tr027 0 #26 July 15, 2009 It would now be interesting to see a 4-way diamond with the overlay."The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperGirl 0 #27 July 15, 2009 take 71, subtract 67... and get 4way diamond :) (sorry, couldn't resist) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 July 15, 2009 Quote Submit to the GRID!!! Quote Each diamond has four 90-degree angles. I call that a square. I don't think this has received as much attention as it should. Since a diamond with 90 degree angles IS a square, doesn't this mean that all records will be constrained to have slots assigned on a square grid (even if rotated 45 degrees to look like a big wedge or diamond, the geometry of the grid itself is still square). Which in turn is rather constraining on formation design.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #29 July 15, 2009 In addition to that, I am still interested in the camera lens distortion dilemma. One I've tried to solve myself and haven't got a great solution yet (other than fly a lens with minimal distortion, which I do, and which Craig obviously was for that shot shown as an example).www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperGirl 0 #30 July 15, 2009 Quote I don't think this has received as much attention as it should. Since a diamond with 90 degree angles IS a square, doesn't this mean that all records will be constrained to have slots assigned on a square grid (even if rotated 45 degrees to look like a big wedge or diamond, the geometry of the grid itself is still square). Which in turn is rather constraining on formation design. I'm not sure I completely see what you mean, and it would be cool if you could illustrate visually what formations you have in mind that will get screwed by the square/diamond. I'm thinking since we're flying wingsuits we are required to all fly in the same direction so all flyers are oriented the same way (otherwise we'll collide with each other. This requirement alone makes me think the grid should work onto most configurations. My assumption is that the formation shape doesn't have to completely fill a diamond (just like the shape of the 71-way wasn't an exact diamond). Whatever it is, a wedge, a zig-zag, a line... you can still put a grid on it, right? Or were you thinking about including verticals? I guess that would need a whole new set of judging criteria... like some semi-overlapping cuboid thingies :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #31 July 15, 2009 Quote... like some semi-overlapping cuboid thingies ... Screw that, man... I wanna make a wingsuit Calabi-Yau shape. /Off to figure out how to fly at right angles to myself.Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #32 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuote... like some semi-overlapping cuboid thingies ... Screw that, man... I wanna make a wingsuit Calabi-Yau shape. /Off to figure out how to fly at right angles to myself. So your new nickname is "crab?" I prefer the idea of putting motion tracking sensors on each wingsuiter. Then later, we can easily measure them in After Effects or similar. Then we can easily change colors and faces, too. Imagine, a 100-Way all in one color/type of wingsuit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tr027 0 #33 July 16, 2009 Quote take 71, subtract 67... and get 4way diamond :) (sorry, couldn't resist) Ah, so quick, I'm impressed, good picture crop. So what you're saying then is that the spacing for a 4-way is identical to a 71-way and the grid is not scaled at all with formation size. Spacing and grid size stay universally the same. Right......"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #34 July 16, 2009 Once again ... when are they going to make records for the longest delay or furthest distance? Because this whole two dimensional grid is lame. Why? Because we all know that given time we will have people skilled enough to fly tighter three dimensional formations (possibly like CReW formations) that the grid will not be able to judge ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperGirl 0 #35 July 16, 2009 I'm not the expert to ask here... I'm not involved in this stuff in any way... but I'd imagine you can scale the grid however you want, cause it depends on the distance the picture was taken from to begin with. the spacing that was used in the world record is more convenient for most flocks cause it allows for some breathing in the formation... though a 4way can be flown tight with whatever spacing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperGirl 0 #36 July 16, 2009 QuoteOnce again ... when are they going to make records for the longest delay or furthest distance? dude, give it some time. we are already yelling "when we gonna see distance" when this is obviously JUST THE BEGINNING it's a good start... and we still have a looong way to go... but at least USPA finally RECOGNIZES us... until now we had NOTHING, now we have SOMETHING, something to build on, something to start from, and to improve upon. like I said.. give it some time... and push for speed/distance yourself, rather than sitting around and whining on the forums... see how hard it is to push things through like that... but oh boy we are always quick with the criticism Quote Because this whole two dimensional grid is lame. Why? cause you're not in the grid (again, couldn't resist...) Quote Because we all know that given time we will have people skilled enough to fly tighter three dimensional formations (possibly like CReW formations) that the grid will not be able to judge ... and for all we know given the proper time we will be able to improve on our judging criteria as necessary. if we come to the conclusion that we're doing such cool shit that the silly grid is old and outdated, we'll move on to bigger and better, whatever that may be. again... at least we are beginning to have SOME FORM OR RECOGNITION. this is BIG!