"Clearest Presentation" or "Proper Gemotery" which to judge by.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Sadly this is the case. Even now I usually grab the book and refresh my memory on what it says before saying anything. It is too easy to "mis-remember" something. And these are some very experienced folks. Given that, how can we expect the "average" judge out there to be up to speed on every nuance. ? This is why I think we need to get this taken care of and move to a consistent set of criteria. For us, in IMAC, I feel that means showing the judges what they are seeing when they look at the Aresti.

If it was easy anyone could fly, or judge, IMAC.

If we follow your idiotology, Bill, then we don't need rules, all we need are pretty pictures, and then Impression Judging would once again be well and strong in IMAC. . Good Bye Credibility.

This is where my statement about " if it looks right then it is right " comes from. IMO you need to fly the figures in such a manner that they ' LOOK " correct to the judges. This really has nothing to do with poor quality judging but does illistarte that human eyes don't always see what we would like them to.

Actually, Shawn, if you READ the F&JG criteria on loops, it actually SAYS "must appear perfectly round to the judge" The loop is the ONLY maneuver that is judged this way. Half loops, and any other looping maneuver, are judged on the consistency of their radii, AND for their "appearance". "The half loops in this family must be of a constant radius and wind-corrected to appear as a perfect half circle (see full loop discussion below)

Please refer to 8.7.1 and 8.7.2 in the F&JG for these criteria and the discussion of Loops.

ANY other radii not considered to be a partial loop, throughout the sequence are NOT judged on appearance. This means that the Looping sections of Cubans, Immelmans, Split-S's, S's, and other maneuvers that use looping and partial looping segments for their makeup must APPEAR to be round. Maneuvers such as square, diamond and octagon loops, Sharkstooth, 45 lines, and other "joined line" maneuvers need only follow the criteria, depending on family, for how the radii in the maneuver should be sized.

It's really quite a simple procedure to follow these rules and criteria. The second you do away with Geometric perfection, and revert to impressionistic nonsense you throw any sort of consistency out the window.

"The Clearest presentation of the Geometry of the maneuver is the primary criteria for the best score" is almost 20 years old. Until recently it was "understood" that it meant to fly the maneuver as well as possible, within the scope of the rules. It is NOT a "Rule". .it's a "suggestion".

I really fail to see how hard it is to just follow the Rules, as they are laid out in the F&JG. Take away that one suggestion, and everything works just like it's supposed to.

But, some people need ANY Excuse they can get for why they didn't get a good score. "The Judge" didn't like the way I flew the maneuver, so he just downgraded it. . should NEVER be what we hear. Impressionistic Judging is dead. . and buried .. Resurrecting it will be the worst mistake IMAC can ever make.

[exeter_acres]

	Quote: Originally Posted by sTACYLLOYD
	THE REAL POINT OF IMAC IS TO JUST GO OUT HAVE FUN AND LEARN NEW THINGS AND HANG OUT WITH GREAT PEOPLE

you forgot about the Beer

[NCFRgal]

	Quote: Originally Posted by exeter_acres
	you forgot about the Beer

Curtis,

You are my hero!

Marian

[exeter_acres]

Hey wait... maybe we should talk about proper spin entry... I like that







burp...







whut?



.

[Bruce]

You all raise valid points. However, for the vast majority of judges that I have seen at contests such a distinction is up in the esoteric range of IMAC judging criteria. Most of the guys who get pressed into judging, particularly in the lower classes, are ill equipped to apply even the fundamental judgements called for, e.g.., line positioning, simple yaw/pitch/roll deviations, etc... Yes there is much impression judging. So our efforts out here (NW) are to educate and to attract as many people as we can to "actually" learn the rules and to "finally" take the time to attend a judging seminar. Hopefully, then maybe we can have a group who can appreciate a discussion like this. So Kris, IMHO, we have bigger fish to fry than this one.

[Andy540T]

Boy take a day off from the site and I stumble into the middle of another discussion that will have no end to it.

The way I see it, it doesn't really matter. Our job as pilots is to fly the clearest geometry of the figure as it applies to the criteria. I think we can all agree to that. (I hope)

If the judge is looking for something that is there or not and is doing so to all pilots in the class (something that we really need to work on) and scores the "perfect" figure a 6, so be it. The idea is that he is doing that to all pilots in the class.

This is subjective judging. If it looks round to me, it might not look round to the judge. I can't control that and there is nothing that can be done about it. All we can do is fly to the criteria set forth in the rules as we understand them and hope that the judges understand it the same way.

I understand that in reality, we face judges that either don't know the criteria or have an interpretation that differs from our own, and we try to fly to their wants since it is after all a competition for the best possible score, but all we are really trying to do is fly better than the other pilots in the class. If you spend hours trying to figure out what the judges in the chair are looking for, then who are you competing against? The other pilots or the judges?

Sorry for the rant, I just thought I would try and catch up.

[Ion01]

I think we should put a gps system in the airplanes that transmits back to a computer and then the computer judges and not humans

[Judge]

Once again Kris in your zeal to demonstrate how much you can type you have missed the point. No surprise there.

I am simply saying that we should have a consistent standard and that a 45 line should look like a 45 line regardless of where it is located in the airspace. This makes it more likely that the judging will be more consistent.

The current standard requires judges to mentally adjust each and every figure based on their placement in the airspace. This can lead to all kinds of problems since each and every time a figure is flown it will look different depending where it is located and this means that the judge has to account for that variation all the time. On the other hand if we judge if it looks like a 45 line, then we have the same standard all the time.

There is nothing "impression" about it. The same downgrades apply, they are just easier to apply more consistently.

