[fredrik]

yes

[fredrik]

A garmin gps only log one altitude as far as I know and gpsdump reads this altitude. You can’t use any other software to get any other information.

Other instruments like the compeo log both barometric and gps altitude and gpsdump only use the gps altitude. Other software can log both.

I can set my garmin 76s to either base its altitude an a barometer, an auto calibrated barometer altitude that shouldn’t be of more than 30 m from gps altitude and according to the manual only gps altitude but this doesn’t work on my unit.

I am not sure which altitude that “should” be used. Most relevant airspace here in Norway is based on amsl altitude and I have always though that this is the real altitude and a gps tries to show real altitude and is thus the best option. One advantage to use gps altitude is that we don’t need to calibrate anything.

The other airspace is flight level and thus depends on the pressure.

[fredrik]

I believe you have saved the waypoints in the wrong format. GPSdump can save the waypoints in two formats with the same extension wpt. You should use the one called geographical(wpt) (i think). I got the same error and I believe this was the solution.

[fredrik]

Now I see that the nordic 2007 and NC 2007 was scored with leading points and arrival time points. NC 2008 is scored with time position points.

Is it possibly to find any information anywhere about how the points are allocated for all different methods that is possibly to use in GAP2007?

My guess is that the distance points are determined by the plot in the gap2002 document. The maximum arrival points is then determined differently if arrival position points or arrival time points are used. 1/8 of the points except the distance points are arrival points if arrival position points are used and 1/4 of the points except the distance points are arrival points if arrival time points are used.
The leading/departure points are then 1.4 times the arrival points. The time points are the rest of the points.

So you get twice as many arrival points and leading points if arrival time points are used compared to if arrival position points are used.

The difference in the result of the comp might not be that large if it was a race to goal but could be a large difference if start gates are used.

[fredrik]

I believe that fs don’t work properly when using arrival time points together with leading points in the same way as the opening post seems to suggest.

Here are some recent results from Australia
http://www.triptera.com.au/canungra/classic2008/open_day_5.htm

and ozreport discussion. Mostly relevant on page 3 and 4.
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13797&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

It seems like you get to many max lead and arrival points compared to GAP2002 and your first response in this thread seems to suggest that you should get the same max points as you get in GAP2002 also using these parameters.

[fredrik]

Ok, I missed that and I can also see that it is clearly a parameter in fs and that the parameter definitely makes sense.

It might be a problem about documentation, explaination and information about the different scoring systems though. I thought GAP 2002 was as explained in the document linked to above and that is the only detailed explaination I have found.

Fs seems like a good program.

[Author]

Posts