U.S. Scale Masters

USSMA General Discussions => Flightline Chatter => Topic started by: Mel Santmyers on Fri, 10/28/11, 08:54 PM

Title: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Fri, 10/28/11, 08:54 PM
Its been over a year now since I last posted to you guys. I hope you found it interesting. To update things I spoke with three outline judges. Two this year and one last year after the events. The last being at the Masters in Fresno. I asked two questions. No.1. How much did you use the three views. 80% 85% and 100%. The Masters judge being the last one at 80%. Question No.2. What did you think of the three views submitted. Answer ranged frome terrible to horrible. Now what do you think this did to their scores? SO! if you are interested in being serious you may think of drawing your own. [legal as per the rule book] OR you can think about the model versus the full size photos per my suggestion in previous post. Think about this and let your new officials know what you think. Should a line drawing really help determine your score instead of plane to model?
While I am at here  The 30 % rule needs to be looked at.[ Next.] What if we qualified one year and flew in the Masters the next year so clubs can pick a suittable weather date? Not to mention all the rest of the good stuff that could take place.
Finally I want to mention there was not ONE mention of the recent Masters on RC UNIVERSE. under scale. Are we that dead guys?
These new Scale Masters officials really need to hear from everyone. Lets help them make the Masters the event we all want to see.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Sat, 10/29/11, 09:27 PM
Hi Mel,

I'm only going to respond to the RC Universe comment.  Why would no comment on RCU mean anything about the how well USSMA is doing.  I very seldom visit RCU simply because over the last several years it has become an ad in your face site , where the signal to noise ratio is very low.  The few times I have been over there was to dispel rumors being started about USSMA or just plain wrong information being given. I posted info about the Champs on RC Scale Builder site, which still has 99% top quality posts and has not sold out to the vendors IMHO. If interested, www.rcscalebuilder.com (http://www.rcscalebuilder.com).

It was good seeing you at the champs...OK so I will post more about your comments..  Not sure what you mean about the 30% rule, please explain more... 

Last, does the guide say 3-views are mandatory?  If not, then it is up the to builder to use them or not?  Right?  You just have to have something to prove your outline? 

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sun, 10/30/11, 10:34 PM
Hi Mtch.   To help answer your comments,I said RC Universe because that is what I use and I assummed that is what a lot of beginners and people interested in other areas of our sport may use. I did [NOT] say that someone would or would not mention how  the scale masters was doing as a matter of fact that was the the furthest thing from my mind. I simply thought someone would post pictures or comments from someone that was there just like many other events on there are covered.    NEXT. The 30% rule Thats fine but would it be beneficial to invite the next person in line to attend if the person qualified cannot attend for some reason and continue down to the third person or something?    I thought about this being a way to add to the numbers and to keep more people coming back.
NEXT. Three views not mandatory. I think we visited this area before. Sure you are correct I know this as well. BUT!! try to get by without one, you saw the percentages used. Remember 80,85 and 100%
Mitch I am trying to help not hinder.Example. If the experts and team guys want to use three views they draw thats fine however the rest of the classes should not not be required to have them.. Yes i originally said no three views because i feel lines on a sheet of paper simply do not equal that of the model to the full size especially when anyone can draw them.   I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand. Am I wrong ?? Of course all of this is up to our new officials and what ever course they decide on. My goal here is to get people involved especially the old guard, to help them make decisions in what i think is a very critical time in our future.
Keep trying to prove me wrong young man. Regardless you are a hard worker for the organization and I appreciate that.       Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Sun, 10/30/11, 10:42 PM
Try RC Scale Builder.. you will find a lot more help there... and fewer ads...  

Ok, I understand what you are saying... So how far down the list do you want to go?  Where would be a good place to stop?  The championships are suppose to be the "Best of the Best"... if you "invite" down the line, don't you dilute that a bit?  I want numbers up as well, but I don't want to sacrifice quantity for quality. 

Not trying to prove anyone wrong, I just want to make sure the problem is well defined before we start down the road to fix anything.  I don't there is a good answer that covers it all. Yes you can draw three views, and it is just as easy to doctor a picture to what you want, colors, lines, etc.  I do think things should evolve with the times, but lets make sure we put something in place that is effective for the long term and not just a band-aid.  Is there really a problem?  How does AMA handle this? FAI?  If we want more people to participate, really we need to be as close to AMA and/or FAI as possible.  75% of all the east coast qualifiers and 2 of the biggest in the country are AMA rule based events that we let in as qualifiers. 

I enjoy the thought process... and the only way we can grow is with open discussion... 

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Mon, 10/31/11, 09:00 AM
Finally! a discussion has ensued!!!
/waconut
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Mon, 10/31/11, 09:09 AM
HAHAHA.. What do you mean, there have been lots of discussions....  Many of them started by me.. and most have died.. hehehe... 

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Mon, 10/31/11, 04:09 PM
Hi Mitch. Please read again. I said down to the THIRD person or something and it was just a thought.  You are right we need to get more people posting and it seems us three are the only ones currently willing to be the bad guys or so it seems. I do not think any one should feel looked upon differently just because they have an opinion as a matter of fact we all need to know how most people feel especially our new leadership.      By the way I have had as a favorite Rc Scale modeler for a long time however I do not belong.
I guess because I do not understand why. However I can access part of it.                                Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Roly on Fri, 11/18/11, 10:42 AM
I like the 3 view from the Photo Documentation, Currently photo documentation for outline takes precidence over 3 view drawings.

3 views MUST be from a published or approved scource; descrepencies from the 3 views need to be pointed out to the documentation to the judges. Need to do this for better scores.

A unapproved 3 view drawn by a competitor would be dissallowed and if 3 views could not be shown through photos the competitor would be downgraded with a potential 0 score for outline.

Roly Worsfold
NorthWest Scale Aero-Modellers
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Fri, 11/18/11, 12:16 PM

The following is an excerpt from my initial comments on “The rise and Fall of Scale Masters,
Mon, 04/19/10, 02:24 PM” Forum Flightline topic:
“Let’s regress abit and talk about three-views; now there’s a paradox if ever there was one. Show me a documentation 3-view and I’ll show you what PhotoShop can do. One can also say that about photographs, but let’s not go there. 3-views should be used for what they are: a drawing by a draftsman and his interpretation of what the particular aircraft (not necessarily your prototype) he used for his drawing looked like and not as what one’s modeled aircraft outline looks like. Not one of my five Scale Master Waco’s (all were of existing aircraft) 3-views were correct. Each prototype airplane had variants and deviations from existing available drawings. One gets tired of inserting on the drawings, exceptions and differences that were incorporated in the model’s construction (based on photos) but not shown on the drawings. I now use actual photographs of the prototype airplane rather than someone’s drawing of say a typical 1929 Waco CTO. And still I sometimes forget to incorporate some detail a Static Judge is just waiting to pounce on.”
Pertaining to this discussion on 3-views, I, at the 2011 Championships, used actual photographs of my prototype Waco YMF-5 aircraft  (also at th2 2011 Qualifiers) and guess what – I scored from 3 9’s to a 10/9.5/9.5.  Previous 3-view scoring of this particular Waco ranged from overall scores of 24 to 27 when I used Paul Matt drawings.  Those drawings were of NC14031, a 1934 Waco YMF5 while my prototype airplane is a 1987 Waco YMF5 Classic.  Try and find adequate 3-4 views of that aircraft!
Most everyone knows what my views (sic) are on the worth and scoring weight given to 3-4 view documentation, and if one reads between the lines of the above comments, Scale Masters had best recognize the second decade of the 21st century as it relates to scale model competition, and the aircraft that are modeled; all the way from scratch built to RTFs.
so I’ll just conclude by saying until the rules are changed, modified or clarified, I do my darndest to present 3-4 view outlines (currently, I use photos as I will with my new Waco for the 2012 season) that truly reflect the particular aircraft that I have modeled and not just some generalized outline drawings of a Waco F5 or in the case of my new airplane, a Waco 10.
/chuck
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Fri, 11/18/11, 12:23 PM
So, I'm really trying to understand what the issue is??? If you want to use photos, do so.. if you want to use 3 views do so.. both are just as easy to doctor or fabricate so it does not matter...  Build to what you have to build to... no problem....  right??? --Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Fri, 11/18/11, 04:16 PM
Mitch,
What do you use, Mitch? Drawings? Photographs? a combination of both?

Your comment "Build to what you have to build to... no problem....  right??? " begs the question:
What does one build to? the 3-4 views? (seems like a plan if one builds from his own plans or modifies
a kit so as to mirror the drawings). And then if building from photographs, doesn't one more than likely,
mirror the true outline of the prototype?  I won't get into your contention that we (builders) doctor outline
documentation to match "the build".

