Steampunk Stunt?

[Scott Richlen]

I've always felt that the removal of originality points has deadened the PA event.  While sometimes the coloration of modern stunt ships can be original, it seems to me that there is a "sameness" to the designs that is a bit boring.  I particularly miss Windy's efforts, such as his twin engines (his B-25 and F7F).  So, when I ran across this picture the other day I thought "gee, I wonder what a Steampunk Stuntship would look like?"

[John Lindberg]

Where's the wing? Gotta have a wing! 

[Tom Vieira]

i've talked with a couple of guys about the judging of stunt....

the sameness is the direct result of the judging.  people know they can win points playing it "safe", so they don't go outside of the mold.

i heard a story about a guy that built an absolutely beautiful WWII fighter as a stunt ship, and gave it an awesome scale paint scheme.  but, the problem was, it wasn't "pretty".  he had painted OEM markings, then sprayed the correct war patterns over it, and, as on the full scale, you could see the lines around the edges from the original under the current.  absolutely correct, but not "pretty".  the guy suffered greatly in appearance points.  no clue who built it or when it happened.

people need to not be afraid of breaking the mold!  it's the only way to pump new life in to a sport.

and now that i've said this, when someday i make it up to the hallowed "L" pad, i'll probably take my hits on points.....!

[Tom Vieira]

that could be pretty bad @$$....!

[Trostle]

i heard a story about a guy that built an absolutely beautiful WWII fighter as a stunt ship, and gave it an awesome scale paint scheme.  but, the problem was, it wasn't "pretty".  he had painted OEM markings, then sprayed the correct war patterns over it, and, as on the full scale, you could see the lines around the edges from the original under the current.  absolutely correct, but not "pretty".  the guy suffered greatly in appearance points.  no clue who built it or when it happened.

It was Ron Burn at a Nats some time ago with an F-4 Wildcat with incredible workmanship and finish when the ED brought in RC Pylon racers to judge appearance points.  Those guys only used how shiny the model is for max appearance points.  By all who have seen this model including myself, the consensus is that it deserved a front row 19 or 20 point score.

I was also witness to the demise of that model at a later contest at Whittier Narrows.

This thread was initiated  for the reinstatement of originality points, not finish.

Keith

[Tom Vieira]

It was Ron Burn at a Nats some time ago with an F-4 Wildcat with incredible workmanship and finish when the ED brought in RC Pylon racers to judge appearance points.  Those guys only used how shiny the model is for max appearance points.  By all who have seen this model including myself, the consensus is that it deserved a front row 19 or 20 point score.

I was also witness to the demise of that model at a later contest at Whittier Narrows.

This thread was initiated  for the reinstatement of originality points, not finish.

Keith

fits the same idea, does it not?  people know the safe formula now, so there is no originality.  so, yes, if you were to reinstate that, voila, you encourage people to step out of the uber conservative box it seems to have become.

sorry for the comments from the lowly beginners circle......

[George Albo]

Put a piped .60 on it, should fly like the Boss. Trimming might be a bit of a problem though     

In all seriousness, that's pretty cool. I likey!

George

[Trostle]

I've always felt that the removal of originality points has deadened the PA event.  While sometimes the coloration of modern stunt ships can be original, it seems to me that there is a "sameness" to the designs that is a bit boring.

I think many would support the idea of reinstating "originality points" as part of the appearance points judging.  The problem with trying to do so is defining what is "original" and what kind of score should be given.  Does putting a round rudder on a Nobler with a shape that has not ever appeared before qualify for what number of "originality" points?  The only things that could receive whatever the maximum originality points are available would be a configuration that has never been seen before say for instance a biplane canard.

Until someone successfully breaks out of the box of using configurations that are essentially "standard"and essentially necessary to successfully  fly competitively in our CL Precision Aerobatics event, the configuration of these models is fairly well established.  The only things that are "original" are in the realm of fuselage shapes, tip shapes, tail shapes, cowl shapes, wheel pant shapes (if used), etc. 

Line up all of the models at any stunt contest, paint them all gray, and they will all look much the same.  What standard or scale should be used to award "originality" points for each of these models.  Yes, one can break out of the box and do something really different, but unless there is some way that performance can be maintained, there would be little incentive to do so other than just to do something different regardless of how poorly the model flies.

Establish the criteria for what constitutes originality and how points are to be awarded and submit a proposal.

That Nobler with a round rudder does not deserve any originality points even if can be made to look nice.

