Parallax of circle markers

[photo not recovered: 3e31ad9b7f74b5a2.jpg]

Or, if you try to make the airplane pass the markers to the judges line of site:

[photo not recovered: 3e31ad6d7f25dee9.jpg]

This is just an observation. Comment/debate? (but preferably about the value of the markers as a judge's aid, not about how you like the idea of someone noticing that maneuvers are too large now)

If the world stunt community believes that time has come to make judging less subjective, then a whole telemetry system needs to be developed to do that (e.g., digital camera on a tripod with fixed controlled location, controlled reference marker location, with subsequent analysis of the flight over appropriately adjusted grid.) This will show everything - bottoms, 45 degrees, turn radius, and even deviation from the circular path during loops! Software can analyze the path and assign a prefectly objective score to everyone, thus effectively eliminating the need for judges (and the need to wear white pants at the Top 20 flyoff ).
But stunt without judges is like a sports car without manual tranny - it will work, but just won't be the same.

I still believe that there is already enough going on for a judge to have to take into account with adding this dimension. I also think that this will not be taking any subjectivity out of judging, as judges are liable to interpret the use of the markers in different manners.

The only way to get subjectivity out of judging is to take the humans out of it. And, as we all know, that is unlikely to be anytime soon due to cost restraints.

Thanks, Steve

Steve just said it all!!!!!

Tom N.

I don't know if attention is paid to Windy's video's taken at the GSCB field.... there, the maneuvers are frequently placed in a corner that allows the greatest volume of air around the plane rather than try to figure where the "downwind" is.

We have a large white plastic lawn chair that works pretty well as a "center cone", ...easily spotted by the flyer.

Just as using a pencil or other "straight" object to judge intersections, cones are a good concept that readily prove unusable in actuality.

See Ya

Well, you may be jumping to conclusions well beyond what I would. I am merely pointing out some features, not making a value judgement. There is a tradeoff to be made between the current situation with no references at all, something that provides a less-than-ideal reference, or some undefined method that might be better.

What we are doing now (no references) certainly doesn't result in "close-to-spec" sizes in most cases. It's a value judgement whether this is really a serious a problem, how serious a problem, and how much if anything we should to do to fix it.

The markers proposed in the FAI rules change proposal are 0.6 x 0.6 meter (two foot square) placards. The placard is to be white with a black horizontal bar 10 cm wide through the middle. The center of the placard is be 1.5 meters (5 feet) above the ground. There would be 8 markers around the circle at 45-degree increments of the circle.

I mentioned, and Brett illustrated very well, the parallax problem resulting from the relative position of judges, where a manevuer is flown and the location of any circle markers. This is perhaps a challenge a judge has to face in performaing his duties. But it is no more difficult than the problem any judge now has to perform his duties since he is never in the optimum position to view a pattern which would be in the center of the circle. Given the judge is outside the circle, the judge is rarely in the single position to best view a maneuver which is "normally" directly opposite where the maneuver is flown (which is not always centered directly downwind). The judge has to view a maneuver and assess how it matches the rule book description even though from his perspective, the maneuver appears distorted due in part to parallax. Parallax is not new. It will not suddenly appear with the introduction of these markers. Judges have had to compensate for parallax distortions of the maneuvers ever since score sheets were invented.

The markers could be a significant step in making the judging function more concise and consistent. As long as the markers are in reasonable proximity of the flying circle as specified in the FAI proposed change, they give a better visualization of what a 45-degree segment of the circle should look like. Please note, I said the markers defined a segment of the circle. These segments show the portions of a circle under where maneuvers are flown. There is apparently a misconstrued assumption that the pilot must fly a maneuver precisely centerd on the markers, or precisely between the markers or that the markers represent the exact points where a turn is initiated or where a bottom should be or whatever. That is simply not the case. Nor do the markers need to be in a specific orientation to the wind. The markers could not, would not, and probably should not be used as the specific turning point or location for a specific portion of each maneuver. It seems that some who are responding to these threads are assuming that each maneuver must somehow be placed precisely in position relative to the markers. That is not the case. The markers are there to give the judges a ready and visual reference of what 45-degree and 90-degree segments of the circle should be. Well trained and experienced judges have to visualize in their minds what these segments should be and then have to measure, in their minds, how well a manuever fits the 45-degree parameters that define that maneuver. It seems a very practical step to give the judges a physical visual cue to provide this information.

There are no provisions in the proposed rules change that these placards should be moved prior to a flight depending on wind direction or pilot choice. There would be no reason to do so. The markers give a ready reference to show 45-degree and 90-degree segments of the circle. Where a particular maneuver is flown in relation to any marker or set of markers should have no bearing on a judge being able to use the markers to determine the size of a maneuver relative to the markers. Such markers will certainly give a better and more accurate reference for the judge to use to determine how close the maneuver sizes are to the 45-degree parameters that define most of the maneuvers in the pattern. In other words, a maneuver does not need to be centered on a marker or centered between any two markers for a judge to be able to determine the relative size of the maneuver. This is analogous to the situation that any judge is rarely in the optimum position directly opposite of the circle where a manevuer is being flown. If there are more than one or two judges, they cannot occupy that optimum position at the same time. Also, most pilots bias where they fly their different manevers depending on the wind. Any single judge simply cannot be always in the best position to view and assess any given manevuer. Likewise, the circle markers proposed would never be in "optimum" locations for how a complete pattern is flown and where the judges are located. Furthermomre, the proposed markers are placed outside of the circle so that parallax will always distort what a true 45-degree segment of the circle appears to be from the perspective of the judge. Nevertheless, the markers give a more ready reference for a judge to detemine what a 45-degree segment of the circle really looks like regardless of the location of the markers relative to the manevuer being flown.

This all gets into the skill and experience of the judge to be able to extrapolate what he sees, from whatever position he is relative to the maneuver and any possible markers, so that he can evaluate what he sees against the description for that maneuver. As has been mentioned in this forum in other threads, this is why judges get paid so much for what they do.

