| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
drela@mit.edu
12 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2008 : 9:53:14 PM
|
Earlier this year there was a discussion on RCgroups on whether/how we should emphasize soaring in TD, as opposed to landing.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=811801
I proposed a split-task concept in Post #12, which was then refined after some suggestions from the participants. Farther below is a summary. Possible envisioned benefits:
1) It emphasizes thermalling. Making time is not a gimme even on "landing contest" days.
2) It's easy to implement -- not much harder than regular TD for both organizers and timers.
3) It's different enough to make things interesting.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
MD
Split-Task Thermal Duration Rules
1) Define a "Base Plane" roughly perpendicular to the prevailing wind. This is just like the base-A plane in F3B. It could be sighted with one of the F3B sighting stands, or just eyeballed via a line on the ground and a vertical stick. The precision of the sighting is not critical, and would be done by the flier's timer, so no extra personnel are needed. A good place for the sighting device might be midway between the winches and the landing tapes.
2) Each flight Task consists of two or more Sub-Tasks. e.g:
A "4+4" Task has two 4-minute Sub-Tasks.
A "3+3+3" Task has three 3-minute Sub-Tasks.
3) Most of the flight is timed like any TD flight, with the following exception:
At the end of a Sub-Task, the clock is paused (Start/Stop button is pressed). When the glider crosses the Base Plane, the clock is restarted into the next Sub-Task. The last Sub-Task is timed just like in standard TD, with the usual landing bonus.
4) Scoring is just like in TD, and TD scoring software can still be used. Man-on-man format would probably be best.
5) Time window requirement. This is optional, at CD's discretion. Two possible flavors:
5a) Excess time window. A 4+4 Task might have a 10 minute Window.
The intent is to strongly discourage people from taking too long to return to the Base Plane, which would slow down the contest.
The Window is enforced with a second Window stopwatch which continues to run throughout the flight, and is stopped on landing simultaneously with the Task stopwatch. If the glider lands outside the time Window, some penalty is assigned, at the CD's discretion. Examples: zero landing, flat time penalty, etc. Note that standard TD scoring software can still be used with these penalties.
5b) Exact time window. A 4+4 Task would have an 8 minute Window.
The intent is to give some F3J flavor, in which you can't overfly the Window without a serious penalty. Note that here you want to pass through the Base Plane a split second after the Sub-Task end, because you're losing points when the stopwatch is paused. It also makes sighting and timing of the Base Plane rather critical, so an accurate sighting device is required, like in F3B.
|
Mark Drela |
|
|
Anker
83 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2008 : 10:12:23 PM
|
I really like Mark's proposal. It doesn't require any additional manpower, and it makes the soaring component of the task more challenging.
It would be fun to use some variant of this at the EOS contest. Its easy enough to borrow or build sighting devices. I would be inclined to try it with the unlimited window since that doesn't require a second stopwatch. I'll ask around and see if there's any interest in giving it a try.
Anker |
 |
|
|
aeajr
477 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 07:45:08 AM
|
| I have not studied this much but it has the feel of a hand launched contest were we have multiple tasks within a window. Is that the basis of this idea? |
Best regards,
Ed Anderson
Long Island Silent Flyers
|
|
|
|
josh_glaab
50 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 09:04:38 AM
|
Interesting idea. I would like to add that the timer just keeps running the clock until the saiplane crosses over the Base-A point. You would get the max score (like 4 minutes) minus the time it took you to get back to Base-A. Then start another timer for the second task. Need two times that way, but you avoid the window time thing (need to watches each way). This task would also heavily favor high-performance sailplanes (vs. woodies, floaters) since we would doing some mild cross-country. I also kind of think that the rate of maxes would be really reduced as multiple thermals would be needed on every flight. The min segment times would be 4 minutes since you need time to work. Would be interesting to try.
Thanks, Josh. |
|
|
|
drela@mit.edu
12 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 2:09:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by aeajr
I have not studied this much but it has the feel of a hand launched contest were we have multiple tasks within a window. Is that the basis of this idea?
The main basis for this is to put more emphasis on soaring as opposed to landing. Some immediate consequences that I envision are:
1) It would mostly eliminate the occasional boring round where everyone easily hooks the obvious downwind boomer for an automatic max. You gotta come back and find another thermal. For instance, a 4+4+4 or even a 3+3+3+3 would make a very exciting flyoff round -- way more interesting to fly and to watch than a flat 15 minute task.
2) I think it will reduce the number of off-field landings, since far-downwind thermals are now less valuable to chase.
3) For better or for worse, it's closer to XC and full-size soaring, which emphasize thermal hopping.