Keith

[Scott Richlen]

I suppose another issue precluding much originality is that, as a majority in the hobby, we are greying.  So, I ask myself "considering the time it takes me to build a top-notch stunt ship, how many do I have left in me?"  Would I want to potentially waste that time on a ship that is rejected because it is "different"?  If we were all in our 20s with years to burn, the attitude might be different.

[John Lindberg]

By the way, what's a Steampunk? 

[Tom Vieira]

By the way, what's a Steampunk? 

compliments of google

steam·punk
/ˈstēmˌpəNGk/

noun
a genre of science fiction that has a historical setting and typically features steam-powered machinery rather than advanced technology.
"if you like steampunk, this is a great book for you"
a style of design and fashion that combines historical elements with anachronistic technological features inspired by science fiction.
"the essence of steampunk is homage to vintage fashion with a modern, sassy twist"

[Trostle]

Would I want to potentially waste that time on a ship that is rejected because it is "different"? 

If it looks "different" than anything else and it performs well, then it would be worth a few extra points for originality if the goal is to score well at a contest.  If the desire is to just be different, then it might satisfy the person doing it.  Again, come up with the criteria for originality and establish an appropriate range of points and submit a proposal.

I think you will find it difficult to define what originality means for our event and to establish a score that is appropriate.  That is one of the reasons the "originality" points were discarded in the first place.

Keith

[Tom Vieira]

so, originality points would be awarded AFTER static judging?

i dunno, that would seem that it would cause bias either during the judging or the flying portions....

[Trostle]

so, originality points would be awarded AFTER static judging?

i dunno, that would seem that it would cause bias either during the judging or the flying portions....

Nothing was said that "originality points would be awarded AFTER static judging".

It would be logical that "originality" points would be awarded as part of what is now called appearance judging.  It would provide for more "appearance" points the same as originality points were awarded when "originality" was a portion of appearance points.

How would the award of appearance points, however derived, "cause bias during the judging or the flying portions..." affect the flying portion of a contestants score any more than what appearance points do now, if there is any affect at all?

Keith

[Tom Vieira]

"f it looks "different" than anything else and it performs well, then it would be worth a few extra points for originality if the goal is to score well at a contest.  If the desire is to just be different, then it might satisfy the person doing it.  Again, come up with the criteria for originality and establish an appropriate range of points and submit a proposal."

the way you made it sound, if someone tried an original design, but it didn't work well, how could it really be worth something.

that being said, same goes for someone having a bad day in the circle.  could be an original idea, and work famously, but, he just wasn't "there" that day.

as for bias, some judge thinking "it'll never work" and dinging him for that, and then if same judge is also at his circle, and it does work, hitting old curmudgeon mode and not wanting to admit he could have been wrong, causing further point degradation.

thus the problems with subjective scoring an no real appeal process....

[Scott Richlen]

I think you will find it difficult to define what originality means for our event and to establish a score that is appropriate. 

That assumes that you have to specifically define "originality" before you can award points on that basis, otherwise the point-awarding would be subjective.  The problem with that line of thought is that even now our point awarding is subjective as it depends on the judgement of an individual.  When you look at someone's wing-over and give it, say, 36 points, what's the specific basis?  And since your fellow judge may have awarded the same maneuver 33 points, obviously there is subjectivity of judgement going on.  And note in 4.9.3 of the judging guide the implicit assumption of the individual judges assessment as to the quality of the maneuver.  So, originality is something that I can recognize the same as I can consecutive loops.  This is not to say that all of our recognitions would be the same.  But that sort of puts the fun into the sport.

If we need more specificity we could define originality as "the degree to which features and form of a stuntship are not commonly seen or have not previously been seen"  i.e., the degree of Un-Noblerness or Un-Thundergazerness of the model.   

I do admit that I'd have to agree with you if you had said

I think you will find it difficult to get people to agree on the definition of what originality means for our event and to establish a score that is appropriate. 

  Without this dialectic (in the broader sense) there wouldn't be many posts on StuntHanger.

[Scott Richlen]

That occurred at the Norfolk, VA Nats.  We were absolutely stunned when we walked into the room and there it was, Ron Burn's F4F Wildcat, in the dead last row.  It is nice to see a "shiny" stuntship, but it shouldn't be an unspoken requirement for a top appearance score.  A warbird doesn't need to be shiny, in fact, shouldn't be.  A semi-scale Super-Hornet should be able to be painted that flat Navy Grey, just like the real thing and should get a merited score with no lack-of-shinyness demerits.