It should not be a surprise to any competitor, particularly a competitor who has judged before, to learn that judges often use various landmarks to establish references for sides and intersections of various maneuvers. Contests are held at various fields where there might be any number of lamp posts, flag poles, trees, fences, buildings or whatever judges then use for such reference. At the Nationals, Contest Management has placed elevation poles around the circles for the judge to use as a reference for normal level flight altitude. I have heard on numerous occasions that flyers like to have these altitude markers to help them determine what "normal level flight" should be. It is a definite aid for the judges. Why should it not also be beneficial to place these altitude markers at 45-degree increments of the circle? And to have such placement consistently at a contest rather than judges using the randomly located tree, pole, post or lawn chair.

Some pilots practice with markers. I think there is a relunctance here to consider use of these markers at a contest because it will immediately show how large most patterns are flown. The rule book pattern does not change with the introduction of the markers. The position relative to the wind where a pilot locates his maneuvers will or should not change based on where the markers are located relative to the wind. Will the large and smoothly flown pattern still prevail? It very well might, but when a pilot does a smooth pattern closer to the sizes specified in the rule book, he is flying a technically more correct pattern and should not be penalized for flying what appears to be too small. If he looses shape and bottoms in the process of flying the smaller pattern, the judge should assess points accordingly. But the judge should also asses points for being oversized. There is more to the pattern than just being smooth and being consistent with bottoms.

I can talk about some individual pilots who have flown this style of smooth, tight and precise pattern. At some contests, I have seen them totally dominate the field. But at other contests, I have seen this type of pattern be scored down inappropriately for looking too small. I have used markers before. I think they definately help in accurately assessing the size of various maneuvers. The parallax problem is nothing new. It is just that the markers introduce another factor that the judge will have to deal with. But the net result is that he has the tools to do a better job.

Just my own humble opinion.

Keith

LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-03 AT 12:50 PM (CDT)

>The markers could be a significant
>step in making the judging
>function more concise and consistent.
> As long as the
>markers are in reasonable proximity
>of the flying circle as
>specified in the FAI proposed
>change, they give a better
>visualization of what a 45-degree
>segment of the circle should
>look like.

My concern is that it *doesn't*. What I am concerned about is that people who fly right on the markers, or 10 "visual feet" to the right of the the markers, etc., will be perceived as flying the "right" size, and those who fly outside the markers will be perceived as flying "too big". In fact, they are flying too big in all cases because the parallax turns 45 into 55 (or 51, 50, etc).

This is intrinsically different from using trees, tents, landmarks that just happen to line up with parts of the pattern. Random objects around the circle are excellent for providing a relative reference for precision purposes. If the left side of the 1st square 8 lines up with the lightpole, so should the second, and so forth. What they don't do is provide an accuracy reference, since they are known to be randomly placed.

The placard/markers are a completely different breed of cat. As you mention, they are to be used as an size reference, not just a precision reference. They exist to "give a better
visualization of what a 45-degree segment of the circle should look like. " As soon as you do this, you also introduce the idea that you are measuring the maneuvers with these markers. Well, if the markers are directly opposite the judges, it's really pretty close to 45. If it's not, then it's not really very close at all.

Maybe the judges can "eyeball" the position of the plane relative to the markers using depth perception, and "compensate" for the fact that the airplane, while flying outside the markers, it's actually 45 degrees from the pilot's perspective. Of course, the mere act of having to do this takes emphasis away from other aspects of the pattern.

This significantly different from other, pre-existing "parallax errors" because without the markers, there is not even the illusion that you are measuring anything accurately. You eyeball everything. Now, you still have to eyeball most things (like the shape) but you have provided a "ruler" for the size that gives the illusion of accuracy, but in fact is still subject to the same errors of perspective you had before.

As you well know, I am all in favor of taking size into account more than it is now. But I am concerned that attempting to define the size with these markers will first, give a distorted view of the "right" size, and secondly, as a result of the concentration on the markers, provide disproportional "weight" to the size compared to other factors.

There
>is apparently a misconstrued assumption
>that the pilot must fly
>a maneuver precisely centerd on
>the markers, or precisely between
>the markers or that the
>markers represent the exact points
>where a turn is initiated
>or where a bottom should
>be or whatever. That
>is simply not the case.
> Nor do the markers
>need to be in a
>specific orientation to the wind.
> The markers could not,
>would not, and probably should
>not be used as the
>specific turning point or location
>for a specific portion of
>each maneuver. It seems
>that some who are responding
>to these threads are assuming
>that each maneuver must somehow
>be placed precisely in position
>relative to the markers.
>That is not the case.

I would agree that's not what the rules say, and that's not the argument I was making.

I think the maneuvers that lined up "right on" the markers to the judges perspective would be a lot easier to judge for the "right size" than those that don't.

If one side of the square loop climbs right along the apparent marker position, and straight down on the next one over, it's clear that it's the "right" (see above) size. If it's about 15 feet to the left of the nearest marker, and it flies about 15 feet to the left of the next marker over, it's *probably* the "right" (see above) size, but it's not nearly as clear.

You know the first maneuver was "right". There's some uncertainty that the second maneuver was exactly "right". Now, what do you do? Obviously, you don't deduct for oversize on the first maneuver, since it went right along the markers. Do you give the second maneuver the "benefit of the doubt"? When someone does their overhead 8 90 degrees from where you are standing, do you give them the benefit of the doubt?

Another aspect - if we start giving "benefits of the doubt", don't we open ourselves up to inadvertently giving some fliers more "benefit of the doubt" than others?

To summarize: The markers intended to define an absolute size reference only work from the pilot's perspective. From other perspectives, there is a fairly complex evaluation process needed to assess the size relative to the markers. This process seems very likely to be prone to errors in the direction that drive the "ideal" maneuver larger than it is defined in the rule book. Additionally, the evaluation process itself seems very likely to alter the weighting applied to various maneuver aspects towards much higher weight on size.