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #37 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteBecause we all know that given time we will have people skilled enough to fly tighter three dimensional formations (possibly like CReW formations) that the grid will not be able to judge ... and for all we know given the proper time we will be able to improve on our judging criteria as necessary. if we come to the conclusion that we're doing such cool shit that the silly grid is old and outdated, we'll move on to bigger and better, whatever that may be. again... at least we are beginning to have SOME FORM OR RECOGNITION. this is BIG!!! What will you do with all the records when you change the judging criteria? Could we see a large record reduced to a smaller record because of changing the judging criteria? I'm just thinking ahead ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #38 July 16, 2009 QuoteWhat will you do with all the records when you change the judging criteria? Could we see a large record reduced to a smaller record because of changing the judging criteria? Unless the change has to do with only counting some of the people in the formation (instead of all) then no.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperGirl 0 #39 July 16, 2009 no, I'm saying when you have to extend the criteria to accommodate verticals and other shit like that... or backfly-bellyfly combinations, or who knows what, docked formations or whatever, then there will be other stuff added, that's all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yuri_base 1 #40 July 16, 2009 It doesn't take Ph.D. to realize that with this definition, any random blob of f1ocking meat bodies can be called a formation. Take: - no requirement of fixed grid size - no requirement of filling all adjacent cells - way too loose requirement that "some part of the Wingsuit flier must be visible inside a line delineating their space" and you can resize and shift the grid until all randomly distributed bodies fit in it. The success of the effort to fit the definition of record retroactively to a failed attempt of one is nothing but remarkable! YuriAndroid+Wear/iOS/Windows apps: L/D Vario, Smart Altimeter, Rockdrop Pro, Wingsuit FAP iOS only: L/D Magic Windows only: WS Studio Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yuri_base 1 #41 July 16, 2009 Here's a 10-way "USPA-approved formation".Android+Wear/iOS/Windows apps: L/D Vario, Smart Altimeter, Rockdrop Pro, Wingsuit FAP iOS only: L/D Magic Windows only: WS Studio Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeemax 0 #42 July 16, 2009 Hey, congrats Taya et al. Great work on getting something like this recognized Quick question, why is there no duration requirement? I really don't want to sound like i'm picking holes, as I genuinely mean this constructively, but it seems like as long as you take enough photos during a given jump, you're bound to get one that fits the grid? As with other disciplines, there is usually a requirement to hold the position for a given duration proving that it isn't just a fluke that the formation built the way it did. Was something like this considered, if so, why was it discounted? Again, well done Phoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pattersd 0 #43 July 16, 2009 Exactly. I think it is a great thing that we have the USPA recognizing wingsuits as category for records, just not sure about the criteria. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdrake529 0 #44 July 16, 2009 QuoteImagine, a 100-Way all in one color/type of wingsuit! Already done (well, not 100, but 71). Jhonny "Medusa" replaced everyone on the 71-way with himself for a school project. It was quite funny.Brian Drake Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #45 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuote I don't think this has received as much attention as it should. Since a diamond with 90 degree angles IS a square, doesn't this mean that all records will be constrained to have slots assigned on a square grid (even if rotated 45 degrees to look like a big wedge or diamond, the geometry of the grid itself is still square). Which in turn is rather constraining on formation design. I'm not sure I completely see what you mean, and it would be cool if you could illustrate visually what formations you have in mind that will get screwed by the square/diamond. I'm thinking since we're flying wingsuits we are required to all fly in the same direction so all flyers are oriented the same way (otherwise we'll collide with each other. This requirement alone makes me think the grid should work onto most configurations. My assumption is that the formation shape doesn't have to completely fill a diamond (just like the shape of the 71-way wasn't an exact diamond). Whatever it is, a wedge, a zig-zag, a line... you can still put a grid on it, right? Or were you thinking about including verticals? I guess that would need a whole new set of judging criteria... like some semi-overlapping cuboid thingies :) OK, lets say you wanted to design a formation with hexagonal or trigonal symmetry (no reason why not, and it's quite pretty). How will you get people arranged on a hexagonal or trigonal grid to fit on a USPA approved square grid? (diamonds with 90 degree angles ARE squares, so why insist on calling them diamonds)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperGirl 0 #46 July 16, 2009 Interesting idea with the different styles of grids. Trigonal grid - I'm having a bit more trouble applying this to a wingsuit formation, just because of the orientation of the triangles... you have alternating triangles pointing up and pointing down, and while that works awesome for an RW formation, we won't be flying like that... assuming that you have a standard for drawing the wingsuiter inside the triangle, e.g. head always points to one vertex while tail spreads on the other two etc. So it's a bit less intuitive. Unless you consider the "pointing down" triangles to just be unoccupied space. In that case, though, the grid could be converted to a rhombus-shaped one. Which would be