Mechanics of Integrating Expert into the Nats

[Howard Rush]

 
So, altered proposal. For Open, take 75% or 20, whichever is less, rounding up to the nearest even number. For ADV/EXP, take 50% or 16, whichever is less, rounded up to the nearest even number.

To keep Friday with approximately the same number of flights as now, assuming adequate attendance, we should take a maximum of 5 per circle (2 or 3 if we use four circles) for each of Expert and Advanced.  Keeping the same numbers is what the esteemed EC voted for.  I plotted up some charts of how many advance to the next round for the 50% and 75% scenarios for both 2-circle and 4-circle qualification rounds. Rather than rounding up, I took the closer number to 50% or 75% in each case.  I also ensured that at least one guy gets eliminated in each qualification group. Plots are attached.  It takes at least 24 entries to get the full 20 for Open using your 75%, and 18 entries to get the full 10 for Advanced or Expert using your 50% (for the two-circle case).  Looks OK to me, but you guys might think about what happens in the future if entry distribution gets skewed in a way we don't now anticipate.  It would be nice not to have to change the process.  

These charts aren't really necessary, RJ, but it's the sort of thing we do to understand the situation.

I edited the first sentence August 9 to fix the numbers.  It's kinda moot after Steve introduced the idea of setting the number of circles as a function of entries.

[Howard Rush]

RJ says, "It's easy; you do it."  I've heard that somewhere before.

Seems like you guys are overthinking the situation. Appears pretty basic to me
but I am just a simple kind of guy. I think it is a great idea and dead easy to do
with virtually no impact on the overall operation.

It's easy to do if you improvise about how to structure the contest, seed and balance the circles arbitrarily, and pick finals judges randomly.  If you: 1) use an objective seeding system that works, 2) have qualification rounds that actually eliminate some contestants, 3) balance the circles fairly, 4) select finals judges objectively, 5) pick flight orders at random and hand out printouts at the pilots' meeting, and 6) announce in advance of the contest exactly how everything will be done including the formulas for seeding, judge selection, and how many guys advance to the semifinals and finals, it's still kinda easy, but does require the effort that you are making fun of. 

Step back, think easy and just do it.

You talkin' to me?

[Brett Buck]

Seems like you guys are overthinking the situation. Appears pretty basic to me
but I am just a simple kind of guy. I think it is a great idea and dead easy to do
with virtually no impact on the overall operation.

    Well you would hope that, as a competitor, it was invisible and looked easy. So far it almost always has been that way from the outside. But the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes can be absolutely astronomical, and if it isn't carefully thought through, can create an absolute shambles. The fact that most people think this would be easy is a tribute to the people who have been involved for years/decades toiling away.

     And, in fact, if all this were done manually, as it was for years, then it would be simple - and incredibly labor-intensive with people working from dawn to 3 in the morning. If you are going to automate parts of it, then you definitely need to plan ahead and test the automation. You mention landing men on the moon. You know what the biggest likely holdup there would be on repeating the moon landings? Software development.

    Brett

[RC Storick]

. You mention landing men on the moon. You know what the biggest likely holdup there would be on repeating the moon landings? Software development.

    Brett

No doubt they landed on the moon with no more computing power than a pocket calculator and Applo 13 returned from space using navigation of the stars form the 1600s , maybe we are overthinking everything. The old ways work and are less complicated.

[Dennis Moritz]

I guess one element of the Expert Class inclusion at the NATs is the diminished credibility of sandbagging in Advanced when flying Expert on the local level. I am neutral on that issue. Since my inclination is the opposite. The mechanics of how to include Expert is complicated by the overlap of Expert and Open. Both sets of fliers would, by current PAMPA definition, be flying at the same flying skill level. The distinction between the two classes a function of compliance or non compliance with BOM provisions. Seems to me the most likely effect would be to reduce the Open field, perhaps bellow the magic 20 plus. What do you do then? Fly two days to get top 10? Fly another day to get top 5. Fly a final day to determine the winner? Is there a persuasive rational, if the numbers in Open fall bellow 20, to continue with a 4 day format? 3 days or 2 days would be enough. I have attended local meets with over 20 participants in a class. These competitions have been completed in 1 day.

