U.S. Scale Masters
USSMA General Discussions => USSMA Infomation => Topic started by: Mitchell Baker on Tue, 02/14/12, 11:59 AM
-
Discussion on Bernie's NC post..
Hello US Scale Master members,
2012 is upon us. The one topic from last year 2011 that were brought up over and over again was the scoring methods used today. As all of you know there have been very few changes in the last 20 years if any.
I would like to us this forum to open the floor to ideas both from the management as well as you. Remember the membership of the US Scale Masters will be the ones driving change the BOD will help make the mass wished happen.
Topic for starters:
• Scoring normalization
• K-Factors
• Maneuvers
These are a few of the item talked about. Please chime in and share you views on these topic and any others you feel fitting.
Best regards,
Bernie Boland
-
OK - some discussion. I have no problem with normalizing - IMAC and Pattern have been doing that for years. K-factors is another ball of fur though. Would there be a K-factor for tail-skid vs tail-wheel vs nose-gear? Would multi-wing get a bonus? Would the K-factor be applied over all aircraft types, or a higher K-factor for "tougher" airplanes? In other words, would a Pitts be given the same K-factor for a stall turn or wingover as a Cub?
As far as maneuvers - what exactly do you mean? There is currently no restriction on maneuvers as long as they are prototypical for the airplane being modeled. Unusual maneuvers need to be confirmed with the CD. Seems to me that covers just about anything that could come up.
-
I don't intend to speak for Bernie, but if I remember the conversations at Expo correctly, he was talking about the possibility of assigning K-factors to certain manuevers; not differing types of model aircraft. More difficult manuevers would have higher K-factors; so while there is greater difficulty in performing a higher K-factor manuever, the scoring reward for doing it correctly is also higher.
-
As Jeff said, there are really no restrictions on maneuvers so would you have maneuver categories? Or just start limiting the maneuvers? I could see having them on the mandatory maneuvers, but then should the K-factor for a tail dragger landing or takeoff be the same for a tric-gear? Or a WWI with a tail skid? Lots to think about.. Also, the further we get away from AMA rules, the hard it's going to be to get new/current contests to use USSMA rules. Just my 2cents...
--Mitch
-
I say leave things the way they are. Just learn to fly better...and yes...that includes me....if I ever get my hands back on the sticks. ;D
Modelers/pilots need to practices more. "Don't rule the program to death". In my eyes the wheel is already round. To add a little cleaner on it doesn't hurt. The flight scoring is fine the way it is...leave it alone.
-
I have some questions about normalization?
Will that be implemented for each qualifier for placing? or just for the newly proposed points competition?
If for qualifier placement, then how are you going to include events like
- Top Gun
- Mint Julip
- NATS
2 of which are AMA events using AMA scoring but are all qualifiers, and I might add 2 if not 3 of the largest qualifiers in the country.
It would be nice to hear from some of those guys on this. Like Paul Cain, Dale Arvin?
See-ya
Mitch
-
Guess no interest in this anymore. --Mitch
-
Guess no interest in this anymore. --Mitch
Be paitent Mitch :) I visit this site weekly and only just today discovered this topic. And an important one it is.
As far as 'K' -factors go, I tend to think that is more appropiate in a contest were everyone is flying the same type airplane. Back in the eighties there was the Hilton Masters of Aerobatics ( full-scale ) in which all contestants flew one of three identical Pitts S2Bs therefore a level playing field was established. 'K-factors' were assigned particular maneuvers. I don't see how this would work and not be very confusing for our model pilots. However, I do try to keep an open mind and am willing to try anything new to keep it fresh and exciting. ;)
I would like to see more consistantcy on the score-sheet format used. At last year's Hemet qualifier, someone decided to use a new and unfamilar flight-score sheet and in doing so made a few contestants upset. I was a fill-in flight judge and heard all the complaints. I also would like to see more space on the flight score sheets for judges feedback. I think it's very important to give as much feedback as practicle especialy at a qualifier. Without feedback, the contestant has no idea how to approach his flying modifications to better his score. This is also very important for the static portion as well. I see so many static score sheets with very little or no judges feedback. This is wrong and if someone "wants" to be a judge then I beleive they owe it to the contestant to provide concise feedback comments. A contestant who spends years crafting a scale model specificaly for competition deserves better from the judges. I think alot more needs to be done regarding the training and recurrent training of the judges before talking about 'K-factors'.
Just my two cents. :-\
Ken Young
-
Hi Ken.. I figured a month was a good wait.. :D Also, a hint, if you look in the upper right-hand of the page, you will see the block where it has your name, number of private messages, etc... The second to last line (or there a bouts) should read "Show unread posts since last visit" if you click on that, you will get a list of all the posts you which are new since last you logged in.. Little caveat on that, if you log out and log back in, those may clear since they would not be "new" since your "last" visit. Also, if there is a thread or forum you are trying to keep track of, you can click on the "notify" tab. This will toggle the system to send you an e-mail when ever 1) a topic is replied to or 2) on a board/forum will e-mail you when a new thread/topic is started. Should not overload you e-mail system, with the lack of traffic here, should not be a problem..
Now on to your comments, I agree with you on the K factor. The only way I see it working would be if they were only assigned to the mandatory maneuvers and two based on plane-type groups. Then you get into what is fair for plane grouping.
Hemet has been experimenting with new and possibly improved score sheets. It's hard to design something that will fit on one page and give room for all you need. I do know that the USSMA score sheets have a block at the bottom to use for comments, and I guess you can always use the back of the sheet.
Thanks for participating.. we need more.. only way to improve things is for people to give feedback...
--Mitch
-
Why handicap yourself with difficult manuevers? The idea is to convince the judges they are looking at the real thing. The most difficult manuever is to fly it slow enough that it looks real.
-
I think the origin of the K-factor method is in the Aresti code. It was developed based on what was easy or difficult for the Jungmeister, and the end result is a progression of airplane designs that do maneuvers well that were difficult for the Jungmeister, and very similar airplanes in aerobatic competition. Nothing around today that looks as nice as a Jungmeister in the air. New solutions introduce new problems, don't they.
I think variety is best for scale competition and I would think any new rule should be examined in that light.