danielvelez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ok.
Found a Workaround to make this kind of tasks on FS 1.2.13You can test it with any competition that you want. I
ve tested it with the Vaga competition on the DemoData (fs.fai.org/wiki/DemoData) and with two local competitions that Ive scored long tasks, converting those tasks with goal to a Race to Anywhere format of X distance.The workaround:
Let`s say that everything is tied to the takeoff place, and we are setting a 50 km task:
1. Takeoff 1 mts radius (yes, only 1 meter, to avoid loosing too much flying distance on the scoring).
2. SS Takeoff 5.000 mts (The startgate is going to be 5 km around takeoff).
3. ES Takeoff 50.000 mts
4. Takeoff 50.001 mts (Must tell everyone that they must land at least 1 meter inside the goal ;).This way the distances get all rectified and accounted for.
The variation to the task, that could make a really nice kind of task if you are taking off a mountain, is to put the start on a different spot than the Takeoff, on an open valley, so the pilots really can choose any direction to fly to.
I`ll guess that you also can design an interest task with a few pre-defined turnpoints on a route, then a “distance to anywhere goal so the pilots could decide if they want to push on or if they want to go back.
Hello There.
Looking forward to test this kind of task. Looks promissing.
Nevertheless, I`m having trouble while testing the feature with the Vaga competition.
First, the Vaga uses Gap 2007 that isn`t on FS 1.2.13.
Now, when I open the competition on FSComp, I can see that the distances look right on the pilot list on the task 1, with only 2 pilots completing the 49.6 km distance.
Now if I click any of those 2 pilots, the FSFlight window pops up and shows on the statics that the pilot made goal and flew for 49.434 km (200 mts less than reported by fscomp table).Now the really weird part if when I click on any other pilot that did not make it all the way… I get that the pilot flew for 96 – 97 km, but did not made goal. There is no statics info on any tracklog view (on FSFlight popup) that reflects the distance stated on FSComp table.
So I did the “acid test”… I selected all pilots on FSComp, and then I hit check tracklogs…
Guess what? – Everybody gets the whole task distance of 49.434 km (so the 200 mts difference between FSflight and FSComp seems to go away), but only two pilots get the “GOAL” and the finish time.If I hit reports, score task, everybody get scored with 910 points or so, except the two guys who got to goal than get a few more points.
So there seems to be something weird about 1.2.13 that is not working as it is supposed to.
Verify please, and send me an e-mail if you find what`s wrong (maybe the user is doing something wrong too ;)).
Thanks.
Hola Pablo.
Tengo Ubuntu 9.10 corriendo en varios equipos, y aunque de alguna forma he logrado poner a funcionar FS bajo ubuntu, es bastante lento. Además, gpsdump no funciona bien bajo wine porque no logro configurar los puertos com y usb. He ensayado gpsdump para linux con línea de comando, y logro descargar los vuelos del Compeo+ pero realmente es un problema cuando se trata de manejar una competencia, porque gpsdump no se automatiza como lo hace bajo windows.
Me preguntaba qué tan bien está corriendo tu versión y qué versión de linux estás utilizando.
Lo que tengo en mente es hacer un “live USB” o un “Live CD” que tenga fs preinstalado y funcionando, de forma tal que baste poner el usb o el cd en cualquier computador que se consiga, para poder manejar todo un campeonato.
Por ahora, sigo con la opción de iniciar mi netbook en linux o en windows xp.
To everybody, sorry for speaking on spanish.
In a few words, I was asking what version of Linux is working for running fs. I
m using ubuntu 9.10 and somehow managed to make it work but gpsdump is a mess under linux and cant get it to work automatically under competition mode.Also was wondering if we can make a LiveCD or LiveUSB with FS pre-installed under wine, in order to have a “whole package” that runs out of the box, so one can just put the livecd on any pc and run the competition scoring seammless.
Hello there.
I posted the tracklogs on my blog, with the FSDB.
The direct link.
https://cid-4a150e91a85a9ef5.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Roldanillo%202009/Roldanillo%202009.rar
Hola Rafa.
No he logrado publicar el ticket. Al parecer tienen tachados como spam los IP de mis proveedores de internet (he ensayado de 3 sitios distintos y todos me devuelven un error de posible spam).
Si quieres, te puedo enviar el archivo de la competencia con los tracks al correo electrónico (1.6mb), a ver si lo puedes publicar o darle una mirada.
