teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 6, 2013 19:35:44 GMT -5
Ouch. That first run with FSX didn't go so well.  I fear FSX is taxing my laptop too much after all... 8-10 fps, and halfway into the flight the computer shut down because of overheating (and I had Duenna yellow for weather settings- flew nevertheless). fs-duenna.com/flights/ShowFlight.php?flight=DvdNlrEs8snvNLoBO0EkC7iM0II guess I'll have to go back to FS9... It was worth a try. |
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on Aug 8, 2013 17:43:55 GMT -5
Yeah, 8 fps is perhaps a bit low for controlled flight...  And I guess you didn't like the Cub after all? Too finicky? I noticed though, that your wind values for the 2nd (and subsequent) flights were a bit out of whack. Are you sure GetWeather was working properly with FS9? Davniyson and I had about 0 - 1 kts at leg 2, and you had about 10 right off the start. Could it be that you were loading the "real" weather after all? |
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 8, 2013 19:24:55 GMT -5
Yeah, 8 fps is perhaps a bit low for controlled flight... And I guess you didn't like the Cub after all? Too finicky? I noticed though, that your wind values for the 2nd (and subsequent) flights were a bit out of whack. Are you sure GetWeather was working properly with FS9? Davniyson and I had about 0 - 1 kts at leg 2, and you had about 10 right off the start. Could it be that you were loading the "real" weather after all? GetWeather was definitely running, and I think I had the right weather file loaded alright. I have just set up at CYSE again and loaded the weather file with GetWeather. I get wind 112°@10 kts again. Maybe FS9 has different/less weather stations than FSX, or generates the weather slightly differently ? I'll go to the other airports and will post the GetWeather winds as well. Attachments:
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 8, 2013 19:27:13 GMT -5
I had rain and reduced visibility at CYSE, but it was clearing up fast towards Whistler. Attachments:
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 8, 2013 19:32:25 GMT -5
CBB7 237@6 Attachments:
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 8, 2013 19:34:58 GMT -5
CBQ2 186°M@6 Attachments:
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 8, 2013 19:50:44 GMT -5
Whistler 190°M@2kt I think I had the specified weather file loaded (and I hope this is the right one !). Interesting that there's a difference. I guess we're still learning the intricacies of these systems... But the overall difference seems not to be very large. Attachments:
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 8, 2013 20:04:38 GMT -5
Yeah, 8 fps is perhaps a bit low for controlled flight... And I guess you didn't like the Cub after all? Too finicky? I'd have loved to stick with FSX. And to try out the accusim planes was one of my main interests in moving to FSX. It's a pity my laptop is not up to FSX... That Cub is very nice plane, a real pilot's plane with just the whiskey compass, no flaps ect. It was fun sideslipping into the airports to build off speed during the test flights ;D And the speed is no real issue - our flights are very short. But it's not really a race plane - it climbs like a rock. Even trying to climb a slight slope bleeds off the speed like mud... And in as I'm not through with the C185 in FS9 the choice which plane o fly was easy |
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 8, 2013 20:38:03 GMT -5
A few shots from the runs. Leg 1 Going down low. Btw, excellent run kronzky. I was trying to go low, but you were 5 ft lower still  I bet you got to pick a few twigs out of your wheels.  and through the hills   Leg 2 started with some limited visibility, but it quickly cleared up.   On leg 3 I took the route over the hills. Nice mountains (it looked much more impressive with FSX/ORBX though ...   Diving in for a short landing.   Leg 4, weaving around the cliffs.   Leg 5  |
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 9, 2013 15:47:35 GMT -5
Ouch again ... I realised that I landed >2 nm from Green lake on the second leg ... How dumb is that - to break the rules when it's you who makes the rules...  There's clearly a penalty in order. I suggest 10% abs. added to performance ratio for that leg. Otherwise, I take anything you decide, kronzky. |
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on Aug 9, 2013 17:46:49 GMT -5
LOL... That's embarrassing... But a 10% penalty is perhaps a bit harsh, considering that we're talking about a minimal violation. How about we revise the rules to make it 5% for <1nm, 10% for <2nm, and a crash penalty for anything above? We do have to do something about your weather situation though. I tested it on my system with FS9, and got similar results to yours, so the cause might be, as you suspected, missing weather stations. Since it's too late to change our weather methodology for this month, I've revised the spreadsheet to include the wind formula that you were experimenting with in June. This should somewhat fix it, but I don't think it's a permanent solution. We're putting one fix on top of another, and nobody will ever understand the results calculations anymore... So, I'm sort of at the end of my wits, as far as a weather solution is concerned, and have I've started a poll on how we should proceed in this regard: The future of weather |
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 10, 2013 7:15:03 GMT -5
We shouldn't make any penalty system too complicated.
