rrTV-PHOTO   New HD TV
HOME   rrTV-PHOTO   GALLERIES   MY GALLERY   HELP-FAQ
myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 724 ONLINE 26 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER  START HERE
 
3 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )    >    >> ]3082 viewsPOST REPLY
Autography FlightPower . Advantage Hobby . Revolution Models

.
.
Aerobatic FAI F3C Contest > New F3C rules for 2006 (Proposal by Scott Gray)
 
 
GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

Exageration

In "A" schedule there are 3 hovering and 6 aerobatic. In "B" schedule there are 3 hovering and seven aerobatic for a total of 6 hovering and 13 aerobatic. Not to put words in his mouth, I think Wayne is saying the hovering maneuvers are approximately 1/3 of the maneuvers but 1/2 of the scoring.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.
08-02-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Wayne Mann
Senior Heliman
Location: United States of America

MW
08-02-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Secret Squirrel
Key Veteran
Location: New Zealander living in Melbourne, Australia

Gidday Wayne,
Just wanted to clarify something in that last post. You said that your lowest raw score would be thrown away (in the round with lots of wind) before it is normalised?

At the comps I've been at, we normalise all rounds then drop the lowest normalised round. Is that not how it's done or something?

Thanks,
Si

-------------
Simon Lockington
08-02-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Wayne Mann
Senior Heliman
Location: United States of America

Hi Si. Sorry for the confussion. I was explaining what would have happened without normalizing.

Wayne
08-02-2004 Over year old.
 
 
w.pasman
Elite Veteran
Location: Netherlands

Wayne,

Yes I was mistaken, indeed there are many more flying figures than hovering figures. I was confusing them with the figures from another program that we have here. Thanks for the correction

I'm still not sure about the reason they use the K factors, maybe you're right but it still could be that they consider hovering figures twice as difficult as the flying figures. I don't understand how you can be sure what the CIAM wanted with it?

I maintain that multiple rounds should more or less average out the wind variations. Of course you can think of situations where it works out in a different way, but that's all in the statistics. Assuming wind is behaving approximately randomly, I dont see a better way than using statistics to average the wind effects.
08-03-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
GM1
Elite Veteran
Location: Tallahassee, Florida US

I think

I think the idea of using the K factor for the hovering maneuvers was to make the score value of hovering and aerobatics equal. If you have 3 hovering maneuvers and k factor them 2, it's like having 6 hovering maneuvers without adding another 5 minutes of time to hover. K factor the aerobatics at one, it acts like 6 hovering and 6-7 aerobatic maneuvers, roughly 50% of the score for each. As Wayne points out, if you draw an early flight slot and hover early in the morning when it is calm, you can really zing a guy that flies later in the day. My problem is: I like having the hovering count as much as the aerobatics, but cannot come up with a way to negate a wind factor. In some sports (Tour de France time trials) the field is run in reverse order so the contenders would fly as near the same time (and weather conditions) as possible. I'm not sure how (or if) that would help even the playing field but it's an interesting thought.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.
08-03-2004 Over year old.
 
 
3 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )    >    >> ]3082 viewsPOST REPLY
CarbonXtreme . Midland Helicopters . HeliProz

.
.
Aerobatic FAI F3C Contest > New F3C rules for 2006 (Proposal by Scott Gray)
  UPDATE SCREEN   PRINT TOPIC Advertisers 

Subscribe to This Topic

Wednesday, October 15 - 10:29 pm - Copyright © 2000 - 2008 runryder.com | email | link to rr | runryder needs cookie