence alone, and the only way to really separate the winner has been the unknowns.  I do think that if we clean up the unknown maneuvers catalog and perhaps modify the selection criteria, then those rolling 8’s you speak of may wind up being selected – perhaps lessen the number of maneuvers in the catalog as well.

Best,
-Derek

From: "atwoodm at paragon-inc.com" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 11:50 AM
To: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com<mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>>
Cc: "f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us<mailto:discussion at lists.f3a.us>" <f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us<mailto:discussion at lists.f3a.us>>
Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] 2023 Sequences

One of the big challenges with the Unknowns is that there are still 1K and 2K maneuvers in the catalog.  It’s a problem simply because there are a limited number of 4K turnaround manuevers (though better now).  If the random drawing selects a 1K turn around (say a half loop) into the sequence, not only is it a ridiculous manuever to use for evaluating the top 10 in the world, but it forces the overuse of the 4k turnarounds to achieve the minimum K value required.  This creates a lot of redundancy and we end up with a sequence with 4 variants on an end box stall turn, 3 of 4 pt up, 1 1/4 snap down.  (That used to be the ONLY 4k turn around).    But even with the addition of some of the new ones, we still get some horribly repetitious patterns when a computer does the selection.

I wrote the original algorithm that was used for the unknown sequence generator (rewritten and greatly improved with aresti by peter vogel) and I found the best solution was to simply eliminate the 1k and 2k maneuvers from selection and ended up with more consistently robust schedules.

With regard to difficulty of the unknowns… the first step is to verify that the rolling 8’s are IN the catalog used by the french for the WC’s.  That maneuver has NEVER come out of that program.  I ran over a 100 sample sequences (and it should show up about 20% of the time) and never saw it.  Jason has done the same.   So one could argue that the current difficulty is being masked, since those are clearly the hardest maneuvers in the catalog.

I put that bug in Michaels ear after Switzerland, but he wouldn’t hear of it.

My concern with making the Unknowns harder is that we already have a very high barrier to team entry in the states.  Those with a history of making of the finals have a HUGE leg up in that they can spend a tremendous amount of time practicing unknowns with confidence that they’ll get to fly them and have a brand new contest with no P or F carry over.  That’s all of 5 people at this point, and arguably only 4.  I can only assume the same for other countries.  Though many never see Unknowns at home OR the WC’s.

As it stands now, many the manage to make the finals, simply fly to get through them, with the top 4 vying for the top spots, on a whole other level,

Last, the difficulty of the unknowns is what has led to the need for a 9 man team.  4 pilots, 4 callers and a TM.  Imagine the cost savings if the 4 pilots were comfortable with a single caller, or calling for each other.

-Mark

MARK ATWOOD
o.  (440) 229-2502
c.  (216) 316-2489
e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com>

Powering The Digital Experience

On Feb 1, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Derek Koopowitz <<mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>derekkoopowitz at gmail.com<mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback, Mark.

I do agree on those maneuvers that are just impossible to judge and fly properly because everyone's interpretation is different.  Would you increase the difficulty of the unknown maneuvers?  How about the length of the unknown?  Shorter but more difficult?

Well timed (being able to fit the sequence within 8 minutes) and perhaps shortening the sequences (F and unknown mainly) to allow for a level playing field between glow and electric?

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>> wrote:
My thoughts are both as a competitor, but also as a TM from the WC’s of the past three cycles.

#1 complaint - Ambiguous maneuvers that emphasize regional style over technical accuracy.    Top of that list is the Barrel Roll.   Virtually impossible to judge without a 3-view image and slow motion.  Then end result is that there’s either a whole bunch of 8’s, or worse, you score relative to the rest of your flight.  If you fly 8s everywhere else, you get an 8 on your BR, if you fly 7’s you’ll get a 7.   Still worse is that the benchmark becomes however the best guy at the line does it.  Be that Andrew or Christophe or even me.  If there’s a lot of variations on how it can be done correctly, invariably their will be poor and inconsistent judging.