The markers also seem very likely to put an unintended value on placing the maneuvers relative to the markers in order to demonstrate the accuracy of the maneuvers, or to "camoflage"
the inaccuracy. This is not a defined maneuver criteria.

Brett

p.s. sorry for the odd title - it appears to be a bug in Netscape 7 (there are a lot of cut/copy/paste "oddities" in this version)

It's the obligation of the judges to evaluate the pattern relative the the rules, which is what this is an attempt to address. What I wouldn't expect or demand is that the judges score based on what you/me/anyone thinks might be *better* maneuver descriptions than aren't defined by the rules.

If we don't like the maneuver definitions as they are, the onus is on us to change the maneuver definitons, not the judges to ignore the rules.

>What's
>wrong with "pretty" maneuvers?

Define "pretty". Then change he rules to correspond.

I'm not necessarily disgreeing with your point, but there's no way that the judges should take it upon themeselves to redefine the event. Then it truly does become "whimsy stunt" and does correspond to the concept that Paul Pencikowski (pauleyp) described in the post that started this branch of the thread.

Hi Al,

Your comments here lead me to believe that you missed the point that the 45-degree circle markers being discussed here is a proposal being considered to change the FAI rules. Since we are going to be using several of the proposed FAI changes during the 2004 World Championships in Muncie (like the part of being able to use two qualifying circles) even if the change proposals are not completely promulgated, there is serious consideration to use these markers for the WC's. (There is nothing in the rules now to prevent their use anyway.) As might be expected, there has not been a universal acceptance in the international discussion regarding these proposed changes, including the circle markers. But I think there is a good chance that the FAI rules will be changed to include the provisions of these markers. I think they might have a pronounced affect on what has become the accepted manner in which the pattern is flown and judged in international competition.

Keith

All of the judges at the World Champs, Nats, etc. have considerable judging experience. So, why would placing circle markers; that are going to be difficult to see in the first place, suddenly enlighten them to how the pattern should be flown? I just don't see it happening.

I, personally (no offense), don't think this is such a good idea. I hope that there is some kind of a poll, or vote, taken before implementing these standards as a part of the US Nats.

Regards, Steve

This supports a statement later in this post that says all there is to say about it.

>
> This is intrinsically
>different from using trees, tents,
>landmarks that just happen to
>line up with parts of
>the pattern. Random objects around
>the circle are excellent for
>providing a relative reference for
>precision purposes. If the left
>side of the 1st square
>8 lines up with the
>lightpole, so should the second,
>and so forth. What they
>don't do is provide an
>accuracy reference, since they are
>known to be randomly placed.
>

GOOD POINT!!!

>
> The placard/markers are
>a completely different breed of
>cat. As you mention, they
>are to be used as
>an size reference, not just
>a precision reference. They exist
>to "give a better
>visualization of what a 45-degree segment
>of the circle should look
>like. " As soon
>as you do this, you
>also introduce the idea that
>you are measuring the maneuvers
>with these markers. Well, if
> the markers are directly
>opposite the judges, it's really
>pretty close to 45. If
>it's not, then it's not
>really very close at all.
>
>
> Maybe the judges
>can "eyeball" the position of
>the plane relative to the
>markers using depth perception, and
>"compensate" for the fact that
>the airplane, while flying outside
>the markers, it's actually 45
>degrees from the pilot's perspective.
>Of course, the mere act
>of having to do this
>takes emphasis away from other
>aspects of the pattern.
>
> This significantly different
>from other, pre-existing "parallax errors"
>because without the markers, there
>is not even the illusion
>that you are measuring anything
>accurately. You eyeball everything. Now,
>you still have to eyeball
>most things (like the shape)
>but you have provided a
>"ruler" for the size that
>gives the illusion of accuracy,
>but in fact is still
>subject to the same
>errors of perspective you had
>before.
>
> As you well
>know, I am all in
>favor of taking size into
>account more than it is
>now. But I am concerned
>that attempting to define the
>size with these markers will
>first, give a distorted view
>of the "right" size, and
>secondly, as a result of
>the concentration on the markers,
>provide disproportional "weight" to the
>size compared to other factors.
>

Oh this will happen without a doubt. I know it will I wrote about this very thing on the other thread. Post 99. This was the very first thing that popped into my mind. I know others who thought the very same thing.

>
>
> There
>>is apparently a misconstrued assumption
>>that the pilot must fly
>>a maneuver precisely centerd on
>>the markers, or precisely between
>>the markers or that the
>>markers represent the exact points
>>where a turn is initiated
>>or where a bottom should
>>be or whatever. That
>>is simply not the case.
>> Nor do the markers
>>need to be in a
>>specific orientation to the wind.
>> The markers could not,
>>would not, and probably should
>>not be used as the
>>specific turning point or location
>>for a specific portion of
>>each maneuver. It seems
>>that some who are responding
>>to these threads are assuming
>>that each maneuver must somehow
>>be placed precisely in position
>>relative to the markers.
>>That is not the case.

This doesnt matter. As Ted has said many times everything effects the judges. If you can get it right on the markers and the other guy moves because of Biasing or whatever he wont look as impressive. Marker flights will rule the day.

>
>
> I would agree
>that's not what the rules
>say, and that's not the
>argument I was making.
>
> I
>think the maneuvers that lined
>up "right on" the markers
>to the judges perspective would
>be a lot easier to
>judge for the "right size"
>than those that don't.

Oh yeah no question these will be advantages for some and disadvantages for others. Since it is a perfect 45degree segments on the circle the judge automatically knows if it lines up on the cones that it is correct and he doesnt have to think about it. If it(maneuver) is not on the cones will here comes the subjectivity thing.