Over my shoulder I hear comments coming, like, "what if no photos exist, or existing 3-views are at most
bare ouline drawings?".  This kinda answers your question "what is the issue?"
The issue is "should outline documentation be visited by the new USSMA officers and come to some resolution
as to worth, weight and just plain usefullness.  Maybe, as Mel suggests, there are other ways to identify outlines
of your modeled airplane.  So, why not start a dialog at the top?
/chuck
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Fri, 11/18/11, 04:32 PM
Will you not always have that problem?  If you can't come up with sufficient documentation,  it's going to be hard to prove outline no mater how you weigh it... To that extent there are just going to be some aircraft or versions of an aircraft that just don't make good competition models.. Not to say they will not be a good looking well built detailed model.. just not good for competition...

I didn't say anything about builders doctoring outline doc's to match the build... You opened that can of worms...

"Show me a documentation 3-view and I’ll show you what PhotoShop can do. One can also say that about photographs, but let’s not go there."

I was just mentioning you can do the same with photos as you can with 3-views.. just a statement of fact.. nothing more...

Again, I do believe there are some subjects that make good competition builds because you can support your build.. and some that don't because you can't.. 

I believe in dialog, you should know that..

So, someone give a definitive solution to propose?  Something that would prove outline of the subject build is correct... 

See-ya
Mitch

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Fri, 11/18/11, 06:40 PM
Agree totally with your last comment:
"So, someone give a definitive solution to propose?  Something that would prove outline of the subject build is correct.."  That is, one assumes that ouline of the subject build is a necesssry part of Static judging.

to repeat a previous question... What do you use, Drawings? Photographs? a combination of both?

/chuck
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Roly on Sat, 11/19/11, 09:39 AM
Hello Chuck,

You use a combination of both drawings and photos - photos overrule the drawings and be sure to point this out in your documentation or your scores may not be as good as they could have been.

Roly
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Sat, 11/19/11, 10:17 AM
Roly,
I do use a combination of photos and drawings for my Waco YMF5 Classic.  The drawing used is a top view of the aircraft.  All other views (front-left side-right side-rear) are photographs of NC 14081.  And as you point out, I also point out to the outline judge that my documentation consists of 4 photograhs of the actual modeled airplane and one drawing.  No matter, as I have found that judges impart subjective as well as objective assessments (all judges - color/outline and especially craftsmanship).  I just do my thing, judges do theirs and then we all move on to the flying portion of the event. 
/chuck
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: jlovitt on Mon, 11/21/11, 02:05 PM
Under current scoring system, points are allotted for outline.  Those points must be earned by proving the outline.  The contestant has photographs, published line drawings or self drawn line drawings (suitably approved by contest board member) at their disposal to PROVE their work. 

It's still not clear to me what the suggested change is.  Is it to outlaw three views as a method of proving outline or is it to stop judging outline altogether?

Jeff Lovitt
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Mon, 11/21/11, 04:29 PM
I've always wondered why kit manufacturers of "scale" airplanes never make available to the buyer, His drawings that he manufactured to.  seems like if I build his kit he would provide his 3-4--5- views that the kit was developed from and produced.  Anyway, i guess that proving outline is part of scale masters (and others) static judging requirements and I don't have a poblem with that - it's just that for non-scratch (or from plans) builders, 3-views are for the most part difficult to find for one's model of a particular aircraft.  See one P47, you've seen 'em all - just different color schemes, markings etc.  That statement is somewhat over simplification, but that's the way I see it.  Fo a kit basher, usually one or two 3-views are available, and they usually are drawn for a particular aircraft, not the mod or version one is building.  There in lies the rub. Out come the inserts to the used 3-views, small pictures, comments,  arrows here, there, all over the document, making the 3-views a judges' nightmare to evaluate outline.   I think the disccusion of 3-views is not to outlaw or stop (same-same?) proving outline, but to see if there is a more fair way or a modification of the current method of ouline verification.  If there isn't any consensus so be it.  Change has always been hard to do, (especially for most  old f...s)., discussion is healthy, as is change, but if the last word is leave it alone, then that's the bottom line.  Static has always been an experience one has to get used to, so you youngsters out there, do your thing and just enjoy the total experience of competition.
/chuck
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Tue, 11/22/11, 09:30 PM
i'm Backkk. Thanks for commenting guys. I will try again to explain why I am suggesting this stuff.
No. 1     Nope. We still want to judge outline. ONLY difference is we would use photos to do so. NOTHING would change EXCEPT the elimination of three views to be replaced with the revolving judges stand as described earlier.
No. 2     I actually would not mind keeping the three views HOWEVER ONLY to perhaps [CLARIFY] some item if necessary. BUT! photos would rule period. Of course I say this with reluctance.
No  3    NOW!  Why do i say this. You have all read my past comments,if not please do so word for word. If you still do not understand please bring it up on this forum.
No. 4    Gentlemen I have been aroud this stuff for some 35 years in the beginning it all woked well however over time it has served to do nothing more than confuse modeler after modeler NOT to mention judge after judge. Some of you have figured out over time what to do such as one small sentence in a rule book of almost 50 pages. but that does not serve to continue to bring new people in especially in todays very busy world.  After 35 years at the recent Masters I spoke with our ex treasurer about the scale masters paid membership. That number was UNDER 100 after 35 years. You guys should not need me to tell you that something is wrong.     
No. 5.   NOW. lets get to the real meat of this issue.  OUR famous JUDGES. Bless them. Volunteers for the most part.  We have as mentioned confused the crap out of them. You all saw the figures. NOT MINE but theirs. The new judges stand makes it easier for everyone involved. In essance to simplify things as they are now find a straight line on the model,draw a straight line and have it approved by a guy that knows every line on every plane and then the full size is not even considered to get your points. You guys stop me when I am wrong .
No.6.    Mine has been one suggestion. I submitted this over a year ago formally to our person responsible for changes. NOTHING happrened NOT even a return phone call.. That is why I chose to use this forum. This is not about me. This is about our beloved Scale Masters. . If  you feel the same way tell the new guys NOW.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Wed, 11/23/11, 10:57 AM
While I seem to have the floor here guys.   How about this one?  Change the Scale Masters name.  Easy now guys. Call it the Scale Masters program.    US SCALE MASTERS PROGRAM.   Within that program we have numerous events such as the Mint Julip etc etc.
I have thought that the name Scale Masters may intimidate some new potential fliers. Now we or most all know that is what we have however Mr. NEW GUY does not.
If you guys think NOW is the time to renew,upgrade or what ever this event tell your new officers. A new season is about to begin SO now is the time.
Remember. Please stop me when I am wrong.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Roly on Fri, 12/02/11, 12:25 PM
Hello Mel,

Your point #2 is in effect and clearly explained in the guidelines.

Point #4The SM guidelines is where one place tells all. May be worth suggesting having hyperlinks in the table of contents where you click on what you want to learn about and it goes to the page, this would narrow it down. Might be able to have the section you are interested in on a one button print. Mitch should be able to answer this one.

Basically "Got to know the rules before you play the game" that responsibility is the competitors.

Point #5 The judges stand is great, submitt your drawings and maybe it can be published on the website. Send me one and we will put it on our websites in the North West making them available to those hosting Scale Events. We have to rely on the judges to make sure they are current with the USSMA guidelines.

Point #6 Yes you diserve a responst to your suggestion, you have recieved lots of responses from this forum and one more here.

Good to see your are contributing to "Keeping the Dream Alive" through this forum.

All the Best,
                Roly

.

Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Fri, 12/02/11, 12:28 PM
No need to submit the drawing anywhere here.. just post them yourself..... That is the whole idea of the forums... Also member file upload...

Create a new topic, attach the drawings to the topic post... simple as that...

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sat, 12/03/11, 03:41 PM
Roly.    I just had the sketch of the stand e mailed to you from the UPS store. Let me know if you received it. Maybe you know how to e mail it to Mitch  Thanks I would appreciate that.  Needless to say this computer stuff I do not know very well.   Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sat, 12/03/11, 09:17 PM
Roly.    With regard to #2. I don't want to see the THREE VIEWS used in anyway shape or form for the judging process. They would be used for information as they are now for the building process. Perhaps I did not explain #2 enough. What I mean is to allow the three views some where. Perhaps in the history section I am not sure HOWEVER [NEVER FOR THE JUDGING PROCESS].
The judging would be between the model and the full size ONLY using the rotating judging stand. As Mitch mentions We have given the competitor an option for the judge to use and we know what option they have chosen over the years as you see in my past posts.. We have simply confused everyone including the most important at an event. THE JUDGE..
Roly I have tried to explain this change in the way we do judging for many months now. There is a total of over 1000 hits on this forum from the various times I have posted. I do not plan to submit any formal proposal again. The guys either like this or not  The officers either like this or not. Everyone knows how to get ahold of me. It is time for them to join in for the future of the Scale Masters or we can continue down the old confusing past. 
It seems as though there are are only a hand full of us willing to verbally use this forum, Our leaders need to know what people think in order to plan for the future and Mitch has given us the oportunity through this site to speak up .So I hope more people take advantage soon.                         
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Sun, 12/04/11, 04:52 PM
Roly.    I just had the sketch of the stand e mailed to you from the UPS store. Let me know if you received it. Maybe you know how to e mail it to Mitch  Thanks I would appreciate that.  Needless to say this computer stuff I do not know very well.   Mel.