4) It gives the possibility of setting up the tasks difficult enough so that even the winner would occasionally not make the full time even on strong-lift days. So it's never over till it's over.
|
Mark Drela |
|
|
|
drela@mit.edu
12 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 2:21:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by josh_glaab
Interesting idea. I would like to add that the timer just keeps running the clock until the saiplane crosses over the Base-A point. You would get the max score (like 4 minutes) minus the time it took you to get back to Base-A. Then start another timer for the second task. Need two times that way, but you avoid the window time thing (need to watches each way).
Yes, you could do all kinds of variations. I would favor whatever is simplest for the timer. It may turn out that setting a Window is not necessary to minimize contest delays, so that only one watch is needed.
quote:
This task would also heavily favor high-performance sailplanes (vs. woodies, floaters) since we would doing some mild cross-country.
Agreed. But there's also the possibility of very easy handicapping. For instance, composite ships get 4+4, woodies get 5+3 or 6+2. The latter won't get slammed as much if they can't dash over to that next another thermal.
|
Mark Drela |
|
|
|
josh_glaab
50 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 3:55:56 PM
|
One other thought is that the skill of flying waaaay down-wind, like we need to do for the NATS, or F3J TS, won't be practiced/perfected. The ultimate option would be to have a GPS track of the flight and award points for distance covered. However, this method would encourage more up-wind flying, something that we ESL-ers are never very good at. I assume that if I am up-wind, I just need to cross the line after the sub-task time is complete. I would assume that the direction doesn't matter, just the crossing.
Thanks, Josh. |
|
|
|
F3jeb
103 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 8:18:13 PM
|
In the last couple of years I have come to appreciate and enjoy international flying rules with F3K, all DLG ESL contest decided to adopt F3K tasks early on, from encouragement of the community and initiative by the CDs – I think this is a fantastic choice and a very meaningful one which will help everyone who enjoys DLG competition in the US
I would hope if there are changes in TD, would be more in line with F3J – some of the logistics makes very difficult to implement but other rules and task could be implemented, such as heavily penalizing for overlying, removing landing skegs, and increasing task time – we would NOT implement simultaneous launching since it can’t be done in our setting, but most of all other things could – this would help practicing for NATS F3J and hopefully for team selection
In light of the suggestion made by Mark, we don’t have to have an all or nothing contest; we could mix up the different tasks so we don’t end-up flying 6-7 rounds of the same thing
We could have a contest where is all MOM where skegs are band, and over flying is penalized heavily but the tasks could vary
Round 1) 8 minute task
Round 2) 4+4+4
Round 3) 10 minute task
Round 4) 3+3+3+3
Round 5) F3J Lite (12 minutes)
This way, we still get a chance to practice deep down wind thermals, but make it a bit more challenge with the introduction of Mark’s tasks and removing landing aids and over flying
Just a thought |
|
|
|
aeajr
477 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 10:00:03 AM
|
Easing into this:
One thought on how to test out this kind of format would be to introduce it for one flight group in a contest.
If you fly six rounds, fly five in the usual fashion and fly one with this type of task. This gives people a chance to taste without ordering the whole meal.
The Timer as a Factor
Our current tasks provide the opportuntiy for the timer to help the pilot, but a good pilot can perform the task even if the timer is not skilled. The timer's burden is minimal, start the clock, call off at the minute and count down the last minute, stop the clock when the plane touches a land based object. Not too complex, but still confusing for some new flyers. The timer's opportunity to help spot lift or to track other flyers is a bonus, but not a requirement.
These tasks are more complex for the timer.
The ability of the timer to manage the clock(s) and understand how to measure the task will become a major factor in how the round is scored. Also, the more complex the task, the more likely that the timer will need to advise or communicate with the pilot.
When I have flown and when I have timed DLG, I have seen major confusion on how to time a round, as well as what communication is needed between the timer and the flyer. In some cases the pilot makes decisions on how to proceed based on the guidance/feedback of the timer.
I timed many rounds at a recent LISF/ESL HL contest. There were several tasks I had never seen before. Looking back, if I had understood the task better and how I needed to communicate with the pilot, the pilot might have gotten a better score. Likewise the pilot did not realize he needed to communicate with me as to what he was doing.
After the task was completed, we discussed the round and agreed that if we flew this task together again we, the pilot and I, would work together differently.
So, I would want any task consideration to include the burden on the timer and how the timer impacts the pilot. What should the pilot expect of the timer and what should the timer expect from the pilot. More complex tasks will require more training for the timers and more teaming between the pilot and the timer.
Based on our current tasks, having a variety of timers is not a big issue. However as I become a more serious competitior and the tasks become more complex, I will be more inclined to form a close team relationshp with a single timer/partner and less inclined to have random timers. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing in terms of the league and the development of new pilots, but it would definately change my approach, so I put it out there for your consideration.
|
Edited by - aeajr on 08/14/2008 10:44:25 AM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
New TD soaring tasks
Forum Locked