[Dennis Moritz]

I guess one rational for the inclusion of the Expert class is to justify tightening up the BOM requirement in Open. Perhaps an inclusion of a photographic documentation of a build would be appropriate. Easy enough to do these days. Given the prevalence of digital photography. Much as scale modelers need to document the full size airplane on which they model. So. The controversy of who planked a foam wing, or who built a wing, less covering, or who covered and painted, all this can be established convincingly for models competing in Open. If the documentation cannot be supplied. Then the model can fly in Expert. Where the pilots are of flying ability equivalent to those flying in Open.

[Brett Buck]

No doubt they landed on the moon with no more computing power than a pocket calculator and Applo 13 returned from space using navigation of the stars form the 1600s , maybe we are overthinking everything. The old ways work and are less complicated.

   If you are going to the moon, you may have a point. Although when you do eventually crash one of them, you get to go to Congress and explain why you killed 3 American heroes using risky semi-manual and relatively unreliable equipment when the average 10-year-old girl more computing power in her phone than you did on the entire planet in 1969. Saturn V/Apollo missions were expected to have a major/catastrophic failure rate of about 10%. And while there aren't sufficient stats, the observed catastrophic failure rate was 14% (leaving out Apollo 16 where a whole bunch of stuff was down to single-string, narrowly avoiding failure). Look what happened when the shuttle had a failure rate of 1.6%.

    For the NATs, you are volunteering to fill in ~1600 scoresheets by hand with no mistakes in a day and a half? Then do maybe 500 of them overnight (between end of qualifying and beginning of the finals) and also do the judge stacking plots by hand? Oh, and tabulating them all for 8 hours straight every day for 4 days? All with no software help? And then get reamed for decades, called names, and threatened with death (literally) for even a fair result?  Because that was the old simple way.

     Man, this is great, people are stepping up all over the place.

   Seriously, the fact that only a few people appreciate the magnitude of the problem tells you how well this has been done in the past. But it was only done this well in the past because a few people spent endless hours working on the details - just like we are doing in this thread. It's just that this time, you are seeing it played out. It's important.

     Brett
  

[Derek Barry]

Dave just finished running the Nats and when I spoke to him a few days ago he was still on vacation with the family. He has the worlds coming up soon so I doubt he has put much thought into Expert as of right now, but wouldn't it be his decision on how many people go into the finals. Or maybe Don's?

I still think between 8 and 10 finalist in Expert and Advanced is a safe place to start, regardless of how many people show up.



Derek

[john e. holliday]

I guess one rational for the inclusion of the Expert class is to justify tightening up the BOM requirement in Open. Perhaps an inclusion of a photographic documentation of a build would be appropriate. Easy enough to do these days. Given the prevalence of digital photography. Much as scale modelers need to document the full size airplane on which they model. So. The controversy of who planked a foam wing, or who built a wing, less covering, or who covered and painted, all this can be established convincingly for models competing in Open. If the documentation cannot be supplied. Then the model can fly in Expert. Where the pilots are of flying ability equivalent to those flying in Open.

If you want I can stage all the build photos you want.   Really just ask the person a few questions about the plane they just supposedly built should answer a few about if it was built by that person or not.   Those that can't tell the truth about their build, just have to live with it..

[Dennis Moritz]

It would be challenging to fake some processes. In any case, it's possible to tighten up the definition of a BOM qualifying builder/flier. There seems to be sentiment to do that.

[RC Storick]

It would be challenging to fake some processes. In any case, it's possible to tighten up the definition of a BOM qualifying builder/flier.

that's simple


Or any derivative there of!

[steven yampolsky]

I like Brett's approach of taking the minimum of 50%/75% or 10ppl/20ppl max and round it up to nearest even. It seems simple enough except for using differentmax numbers for open and expert/advanced. Wouldn't it make sense to just pick a single formula and apply it to all classes the same way? For example, take the lower of 66% of total class entries or 14 entrants with 15th placement flying the warm up for the judges. Apply this to every class independently. Seems simple enough, doesn't it?

[Howard Rush]

So go to the effort to show what the ramifications are of what fraction you pick.

[Dennis Moritz]

Using a percentage multiplier, taking the top 66%, or taking the top 34%, 20 the max number, o.k. I can see the logic in that. At what point would you conclude that a 4 day contest was unjustified. For instance, if Open was reduce to 18 fliers, perhaps 10 fliers present choosing to fly Expert instead of Open, the top 1/3 would mean a max of six fliers. Or the top 66% would mean 12 fliers. 2 days to determine top 6, or top 12. 1 day to determine top 5. One day for a fly off. If after the first 2 days of flying you are down to 10 or less fliers. Does it make sense to fly 2 more days.