Mel, you should be able to attach a copy of the drawing to a post.  If you have it on your computer.  Click on the reply button.  Below and left of the reply window, you should see a link "Additional Options"  Click on that. It will expand with more options for messages.  There should see "Attach" below and a box then a button "Browse" to the right of the input box.  Click on the "Browse" button. They will bring up a local window where you can find the file to attach.  When found on your PC, click on the file then on the "Open" button.  That should close the window an the path to the fill will fill in the input box.  Finish your post, click "Post" as you normally would. This should attach the file to the post.  Let me know if you have any problems with this. 

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Tue, 12/06/11, 08:57 PM
I will try again Mitch. This is a cleaned up version.
                                                                          JUDGING STAND
           Materials list
   1 pc 1/2" x 4" x 8 feet. Pine base
   1 pc 3/16 x 1" x 8 feet Pine sides           
   1 pc 2" dia  x 6"          Plastic pipe
   1 pc 1/2" x 4" x 4 feet Pine cross bar base
   1 Hula hoop                                                                        This stand is designed to sit on a hula hoop that can be purchased
                                                                                               at Wal Mart,K Mart etc.
                                                                                               The table used is approximately 29" high card table or preferably an
                                                                                               umbrella table that alrady has an existing hole in the center.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sat, 12/10/11, 08:22 PM
A bit more info on the Judging stand.     It is easy to store. Very compact.
I forgot to mention the hula hoop. It can easily be affixed to the table with Velcro,double sided tape etc.
As I mentioned before the cost of this unit is very minimal. Maybe 40 bucks or so.
Sorry to intervene here I should have mentioned all this before.                                              Mel..   
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Mon, 12/12/11, 12:10 AM
One last thing. Seems like ive said that before. HOWEVER!
I can see the judges stand being either remotely or push button controlled by the judges.
A simple lengthining of the pipe with a gear or belt on one end and a 12 volt motor may do the trick.
Thank you guys,think about all this and more.                                                                                             Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: jeaton01 on Sun, 12/18/11, 02:01 AM
I'm John Eaton, and I have been judging for Scale Masters at Woodland Davis for a long time, mostly flight but occasionally static except color as I'm one of the 2%.  I also do plans as Golden Era Model Service.  I sympathize with Waco Nut, but really, why did you fall in love with Wacos and still expect not to confuse judges!  I think I know one guy in Alaska that can keep some of the Waco model designations straight but within model types there are so many variations.  Yet on the other hand, what red blooded modeler is not passing familiar with Wacos in general?  Yes, I know, the judge must rely on the documentation.  But it just isn't that easy.  We tend to see what we expect to see based on what we are used to seeing.

As to three views, my thoughts are that it is nearly impossible to find good ones of most airplanes.  I always include 3-views in my plans for that reason and don't know quite why others don't, especially now that it is so easy using CAD programs.  But, most plans that people expect to make a fair return on are not done for competition, it's just too small of a slice of the market.  And that is doubly true for kits or ARFS.

Unless I can find factory blueprints of the structure I rely on photos to draw the plans.  It is difficult to do this unless the airplane still exists as finding a selection of photos adequate to the task, i.e. from orthographic orientations, with long enough focal length to prevent distortion, while still not losing focus, well, I've never done that.  On the other hand, the Vickers Jockey that Jim MacDonald built and I did the production plans for does well in competition as there is just enough documentation to do the model yet it is so unknown that the judges simply have to rely on the 3 views, they have never heard of the thing and have no preconceptions.

It does sound simpler just to use photos but in my experience few people can relate a photo to a three dimensional object well enough to do outline judging.  Finding adequate photos, or even getting photos done that are really suitable, is beyond reach of most modelers.  Photos are great for details or portions of the airplane but I think for outline you need a good three view to tie the photos together.  And, if the photo differs in some area, it should take precedence in that area.  That's what I think makes my life easier as the judge.  Having the three view and the photos together gives a person the ability to do a little mental back and forth to come to a fair and accurate decision.

Certifying drawings is a very large can of worms.  Unless the person doing the certification has done as much work as the draftsman I don't see how an informed decision can be arrived at.  That said, you do have to fall back on the best you can do, and having an accepted body to do it is needed, a group that does the certification and I don't see how that amount of work could be done unless FAI, AMA, Top Gun, and any others all join to make such an effort.  Too much work is involved just in maintaining the accumulated information.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Sun, 12/18/11, 02:04 PM

John,

 Life gets simpler every day, especially for us “Ol’ Far..”   Anyway, the following are comments on your comments.

1.   you:  “Why did you fall in love with Waco’s and still expect not to confuse judges!”
me:  I never expect nor plan to confuse judges.  I was not aware that Wacos confuse judges.  My point was that available 3-views for Wacos do not truly represent the particular prototype aircraft that I model, so if at all possible, I use photographs instead.

2.   you:  “in my experience few people can relate a photo to a three dimensional object well enough to do outline judging.”
me:  But they can relate a 2 dimensional 3-view drawing to a three dimensional object but not a 2-dimentional photo?  Okie Dokie.

3.   you:  “Finding adequate photos, or even getting photos done that are really suitable, is beyond reach of most modelers.’
me: Probably true.  I guess this is the reason good/bad/indifferent 3-views are used.  But, here’s an excerpt
           from the 2012 USSMA Competition Guide:    “ If no three-or-more view drawing exists, photos of the actual aircraft
              modeled may be used that are sufficient to show the outlines of the aircraft in side, front, and plan (top) view details. For
             optimum score, drawing/s and or photographs used for 3-views need to be taken from 90-degree angles to the side, front and
             top view to show true outline.”

4.   you:  “As to three views, my thoughts are that it is nearly impossible to find good ones of most airplanes.”
me:  Agree.

5.    you:  “I think for outline you need a good three view to tie the photos together.”
me:  If one has good 3-views, why would one want to also provide “Outline Photos”?  Contradiction will occur.  As photos take precedence over 3-views, I don’t see the need for duplicity of documentation for Outline judging.

6.   you:  “If the photo differs in some area, it should take precedence in that area.”
me:  See Item 6 above.

I always start a new airplane project by first identifying the prototype airplane I plan to build, and then gather the necessary documentation, and if I get a fit, I proceeded with the model’s construction.  If documentation is inadequate, I then find a different prototype to model, and when it all comes together, away I go….!
Another reason for using adequate photos for Outline judging, is that they usually also provide more than adequate Color Scheme and Markings data..  This, in conjunction wih Color proof, makes for a nice, concise documentation package for one's model.
/chuck
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: jeaton01 on Mon, 12/19/11, 01:03 AM
Chuck, if the person has photos adequate for all 3 views then the drawn 3 view may not be needed.  In my experience the photos are not adequate in most cases so the 3 view helps the judge in that case (or makes his job possible).

Your method of choosing a subject is a good one, I think.  Often people fall in love with the airplane and then try to compete with it with the baggage of poor documentation or difficult flying qualities in for competition. 
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Mon, 12/19/11, 09:34 AM
John, thanks for the response.
The photos that I use for Outline have been 90 deg. dead on front, back, side(s) and rear. For the top view (which is hard to do/find photos of), I have used a published drawing which best fits that view of my prototype.  I have yet to get any negative feedback from an Outline judge for doing this.
My current project (Waco 10 - 1/5 scale) was consructed using a detailed published 4 - view 'drawing' which was used to modify my full size plans. I have not yet decided whether to use 3-view photos or use the 4-view detailed drawings.
/chuck
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: jeaton01 on Mon, 12/19/11, 10:56 PM
I might make a suggestion about sourcing 3 views.  Probably the most consistent source is drawings from plastic model kits.  I have around 2,700 of them and can scan them for anyone who needs them.  Suppose it would be nice for the recipient to pay postage if a hard copy is needed.  Many of the better model kit makers do very good research for their kits, far better than any full scale manufacturer since they have to do the same thing we do, reverse engineer the original.   If all requested examples were also included in a database held by USSMA that would go a long way toward a solution.  It would also be more value received for being a member.  There is a variation in quality and some rare birds are not well represented (however, some Wacos could be provided, there's a guy in Alaska who loves 'em and designs vacform kits) but it would be a start, especially for military types.