I’d also argue that the 6-point roll, while technically observable, was very difficult to judge (or fly) accurately as visually discerning a 60deg wing angle at 150 meters is also virtually impossible.

I’m with Earl that I’m not a big fan of the 3D position adjusting maneuvers as they somewhat punish you for holding your line and force an in/out correction UNLESS they follow a drift maneuver like a spin.

P & F have been reasonably well timed, although F17 was a bit long.  The unknowns though often have a series of very large, very long center maneuvers and with the addition of all the KE turn arounds, create schedules that have pilots dangerously taking off downwind and racing into the box in order to maximize their time.  We’ve done better with the timing rules to avoid running airplanes out to the flight line, but it seems like racing to finish in 8min wasn’t really the intention of the rule.

Also agree with Earl that a nice mix of Snaps, Integration and KE makes for a nice pattern. And it can lean heavy in one direction or another (more snaps, more KE) year to year, but should avoid being toooo heavy.  F11 with 11 snaps was a bit much.

PERSONALLY, I’d like to see P be a little (emphasis on LITTLE) more challenging to better establish position in the prelims.  F be slightly LESS challenging so it’s not such a daunting barrier to entry into FAI.  And leave the Unknowns as the final true separator of men from boys.

-M

MARK ATWOOD
o.  (440) 229-2502<tel:(440)%20229-2502>
c.  (216) 316-2489<tel:(216)%20316-2489>
e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook<https://maps.google.com/?q=5900+Landerbrook%C2%A0Drive,+Suite+205,%C2%A0Cleveland%C2%A0Ohio,%C2%A044124&entry=gmail&source=g> Drive, Suite 205,<https://maps.google.com/?q=5900+Landerbrook%C2%A0Drive,+Suite+205,%C2%A0Cleveland%C2%A0Ohio,%C2%A044124&entry=gmail&source=g> Cleveland<https://maps.google.com/?q=5900+Landerbrook%C2%A0Drive,+Suite+205,%C2%A0Cleveland%C2%A0Ohio,%C2%A044124&entry=gmail&source=g> Ohio,<https://maps.google.com/?q=5900+Landerbrook%C2%A0Drive,+Suite+205,%C2%A0Cleveland%C2%A0Ohio,%C2%A044124&entry=gmail&source=g> 44124<https://maps.google.com/?q=5900+Landerbrook%C2%A0Drive,+Suite+205,%C2%A0Cleveland%C2%A0Ohio,%C2%A044124&entry=gmail&source=g>
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com>

Powering The Digital Experience

On Jan 31, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Derek Koopowitz via F3A-Discussion <f3a-<mailto:f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us>discussion at lists.f3a.us<mailto:discussion at lists.f3a.us>> wrote:

I’d be interested in your opinions on how to move forward with new sequences for F3A.  These are the questions I have:

  1.  Do we want to design sequences that can be flown at 150m and avoid a lot of maneuvers that have rolling options in the downlines which would give an advantage to slower models?  In other words keep the sequence close and smallish?
  2.  More or less snaps?
  3.  More or less KE maneuvers?
  4.  More or less integrated rolling maneuvers?
  5.  Use more 3D maneuvers (maneuvers that move in and out)?
  6.  Shorter F and Unknown sequences (down to 15 maneuvers) but making them more difficult?  Take a look at the Unlimited IMAC sequence for instance – only 10 maneuvers but very challenging.

Any other options?

Best,
-Derek

_______________________________________________
F3A-Discussion mailing list
F3A-<mailto:F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us>Discussion at lists.f3a.us<mailto:Discussion at lists.f3a.us>
<http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion>http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion

_______________________________________________
F3A-Discussion mailing list
F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us<mailto:Discussion at lists.f3a.us>
http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/f3a-discussion/attachments/20180202/0eb7d2ce/attachment-0001.html>