>
> If
>one side of the square
>loop climbs right along the
>apparent marker position, and straight
>down on the next one
>over, it's clear that it's
>the "right" (see above) size.
>If it's about 15 feet
>to the left of the
>nearest marker, and it flies
>about 15 feet to the
>left of the next marker
>over, it's *probably* the "right"
>(see above) size, but it's
>not nearly as clear.

YEP YEP YEP!! Cant argue with that one bit. And to ask judges to judge this way just makes their job tougher than it already is.

>
>You know the first maneuver was
>"right". There's some uncertainty that
>the second maneuver was exactly
>"right". Now, what do you
>do? Obviously, you don't deduct
>for oversize on the first
>maneuver, since it went right
>along the markers. Do you
>give the second maneuver the
>"benefit of the doubt"?
>When someone does their overhead
>8 90 degrees from where
>you are standing, do you
>give them the benefit of
>the doubt?
>
> Another aspect - if we
>start giving "benefits of the
>doubt", don't we open ourselves
>up to inadvertently giving some
>fliers more "benefit of the
>doubt" than others?

All that makes such good sense. To all who feel 45 degree markers would be good please reread that a couple of times and let it sink in.

>
>

Here it is the Statement that says it ALL!!!

> To summarize: The
>markers intended to define an
>absolute size reference only work
>from the pilot's perspective.

BOOM!!! Please reread that statement as many times as it takes until this makes perfect sense!!!!!!

Practicing with Markers is excellent for the pilot to get a good sense of what the perfect size is for a maneuver.

45 degree width markers ONLY do the job of showing 45degrees correctly from the pilots point of view.

>From other perspectives, there is
>a fairly complex evaluation process
>needed to assess the size
>relative to the markers. This
>process seems very likely to
>be prone to errors in
>the direction that drive the
> "ideal" maneuver larger than
>it is defined in the
>rule book. Additionally, the evaluation
>process itself seems very likely
>to alter the weighting applied
>to various maneuver aspects towards
>much higher weight on size.
>

Yep.

>
>
> The markers also
>seem very likely to put
>an unintended value on placing
>the maneuvers relative to the
>markers in order to demonstrate
>the accuracy of the maneuvers,
>or to "camoflage"
>the inaccuracy. This is not a
>defined maneuver criteria.
>

Yep and that is why the use of markers should be passed through a rules proposal just like they are having to do in FAI.

>
> Brett
>
>p.s. sorry for the odd title
>- it appears to be
>a bug in Netscape 7
>(there are a lot of
>cut/copy/paste "oddities" in this version)
>

This post is so informative. It says it all.

After seeing the parallax issue on paper my question is this.

If you have a set of markers that you know ahead of time could cause a major distortion on how maneuver is being viewed from the judges view then why would you use it?

On a side note I wouldnt think the rest of the world would be to hip on this notion of markers if they all fly way to big as you say they do. If they are flying big and winning why on earth would they shoot themselves in the foot by giving the judges a reference to knock their scores down.

Remember 45degree markers truely only work from the pilots perspective. To add them into the mix is just room for way more errors. If you want to use markers like that you are going to have to figure out a way to get the judges in the center of the circle WITH the pilot.(what task that would be)

DMoon

I was not trying to say that the 45-degree circle markers were analogous to the random landmarks that judges often use to determine the consistency maneuver location. My point was that judges already use visual cues to try to do their job. The 45-degree markers provide another visual cue that can be useful for a judge to do his job.

>>This is intrinsically different from using trees, tents,
>>landmarks that just happen to line up with parts of
>>the pattern. Random objects around the circle are excellent for
>>providing a relative reference for precision purposes. If >>the left side of the 1st square 8 lines up with the
>>lightpole, so should the second, and so forth. What they
>>don't do is provide an accuracy reference, since they are
>>known to be randomly placed.
...

>> The placard/markers are a completely different breed of
>>cat. As you mention, they are to be used as
>>an size reference, not just a precision reference. They >>exist to "give a better visualization of what a 45-degree >>segment of the circle should look like. " As soon
>>as you do this, you also introduce the idea that
>>you are measuring the maneuvers with these markers. Well, if
>> the markers are directly opposite the judges, it's really
>>pretty close to 45. If it's not, then it's not
>>really very close at all.
>>
>> Maybe the judges can "eyeball" the position of
>>the plane relative to the markers using depth perception, and
>>"compensate" for the fact that the airplane, while flying >>outside the markers, it's actually 45 degrees from the pilot's >>perspective. Of course, the mere act of having to do this
>>takes emphasis away from other aspects of the pattern.

I think this is where I disagree with what Brett is saying. Without any markers, if a judge is to make any conscious effort to judge the size of the maneuvers, he must give some attention to how he will do this. Right now, it is either ignored (which I think is often the case) or a judge has to establish some imaginary reference in his mind about what those 45-degree segments should look like. Having to imagine those lines, to me, is more of a distraction than having a real physical cue that shows what a 45-degree segment of the circle looks like. I will be able to compensate for the parallax problem these markers can create just like any judge is required to compensate for his less-than-optimum position to view almost any maneuver.

>>This significantly different from other, pre-existing "parallax >>errors" because without the markers, there
>>is not even the illusion that you are measuring anything
>>accurately. You eyeball everything. Now, you still have to >>eyeball most things (like the shape) but you have provided a
>>"ruler" for the size that gives the illusion of accuracy,
>>but in fact is still subject to the same
>>errors of perspective you had before.

I do not argue that the parallax issue with the markers is different than other vantage point distractions of where a maneuve is flown.

>>As you well know, I am all in favor of taking size into
>>account more than it is now. But I am concerned
>>that attempting to define the size with these markers will
>>first, give a distorted view of the "right" size, and
>>secondly, as a result of the concentration on the markers,
>>provide disproportional "weight" to the size compared to other > >>factors.

>Oh this will happen without a doubt. I know it
>will I wrote about this very thing on the other
>thread. Post 99. This was the very first
>thing that popped into my mind. I know others
>who thought the very same thing.