At least the contestant would know what 3 view to build to and availability would be better. 

As to accuracy and fidelity to the original, as you know you have to build to your documentation.  Making the documentation easier to come by can only be a good thing for getting people involved.
John
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: waconut on Mon, 12/19/11, 11:48 PM
John,
Your suggestion about sourcing 3 views from plastic model kits is an outstanding proposal.  I assume that the 2700 or so number is of the drawings and not the actual plastic kits. I know that plastic models are acceptable for Outline judging although I have not seen this done. Since the model is a valid "documentation" source, I would assume that the associated drawings would also be valid.  Do you have a catalogue of your drawings? If so, how would you make the catelogue available to anyone interested? I hope not free.  Sounds to me you ought to go the entrepreneur route and develop a small business.... Anyway, your time, costs, etc. should be compensated for and not be non-gratis.  I have a few old kits myself and will look at them shortly.  Also, I think that a One Eight AF friend may have a bunch also.   May I suggest that you forward your suggestion of a USSMA data base to the Western VP (westcoastvp@usscalemasters.org) and see what happens.
As for Waco documentation, I have a large library of documenation that more that satisfys my Waco Nuttiness.  And as I finalize my Waco 10 for this years competition, it will be my last.  It's time to sit back and smell the flowers.  Well, maybe bashing an ARF might be out there on the horizon (sic).
/chuck
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: jeaton01 on Tue, 12/20/11, 12:29 AM
It's that many kits, I'm afraid.  There are a few more instruction sheets than that.  However, also a small percentage are cars or trucks but not too many.  It would be nice to have some compensation but every time I make a hobby in to a job it takes some of the fun out.  It would work better for me to do it on a case by case basis with this website a place for people to make requests.  I will forward the comment to the person you suggested.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Thu, 12/22/11, 12:04 AM
Hello John. Are you the one I know??  X So. Calif guy. If so its been a few years.  Back to the subject.
1. And who says plastic models are correct. Who drew them? I could do it,You could do it.
2. Agreed. Your statement that its nearly IMPOSIBLE to find good three views.
3. Your statement. You relly on PHOTOS to draw your plans.
4. Certification of drawings is a case of worms. [your statement]
5. Your statement. Few can relate a photo to a 3 dimensional object. My question how does that relate to a three view and a 3 dimensional object.  Please explain.   Comment. Do you recall the 360 degree turntable I mention ?
6. Google the Vickers Jockey John. Is this computer great or what.
7. Judging.    Thank you John for helping out.  However. We have a rule book and that is what the model flyers use. The full scale rules may differ But!  We use our rules and should be judged accordingly until they are changed.
8. Thanks again for posting John. I would hope more get involved.                              Regards     Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: jeaton01 on Thu, 12/22/11, 01:50 AM
Hi, Mel:

No, I'm not the SoCal guy, I've always lived in Woodland, near Sacramento. 

I do think that in general the 3 views in plastic model kits are more correct as a general rule than the average, but I would certainly agree that they will not be perfect.  They benefit from plastic modelers being more numerous and possibly even more critical than R/C scale builders, if that is possible.  For competition the task has to be to build to your documentation, does it not?  In the end being accurate historically will not result in a high static score if you cannot support your model with documentation. 

For us to have confidence in three views they would best be vetted by some uniform process, but there has to be a starting point, doesn't there?  It is a lot of work to draw accurate three views, it is easier now than it was before CAD programs but it is still a demanding process.   I would hate to see people turn away from Scale Masters participation because they can't find documentation and that was the reason I mentioned the plastic kit source.  Would I build a model myself from that source only?  Nope, but I've seen a lot of very nice models that are in some way not perfect do very well in static, and deservedly because they are major efforts on the part of their builders and the best that was there at that time and they conformed to the documentation the builder brought along.  If getting a certification process for three views is difficult, that is balanced by the benefits that could result, I think.  There seems to be the perception that people can easily alter three views (or photos) to match their model and though I suspect that that is not a major factor in who wins, certification of drawings eliminates that possibility, does it not?  At least it allows us to determine if changes were made.

I think the combination of photos and drawings is the best course, I know in judging it is easier for me.  My comment about relating 3 views to 3 dimensional objects relates to two factors at least.  One is the ability to judge perspective, relative angles, and shapes; we are not all equal in that respect.  The other is that a 3 view alone can only convey a limited amount of information about an object.  Full information requires sectional views as well.   Photos in most cases flesh out the information that the 3 view does not show.  On the other hand, photos that are taken with a long enough focal length to reduce parallax to an acceptable level that still have adequate resolution, and from the perfect angle are far more rare in my experience than a good 3 view.  Believe me, I have tried to get those shots and there is always something in the way.

I do indeed rely on photos to draw my plans, and everything else I can get my hands on.  The best result is factory blueprints, but even those have to be checked for distortion from reproduction, and to make sure the drawing is actually representative of what came down the assembly line.  One case I find humorous is the lightning bolt on the J-3 Cub.  At some time in production it changed, and from a statement by an old Piper employee the reason for that became clear.  Somebody dropped and broke the template, and after repair it was slightly different, and so was the lightning bolt stripe after that.  In other cases the drawings were modified and the newer drawing was not preserved (or you can't find it) or the changes were reflected in production tooling and it was unnecessary to update the drawings.  A million ways to go wrong, and it is impossible to finish the job if you do not accept some level of uncertainty.

I have googled the Jockey, and more is available now than when Jim did the original design.  But still not much.  At least it was all silver!   ;D

I do rely on the rulebook for judging and do my best to make comments to reflect my reasons for scoring.  It's no fun at all if the judges and the rules are not consistent.

Thanks for commenting.  I hope more people get involved too.

John
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: rcphotog on Sun, 03/11/12, 08:31 AM
Mel,
I love your idea of a "Lazy-Susan" - turntable used for static judging. I thought of that also after I competed in the '07 Hemet qualifier. I would just add one thing. I would recommend using some kind of solid-colored backdrop to aid the static judges in "seeing" the model better without backround distractions. This would help to see the outline more clearly as well.

Regarding a database for 3-view drawings: YES, a great idea ! A lot of work no doubt, but a great way to help everyone to get on the same page. Also, if such a database was created, it then could be accessed by the judges at time of judging.
As the next model is placed in the judges area, a judge can simply print out a fresh copy of the 3-view of that plane and not rely on the ones supplied by the builder. I think this would eliminate the possibility of cheating. ( you're all thinking it, that it might be happening )

Regarding plastic model kit drawings: I have always thought that Airfix was one of the best, most accurate producers of plastic kits and as such, a good idea to use one for proof of outline in my opinnion. A judge would then be comparing a 3-dimentional object to a 3-dimentional object. You would not have to worry about distortions from a photo taken with a wide angle lens.

Ken Young.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Tue, 03/13/12, 11:46 PM
Thanks Ken. 
Your comments are welcomed. I hope the powers that be accept the "LAZY SUSAN' idea as well. I am not sure of the back drop idea
However it could be tried. I do remember where we had the "LAZY SUSAN' under a tent like structure that was like a light green see thrrough I believe and it actually changed the planes color somewhat. Of course that could have happened with the normal tables we use as well
THREE VIEWS. WOW!! The first thing in my mind is WHO would create this? The data base is probably a better idea than the participants having them "AND FOR OTHERS READING THIS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALTERING THEM" BUT! Simply because of the huge differences in the detail and quality of them. Could the judges be trained to use them as a tool?.  I do not know and that is why I reccomend that they are NOT used in the judging process.
I am sure the officers of the Scale Masters would love to hear what people think.                             Mel.  .
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: rcphotog on Wed, 03/14/12, 05:07 PM
Quite frankly, I'd like to do away with 3-view drawings altogether.
I never understood the idea of comparing a 2-dementional line-drawing ( with no perspective ) to a 3-dementional object.

I'd like to propose a radical change in thinking.......Don't think of "outline".....think of "shape" instead.
When I verify the "shape" of.....say, the rudder and fin area....I always use a photo of the full-size plane. Simply pose the model to match the angle shown in the picture. Yes, it would be best if the photo shows the side profile of the area in question. This is why it's best to photograph ( at a 90 degree angle to ) the side of a fuse at about every five feet and using at least a 100mm lens ( 35mm equivalent ) to "compress the image" to eliminate as much lens distortion as possible.
About 25 years ago while working line service for Clay Lacy, I conducted a perspective "study" of one of his Learjet 24s. Using a tripod, I used a 20mm lens standing directly in front of the nose and framed the shot so the wing tips were just inside the edges of the picture area.
Then I stood back a few feet and used a 24mm lens framing the shot the same way.