[steven yampolsky]

So go to the effort to show what the ramifications are of what fraction you pick.

Let me try: http://sdrv.ms/QFNq7g

This is a functional spreadsheed which allows you to play with number of entrants and circles as well as pass ratio and max number variables.

[Howard Rush]

Thanks.  However, I can't get at it.  I get this message:

"The workbook cannot be opened because it contains the following features that cannot be displayed in the browser:

• Sheet protection

Contact the workbook author."

I like the idea of being able to put spreadsheets on the Web.

[Howard Rush]

Using a percentage multiplier, taking the top 66%, or taking the top 34%, 20 the max number, o.k. I can see the logic in that. At what point would you conclude that a 4 day contest was unjustified. For instance, if Open was reduce to 18 fliers, perhaps 10 fliers present choosing to fly Expert instead of Open, the top 1/3 would mean a max of six fliers. Or the top 66% would mean 12 fliers. 2 days to determine top 6, or top 12. 1 day to determine top 5. One day for a fly off. If after the first 2 days of flying you are down to 10 or less fliers. Does it make sense to fly 2 more days.

That's a good point:  what happens at the low end?  I reckon that if an event is too little to split into two qualifying circles, it ought to go to one circle (two different circles and sets of judges, one for each day of qualification).  Then there would be the option of declaring the event done after two days. 

[steven yampolsky]

Thanks.  However, I can't get at it.  I get this message:

how about this?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6826362/nats%20puzzle.xls

[Howard Rush]

That's very cool, Steve.  Using the fewest circles with a maximum number of guys per circle looks like a good way to pick the number of circles to use for a class.  We want to limit the amount of time it takes to do all the flights for a class, yet keep the number of guys per circle per class as high as possible given the time limit.  I think ten is a reasonable max per circle.  I hadn't thought of a class being spread over three circles for the qualifying rounds, but that can be done.  Example: group A flies on circles 1 and 2, group B flies on circles 2 and 3, and group C flies on circles 3 and 1. 

One adjustment is not to use the max-per-circle limit if the number of guys per class exceeds 40, as Open did this year.  We only have four circles on the L-pad.

I would advance a slightly different number of contestants to the next round than you would for certain entry numbers.  I picked the integer closest to the fraction of passage * number per circle, rather than rounding up.  I also imposed the constraint of ensuring that at least one guy gets eliminated in each qualification group, but with your circle allocation method this seldom happens. 

Now how do we fill out the circles with the three classes?

[Dennis Moritz]

I like the four days of tension in Open! (Three days in Advanced. Which I tried out this year. Fabulous.) What. Am I alone in this. I posted the possibility of foreshortening the competition in Open to 3,2, or even 1 day, due to the migrating of Open competitors to Expert, in order to have folks reconsidering the implications of including the Expert Class at the NATs. Won't it be a loss to reduce Open bellow the numbers we have now. Seems to me we have near the minimum number necessary for making the competition over 4 days viable. A 2 day Open competition, or a one day competition, where's the drama in that.

[Doug Moon]

I really doubt there will be a huge migration from Open to Expert.  I just dont see it happening. 

I have been carefully watching this whole thing play out.  Why would there be a migration to Expert from Open?

[RandySmith]

I really doubt there will be a huge migration from Open to Expert.  I just dont see it happening. 

I have been carefully watching this whole thing play out.  Why would there be a migration to Expert from Open?

Hi Doug

There will not be, some people just seem to want to use this thread to try to undo what has been done, and try to get things stirred up again and people arguing again.

regards
Randy

[Howard Rush]

There will not be, some people just seem to want to use this thread to try to undo what has been done, and try to get things stirred up again and people arguing again.

You are welcome to join us in figuring out how to make it work regardless of entry level in the three events.

[Howard Rush]

I like the four days of tension in Open! (Three days in Advanced. Which I tried out this year. Fabulous.)

I think Steve's idea of having number of circles as a dependent variable can keep the same feel for all three classes as we have now for Open and Advanced for any reasonable combination of entries. 

