Opened 10 years ago

Last modified 9 years ago

#20 assigned enhancement

"Leading to turnpoint" bonus

Reported by: Stein Tore Erdal Owned by: Stein Tore Erdal
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: FsComp Version: 1.1
Keywords: scoring task Cc:

Description

Idea from Gerolf Heinrichs.

Instead of using Leading Coeffisient based on tracklog, set aside some of the 1000 points and give to the top x pilots at some of the turnpoints.

This is similar to what is done in cycling (like Tour de France) with sprint bonus.

The bonus should be given based on the order of pilots crossing a cylinder that is 600 meters wider than the turnpoint-cylinder (normally 400 meters which would give a bonus-cylinder of 1km radius, but sometimes bigger).

Reason why not use the turnpoint itself: Imagine two HG speeding at 100+km side by side racing to be first, then in the instance the 400m radius of the turnpoint is reached both want to change direction asap to go to the next turnpoint ...

Having the edge of the bonus-cylinder 600 meters before the turnpoint-cylinder ensures that "normal" flying is resumed before taking the turnpoint.

How to allocate bonus?

Task-committee must decide on which turnpoints that should have bonus and set a value.

Lets say the sum of winner bonus for all turnpoints including goal is 100 points (given day quality of 1.0) then min 50 points is reserved for the ES turnpoint.
The other 50 points must be divided on the other turnpoints.

If 20 points is for the winner of a turnpoint, then 10 for 2nd, 5 for 3rd, 3 for 4th 2 for 5th, 1 for 6th.

If 10 points is for the winner of a turnpoint, then 5 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd, 2 for 4th and 1 for 5th.

...

Comments welcome!

Stein-Tore

Change History (7)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by Øyvind Ellefsen

This have been suggested earlier in the HG community, and I think it is an excellent idea. This makes it much more predictable what the LC bonus is, where the current system cannot be predicted very well by the pilots while flying.

The 1000 meters for safety is also a good idea.

If it's only one TP (Goal) the LC will be the same as arrival points from earlier versions of GAP?

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by Daniel Velez

More than a ticket, looks like a high end discussion about the scoring formula and it´s parameters. Anyway, in my opinion the leading coef makes the pilots race all the way, while this new proposal would probably conduce to more gaggle flying as the pilots won´t be needing to outrun the gaggle all the time but only on the glide before the turnpoint. Even more, it would add another factor for the pilot to take into consideration while on flight, and the task definition on the pilot meeting would be more complicated. I think that if you can measure somehow the leading of a pilot all the way, this measure would be nicer.

What they do in Cycling, with the so called sprint bonus, is because of the lack of technology on those races. We used cameras and photos back then, and now are using state of the art measuring equipments that can be pretty much accurated, and if we have the way of measuring this, then everything would be nicer.

I´ll bet that the cycling community would probably appreciate a leading coeficient bonus, as they actually need to "burn out" some team mates during the trips and just before the partial marks, the team start would sprint and get it... I´m sure that the one leading on cycling during all the way but not getting that spring mark as he´s worn out would have something to say about this.

If we can´t measure the leading coef, then anything similar would do, even the sprint bonus, but if we are one step forward, even when during the flight the pilot don´t have a clue of how many points he´s getting, he sure would be more precisely scored in relation to his flying effort than if we implement an older system.

This is also what happens with the OZGAP2005, as it´s a simplified version that again, don´t take the advantage of using the leading coefficient.

comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by Stein Tore Erdal

Milestone: 1.2.0 (beta)1.2.1

comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by Eduardo

I concur with Daniel, leading bonus as is today seems better. I have to add that some pilots thought actual leading bonus had something to do with getting first to the turnpoints ... it seems it is an easy to understand idea

But it is related to the whole scoring system and if we want to make it more sophisticated (but perhaps complicated), or if we want to simplify it. It all depends on what we want to reward when assigning points.

I will open another ticket with another idea about scoring (on the sophistication side)

comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by danielvelezbravo@…

My previous and first opinion of the leading to turnpoint bonus was that it was a step back on leading coeficient but a step forward on GAP 2005. I still think that leading coef. during all the task is better than a bonus at some points during the task, but finally I started to look to Leading to Turnpoint as a nice and fun alternative. Actually I would like to make a suggestion. Better than having a leading to turnpoint bonus, we should have a leading to "distance checkpoint" bonus instead, so this way we won´t be needing to put extra turnpoints on the tasks or make some bigger radious around turnpoints, and we can evenly distribute the "distance checkpoints" on a nicer way.

I would suggest that the meet director at the beggining of the meet, could define if he would be using "distance checkpoints" and how many. The distance checkpoints could be from 2 to as many as he wants, and they will act as leading coef distance checkpoints. If he decides that there´s going to be 2 checkpoints, they would be the same as GAP 2002, start and finish of Speed Section. If there are more than two, they should be evenly distributed along the speed section distance, so if the task is 80 km with a start cylinder of 8 km and a goal of 400 mts, the speeddistance would be 71.6 km, and the distance checkpoint would be in the middle (35.8 km). So there won´t be the need of placing a turnpoint somewhere in between.

I´m aware that the pilots won´t be too sure as to where this checkpoint is, as the gps won´t be telling them the whole flight distance but the next turnpoint, so if you have three turnpoints along a route, and say 4 distance checkpoints, you would know exactly where are the turnpoints but it would be quite difficult to know where are the checkpoints (it would need some pre-flight planning and thinking to figure this out) Nevertheless, if you are leading, you just have to keep leading to get the "leading to checkpoint" bonus, and you won´t have to be on the same line as everybody, as there´s no turnpoint center that you should try to hit, but a task distance that you should achieve first.