Then using a 28mm , 35mm , 50mm , 100mm , 150mm , 200mm , 250mm , 300mm , 400mm , 500mm and finaly a 1000mm lens. At the end, I was standing about 350 feet away from the Learjet still directly in front of the nose. You would not believe how tall that vertical stab looked in the picture at 1000mm away.

My point is...line drawings show no perspective and the judges are looking at a 3-dementional object only 15 feet away. The amount of perspective on a .40 size compared to a 40% model will be quite different. Photos should always be used to verify the Shape of sections of the model. 3-views can be used to verify the relative position of pannel lines , fuel caps , hatches , lift-holes , blow-in doors, etc if no plan-form view is available in the photo pack.
Ken Young
ps; what's the outline of a bowling ball ? ;D
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Wed, 03/14/12, 11:35 PM
Ken. You are saying exactly  what I have been saying for the most part. Things like the elimination of three views as we now use them., Posing the model to match the angle of the picture etc.  I do not pretend to understand all the lense issues. From my stand point I simply want a photograph to be compared to the model  Keeping it simple but as accurate as we can. We must remember the judges we have. They try to be fair and we make it difficult for them. If I could think or someone could think of some magical way to
incorporate the three views in a fair manner I would like to be among the first to know.
Your comments are very interesting and I wish more people would chime in here so that we,that is all of us that are really interested can put the Scale Masters on a course of real growth.                                           Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Tue, 05/29/12, 09:20 PM
I keep trying to stay away however I just saw that a fellow named Ali a winner in team scale at TOP GUN wrote the following under RC JETS post # 140         Qoute.
[LOADS OF PEOPLE FORGET HOW MAKING A TOP NOTCH DOCUMENTATION CAN MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE]   
I just have to ask.  Is this what you guys want?   Win perhaps because of a drawing? Not just any drawing but one you can draw yourself or have one dwawn for you.
Yes it is legal per the book as I have mentioned before OR! OR!  Change to what I suggest in my two prevous posts. Or change to something..
Please tell your representatives NOW! If you agree or disagree they need to know.
Now I must go and complete a brain scan to see if I am normal or not.                             Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Lawrence Harville on Sun, 08/12/12, 10:14 PM
I build using 3-4 views and include photos of any details I wish to show to the judges
the suggestion of using photos instead would have a limiting effect on the selection of aircraft==not all aircraft have been photographed sufficient to be used for 3-4 view documentation

Not a fan of the rotating static table - just the logistics of the storage, using it  as for adding an electric motor  -give me a break

funniest suggestion is do away with 3 views and have the judges just pull the 3view  from a data base and print a copy for them to use

Some of this stuff is so complicated--makes me wonder if any of you have ever run a qualifer or even a local contest

I have
and simple is much better,
If we make it so difficult to compile an outline packet--we will just limit the crop of pilots even further

The judges do the best they can under trying circumstances-it should not be expected that the JUDGE has unparelled info on every plane that has been invented
I ask my judges to judge from the documentation they are given and not to impose what they think they know but to use the documentation
3 views or photos both in combination or alone can be used to come to a fair score
It is hard enough to get quality judges without subjecting them to added burdens-
it is the contestants responsibility to prove outline

I am for NOT changing anything in relation to static judging
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: bwboland on Thu, 08/16/12, 08:52 PM
Hello Lawrence,

Change always happens. Someting as needed sometimes just for change. I feel as you do about the static process we have today mostly. Mel has a few good points also for the records.

In the ideal world you would have a huge data base to chose from for every plane as a judge. Pictures would be the added detail. I know logistically this will never happen.

We have a bunch of real smart guys here and I am sure if we all look at the logistics impacting a small contest in Idaho we can see the challenges on all opinions.

2013 has some fun changes in the works and we all need to voice our thoughts and remember to vote as these changes come out.

Cheers,

Bernie Boland
USSMA Chairman

Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Tim Lovet on Wed, 08/29/12, 11:24 AM
On the plastic model thoughts.....I have used the Hasegawa and Trumpet kits for color schemes.  They mostly come with four views for color and markings.  I have notices some deviations, make that a lot, from the three views I was using as a reference.  I think the rules say something about a "published" reference.  Correct me if I am wrong, but one of the plastic model kit 3 or 4 views would be a published reference.

Also, I have a plastic model kit of one of my planes that had the artist rendition on the boxtop that I used for markings.  Inside the box was a 4 view of the "same" color scheme.  Guess what?  The two items were different from each other!  This particular model had invasion stripes.  On the box top art the stripes on the wing started at the aileron gap.  On the 4 view the stripe actually overlaid the aileron by about 6 scale inches.  A choice has to be made as to which marking reference to use.  That is all part of it. 

I don't see there is a large problem with the system as it is written, for the most part.  The original idea Harris Lee had in mind was that a modeler could choose any plane he wanted to fly, document it, compete with it and be able to do well.  I do feel we have gone astray from that with some believing you "have" to have more than a side view for markings.  Ernie Harwood was a great builder.  He had trouble finding documentation for some of his obscure WWI planes and was penalized for the lack of "good photographs".  And from that, I was told that "he should have picked a different subject".  That doesn't sound anything like what Harris Lee had in mind !?

We have to keep it simple, mainly for our judges sake.  At the Qualifier level it MUST be simple.  Since it has to be simple at the Qualifier level, it should follow to be simple at the Championship level, too!

I have been interrupted about five times while writing this post.  So, please excuse me if it is a bit disjointed.

Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Wed, 10/03/12, 09:54 PM
Hi troops. Just to see if im back    Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Mon, 10/08/12, 08:37 PM
 Pardon me but my horse and buggy is double parked..  OK!  To  answer Lawrence please go back through my two posts on three views and see the sketch of the judging device. Remember inexpensive VERY small easily stored and the electric motor thing was something for the future if we get there. The data base thing was a thought from Ken to generate some thinking among interesed people.I dont get what is so complicated judging a photo against a model at every angle.as you mention. seems to me it is easier. I agree simple is much better as you also say. Just as as I have said many times.
As an AMA contest board member I would think you would be far more interested in helping rather than using the choice of words you used in your post.
As a Texas CD for your qualifier I guess you feel 9 people in the whole state of Texas was sufficient.
Strikes me as something is wrong with that picture.
I would invite you and anyone else to read my two posts again  Over 2000 [thats thousands] hits combined.
Us old timers need to work together to help the Scale Masters live on before we lose it.                                     Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Lawrence Harville on Fri, 10/12/12, 02:01 AM
I am not about to get into an argument with someone with the stature of Mel Santmyers (truly one of the people we all look up to)
BUT
I was just expressing my opinion on 3 views and the trurn table
I continue to worry about the low turnout in ALL our scale contest
I can remember just a few years ago the Texas qualifier would have over 25 competitors
now we strugle to have 15 and they almost all have grey hair

 A lot of modelers today when faced with added requirements will simply continue to go to warbird fly-in and other venues
and we will be looking at contest and the scale masters with an ever dwinling number of entrys

My opinions come from 20+ years of being a CD for contest and 30+ years of being a competitor
adding something else, I dont think will improve our planes or attendance at future contest

I can remember when EVERYONE that attended the SM Championships would receive a plaque or paper award (that we could frame) just for showing up at the Championships--I have several of those I proudly on my shop wall.  I can only speak for myself but each one of those paper printouts cost me around $1000.00 just for transportation, meals, vacation time and expenses.  Last few I attended- zippo-it is like I never attended-It cost almost nothing to print out--everyone that attends the Texas Qualifer gets a certificate of attendance-those young guys are especially proud of it-makes them another reason to come back next year

A few years ago I mentioned the paper certificate to one of the SM board members-he said if you want an award win 1,2,3  Realisiticly I figured I would never win the SM but I came for the friendship and fun-- I guess he would be very happy if only three people showed up-at least they would all have an award--
just an opinion--you wanted to express us an opinion-- I have--you dont have to agree with it
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Fri, 10/12/12, 11:06 AM
I am not about to get into an argument with someone with the stature of Mel Santmyers (truly one of the people we all look up to)

Agreed!!!

Quote
BUT
I was just expressing my opinion on 3 views and the trurn table
I continue to worry about the low turnout in ALL our scale contest
I can remember just a few years ago the Texas qualifier would have over 25 competitors
now we strugle to have 15 and they almost all have grey hair

Seems to be a problem everywhere.  I truly believe, as had been mentioned before, it really does not matter what we do with the rules for the most part, unless we.. the current community start mentoring the new, and educating the current scale flyers who don't compete.. nothing will get better.