I also do not doubt that there will be an increased emphasis on the size of the maneuvers. A judge is expected to consider shape, size, corners, bottoms, congruity and smoothness if not some more things. Based on what is flown here in the States and particularly at the World Championships, the size factor now seems hardly a factor. Use of the markers would introduce some consideration for size. I do not see that their use would disproportionably distort the size factor that should be considered anyway. (There will be a lot of people that will be really surprised about what 45-degree loops and 90-degree eights really are.) I have an idea that we will still see oversized maneuvers to maintain the smoothness and precision to still score well, but the smoother, more precise pattern that approaches the proper sizes will prevail.

>>There is apparently a misconstrued assumption
>>>that the pilot must fly a maneuver precisely centerd on
>>>the markers, or precisely between the markers or that the
>>>markers represent the exact points where a turn is initiated
>>>or where a bottom should be or whatever. That
>>>is simply not the case. Nor do the markers
>>>need to be in a specific orientation to the wind.
>>> The markers could not, would not, and probably should
>>>not be used as the specific turning point or location
>>>for a specific portion of each maneuver. It seems
>>>that some who are responding to these threads are assuming
>>>that each maneuver must somehow be placed precisely in position
>>>relative to the markers. That is not the case.
>
>This doesnt matter. As Ted has said many times everything
>effects the judges. If you can get it right
>on the markers and the other guy moves because of
>Biasing or whatever he wont look as impressive. Marker
>flights will rule the day.

Whether or not a particular maneuver flown by a pilot somehow appears to conveniently align somehow with the markers while another pilot does not align with the markers in the same way will have little affect on how a judge should score the respective two maneuvers. A judge now will view any one maneuver flown from one perspective during one flight and from an entirely different perspective on the next flight because of where the respective pilots choose to position that maneuver. The judge must determine how well each of those maneuvers was flown, even though the appearance of the maneuvers flown by the two pilots were entirely different from the vantage point of the judge. This goes on continuously for almost every maneuver from one flight to another. That is one of the jobs of the judge. A maneuver being flown in a different position relative to the markers from one flight to another is no different than what the judge is already doing almost on a continuous basis.

"Markers will rule the day." Catchy phrase. But I hardly think so. What will rule the day is the precise, smooth AND COMPACT pattern. Not just the precise and smooth pattern.

>> I would agree that's not what the rules
>>say, and that's not the argument I was making.
>>
>>I think the maneuvers that lined up "right on" the markers
>>to the judges perspective would be a lot easier to
>>judge for the "right size" than those that don't.
>
>Oh yeah no question these will be advantages for some and
>disadvantages for others. Since it is a perfect 45degree
>segments on the circle the judge automatically knows if it
>lines up on the cones that it is correct and
>he doesnt have to think about it. If it(maneuver)
>is not on the cones will here comes the subjectivity thing.

Everything is still subjective. The height markers help take some of the subjectivety out of the judging process.

>> If one side of the square loop climbs right along the
>>apparent marker position, and straight down on the next one
>>over, it's clear that it's the "right" (see above) size.
>>If it's about 15 feet to the left of the
>>nearest marker, and it flies about 15 feet to the
>>left of the next marker over, it's *probably* the "right"
>>(see above) size, but it's not nearly as clear.
>
>YEP YEP YEP!! Cant argue with that one bit. And
>to ask judges to judge this way just makes their
>job tougher than it already is.

I would like to explain something here. I am not trying to talk down to Doug because I know he has judged before and I think he will understand what I am going to try to say. It takes practice to be a good judge. There is a myriad of factors that a judge must take into account as he watches any one maneuver and assign a score. Does a judge think of every one of those factors as the maneuver is being flown? Probably not. There simply is not enough time. However, with experience and concentration, a judge can see errors as well as how well a maneuver was flown based on the standard for that maneuver and assign a score accordingly. Part of the experience base that a judge develops over time as well as during a contest is what the apparent size of the various maneuvers should "appear" to be while taking into full account the length of lines or what position of the hemisphere the maneuver is flown on. A judge has no 45-degree altitude markers to use. He has no rulers to use. He has no giant curves to hold up to the hemisphere he is peering into to determine how well the great circle paths are being flown that define some portions of some maneuvers. He has no variable oval placards he can hold up to see if the shapes of the various loops are being properly flown from his perspective. There are many other tools the judge does not have other than what he has in his experience base to score any given maneuver. With experience, a good judge can compensate for the apparent size a maneuver should be regardless of the length of lines being used on any one model.

I see the use of the circle markers being discussed here as a tool for the judge to expand his experience base on being able to determine the proper size of the various maneuvers defined by the 45-degree parameter that defines most of maneuvers. A judge will not be looking for those markers during each maneuver in every flight. Just as with all of the other factors that a judge is to consider during a maneuver, there is not time to do so. But over time, those circle markers will give a better cue on how to asses the size of a maneuver, regardless where any one maneuver is flown with respect to the marker locations and regardless of the length of the lines being used on the model and regardless of how far outside the circle the markers are placed. I do not see that these markers would make a judge's job more difficult. If anything, they will make it easier while at the same time improve accuracy and consistency.

>>You know the first maneuver was "right". There's some >>uncertainty that the second maneuver was exactly
>>"right". Now, what do you do? Obviously, you don't deduct
>>for oversize on the firstmaneuver, since it went right
>>along the markers. Do you give the second maneuver the
>>"benefit of the doubt"? When someone does their overhead
>>8 90 degrees from where you are standing, do you
>>give them the benefit of the doubt?
>>
>> Another aspect - if we start giving "benefits of the
>>doubt", don't we open ourselves up to inadvertently giving some
>>fliers more "benefit of the doubt" than others?
>
>All that makes such good sense. To all who feel 45
>degree markers would be good please reread that a couple
>of times and let it sink in.
>
>Here it is the Statement that says it ALL!!!
>
>> To summarize: The markers intended to define an
>>absolute size reference only work from the pilot's perspective.
>
>BOOM!!! Please reread that statement as many times as it
>takes until this makes perfect sense!!!!!!