[Howard Rush]

I still think between 8 and 10 finalist in Expert and Advanced is a safe place to start, regardless of how many people show up.

We are shooting for 10 each, per the official proposal, if entry in each is large.  To retain the three-day format and have the first two days accomplish something, there will be fewer than 10 in the finals if entry is paltry.  We're wondering what fraction of a paltry entry should advance to the final.  Download Steve's spreadsheet to get a feel for the issue.  It presents the data better than does the stuff I did above. 

[RandySmith]

You are welcome to join us in figuring out how to make it work regardless of entry level in the three events.

And I did try just that, look and you will see I was the first person to do so....  However that Howard guy could not resist being snotty, and trying to pick a fight, so rather than letting him get his way I just stopped , and will let him talk it out with others

Randy

[steven yampolsky]

One adjustment is not to use the max-per-circle limit if the number of guys per class exceeds 40, as Open did this year.  We only have four circles on the L-pad.

How did you handle it? Did you just evenly spread the fliers on all the circles?

Using the fewest circles with a maximum number of guys per circle looks like a good way to pick the number of circles to use for a class.

Seemed simple enough and it would be easy to explain too!

Example: group A flies on circles 1 and 2, group B flies on circles 2 and 3, and group C flies on circles 3 and 1. 

This makes sense. Another alternative is to always round robin to the right(if looking from the pagoda).

I would advance a slightly different number of contestants to the next round than you would for certain entry numbers.  I picked the integer closest to the fraction of passage * number per circle, rather than rounding up. 

I am not sure I understand that. Would you mind clarifying it at bit?

I also imposed the constraint of ensuring that at least one guy gets eliminated in each qualification group, but with your circle allocation method this seldom happens. 

Circle allocation approach in "nats puzzle.xls" is weighted towards bunching up pilots in the fewest number of circles while maintaining maximum number of pilots per circles in order to keep the workload for judges constant and not increase it.

Now how do we fill out the circles with the three classes?

I am going try and model various permutations of the three class attendance numbers and see what pops up. Since this could be a very large spreadsheet, I need a few "limits" to the model. What limits should I assume for the following:
1) minimum number of entries per class(at what point does the class contest get canceled due to poor attendance?)
2) maximum number of entries per class?
3) how many flights can a set of judges judge per day per circle?

[steven yampolsky]

However that Howard guy could not resist being snotty, and trying to pick a fight

Them combat guys don't see people: they see streamers! Just watch them! They make sudden direction changes and try to cut you off from behind! 

[Howard Rush]

Randy,

What I saw that you wanted was a firm Open semifinals number of 20 and arbitrary seeding, plus including in the requirements whose authority something was.  Here is an attempt at a straight response to those:

Holding to a 20-person Open semifinals if Open entry falls to near 20 is inconsistent with holding qualifying rounds.  

Any hand-meddling with seeding is imprudent for reasons cited above and in the paragraph below.

I don't think requirements need unspecific citations of authority.  I was snotty about that because I thought you were just rubbing it in.  I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.


What I plan to do is to continue trying to figure out how to make this three-class system work for any foreseeable entry distribution, incorporating the proposal that the PAMPA EC accepted, keeping my household chores at bay in the meanwhile.  If you follow the main discussion here, I think you'll see that we are making progress.  I intend to write up a proposal of requirements for a new process incorporating the good ideas guys have written above and whatever else we figure out.  I'll incorporate flexibility as much as possible.   Dave Fitz. and anybody else involved in running future Nats can then take it or leave it.   Other folks can propose what they want, but I'll stick to keeping everything objective.  I think that anybody intending to be a Nats contestant who gets involved with setting up a process for running the Nats that is at all arbitrary is asking for trouble.  If the Nats remains automated and the guy who does the programming will be a contestant, he'd better get the ED to accept objectivity before putting any work into it.

[Howard Rush]

How did you handle it? Did you just evenly spread the fliers on all the circles?

I was referring to your spreadsheet.  I copied it and extrapolated it to more and fewer contestants.  Here's a sample formula from the # of circles column: =IF(AND(A54>$B$4*$B$1,A54<4*$B$4),"Need more circles.",MIN(CEILING(A54,$B$4)/$B$4,4))  Maybe just =MIN(CEILING(A54,$B$4)/$B$4,4) if number of circles is fixed at four.