Creo que el error está dado por la gráfica de FSFlight, que no parece estar muy ajustada, pues traté de calcular la distancia entre el primer punto dentro del start del piloto y el centro del start y me arroja 15.056 mts (el start era de 15.000), por lo que aun cuando aparece dentro del start visualmente, todavía está a más de 15.000 mts de la baliza.
Hello Ste.
I really like the configurability of GAP formula parameters within FS but this actually can lead to mistakes made by the score keeper, as you could probably end up making some combinations on parameters that leads to a brand new scoring formula.
In order to avoid this, or perhaps to bring more clarity or user friendly interfase, it would be really good to have a selection field on which you could just select GAP 2000, GAP 2002, GAP 2002 + Lead.Coef. and OZGAP2005, so this way you won´t have to be hovering with the mouse waiting for the parameters and then rechecking them with your selections. Just select the intended gap and you will get all the parameters right.
Perhaps, in order to keep the usability, you could have another element on the list that´s called USER GAP, that when selected, all the parameters became available for select or remove.
Daniel Velez
I´ve done the excersize of using the same tracklog for scoring 5 pilots on a 20 pilot championship. As informed by Eduardo, the software placed them differently, even when they had the same start and end time, because they got different leading coef. scores.
I´m using latest 1.1.5 version.
The strange thing is that I can´t figure out how the software shorted out the ladder, as it´s not by pilot number.
I´m gonna post this as a Ticket and will try to place the tracklogs (modified) and the fsdb file.
I´m wondering how the Forum Leading Coeficient works on this one. How many extra points have STE above oyvellef for leading on the answer…
🙂Hello Eduardo.
You have a point there. If we keep the software logic on the entry-exit, then the pilot commitee won´t actually have a role on deciding if they want to make everybody wait outside an exit start. Nevertheless, keeping up with the logic, I can´t think on a safety issue that makes more convinient to have a full gagle making a 180 agressive turn just at the start of the race. This is quite more dangerous, as everybody would be forced to cross the start line twice, and if perhaps somebody drifted inside the start, then he would be crossing the line three times!.
Probably what the logic dictates means that the commitee shouldn´t be able to make ilogic decisions.I´m gonna play with my Compeo+ today, using the simulator, to try to force an entry start to an outside following turnpoint, but taking off from the inside. (The computer should make me cross the start cylinder 3 times). I´ll post the results.
There first safety issue for the task settlers would be, as you stated, to avoid crowded gaggles. And the seccond, not written safety rule would be, if crowded, avoid flying direction changes.
Many times I have been waiting outside an exit start, not because of the task settlers, but because of the thermal distributions and wind tendencies, and it´s quite scary to go back inside the cylinder to take exit the start time, when a huge gaggle is heading right towards you. Now imagine that the task committe force this situation by trying to make an entry start gate when the next move would be fly outside to the following turnpoint. That would probably lead, in the best scenario, to a lot of complains on the pilot meeting, and a lot of crazy “close encounter” stories the next morning.
Antonio, I believe for your name that you are hispanoparlante, but in order to keep the discussion open for everybody I´m gonna try to keep it in english.
On your scenery, Pilot 1 actually is going to have a seccond start time, as he is inside the start cylinder and needs to get out in order to follow the route to the next waypoint, so even when he has one start time for crossing in, his time will reset as he leaves the cylinder, so pilots would eventually only need to worry about the time they last crossed the line.
Pure an simple, if the next turnpoint is outside, the last crossing would always be out, unless you crossed in and landed within the turnpoint, but on that particular case, the time isn´t really an issue as you did not make goal.
It would be really nice if you could attach pictures and drawings to this forum but I don´t seem to find an option.About the optimum starting spot, there´s always one spot that would be the nicest one, and all pilots would tend to fly that way. In order to miminize this risk the task committe should make a bigger radio start in order to have more “acceptable” spots and also to make it long for the pilot to get to those places so they will eventually get separated into smaller groups minimizing risks. An entry or an exit start type won´t add or substract to the risk equation. Obviously, if the next turnpoint is outside and downwind, you would try to take the start while waiting inside and on the downwind side of the start. If the next turnpoint is outside but upwind, then you would probably fly just a little outside, upwind on the start cylinder as you will eventually drift back inside while waiting for the start, and then you will try to cross out just as the start gate opens. If the next turnpoint is inside the start cylinder, then you will try to fly to the upwind face of the cylinder and wait outside watching not to drift inside before the start gate opens, so as soon as it opens, you will cross the line flying downwind to the next turnpoint.