[SmoothFlying]

Ok, doesnt everyone get a sheet or set pattern to fly? Last time I flew IMAC I did. How about this Kris, if you dont fly the lines exactly like they are shown you get a zero. Its either a 10 or 0. If its not a true vertical line, 45, snap, roll, etc.... then you get a zero. Why argue about something that is not going to change and it is what it is. If you have so many problems with IMAC rules why dont you just get out there and 3D. There arent many rules there, just two I get called on sometimes and thats dont hit the building and keep the hovering away from the building. Pretty simple. Breaking either rule will get you an ass kickin.

[paffy]

Judge - how do you expect a 45 line on Y-AXIS presented so it "appears" like 45 line, once you get the rules changed ?

I already figured out that 45 will be flown as 14.5° at the near corners of the box (like when you fly close in, so you can squeeze in a roller, then have to go far to the side, because you have 4 of 8 going into half reverse cuban). 2006 unlimited comes to mind in this regard.

[Andy540T]

	Quote: Originally Posted by TeamFlatout
	Ok, doesnt everyone get a sheet or set pattern to fly? Last time I flew IMAC I did. How about this Kris, if you dont fly the lines exactly like they are shown you get a zero. Its either a 10 or 0. If its not a true vertical line, 45, snap, roll, etc.... then you get a zero. Why argue about something that is not going to change and it is what it is. If you have so many problems with IMAC rules why dont you just get out there and 3D. There arent many rules there, just two I get called on sometimes and thats dont hit the building and keep the hovering away from the building. Pretty simple. Breaking either rule will get you an ass kickin.

My scores sure would be easy to add up. No computers needed.

[Jim Woodward]

Hi All,

I'm going to attempt to post just one time to this thread as the totality of ridiculum and heresy would be totally laughable if it were not for the extent to which some people have this bass-ackwards. Dumbing down the judging criteria so that the "lowest-common-denominator" of a judge can score a maneuver, in face of "engineering-fact" regarding paralax, is totally backwards to any legitimate problem solving process.

The first and primary perspective of all this is the 'pilot.' In the beginning, no body said, "... hey, we've developed some judging criteria and have a bunch of judges, so lets find a way to judge something, and thus the birth of model aerobatics - as a way to enterain judges."

Pilots are the number one audience and group that must be made feel that a set standard is being applied across the land, in a transparent system. If the pilots are happy, they come back and bring friends - and growth occurs.

It is far easier and it should stand that it is the responsibility of not only the organisation, but the "expereinced" pilots as well, to educate the judges to the set flying standard.

It is far more difficult to imagine that while teaching/coaching/training pilots and new comers, that there exits an "infinitely" changing technique for flying a manuever based on its position in the box relative to the person judging.

The reason these "lines" are so far off and can be construed to such varying degrees (no pun intended) is that IMAC has decided to not "describe" the airspace in which the models are to be flown. The simplest and most obvious solution to controlling airspace, and creating the "correct" paradigm for these lines to be consistenty viewed is by re-instituting box lines and enforcing them, with a set "distance" out parrallel to the flight line to be flown.

The main "visual" problem from my brief expereince is that 75% of the IMAC contestants are flying 50 meters away from the pilots line, nearly on the other side of the runway - some times over the runway. How the hell is any line goinig to look good when the pilot positions it just on the edge of the ashpault?

If airspace control is a problem - control the airspace each maneuver, and not with one puny score at the end of the sequence. Given the "fear" and loss of fields due to noise and such, the IMAC community would this time "enforce" box lines if mandated, versus the last time around. If the rolling circle is a "death-killer" for model air fields and needs, simply remove the rolling circle from local competition or leave it to fields that have no airspace restrictions.

Deciding to "forget" about parallax and dumb-down the judging criteria is paramount to stepping back to the dark-ages. Quoting myself from the SE judging seminar - "...this is the wackiest-shyt I've ever heard about model aerobatics."

Thanks,

Jim W.

[paffy]

Thank you Jim !!!

P.

[OverTemp]

Here you guys go trying to make this a "sport" again. Hmmm... and guys don't want to fly IMAC because they think it's "anal". Go figure. I like it, but I just like to fly pretty and have fun. If I was losing money to scores I might be upset, but I'm losing money to my own idiocy instead (seriously... a $5,000 airplane... what was I thinking????). Sure, I win a contest now and then, but I got enough plaques when I was a kid... not impressing anyone putting RC airplane plaques on the wall... quite the opposite actually.

Kris,

Seriously man... what's this?:
http://home.netcom.com/~demigod/id3.html

And what's with "Demigod"?

Just curious.

[Shawn Berkheimer]

Jim, great point of veiw. The point that I have been attempting to make here is that people can brow beat us with the rulebook all they want but that does not take the human factor out of judging. Some judges will always score different than the guy sitting next to him. Thats why we strive at not sitting the same judges for more than one round per weekend. The fact that the rules interpritation is going to slightly differ from one judge to another is quite frankly reality. The important thing is that every judge keep his criteria consistant the entire round.

I think that just about all of us has noted who was sitting in the chair and recalled that that particular judge was rather harsh on a certain aspect and made a mental note to incoperate that into our flight.

Take the Shootout as an example. It is pretty well known that you will get deductions in your snaps if you do not present a fairly deep pitch deviation . The rulebook only states that a pitch deviation be present and has no requirement for how much deviation. The difference is that the Shootout uses judges that have full scale judging experience.

Like it or not, right or wrong, The human factor is there. I would rather try to take advantage of it and maybe score a tad bit better than try to fight it. Reason being, it is never going to go away. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to perfecting judging I'm just saying that the reality is that the human race has limitations and we will never no matter how hard we try be able to eliminate these limitations.

Shawn