For more than 40 contestants, we'd just spread them among the four circles.

I am not sure I understand that. Would you mind clarifying it at bit?

It's consistent with my penchant for doing things the hard way.  For example, given 17 guys on 2 circles and shooting for passing 50% to the next round, 50% of 17/2 is 4.25.  I rounded that down to 4, rather than up to 5, so I'd pass 4 from each circle to the next round.  Fractions equal to or greater than .5 I'd round up.    Disregard.  Your way is better. 

Circle allocation approach in "nats puzzle.xls" is weighted towards bunching up pilots in the fewest number of circles while maintaining maximum number of pilots per circles in order to keep the workload for judges constant and not increase it.

The judges judge 4n flights in the qualifications for any of these schemes.  Bunching all one class's flights for a given circle into an hour and a half or so is a virtue because it minimizes weather and judging variation.  Maintaining the maximum number of pilots per circle minimizes the effect of a circle having one more person competing for the same number of next-round spots as another circle.  It also minimizes the effect of "hard" and "easy" circles where talent is disproportionally distributed.  I think your allocation scheme does both well.  

I am going try and model various permutations of the three class attendance numbers and see what pops up. Since this could be a very large spreadsheet, I need a few "limits" to the model. What limits should I assume for the following:
1) minimum number of entries per class(at what point does the class contest get canceled due to poor attendance?)
2) maximum number of entries per class?
3) how many flights can a set of judges judge per day per circle?

1) 1
2) 50 or so   I used 42, which suffices for a demo.  Nothing interesting happens with bigger numbers. 
3) For qualifications, try to balance the circles so that each set sees close to n/2 per day, where n is the total.  

I thought about this a little on my way to get a new clothes dryer. I'll work on it after I get a path cleared through my shop to where it goes.  Because all three classes fly the same number of qualifications flights, you can simplify it to the big one, the middle-size one, and the little one.  However, we might tend to lean toward more circles for Open because the seeding is more reliable.  Also, if it's important to have all judges judge Open fliers,  we might avoid the three-circle scenario.    Unless there are fewer than 11 or so Open fliers, all judges will see Open fliers at least one day.

  

[RandySmith]

Randy,

What I saw that you wanted was a firm Open semifinals number of 20 and arbitrary seeding, plus including in the requirements whose authority something was.  Here is an attempt at a straight response to those:

Holding to a 20-person Open semifinals if Open entry falls to near 20 is inconsistent with holding qualifying rounds.  

Any hand-meddling with seeding is imprudent for reasons cited above and in the paragraph below.

I don't think requirements need unspecific citations of authority.  I was snotty about that because I thought you were just rubbing it in.  I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.


What I plan to do is to continue trying to figure out how to make this three-class system work for any foreseeable entry distribution, incorporating the proposal that the PAMPA EC accepted, keeping my household chores at bay in the meanwhile.  If you follow the main discussion here, I think you'll see that we are making progress.  I intend to write up a proposal of requirements for a new process incorporating the good ideas guys have written above and whatever else we figure out.  I'll incorporate flexibility as much as possible.   Dave Fitz. and anybody else involved in running future Nats can then take it or leave it.   Other folks can propose what they want, but I'll stick to keeping everything objective.  I think that anybody intending to be a Nats contestant who gets involved with setting up a process for running the Nats that is at all arbitrary is asking for trouble.  If the Nats remains automated and the guy who does the programming will be a contestant, he'd better get the ED to accept objectivity before putting any work into it.

Hi Howard

No Where did I say what you stated above, neither in seeding or a firm unchangable TOP 20 in Open, if you go to the very first post to reply to you I said this:

"The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping"
note the word "may"  that means  if possible we should consider keeping it if possible, no where did I say it was carved in stone. If we can keep it fine, if not because of numbers then we will do what is needed.

Assumptions:
1. There will be three events, each having two days of qualification rounds as Advanced and Open do now, per PAMPA directive
2. 20 Open contestants will fly a semifinals to select five contestants for the finals.
3. Up to a total of 10 Expert and 10 Advanced contestants will fly a finals to determine placings.
4. Contestants in each event will be divided into two ,or four groups for qualification rounds.
5. For a given event, an equal number of contestants will be selected to advance from each qualification group.
6. For a given event, the difference in number of contestants in each qualification circle will not exceed one.
7. Ties will be handled per the present program.
8. Seeding will apply using the program we now use, If the pilot does not meet the criteria and warrants seeding the E.D. will handle those pilots


I have stated several times that if possible we should try to keep the top 20, and we should try for the first year to have 10 in Advanced and 10 in Expert for the finals...if... possible. If this is not possible then OK we will have to take less or a percentage.