Everybody will try to stick to this logic, thus the ideal starting place would be crowded all the time.I insist: It´s important to keep the difference between the score of a flying pilot with the score of a non flying pilot, whatever the reason was for not flying.
The min distance points have two main reasons for being there: The main reason is to score pilots that actually take off, and the second is to score them equally if they are within the glide path radio from take off.
So the main reason for min distance points isn´t for trying to stop pilots that are not getting anyway, as the effect is quite different, as it makes pilots try to fly a little futher than minimum distance in order to score different and better than all the other pilots that bombed out.
The idea is that if you couldn´t at least escape the glide path cone, then you shouldn´t score different than other pilots that flew a little less distance because of their glide radio.
This is why on the old GAP parameter settings instructions, the programmers sugested to use a 10:1 or 15:1 path to determine the minimum distance.
Probably STE is mistaking the distance distribution that GAP uses, that as the main purpose tryies to discourage pilots to fly a few meters more than a bunch of landed pilots, as his score wont be improoved that much, but I´m pretty sure that the minimum distance doesn´t produce the effect of keeping the pilots on one place, unless the minimum distance is a lot higher than the glide radio from take off.
Usually the Miminum distance would be between 8-12 km on a hang gliding meet, as it´s quite rare to find a take off that´s 1000 mts above ground.
I´ve been flying on some hang gliding championships, including 4 worlds, and I also have been serving as Director of a few Colombian Paragliding Championships, including the pre PWC. I´ve found that the paraglider pilots have a tendency of playing with the rules to get scored or to devaluate the day quite more than the hangglider pilots, and this comes to a sad situation where at some point the pilots try to devaluate the day not taking off (DNF)in order to win a meet on the last day even without flying. If you also give points to those pilots, then the whole scoring could start reflecting more an strategic game than the pilot´s flying skills.
On our local site we have a “take off” issue, as the take off window is quite small because of the tail wind, so we need to have an special rule of safety/fairness/validity: If we don´t get enougth safety takeoff conditions to give at least 30 seconds of takeoff time to each pilot on the competition, then the whole day is cancelled. No launch validity, as it´s not a pilot decision what grounds the pilot but a safety committe decision. Nevertheless, it´s quite common that the first 15 minutes of sustained takeoff window, all the pilots decide not to takeoff as the conditions are quite marginal. Still the time counts up and if at the end 30 pilots did not take off because the takeoff window closed, the task is not cancelled because they had time to takeoff at the beginning, but their own decision kept them grounded. This way all the other gap parameters to determine the day validiy starts to work and those grounded pilots would get DNF, thus 0 points. So if you decided to takeoff early and bombed out, you get scored better than those pilots that for their own decision (not taking off early waiting for an ideal momment) couldn´t takeoff at all because of the tailwind.
Now I´m a little lost and I´m not sure exactly what are we talking about… sorry…
Oyvellef and Stein Tore, and why not, everybody else:
Using the term “Exit” or “Enter” for the SS cylinder it´s irrelevant, as the programmers noticed when designing the software. Probably it´s still a good idea to tell the people de direction of the crossing on the pilot meeting, but as the software points out it does not make any sense to force an Entry Start Gate when the next turnpoint is outside the cylinder, and keeping the old “habit” of stating the direction for the crossing is one of the things that we must improove with newer software, and also into competitions, so the task comitee wont be needing to mess around with entry or exit, or misspelling that somehow, but only planning the route, as the crossing direction will be the “logic” one.So even when pilots makes big noise when you change something, and old habits are hard to workaround, there´s nothing that justifies keeping an old bad habbit at all. If we managed to move from photo-tasks to gps tasks, and then to leading coeff, then making the SS cylinder simpler wont hurt at all.
I´ve myself have a Compeo + (equivalent to the flytec 6030) and it has this “entry”, “exit” setting that´s quite annoying and I´m sure that it´s there because of the tendency to “state” what kind of start is it. Probably the computer won´t work right if you set this parameter on the wrong direction, but still, we should start getting off those silly and complicated extra parameters on task settings and flight computer programmings.
My suggestion, keep the software simple, even when it means changing the politics of the old software like CompeGPS.
Let´s remember that what we are trying to do with the Start Cylinder is to be sure that nobody was ahead the starting place before the right time, so the direction for the crossing won´t even add distance or devaluate the time so it shouldn´t be an issue at all.
If we users of the brauniger or flytec computers need to mess around with our vario to set the task and to put an “entry” or “exit” parameter, then it should be our own problem and not the task comitte, so we must deal with this until a new firmware get´s this concept out of the way.