Quote
A lot of modelers today when faced with added requirements will simply continue to go to warbird fly-in and other venues
and we will be looking at contest and the scale masters with an ever dwinling number of entrys

My opinions come from 20+ years of being a CD for contest and 30+ years of being a competitor
adding something else, I dont think will improve our planes or attendance at future contest

Again, I say, the closer we can match the rules and classes of AMA, not Top Gun, the better chance we have of new competitors joining our ranks.

Quote
I can remember when EVERYONE that attended the SM Championships would receive a plaque or paper award (that we could frame) just for showing up at the Championships--I have several of those I proudly on my shop wall.  I can only speak for myself but each one of those paper printouts cost me around $1000.00 just for transportation, meals, vacation time and expenses.  Last few I attended- zippo-it is like I never attended-It cost almost nothing to print out--everyone that attends the Texas Qualifer gets a certificate of attendance-those young guys are especially proud of it-makes them another reason to come back next year

That is coming back.  Last couple years we had small trophies for all the pilots.  This year, just paper certificate I am finishing up printing and mailing out in appreciation to the pilots.  I want to come up with new ideas, well not totally new, but new for USSMA. Like metal plaques with the current year logo on them, like 3x5 in size.. something... but that is for another discussion.  

But I have to say we also hear the opposite of what you say, why waste the money on something like that... Oh well, can't please everyone...

Quote
A few years ago I mentioned the paper certificate to one of the SM board members-he said if you want an award win 1,2,3  Realisiticly I figured I would never win the SM but I came for the friendship and fun-- I guess he would be very happy if only three people showed up-at least they would all have an award--

Don't know who that was, or really care.. Not the way I feel ate least..

Quote
just an opinion--you wanted to express us an opinion-- I have--you dont have to agree with it

I thank you for your opinion.. Wish we had more who would express.. without being hostile.  Now if we can just come up with some solutions for it...

Thanks!!

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Skymaster on Wed, 10/17/12, 01:40 PM
I had an interesting conversation with a modeler this past weekend about three views, and he was very confused. He has been on our website and read this tread. I went through this thread and you know what?? I'd be confused as well.

Look I'm sure there has been discrepancies between three views and photos. Isn't that why in the rules the photo takes precedence over the three view. It sounds like the issue is in the judges understanding of how to apply the rules. Further more why is this an issue now?

As far as "doctoring/photoshoping" pictures and three views.... I'm betting that's been going for a while. It's just gotten easier. Funny thing is I know of a modeller who did his own three view, got it approved and he STILL made mistakes. If someone has to cheat to win, I guess they aren't that good to begin with.

To eliminate the three view, now the builder has to find good photos (Not always easy) or do their own photos. Not easy to do either, and what happens if the subject is in a museum and you CAN'T get straight on perfectly square pictures. What happens tha new guy says screw this and goes and flys the warbird circut!!!

Seriously guys, I appreciate the knowledge, experiance, and passion of those who have posted in this thread. However, WE ARE CONFUSING, and TURNING off good people to our sport! Isn't it hard enough to get guys to build scale airplanes and compete?!  Lighten up we are scaring guys off!!!
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Fri, 10/19/12, 11:23 PM
Hello Skymaster.   I will attempt to explain again what I am saying. I Have had a fear that some may not understand this stuff.  You say as I do and the rule book says that photos take presedense. Because we now know that three views are not always accurate or the drawing quality is not equal across the board I am simply saying that we should eliminate them and go to the rotating stand so that the plane can be set at any angle in line with the angle of the photo. This in fact makes it easier for the judge. We simply do not have what we may call professional judges in every part of the country.  If you look at the rule book I am not saying anything would be different except to eliminate the three view drawing. (See 3.1 page 11 of the rule book.) Photos take precedence.  I have pointed out several times where the three views have taken presedense just the opposite of what the book says. I simply do not agree that this is scaring people off as you say. I feel it is simply making it easier and fair for all.  Thank you for replying we need more people willing to speak up.      Mel




Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Sat, 10/20/12, 01:57 PM
 Just going to say one things about a comment Mel made, if a contestant knows that something was done that contradicted the guide book, then that should have been brought to the attention of the chief judge or CD and fixed.

I'm not sure I agree with the stand...  How does your stand handle the top view?  Also if you are using photos for just color and markings they would take precedence over 3-views for outline?  If you build to your 3-views does it matter if they are not as actuate as a picture?   I like the use of both cause I don't think you can get a full 360 degree view of the plane.  What if only pic's are that can be found are a 3/4 shot from the front left side of the plane? Only judge that part of the plane?  Just questions that come to my mind..  But I think this is all good discussion.  I have to look, but what does AMA say for this?  Again as I said before, the closer we stay to AMA rules (not saying they are right or wrong) the better chance we have of getting more contestants. 

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sat, 10/20/12, 09:38 PM
Hi Mitch. I will try and answer your post as well. I fully understand why some call this idea (The dumbing down)  scenario. I prefer to call it simply the new way. Your plane versus the photo period. Why is it so difficult to eliminate the three view? We all know about three views now. OR do we ?  OR do we want everyone to draw their own,have it approved etc?  Do we really think that would work?  I wish someone would come up with an idea that makes sense so we could ultilize them somehow as simply an alternative to the photos instead of the other way around.   The (Rotating) stand.  It is about 32"high and you are sitting in a chair. You can still see the top you can still see the bottom. You will not see a plan view of course but you will certainly see enough to judge it. AND ANYONE CAN JUDGE IT. You also get a 360 degree view of the model. Try to visualize this turn table. I have built one and used it however I would like to see someone else try this. Mitch there is no doubt the mind sets would need to change. AND it would still fall in the rules. However It is simply time to do something else.  Remember this. Almost 3000 hits on the two post with less than 400 members.  WHY??   Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: rcphotog on Sun, 10/21/12, 07:17 AM
In support of Mel's idea regarding the use of a turn-table for static judging: the table is simply an additional tool ( not ment to replace our current methods) A contestant would still be able to stand his model on the nose if the judges require it to examine the topside and underside.   The added value: allows the model to be positioned nearly exact to the angle that most photos depict when taken at airshows and museums ( in addition to the requisite; side profiles, LEFT & RIGHT and the FRONT view ) A person can "see" everything he needs to regarding the "shape" of an object by comparing the model to the photo .... as long as there is no appearent distortion from the use of an extreme wide angle lens by the photographer. ( for this reason it's recomended to shoot photos whenever possible with at least a 105mm lens. = no compression effects or wide angle distortion ) this is for those who wish to take there own documentation photos. ***Remember a 3-view drawing shows no perspective of the object*** this is why when judging, it's important to position the model as close as possible to match the photo. *** Remember Photos take precidence over 3-views*** not the other-way-round.
    I know of three contestants that have told me when static judges down graded something based on comparisons made EXCLUSIVLEY with the 3-views and the photos were never consulted. That should not happen. Evidence that some judges don't understand the judging "quide lines".
    All this is meant to aide in the process for fair & accurate judging. A contestant spends months and even years building his prefered choice of subject, and a judge spends all of 7.5 minutes evaluating it. The builder deserves the best from our judges.

Ken.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Sun, 10/21/12, 08:23 AM
Ok, first Mel, I'm not saying I like or dislike your idea.... I am an analysis and I try to look at all angles, and come up with questions where others may not, just to help explain things completely with everyone...  I don't want any of my questioning to be thought as a personal attack on you or your ideas....

I do like the table as an optional enhancement to judging..  If it works as you and Ken say, then it will become a standard at any event.  As judges/contestants use it at some events, like it and recommend it at other events they go to.  I also don't see why we can't put it as an addendum to the guide with the plans and suggestions of use to help that out. 

One to the 3-view/photo thing.  I still say that *under the current rules* if someone knows that the judges are not following the guidelines that is not a fault of the rules, but lack of experience/training of the judges and lack of over site from the chief judge and/or CD. 

How would you make sure there is enough documentation to verify everything?  Number of ribs on a wing?  Panel placement? Access panels under the wings?  Stabs?  etc.  Part of the outline judging is making sure all that detail has been properly built into the model, right?  That is the part I can't see in your proposal.  Am I missing something ?

I also think this discussion is great. 

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: rcphotog on Sun, 10/21/12, 08:39 AM
Mitch,
Items like you mention: panel lines, hatches, number of wing ribs etc. are to be judged ONLY by the Craftsmanship judge.

The Outline judge is to ONLY gauge the accuracy of the "outline" in the strictest sence. Any details that fall "inside" of the outline will be judged by the Craftsmanship judge. Remember, the "Outline" judge is gauging accuracy of the "SHAPE" of a 3-dimentional object compared to a 2-dimentional drawing that has NO perspective. A near impossibilty without supporting photos.