As far as the Seeding goes, the way it is done now is to use the history of how the pilot did at previous NATs, if the Expert flyer has a history, then fine use the program, If the pilot does NOT have any history, it doesn't matter what class he flies, you will have to use some other method, so that is what I meant be meeting the criteria, I really do not know why that statement by me was hard to understand, you know what the method in use now is.

And again The 2 day format for qualifing is a decision that PAMPA , many years ago made and wanted, it had nothing to do with my wants. It has been in use for decades.

Randy

[Brett Buck]

I have stated several times that if possible we should try to keep the top 20, and we should try for the first year to have 10 in Advanced and 10 in Expert for the finals...if... possible. If this is not possible then OK we will have to take less or a percentage.

As far as the Seeding goes, the way it is done now is to use the history of how the pilot did at previous NATs, if the Expert flyer has a history, then fine use the program, If the pilot does NOT have any history, it doesn't matter what class he flies, you will have to use some other method, so that is what I meant be meeting the criteria, I really do not know why that statement by me was hard to understand, you know what the method in use now is.

  It's certainly a workable issue. You understand why there has to be some sort of plan, but it seems a lot of people don't fully appreciate the amount of work that has to be done up-front to keep from having to wing it at the last minute. This has all been done so seamlessly in the past that it seems easy to the outside observers.

    Brett

[Dennis Moritz]

The Advanced finals will take a big hit. 50% reduction. Over the past five years Advanced entrant numbers have been at times near the number of Open. At times not. Last year the numbers were thin. A few years before much better. The ten slots allocated to the Expert finals are accommodated by the contraction of Advanced. Is there an efficient way to adjust things, if the new event fails to draw enough participants to justify a 10 pilot final? 

[RandySmith]

  It's certainly a workable issue. You understand why there has to be some sort of plan, but it seems a lot of people don't fully appreciate the amount of work that has to be done up-front to keep from having to wing it at the last minute. This has all been done so seamlessly in the past that it seems easy to the outside observers.

    Brett

Yep, I agree, and even when they have had troubles, the People who Ran the NATs handled the problems very well, and made things go much better than they should have.

Randy

[RandySmith]

The Advanced finals will take a big hit. 50% reduction. Over the past five years Advanced entrant numbers have been at times near the number of Open. At times not. Last year the numbers were thin. A few years before much better. The ten slots allocated to the Expert finals are accommodated by the contraction of Advanced. Is there an efficient way to adjust things, if the new event fails to draw enough participants to justify a 10 pilot final?  

There were only 21 people who flew in Advanced this year, so I don't think the "hit" you are talking about blaming Expert for , was the reason the numbers were down.
The Expert event is a first time event, so If we get small numbers, 10 would still be an acceptable number to use. But in the long run , the numbers will be the call of PAMPA and the NATs E.D.  It will not be determined here. I am sure the people that have to run the NATs will look at what many on this thread have suggested, but ultimately , it will be their call.

Randy

[Dennis Moritz]

It makes sense to make the structure as simple as possible the first year in which a new event is included. Adjustments can be made if it is thought to be needed, later.

[RandySmith]

The Advanced finals will take a big hit. 50% reduction. The ten slots allocated to the Expert finals are accommodated by the contraction of Advanced.  

So, what crystal ball are you gazing into, your saying we will have 10.5 people in Advanced next year? and you blame Expert for it's demise?
Will you blame Advanced for the decline in Intermediate?
Will you blame Intermediate for the decline in Beginner?

Why are you trying to place blame, on anything ,that you really have no idea will or won't happen in the future?

Randy

[Dennis Moritz]

Actually the pilots who signed up were more than 21. But there were crashes. In years past the numbers competing in Advance were larger. I looked back over five years. Like I stated. Certainly this year having 20 Advanced fliers in the finals was not justified.

[RandySmith]

It makes sense to make the structure as simple as possible the first year in which a new event is included. Adjustments can be made if it is thought to be needed, later.