Yes, what Brett has written here makes sense. But what can be wrong if a judge has a tool to also better asses the size of a maneuver, even with the parallax problems taken into account, as a judge also must adjust for other factors for not being in an optimum location to view any given maneuver?

>Practicing with Markers is excellent for the pilot to get a
>good sense of what the perfect size is for a maneuver.
>
>45 degree width markers ONLY do the job of showing 45degrees
>correctly from the pilots point of view.

If you really want to get technical, the 45-degree markers do not give a precise indication for even the pilot to size a 45-degree diameter loop on the surface of the hemisphere. I do not want to get into what goes on with the spherical geometry here. I do not claim to be very well versed in spherical geometry. But a 45-degree loop, from the pilot's point of view, with the bottom at the base of the hemisphere (nominally five feet above the ground), flown precisely between markers that are placed at the 45-degree radii from the center of the hemisphere will appear wider than how markers would appear that extend vertically above each of those 45-dgree locations. Likewise, the left and right sides of that round 45-degree loop are well beyond the meridians placed 45 degrees from each other going from the base of the hemisphere to the top of the circle. I am not trying to start an argument here. I only bring this up to show that there is no pat answer to many of the things we try to understand about our pattern.

>>From other perspectives, there is a fairly complex evaluation >>process needed to assess the size
>>relative to the markers. This process seems very likely to
>>be prone to errors in the direction that drive the
>>"ideal" maneuver larger than it is defined in the
>>rule book. Additionally, the evaluation process itself seems >>very likely to alter the weighting applied
>>to various maneuver aspects towards much higher weight on size.
>
>Yep.

>> The markers also seem very likely to put
>>an unintended value on placing the maneuvers relative to the
>>markers in order to demonstrate the accuracy of the maneuvers,
>>or to "camoflage" the inaccuracy. This is not a
>>defined maneuver criteria.
>>
>
>Yep and that is why the use of markers should be
>passed through a rules proposal just like they are having
>to do in FAI.

>This post is so informative. It says it all.
>
>After seeing the parallax issue on paper my question is this.
>
>If you have a set of markers that you know ahead
>of time could cause a major distortion on how maneuver
>is being viewed from the judges view then why would you use it?
>

Doug, I think you are telling me, specifically and kind of politely, to read and reread what you and Bret have written here. I have read this material many times. And I think I understand as well as you what Brett has explained here. I likewise suggest that you read what I have been trying to say here as well what Brett has written here and in the other threads on this topic as well as what Ted and Brad have said. I am not saying that they endorse this idea, but they are willing to look at the idea of circle markers with an open mind. I do not know if the markers offer a panacea for our event or not. They probably are not any "wonder tool", but they perhaps merit further examination. Basically, what I am saying, most judges have some experience in what they do. It would seem these markers would of some assistance for them to do their job better, not make it more difficult.

>On a side note I wouldnt think the rest of the
>world would be to hip on this notion of markers
>if they all fly way to big as you say
>they do. If they are flying big and winning
>why on earth would they shoot themselves in the foot
>by giving the judges a reference to knock their scores down.
>
>Remember 45degree markers truely only work
>from the pilots perspective.

And then maybe not as precisely as implied.

>To add them into the mix is just room for way more errors.

Read what I have written. For an open mind, it might make sense.

Keith

Keith,

I want to have an open mind about anything going on in Stunt.

Having said that I hink I have stated clearly where I am on this issue SO FAR.

However, Brad and I are going to get poles and do some work with them and see what we find. Who knows we might like it better and if we do I will surely let you know. Thing that stinks is that here in TX we wont be getting any regualr flying in until say MAY. It just blows and blows and blows and it's cold too. I am sick of it. I read Brett's post about flying this past weekend and it kills me!

I am going to try it out for sure and then I will see first hand how it works.

Incidentaly Brad and I were already planning on using cones/poles this spring. Now we dont really have a choice, and I think that will be a good thing for my pattern

DMoon

why not do like in soccer; the judge can't be omnipresent, so there are two guys that keep an eye on the position of the players, since one of the rules, for example, is that a player from a team can't be closer to the other's team goal than any guy from the "other" team.

If a player positions himself in a manner that breaks the rule, the helper whistles and the judge knows it.

In stunt, a person could be positioned 45 degrees from the judges, and he would be able to see the 45 degree limits, altitude details that a judge can't really be sure of.

1 - Bottoms

2 - The zenith, in wingovers, vertical and overhead eights and hourglass.

If this judging thing is as subjective as you said, 45 degrees is a limitation

The altitude could be expanded to, lets say, 60 degrees.

Certain maneuvers would force the pilot to stay within a limit, like the vertical eights and the clover (remember, the zenith would stay).

Since the loops still must be the same size, if your first loop is too open, there'll be no way you'll make the second one the same size w/out getting beyond the zenith.

They are self limiting maneuvers. No need to regulate the size.

Regular loops could even be as big as 65 degrees, the judges would decide if they find it good flying.... The guy thAat made them too big would sin by lack of consistency. "hey, big simple loops, and smaller ones on the eights and the clover? Not artistic!"

You are an intelligent man, Brett, I ain't gonna insult your "little grey cells".

You know what I mean...
Ion

Is the suggested fix perfect. Heck, no. Pretty much nothing is in terms of this strange and difficult event. However...

I defy anyone to utilize 45 degree markers objectively and without prior prejudice and not realize the difference between what we routinely fly today and what the rule book specifies. In 95+ % of the cases we aren't even close.

Parallax and all the rest be hanged. Those are details...of interest but not definitive. As I've suggested repeatedly over the years on these and other forums, actually making an attempt to fly 45 degree patterns is illuminating to the 'nth degree. Both the pilots and the judges would benefit by a closer examination of the facts.