diamonds. Maybe not exactly not squares. So maybe the 90 degree restriction screws things up a bit. But only in terms of how we do the spacing. HExagonal grid - seems like it's again just a matter of what spacing is used. Otherwise there is no fundamental structural change in the formation shape compared to one of the same general shape but planned on the square grid. Push each row of people further back by a little bit and the formation is good to go for squares. So, if we were to be real picky and properly differentiate among all of the above, what would be the ideal solution? Circles that are either tangent or fully intersect chunks of each other? I'm thinking you could convert any grid to that, since for whatever shape you're using you could just replace it with its circumscribed circle. But then we get into a far worse relaxation of the current criteria. It has already been pointed out that some not so nice looking blob-style formations still fit the current judging criteria, so any generalization would make it even worse. So it feels like we still need to impose some form of symmetry, and the squares look like a good compromise. So far the grid looks promising. Let's see what cool stuff people can fit on the grid at Summerfest and Pepperell and other upcoming boogies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #47 July 17, 2009 QuoteInteresting idea with the different styles of grids. Trigonal grid - I'm having a bit more trouble applying this to a wingsuit formation, just because of the orientation of the triangles... you have alternating triangles pointing up and pointing down, and while that works awesome for an RW formation, we won't be flying like that... assuming that you have a standard for drawing the wingsuiter inside the triangle, e.g. head always points to one vertex while tail spreads on the other two etc. So it's a bit less intuitive. Unless you consider the "pointing down" triangles to just be unoccupied space. In that case, though, the grid could be converted to a rhombus-shaped one. Which would be diamonds. Maybe not exactly not squares. So maybe the 90 degree restriction screws things up a bit. But only in terms of how we do the spacing. HExagonal grid - seems like it's again just a matter of what spacing is used. Otherwise there is no fundamental structural change in the formation shape compared to one of the same general shape but planned on the square grid. Push each row of people further back by a little bit and the formation is good to go for squares. So, if we were to be real picky and properly differentiate among all of the above, what would be the ideal solution? Circles that are either tangent or fully intersect chunks of each other? I'm thinking you could convert any grid to that, since for whatever shape you're using you could just replace it with its circumscribed circle. But then we get into a far worse relaxation of the current criteria. It has already been pointed out that some not so nice looking blob-style formations still fit the current judging criteria, so any generalization would make it even worse. So it feels like we still need to impose some form of symmetry, and the squares look like a good compromise. So far the grid looks promising. Let's see what cool stuff people can fit on the grid at Summerfest and Pepperell and other upcoming boogies. I suggest allowing any regular predefined lattice. Requiring it to be a square lattice is unnecessarily constraining.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #48 July 17, 2009 QuoteI suggest allowing any regular predefined lattice. Requiring it to be a square lattice is unnecessarily constraining. But is it a pre-defined lattice with a pre-defined deviation in lengths between each lattice point? If so, then the "square grid" that Taya proposed is just one possible manifestation of that, right?Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buried 0 #49 July 17, 2009 yuri, I don't think that is an approved formation since it was taken from the larger 71 way and the tip/centering would be a bit different with only 10 people. I agree that it looks awful and it if was classified as a 'good' formation based upon the new criteria, I'd strongly be against this judging. This grid does have many shortcomings as many people have pointed out. from lens distortion to flyer placement, 2d formations only. I've never been a fan of the spacing used at the record.. and unless you scale the grid down a tight formation will not be judged as successful.. . I've never been a fan of the spacing and never will. I feel it's a fix to allow for talent that isn't there in the majority of the people that fly right now. Numerous people are not really learning how to fly their suit as they should. The largest slot specific formation is still a tight 16 way diamond done by both the west and east coasts IMO.. there were pieces of the 71 way that looked good, but a successful piece of a larger formation does not make it successful (even after breakoff). What will happen then if this go into effect and we want to judging criteria to be different/better than the current method which only seems fully supported by relatively small group of proven flockers. So right now we cannot get records with any aerobatics or 3d formations. For aerobatics - we need to look at freestyle and artistic freefly in order to come up with some moves or criteria for those to be judged on too. What about 3d? Would we need to camera angles? What's the max height a 'stack' should allow for? Dont get me wrong. I'm happy there is progress and the effort others have put into this, but I still feel that it's premature as there are still many shortcomings that need to be sorted through and not just allow for working with the limited talent that exists in a specific form of flying/wingsuiting today. Where is my fizzy-lifting drink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #50 July 17, 2009 Very well said and accurate observations Zak."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