Which is exactly what I did

Randy

[Dennis Moritz]

Please. I am not blaming anything on anything. Don't be so thin skinned. At least when I'm tapping.

[RandySmith]

Actually the pilots who signed up were more than 21. But there were crashes. In years past the numbers competing in Advance were larger. I looked back over five years. Like I stated. Certainly this year having 20 Advanced fliers in the finals was not justified.

No One said it was, That is one of the reasons I suggested taking 10 Advanced pilots to finals

and by the way, I was there also and know how many signed up, that is why I said 21 pilots **flew** I didn't say that was the number that entered. remember we take the final numbers from the circles, and if 1 more had dropped out we would have qualified 100% of all Advanced pilots this year.

Randy

[Dennis Moritz]

Right.

[RandySmith]

I just hope we can keep the numbers up, so the qualifying rounds will mean something, But if this economy keeps falling we may be in much worse trouble.
I would really  "not"  like to see a 1 day flying session, and then have people go home after 1 or 2 ,  8 min flights.

Randy

[Dennis Moritz]

I totally agree. The 4 day drama of Open. Fabulous.

[Howard Rush]

I think we can make it work and work out in advance what to do for any combination of entrants.  We don't have to guess numbers, then have the Nats turn out crummy, then take another guess for 2014.  Please, guys, go back and read the how-many-advance-to-the-finals analyses, particularly Steve's spreadsheet.  Next is how to balance circles for all combinations of entrants using Steve's idea for circle allocation.  I'll take a cut at it, but I'd like other input.  It looks like it will be fun to figure out. 

[Howard Rush]

I would really  "not"  like to see a 1 day flying session, and then have people go home after 1 or 2 ,  8 min flights.

That's the reason for the effort here: to keep the existing format and Dennis's drama. 

[Howard Rush]

It makes sense to make the structure as simple as possible the first year in which a new event is included. Adjustments can be made if it is thought to be needed, later.

But no simpler than possible to have it work.   

[Howard Rush]

I labeled the three events L, M, and S, where L is the largest, M is the middle-size one, and S is the smallest.  For qualifications, it doesn't matter which event is which: everybody flies four flights, two before one set of judges and two before another set.  We can pick the circles (groups, actually) the L event uses and fill in the other events where they fit.  Filling in the other events is the hard part.  The attached .PDF shows how Steve's scheme would distribute up to 42 L-event guys to circles. 

All the combinations of up to 42 entries for each of the three events fit into Excel, one per row.  It takes a lot of rows, but less than 42^3.  Now to figure out a method to squeeze in the other two events.  It's probably easy, but I can't see how to do it yet.

[John Leidle]

 Funny, I suggested getting a longer qualification like 6 flights over 3 days & I just read something about a 1 day qualifiying round... when gets to that I'll stay home & watch it on Channel 7.
    John

[Howard Rush]

I think I figured out how to distribute the events over four groups (the groups get mapped into Circles 1-4 by a random draw at the Nats pilots' meeting).  Where L is the number of entries in the largest event, M is the number of entries in the middle-size event, and S is the number of entries in the smallest event, and we use 10 as Steve's max-per-circle number,

If L < 11, the largest event will go to group A
If 10 < L < 21, the largest event will be divided between groups A and B
If 20 < L < 31, the largest event will be divided among groups A, B, and C
if 30 < L, the largest event will be divided among all four groups

If M < 11, the middle-size event will go to group D
If 10 < M < 21, the middle-size event will be divided between groups C and D
If 20 < M < 31, the middle-size event will be divided among groups B, C, and D
if 30 < M, the middle-size event will be divided among all four groups

Now is the interesting part.  First, assign the largest and middle-size events to groups.  Then,

If S < 11, the smallest event will go to the (or a) group with the smallest L + M population
If 10 < S < 21, the smallest event will be divided between (the) two groups with the smallest L + M population
If 20 < S < 31, the smallest event will be divided among (the) three groups with the smallest L + M population
If 30 < S, the smallest event will be divided among all four groups

I think that'll work. It should give a maximum circle population difference of ten, but judges could have a heavy circle one day and a light circle the other day.  For a given event, the maximum circle population difference is one, as it is with the current system.  I am working on a VBA Excel program to do this.  When I get it finished, I'll hose it around and you can enter different combinations of event entries and see how it distributes them.