All the hue and cry about what might or might not happen in specific pales in comparison to the realization that awaits those who simply experience what it takes to try to fly the pattern the proper size as opposed to what is routinely accepted today. I think we'll wait a long time for serious complaints about certain flyers flying "too small" to resurface.

Way too much "huff and puff" going on about a fairly modest proposal to give judges a tool to improve their ability to assess patterns more accurately...something we should all applaud. What "would" happen, in my opinion, is that judges would quickly become educated about what really constitutes a legitimate attempt to fly rule book size and that mental picture (not slavishly monitoring markers) will be the basis on which they make their judgements.

What exactly is it that we are afraid of?

I have had time to read several more times the material submitted by Brett and Doug regarding the use of circle markers placed at 45-degree increments around the circle. My experience leads me to firmly believe that these markers would give a useful physical cue to the judges, even considering parallax problems, to more accurately assess the specific size of many of the maneuvers. Brett and Doug expressed a concern that these markers would result in an over-emphasis of the maneuver widths at the expense of the many other factors (shape, corners, bottoms, concentricity, smoothness and/or whatever else) when judging a maneuver. As suggested by Doug, I have been reading his material over and over. I think I understand very well this and other points that Brett wrote about and on which Doug expounded on.

If one ponders this matter long enough, a conclusion can be reached that the circle markers will be a step, albeit a small step, to bring parity into the judging equation rather than result in an overemphasis of one aspect of the pattern. Without circle markers, judges have no tool to physically determine the proper width of any maneuver. (Some judges visualize 45-degree segments of the circle from dead down wind, but some concentration to do this is required that sometimes can distract from other factors to consider.) Meanwhile, the ground level is there in plain sight of the judges which is an exact indicator of an altitude of zero feet. So what happens is that judges can be relatively accurate to evaluate the 4 to 6 foot altitude specification that is in most of the maneuver descriptions. "So what?" could be a response to this. I think this factor is important to understand and can be used to explain one of the major problems we encounter with the judging of our PA event. Judges correctly should penalize a maneuver (for example the horizontal eights) because a bottom (or several bottoms) was maybe 2 or 3 feet from the ground and was truly "too low". However, judges often penalize "Big Points" for a maneuver that is 1 or 2 feet too low. Those altitudes are easy to see and evaluate. (I think also that some judges do this to show how "tough" or strict they are.) Yet, the same maneuver (a horizontal eight) flown with "acceptable bottoms" but exceeds 110 degrees in width, as most eights are, and even approach 150 degrees if there is a serious wind will receive a good score as long as the shapes and intersections are also acceptable. There is something wrong when big points come off for being 2 feet too low, yet it is acceptable to give a good score to a maneuver 25 or 30 feet too wide (in the case of a horizontal eight on 70 foot lines approaching or exceeding 110 degrees in width).

Awarding oversized maneuvers with high scores is not new. I have observed this ever since I started participation in National level competition in 1966. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this forum, the large pattern has become such an accustomed part of our landscape that when a pattern is flown closer to the 45-degree parameters, it looks small and is scored down for it. That is my experience here in the States. That has also been my observation at several World Championships.

A well-shaped, smooth pattern is fun to watch, even if it is oversized. (Well, there are some stunt flyers that appreciate and enjoy such things.) A well-shaped smooth pattern that approaches the size limits defined in the rulebook is really something to behold. There are pilots that can and have done so. (I can name some very worthy individuals in this regard, but it does not contribute to this discussion.) It is easier to fly the smooth pattern if it is big. Some airplanes can only be flown tjrough a big pattern. If judges award such a pattern with a high score while not giving credit for flying the tight, rulebook pattern, the better pilots observe and quickly learn and adjust to fly the larger smooth pattern. Pilots who are learning the pattern often base the manner they fly on what they see as the accepted norm. We therefore see people advancing through the skill classes flying the overly large pattern without really understanding what the 45-degree parameters really mean.

So, with further pondering (thank you again Doug for suggesting me to do so ), I really believe the circle markers now being discussed will give judges a physical reference to more accurately assess size as one of the several critical aspects of the Aerobatics pattern. It will not result in an overemphasis on size. Quite the contrary, I think that with such a tool, the overemphasis we often see on bottoms that are missed by 1 foot will be somewhat mitigated.

I do not think we will see the pendulum swing too far where the size factor of maneuvers is over-emphasized at the expense of shapes, bottoms, corners, intersections, and smoothness. As I have said before, a nicely shaped pattern that is the correct size with good bottoms and corners should score better than a similar pattern but which is larger than the specification. In the same token, a pattern with the right sizes but misses presentation of shapes, or bottoms or corners, or whatever, should not be scored particularly well. Brad Walker has asked several times on how to score using these various criteria. There no simple answer to that. I will try to address that in the separate thread that Brad has just started.

I think that it is interesting that people are willing to try these circle markers. Some already have. Richard Oliver has been doing some serious practice with these things. He is agood flyer to begin with. Watch out for him this contest season. Bret and David and Ted have already been out checking these out. By the sound of Brett's recent posts, is sounds like the "Parallax Problem" is not insurmountable.

I think it is healthy that people are starting to recognize that most patterns are overly large. Though the small segment of the Aerobatics community that participate or at least follow this forum may not represent a very large portion of the CL Aerobatics universe, it is a start.

Keith

My club mates always thought I flew a bit small... but during that time I scored well and competed a lot. Maybe something to that. I dunno!

I do not think that Ted and company flew to small when this kind of came to light a few years back at the Nats but it was clear that flying smaller scored well...right up until the fly off when the cup winner clearly flew noticeably larger than smooth Ted, David and Brett...and Todd! Less than 10 were flying in this approximate range.As Keith points out it is easier to fly smooth and concise and hit corners with bigger maneuvers. A former and many times Nats champ and World champ probably ought to be held to the same criteria in my opinion and certainly held accountable in his scores!