Case in point:
Take the average TopFlite Corsair: .60 size on up to Giant-Scale. Topflite screwed up the "shape" of the empenage between the cockpit and the verticle stab. The model built as per the plans ends up with a "flat-sided" section. That's not correct. It should be curved / rounded somewhat. In a 3-view drawing, you can not see the "shape" the entire length of the fuselage. Typical 3-views don't give you the fuselage cross-sections. This is why photos take priority and SHOULD be used.

Ken.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Sun, 10/21/12, 09:42 AM
Yea, sorry about that miss... could not remember who did what and was to lazy to pull up the guide.. :) Going by memory of shoulder surfing some judging and watching the outline judge (I thought) count wing ribs.  I do need to go back and re-read the static judging section.  I was just using it as an example.  I agree as far as pictures should be used over 3-views, since as has been said, you can't get a really good perspective of the subject.  So, how can you make sure all the ribs and panel lines are accurate with just a picture?  I know there's not going to be once answer fits all... 

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sun, 10/21/12, 10:16 AM
Hi Mitch.  Thats the one problem with this net stuff. A person does not always feel the emotion correctly as in a  typical conversation.  I actually like your questions and appreciate your interest.  More later when I digest the items you and Ken have talked about.   Thanks.   Mel
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: j_whitney on Sun, 10/21/12, 10:24 AM
Mitch,
Items like you mention: panel lines, hatches, number of wing ribs etc. are to be judged ONLY by the Craftsmanship judge.

The Outline judge is to ONLY gauge the accuracy of the "outline" in the strictest sence. Any details that fall "inside" of the outline will be judged by the Craftsmanship judge. Remember, the "Outline" judge is gauging accuracy of the "SHAPE" of a 3-dimentional object compared to a 2-dimentional drawing that has NO perspective. A near impossibilty without supporting photos.

Case in point:
Take the average TopFlite Corsair: .60 size on up to Giant-Scale. Topflite screwed up the "shape" of the empenage between the cockpit and the verticle stab. The model built as per the plans ends up with a "flat-sided" section. That's not correct. It should be curved / rounded somewhat. In a 3-view drawing, you can not see the "shape" the entire length of the fuselage. Typical 3-views don't give you the fuselage cross-sections. This is why photos take priority and SHOULD be used.

Ken.
A couple if questions:  How many photos are to  be submitted for the outline judging - and are they supposed to represent the traditional front/side/plan views?

What is supposed to be submitted for color/finish/markings?  What is supposed to be submitted for craftsmanship?
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: rcphotog on Sun, 10/21/12, 04:55 PM
Quote
A couple if questions:  How many photos are to  be submitted for the outline judging - and are they supposed to represent the traditional front/side/plan views?

What is supposed to be submitted for color/finish/markings?  What is supposed to be submitted for craftsmanship?
Jeff,
The number of photos is entirely up to you. There is only a limit on the total number of pages you provide all three judges.I beleive it's 8 total for everything. How many photos you put on each page is up to you. Just ask yourself: "what would I need as a judge to evaluate - the outline ( the outside perimeter ), - the color & markings ( color chips optional but recomended ), - the "quality" craftsmanship of my building skills ( accuracy of size, shape and placement of surface details ) and yes .... number of wing ribs, number of rib stitches near the wing root verses the tip etc. for a fabric covered wing."
   Remember, the OUTLINE and COLOR / MARKINGS judges are sitting 15 feet away.
                      the CRAFTSMANSHIP judge can, should and needs to approach the model up to a 4 foot distance.
Getting back on topic, photos & 3-views: think to yourself what you need to prove the "shape" / outline of the rudder is accurate for your exact version of the plane; ie, SNJ-2 vrs. SNJ-5. If you can only find a 3-view for an SNJ-5, you can use a photo to support your SNJ-2. Remember it's up to you to prove your model's accuracy by any means necessary.If you're wondering just what an "outline" judge is looking at?  think of back when you built plastic models. Take one half of the fuse and trace the "outline" onto paper. That "line" represents all that the judge ( should be ) evaluating. I realize that it's nearly impossible to get photos of your prototype taken at exactly the side-view, headon view and the "plan-form" view so I'm not recommending throwing out the 3-views, only saying that they should only be used as a guide. If the contestant doesn't include enough info to prove his model's accuracy, then the judge can only give you  credit for the things he can verify.

Ken.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sun, 10/21/12, 08:44 PM
Hi Mitch,Jeff. Thanks again for your questions. Before I start please remember this idea will not match everything or line of the current system.. It will take a new mind set where as you may only see a portion of the top or bottom view for example but surely enough to judge adequetly and to maintain the quality of aircraft we now see..  The views certainly will not be traditional as you mention. The number of ribs? Yup this may be lost To some extent. Is it lost now to some extent as well? The rotating turn table will match any angle of the photos. The model itself will represent the color markings etc. against the photos submitted. The same applies for craftmanshipThe model will represent itself and as Ken says the  judge for that is allowed to approach closer to check. He also mentions the use of a three view as a guide. I am not sure about that but is worth thinking about.
Help me out here with WW1 planes. I said color drawings and black and white photos. Sound OK?
Thank you guys and try to think more because I really think this Turntable thing is good for the future. Mel

Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: j_whitney on Sun, 10/21/12, 08:52 PM
Just reread most of this thread (halfway through page 3).  Mel and Ken seem to want to do away with 3-views altogether and rely exclusively on photos.  If I have mis-stated that, please correct me.  A couple of things spring to mind.  Why force a competitor into using one or the other?  Laisez faire - caveat emptor, etc,  The competitor that figures it out and builds to his documentation should take the cake, right?  Whether he builds to poor 3-views or excellent photos.  As John Eaton or someone pointed out, if you try to build to historic accuracy, you will most often not do well UNLESS you can back it up.  The other thing is WWI.  There are photos of WWI airplanes, not nearly as numerous or as clear as those of WWII aircraft.  You have to rely on published 3-views (and annotate with photos whever possible and needed).  "Proving" the plan view of any airplane strictly with photos is very difficult, well nigh impossible.  Unless photos are taken air to air, or from the top balcony of a hanger or similir there is just not enough plan info available to accurately judge (hence Chuck M's reliance on a drawn 3-view for his Waco).

As far as the lazy susan, it is a great idea - but I don't want to see it mandated.  One of the leading causes of the Civil War was State's Rights.  Same thing here - the State (Qualifier) should not necessarily be dictated to any more than is necessary.   Having a table to mount the airplane being judged on has proven sufficient in the past.  Eventually the lazy susan will catch on - but it should not be forced on the clubs.

Some Qualifiers, BTW, are qualifiers in name only:  Mint Julep, Top Gun and the Nats.  What about foreign qualifiers (none that I know of yet)?
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: rcphotog on Sun, 10/21/12, 09:24 PM
Jeff and others reading (lurking ;D) this thread.

Mel & I are not advocating throwing out the 3-views. We are simply stating what's in the official guide. Photos take priority over 3-views. Mel's contentions are from years of knowing ( at our local regional events ) that some members are building strickly to 3-views that in many instances are hand drawn by the contestant and supposidly "approved" by some man-behind-the-curtain ;D

I feel 3-views can get you in the neighborhood of accuracy, but if when compared to photos you find a mis-match, then the photos always trump the drawings. Once again, the Outline judge does not evaluate any details inside of the outer-perimeter-line such as wing ribs, inspection ports, rivets, panels, cockpit doors etc. Those idems are evaluated by the Craftsmanship judge.

As for the turn-table, we're not suggesting that it be manditory ;) rather, an additional tool that can aid in static judging. Use it, don't use it. It's just a suggestion. ;)
Ken.
btw; yes, you can draw your own 3-views as per the guide.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sun, 10/21/12, 10:24 PM
Hi guys. Thanks for the quick replies. Yes I am reluctantly agreeing to the implantation of the Turntable being on a voluntary basis because I can see all the questions that can arise because this is such a radially new idea. OVER TIME I feel the qualifiers will see the benefits it allows for judges and contestants and begin to use it  in all the qualifiers. If anyone out there has a specific question please ask me here on this forum.  Now the next step is to see if our officers like this idea enough to advertise it,get people to build the rotating stand and start to use it this coming season if they choose too with or without three views of course. There choice.   Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Mon, 10/22/12, 09:07 AM
No Ken, I do believe Mel is says scrap the 3-views..

Mel, I'm not against new things, I just want to make sure that we keep the "Best of the Best" going.  It's not suppose to be easy to build, detail and win expert.  It's suppose to be somewhat of a challenge.  IMHO

Quote
The rotating turn table will match any angle of the photos. The model itself will represent the color markings etc. against the photos submitted. The same applies for craftmanshipThe model will represent itself and as Ken says the  judge for that is allowed to approach closer to check. He also mentions the use of a three view as a guide. I am not sure about that but is worth thinking about.