I´m pretty sure that if we use this "leading to checkpoint" instead of "leading to turnpoint", the pilots would be talking more about "what checkpoint did you get" instead that "what turnpoint did you get". This way, the checkpoints would place pilots on a better understandable distance spot than the actual turnpoints, that are only for giving the shape to the task.

If a pilots tells you that he got the third turnpoint on a four turnpoint task, that wont tell you nothing, as you can´t figure out if the turnpoints were close to the start or to the finish, but if he tells you that he got 3 of the 4 checkpoints, you would know that he flew more than 3/4 the task distance right away.

I´m not sure if this would be too complicated, and as I stated on another ticket, the general idea would be to keep things as simple and pure as possible, but if we can put checkpoints for leading during a race, then I´ll bet it would add an extra fun thing to the race.

Still, it´s important to keep the general idea of the Leading to Turnpoint bonus stated by Gerolf: The Goal is the heavier, more valuable checkpoint, that should always be scored as getting all the other checkpoints all together.

Something like this: 550 for distance 350 for speed 50 for position at goal 50 divided in number of checkpoints different to goal, and included start.

Obviously, with all the allocation points calculations stated on gap... ;)

comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by Stein Tore Erdal

Milestone: 1.2.1
Status: newassigned

comment:7 in reply to:  5 Changed 9 years ago by anonymous

Well, the leading to checkpoint is much better that leading to turnpoint in some cases (tasks with few turnpoints), but it is less simple for pilots.

Actual leading bonus has its advantages and drawbacks: sometimes you lead because you are always the first to go on glide and speed up more than the rest, but if you are only a couple of hundred meters ahead of the gaggle, then actual leading bonus is not very big. Taking this into consideration, the leading to turnpoint/checkpoint bonus is more interesting. Also, sometimes you (and/or your gaggle) lead by a lot, to other pilots that cannot take advantage of your leading because you are much too ahead (example in windy downwind elapsed time tasks with small take offs). So, in these cases leading bonus seem like a reward to take off priority ... Sometimes in these conditions we dont use leading bonus and arrival points at all.

It is also true that actual leading bonus somehow show your leading profile over the whole task. Perhaps you have been leading all the way, but you get low just before the chekpoint/turnpoint, and other pilots take the bonus while you struggle to get up.

I think the best solution is to combine actual leading bonus with turnpoint/checkpoint bonus. Not sure if 50/50 or other proportion. This way you mantain the benefits of actual leading bonus, plus you add the benefit of rewarding the lead pilot from the gaggle.

One issue I disagree on, is that ES should be the most important leading to TP bonus. I think it should be the least important or even disregard it. We already have time points (in Race to goal) and arrival points to reward the pilots who reach ES first. Leading is about something different, and many times leading can take the pilot to lose some time&arrival points because he gets low, or followers take better advantage of the last thermal ...

Replying to danielvelezbravo@hotmail.com:

My previous and first opinion of the leading to turnpoint bonus was that it was a step back on leading coeficient but a step forward on GAP 2005. I still think that leading coef. during all the task is better than a bonus at some points during the task, but finally I started to look to Leading to Turnpoint as a nice and fun alternative. Actually I would like to make a suggestion. Better than having a leading to turnpoint bonus, we should have a leading to "distance checkpoint" bonus instead, so this way we won´t be needing to put extra turnpoints on the tasks or make some bigger radious around turnpoints, and we can evenly distribute the "distance checkpoints" on a nicer way.

I would suggest that the meet director at the beggining of the meet, could define if he would be using "distance checkpoints" and how many. The distance checkpoints could be from 2 to as many as he wants, and they will act as leading coef distance checkpoints. If he decides that there´s going to be 2 checkpoints, they would be the same as GAP 2002, start and finish of Speed Section. If there are more than two, they should be evenly distributed along the speed section distance, so if the task is 80 km with a start cylinder of 8 km and a goal of 400 mts, the speeddistance would be 71.6 km, and the distance checkpoint would be in the middle (35.8 km). So there won´t be the need of placing a turnpoint somewhere in between.

I´m aware that the pilots won´t be too sure as to where this checkpoint is, as the gps won´t be telling them the whole flight distance but the next turnpoint, so if you have three turnpoints along a route, and say 4 distance checkpoints, you would know exactly where are the turnpoints but it would be quite difficult to know where are the checkpoints (it would need some pre-flight planning and thinking to figure this out) Nevertheless, if you are leading, you just have to keep leading to get the "leading to checkpoint" bonus, and you won´t have to be on the same line as everybody, as there´s no turnpoint center that you should try to hit, but a task distance that you should achieve first.

I´m pretty sure that if we use this "leading to checkpoint" instead of "leading to turnpoint", the pilots would be talking more about "what checkpoint did you get" instead that "what turnpoint did you get". This way, the checkpoints would place pilots on a better understandable distance spot than the actual turnpoints, that are only for giving the shape to the task.

If a pilots tells you that he got the third turnpoint on a four turnpoint task, that wont tell you nothing, as you can´t figure out if the turnpoints were close to the start or to the finish, but if he tells you that he got 3 of the 4 checkpoints, you would know that he flew more than 3/4 the task distance right away.

I´m not sure if this would be too complicated, and as I stated on another ticket, the general idea would be to keep things as simple and pure as possible, but if we can put checkpoints for leading during a race, then I´ll bet it would add an extra fun thing to the race.

Still, it´s important to keep the general idea of the Leading to Turnpoint bonus stated by Gerolf: The Goal is the heavier, more valuable checkpoint, that should always be scored as getting all the other checkpoints all together.

Something like this: 550 for distance 350 for speed 50 for position at goal 50 divided in number of checkpoints different to goal, and included start.

Obviously, with all the allocation points calculations stated on gap... ;)

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.