I've often run into the arguement that that we must strive to fly this way because that is the way it is written in the rules. Sometimes the rules are taken too literally. They define a proper corner radius as 5'. We know it is impossible to make our airplanes turn that tight with 12'-15' being deemed a tight corner. Of course we could fly combat like airplanes which could turn closer to the "rules" but we all prefer to simply ignore that rule and fly the best corner we can with our beautiful machines. With the current emphasis on circle marking to force patterns to a smaller size, becquse the rules are written that way, maybe now we should penalize just as heavily airplanes failing to execute the corner with the prescribed 5' radius corner. If we are going to enforce the "rules" then lets enforce all the rules, even those which are physically imposible with stunt ships as we know them.

The solution is obvious. We know that many of the highest scoring patterns are flown with maneuvers which strictly ignore 45. Maybe it is time to realize the rule book, as written, was done as a maneuver description with heights and radius generally described rather than setting exacting limitations. I doubt that George intended that some of the rules to be so strictly interpreted when his own airplane, the Nobler was, in fact, incapable of flying the maneuvers as he described them.

Nearly all of us fly above 45, some more than others, and still the best and highest scoring paterns of the past are oversize. If anyone doubts the accuracy of this statement, they have only to look at videos of the NATs finals. The best, and most pleasing flights are flown oversize but not to the extent of being so oversize as to do violence to the intent of the rules.

Maybe it is time to adjust the rules to something closer to what is winning now, here, internationally, and probally what George had in mind when he authored the rules.

The solution is obvious. Eliminate from the rules any reference to 45. Write new maneuver descriptions which describe the maneuver size in more general terms. Ex. "the top of the vertical eight should be exactly overhead with each of the vertical loops being of the same size and shape". I think we need a more general maneuver description instead of a progressively tighter description which details more errors than any judge can possibly observe and rate.

It is a futile effort, but I may cross propose to keith's cloverleaf description that "45" be deleted in favor of more realistic maneuver descriptions which describe maneuvers in more general terms which would limit maneuver oversize as a primary error without setting hard and fast limits which are generally ignored anyway.

Dumb question, Al, but what would this change? If level flight is straight out from our hand and the top of the vertical eight is exactly overhead, and each of the vertical loops are of the same size and shape, wouldn't the intersections fall at exactly 45 degrees? This is what I use to determine if the pattern is of the right size. I look at Matt's vertical eight. And if the loops are of the same size and the top is exactly overhead, then I know where 45 degrees is and where the rest of the maneuvers should be placed. It may take me a flight or two to get it down, but it works.

Leonard Neumann

You are right, if the 8 hits 5 ft and 90 degrees with the two loops the same size, you have hit 45 degrees elevation. Therefore, if the loops are indeed round, then they must also be 45 degrees wide. In the round horizontal 8's, if the loops are hitting 45 degrees high and hitting the intersection, then the total maneuver must be 90 degrees wide. Same with the square 8, if loops are square and 45 high they must be 90 wide. Fairly easy to see while judging. It seems that the key to all this is the ability to judge the 45 degree altitude parameter. I think I would have a difficult time seeing the reference from the model down to the markers
and knowing they were aligned to the same angle off the marker each segment. It would require looking away from the model which I would rather not do.

What do judges really look for during a pattern? Why do flyers occasionally get 2 scores for a flight with extreme variations between the judges? Especially when they are highly experienced judges?

>Al

Nobody will deny that overly large patterns get scored well and win contests. Anything that approaches the rule book pattern is a difficult thing to do. Some models and model/pilot combinations will have a difficult time in flying any kind of a presentable pattern within the 45-degree parameters defined in the pattern. In the same token, nobody will will claim that our models can turn 5 foot corners, and flights with soft corners get scored high and win contests. The fact that 45-degree patterns are not flown and 5-foot corners are essentially impossible is no argument to relax the rules. (I would not want to conjecture what George had in mind when he designed the rules if he did not intend to have the 45-degree parameters so defined. I did not see George fly when he was at the top during the 50's. However, in the 60's, I saw George fly training flights for the Navy Judges at the Nats as well as training flights for the judges at the Air Force World Wide Championships. Those flights could be on a highlight film to describe what a 45-degree pattern should look like.)

I will agree that a smooth pattern, accurately flown, even being overly large is highly desirable and can receive points to win contests. The pilot who flies a smooth pattern, acurately flown, but closer to the required 45-degree parameters simply should get more points. There are pilots who can do this. There have been some standouts. Among them are:

Bob Baron when he dominated the field the several years he won the Team Trials. Everybody knew he was doing the rule book pattern better than anybody else. Those Team Trials became just a question of who was going to be in the next two positions.

Les McDonald when he was at the top of his game. He was flying closer to the rule book than anybody at several World Championships (three times) and the time he won the Nationals (once).

When he needs to, Bill Werwage can show what a 45-degree pattern should look like.

There are others who have been in this same class. I will mention a few as being notable, knowing that I am leaving out some that should probabley also be mentioned. Bob Hunt, Bart Klapinski, Dick Mathis when he flew against Bart at the 67 Nats (Bart was 1st, Dick was 2nd), Dave Fitzgerald can give clinics on 45-degree patterns, so can Ted Fancher and Todd Lee. When he needs to and when he has an airplane for it, Paul Walker can put his pattern in the 45-degree segments of the hemisphere. Brett Buck does a credible job, and watch out for Richard Oliver. Others in that same league include Bill Rich, Mike Pratt and Randy Smith. I have been told that Steve Wooley flew very accurate 45-dgree patterns - I have seen films that indicate such. (Again, I am probably leaving out some capable names, but these people understand and have shown what 45-degrees means.)

Should we relax the pattern because it is difficult to do. I do not think so. Those flights by Baron and McDonald were something to behold.

Keith

Excellent points about the widths not really getting the fair look as opposed to bottom getting the big picture.

I hadnt really looked at it from this angle and it makes good sense.

Still Windy here. No marker tests yet.

AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!

DMoon