Pretty much no 3-views in judging at all.  Also to me would loose those little details in the judging.

Quote
The number of ribs? Yup this may be lost To some extent. Is it lost now to some extent as well?

If it's lost now to some extent, is that not the fault of the judges?  Not the rules?

So, unless you have a picture of the underside of a P-51 stab,  you can't be marked down on the location of the access panels, or anything else for that matter.  So does that mean I could leave them out?  

First, I think Mel, you should put in an official submitting with the plans for the rotating table. I don't think that would be a big issue to get included with the next release of the guild, but you need to hurry.  You should be able to click on the "propose change" on the left side of the front page to start the process.  You can email me a copy of the plans for the table.  I would just start out as a tool to help static judging.

Also Mel, pretty much anything we do is voluntary.  The only place we can mandate the rules is the Champs. We can't and should not try to think that we can impose any rules on any qualifier as exclusive.  Unlike IMAC, USSMA is not the only game in town for Scale Competition.  Those who want to fly IMAC style competition only have one place to go, IMAC so they can impose what they want.  Whereas we are not, you can fly in the NATS, or a club can just fly AMA rules only and not worry about USSMA. Many of the east coast qualifiers are move AMA rules than USSMA, but if you exclude them, you will exclude 3 of the biggest qualifiers in the country. Mint Julep, NATS and Top Gun (not AMA rules, but not USSMA rules) which between the 3 we get close to 50% of the qualified pilots.

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: j_whitney on Mon, 10/22/12, 09:08 AM
Mitch - do you see any reason why it could not be included in the Guide, in the section with the sketch of "dual judging"?  (where the judges are in the middle and there are static tables front and rear)
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Mon, 10/22/12, 09:15 AM
No Jeff, check my second to last paragraph in the my last post...

--Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Mon, 10/22/12, 12:10 PM
Good morning troops. I truly am pleased with everyone's comments. Please go to page 2  of this forum ans see post 24. It will show the rotating stand the items it takes to make one etc. as a matter of fact see the various comments that surround that post.     Mitch is correct I would like to see the three views go away. BUT!  As I have explained this may take a lot longer than I expected. So maybe the choice is the way to go.
Mitch and others are correct we may lose this and that.  As a long time modeler I cannot see someone building a scale plane and leaving a door off for example. We build for ourselves first not for a judge. I do not really know how to explain this but in lieu of the correct words I have to ask. Have we somehow gotten ahead of ourselves,the world is different today. There are many different facets to our hobby. We have to compete with far more events such as funflys,WW1 events,electrics etc. Not to mention all the other things we do now.  If we would be dumbing down as some say maybe the time has come to do just that and should the time come to make competing tougher we would know how to do it.     Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Lawrence Harville on Mon, 10/22/12, 05:14 PM
who is RCphotog?

without a name it is hard to know if it is someone who is a compeitior or just someone stateing an opnion without having to live under those proposal

Our club site has eliminated fake names  for just this reason  so we know who we are talking to

I know a lot of people but I dont know everyone by their cb handles
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Mon, 10/22/12, 07:15 PM
All I know is his name is Ken.  After I set up the forums I added the "First Name, Last Name" requirement during registration.  I have turned on viewing the first name currently.  Looking at how to limit the viewing of the names to only folks logged into the site.  The mod I am using only has display or no-display option. 

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Mon, 10/22/12, 07:39 PM
Mitch. I tried to post as you said for the change or addition but an error comes up. TOPIC OR BOARD IS MISSING OR OFF LIMITS.     Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mitchell Baker on Mon, 10/22/12, 09:03 PM
Mel it worked.  The forum that goes to is a closed forum.. right now for admins only.  Your only the second person to use it .. thanks.. but I got the info.. I popped you an e-mail as well..

See-ya
Mitch
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: paulsf86 on Thu, 10/25/12, 11:49 PM
Leaving pictures or 3 views out to escape judging certain parts of the airplanes does not seem to work.  At the championships a couple of years back, I was asked for documentation that I had left out.  The areas of the airplane were judged anyway.  The judging was very fair but still included

Paul S
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Jeffrey Pike on Fri, 10/26/12, 11:59 PM
So much of this sport relies on the honor system. It always will. We all know each other. Do we cheat our friends for a trophy? I know the fix is in sometimes, but so be it. Only a fool would be disappointed after spending thousands when cheated out of a trophy. It is about the oos and ahhs we get, if we get cheated sometimes, so be it. I still have fun. I use as many 3 views as I can find, a plastic model if available and photos to shape my model. I pick the closet three view and correct the obvious errors in the three view based on all of my research. If there are those that correct their three views to reflect the errors in their model, well shame on them. I am still gonna' have fun. The judges need a three view to make their job manageable.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Fri, 11/02/12, 10:38 PM
I do not quite understand Jeffreys post. He says he knows the fix is in somtimes. I have never even thought of that in all my years. Then he "CORRECTS" the three views he uses based on this and that. I have to assume that he certainly does know what to do. Then Jeffrey says that the judges need a three view to make their job manageable. I would like to ask Jeffrey to consider again
" knowing" what he now knows about three views especially their quality between airplanes and the huge amount of emphasis on three views that the judges have given them in the past. I seem to have to remind those that seem to focus on cheating that this whole subject has not been about that on my behalf. It has been about an equal chance for everyone.
To continue. As mentioned recently I have sent in to the board the turntable idea to be used by those that would like to try it in their area in 2013 or they will be able to use if approved, the current method as well or use both if they care to. This entire issue is in their hands now. Very little in the rule book would have to be changed where it starts out to say 'if no three view drawing exists" The word exists may say "is used" for example. I do believe that this small change will help to improve attendance simply because there are those that simply do not have the time or knowledge to use the old path of what are many times poor three views and simply want to be judged on their model and photos.  Mel.
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Jeffrey Pike on Sat, 11/03/12, 02:45 AM
To be clear about "fix", I have seen a bright pink model of the Strawberry Bitch B-24 score 100 in static at the Nats. Some of the contests that I have attended over the years, resented "outsiders". I had a flight judge at the Scale Masters Nationals tell me that he flew in a proto type of my model and there is no way it could climb out at 30 degrees and that is why he down graded my score. Judges are regular folks, we all have friends to which we are partial. If we had ten judges and threw out the high and low score, then it may be "about an equal chance for everyone".  I always make a note on the three view about the changes I make and support it with pictures. I have read in the threads about adjusting the three view to the model, but I could care less if it happens. Just like I could care less about three local judges, judging the locals. I go for the fun of compitetion, win or lose. Sure its more fun to win but fun never the less. The judges need a three view in my opinion whether it is "corrected" to reflect the truth, or "fixed" to cover a flaw. We are on the honor system about our documentation and building. I produced a two day scale contest here in Baton Rouge in the 1980's. We would average about 35 models. Our sport/hobby is dying and it is sad. 
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Roly on Sat, 11/03/12, 02:02 PM
Hello Jeff,

I travel all over North America to contests and rarely see the local factor. What I do see is the lack of certified judges and a review for judges to take every couple of years. This lack of review/certification causes inconsistencies and variable results.

I to go for the fun of it and rely on CD's, pilots and judges to send in suggestions for improvements.

Agree on your 3-view comments, as long as they are published they are fine with me. Three views show detail that one may not find in photos.

If one is downgraded the judges should be giving a reason, if not, you get the points back. This should be a rule.

Thanks,
          Roly
Title: Re: Three view stuff and more.
Post by: Mel Santmyers on Sun, 12/22/13, 12:05 AM
FYI.  Something I failed to mention is where we started out on a static judging system. Before the Scale Masters came along we would put our planes on the ground in the middle of a 30 ft circle to be judged. When the Scale Masters started we did the same. Then came the tables we have all come to know.  Now comes the turntable to "assist" with the judging process that sits on the tables we now have. I'm understand some stands are currently under construction even at this early date in preparation for 2014.   
I know we have had a difficult time especially this last year. In spite of this we had a great finals due in part to some new rules for qualifying. So I continue to be positive although I must admit it ain't easy sometimes. I have written a one page letter that I handed out to 30 people at the finals.  In it I spelled out several issues that we have been confronted with and most importantly will be confronted with if we do not change a few things and that's not just our officers but the contestants themselves.  I do not pretend to know it all.  It was based on what I have seen and these are not really bad things. They are just things that happen in a 35 year old organization.  In closing I want to say that in no way should these things curtail your interest in the Scale Masters. They are simply to help our cause as an organization and to give you a tremendous experience in a very busy RC world.   We are heading to a record 5000 hits on this three view site. So it shows a whole lot of interest However your officers need to know what YOU think.   Mel.