Here's my suggestion:
10% penalty for any rules/leg restriction violation sounds adapted to me.
(applies as soon as a limitation/rule is violated, e.g. altitude by 1 ft)
If the advantage gained by the violation exceeds 5% (e.g. in flight distance by cutting a corner, or by going over a pass above altitude limit opening an alternative flight path) the race committee will attribute an additional penalty that makes the wrong good.
After all, on this short leg 10% only corresponds to 2 nm flight distance/50 sec flight time.
In my opinion such a rule would be sufficient to handle any violation.
|
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on Aug 10, 2013 17:24:21 GMT -5
After all, on this short leg 10% only corresponds to 2 nm flight distance/50 sec flight time. But that's not how we apply the penalties/bonuses. They're added to the overall performance ratio, and there 10% can make a big difference (normally a position or more). Also, having every violation go through the committee is a lot of work. For one, you first have determine whether the gain was actually 5% or more, which can be quite tricky, secondly how do you "make the wrong good"? What's the yardstick that's being used? That sounds like a big can of worms... I'm afraid that by "simplifying" the rules we just introduce a lot of ambiguities, and shift the responsibility (and work) to the "race committee". Which, and this is the second problem, is basically you and me. We race and rule at the same time. Far from ideal, but that's what it is... Therefore, we shouldn't have a situation where we have to discuss how we should penalize ourselves. It should be clearly spelled out in the rules what violation comes with what penalty, so that there's no "conflict of interest". |
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on Aug 11, 2013 16:42:25 GMT -5
After all, on this short leg 10% only corresponds to 2 nm flight distance/50 sec flight time. But that's not how we apply the penalties/bonuses. They're added to the overall performance ratio, and there 10% can make a big difference (normally a position or more). Also, having every violation go through the committee is a lot of work. For one, you first have determine whether the gain was actually 5% or more, which can be quite tricky, secondly how do you "make the wrong good"? What's the yardstick that's being used? That sounds like a big can of worms... I'm afraid that by "simplifying" the rules we just introduce a lot of ambiguities, and shift the responsibility (and work) to the "race committee". Which, and this is the second problem, is basically you and me. We race and rule at the same time. Far from ideal, but that's what it is... Therefore, we shouldn't have a situation where we have to discuss how we should penalize ourselves. It should be clearly spelled out in the rules what violation comes with what penalty, so that there's no "conflict of interest". Ouch again I didn't get that... 10% is a harsh punishment in that case indeed. Ok for the 5% rule then. Though going to 10%/Crash penalty if the excess is a little larger seems quite rough (also for exceeding the altitude limit). |
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on Aug 11, 2013 17:13:06 GMT -5
Perhaps we can apply the penalties/bonuses to the individual legs next race, but the spreadsheet is gonna become quite unwieldy. There'll be NINE columns then per leg — first to correct for the wind factor, then to apply any penalties/bonuses. Soon you'll need a math PhD to figure out your scoring... But even if we did that, I'm still not quite happy with the crash penalty. The problem is — some people don't really "race", but take it easy, and just cruise along (so their race times will be quite slow). That's not so much a problem in itself, but if then some real racer crashes, he will get the slowest time that was done by the slowest "cruiser" (plus, the 10%). So that may end up being a rather significant penalty, which might totally kick him out of competition. But, I don't really have any better method so far... |
|
I bet you got to pick a few twigs out of your wheels.
