stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Howard Rush on August 01, 2012, 02:05:20 PM
-
Here is some analysis on how to integrate a new Expert class into the Nats. I shall attempt to write this straight, reserving snotty or assholistic comments to answer any responses I feel warrant them. I first want to discuss requirements, which would be the same whether the Nats process is done by hand or by machine. This post is in two parts (so far).
Assumptions:
1. There will be three events, each having two days of qualification rounds as Advanced and Open do now.
2. Up to 20 Open contestants will fly a semifinals to select five contestants for the finals.
3. Up to a total of 20 Expert and 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.
This year we had too few Advanced contestants to have a meaningful qualification. This wasn't a big deal, but to let it get worse would be at least judge abuse, plus a waste of time and money. Next year we don't know how many contestants to expect in any of the three events. I propose we (or you) have a variable number, based on entry, with the criteria published several months in advance. Here is what I recommend for Open-- or more generally, for any event split among four circles selecting five from each circle to advance to the next level. I added a requirement that at least one person be eliminated from each qualification circle. I used Brett's criterion of taking approximately 75% to the next level when entry is less than 24, while still eliminating at least one person per circle. The table below shows the outcome:
-
Hi Howard
Can we also assume, and include the format below? The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping
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
Randy
-
The proposal that the PAMPA EC accepted mentions adding Expert to the two qualifying circles we use for Advanced, and picking ten Advanced contestants and ten Expert contestants for the finals. The current process is to use four circles, each of which has a quarter of the Open contestants and a quarter of the Advanced contestants. In keeping with the spirit of this proposal, but generalizing it to contend with any entry level, we probably should consider a process to pick approximately 40 people to fly Friday that accommodates any combination of event entries. For example, if we get 20 Open entries, 30 Expert entries, and 10 Advanced entries, it would be silly to take 20 Open, 10 Advanced, and 10 Expert fliers to the finals. I think it might be OK to simplify it to the following:
1. Spread Open over four circles. Use the table above to pick the number of semifinalists.
2A. Spread Advanced between two circles, using the table below to pick the number of finalists.
Spread Expert between two circles, using the table below to pick the number of finalists.
OR
2B. Spread both Advanced and Expert over four circles, using the table above to pick the number of finalists, advancing a maximum of three from each circle for the greater attended of the two events and two from each circle for the lesser attended of the two events. This gives the requisite total of 20 without taking 2.5 for each event from each circle.
Using four circles for an event has the advantages of minimizing weather and judging variation, but has the seeding and quantization problems Brett mentioned. I'll show some charts illustrating the difference in fraction of contestants among circles making the finals for different scenarios. For example, if 15 guys fly Advanced on four circles, and 2 guys from each circle go to the finals, that's 2/3 of those on the 3-person circle and 1/2 of those on the 4-person circles, a difference of 17%. Behold that half the two-circle cases have the same number of guys on each circle, but only 1/4 the four-circle cases do.
-
Hi Howard
Can we also assume, and include the format below? The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping
(Clip)
Howard and Randy,
This may not be the appropriate place to mention this but the following occurred to me after reviewing the longer thread that precipitated this one. It has to do with predicting with any realistic hope of success what the spread of entries in classes is apt to be and whether that will effect any program utilized to handle the processes involved..
The tenor of comments supporting the change implies that it is expected that some of the fliers now electing to fly Advanced but with skills commensurate with Expert Level scores will move from Advanced to Expert thus freeing the Advanced group of people who have previously felt Open was too competitive—or should be the province of “Masters”. We had 21 Advanced entries who flew this year all of whom I watched fly and about 1/3 of whom I thought exhibited higher than “normal” expertise for Advanced. If seven of the 21 opt to fly Expert that will leave a possible 14 Advanced entries.
The corollary expectation in Open seems to be that some percentage will opt to “step down” from the Open Category to find relief from the “usual suspects”. This year we had something like 45 who flew Open. A drop of 1/3 from that would leave 30 Open contestants; a better outlook than for Advanced whose projected numbers would be approaching “modest”.
Using the same assumptions, the expert event, on the other hand would pick up 15 from Expert and seven from Advanced plus the 25 to 30 that Randy has determined will be new attendees attracted by the Expert Class.
The result would be something on the order of: Advanced, 14 entries, Open, 30 entries, Expert, somewhere between 47 and 52 entries. The grand total would be somewhere between 91 and 96 entries. A substantial increase but not particularly well balanced. It might be worth considering the potential for such disparate numbers into your discussion of formatting and the necessary digital doodling to make it all work smoothly.
Ted
-
, per PAMPA directive
This is unnecessary. Stop selling and pay attention.
Can we also...?
No. You cannot both have a fixed and variable number of Open semifinalists.
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
The seeding program will have to be modified for Expert. I mentioned Expert seeding weighting as an example of omitted detail and have seen no suggestions.
What do you mean, "does not meet the criteria"?
Arbitrary seeding is a bad idea. One of the conditions I made when I wrote the program you guys think is so trivial is that everything be open and objective. I wanted this because any whiff of arbitrariness could give losers an excuse to accuse me, a contestant, of giving myself an advantage. The openness and objectivity turned out to be a real boon with benefit well beyond my selfish reason for demanding it. I thought Shareen and Warren did a great job, but their arbitrary seeding gave losers a pretense to abuse them. That problem disappeared. If you don't like Paul's seeding method, I again suggest you devise a different objective formula. It's harder than winging it, but it makes for a lot better contest.
-
Ted,
That's what I meant about having a scheme to pick 40 people to fly Friday accommodating any combination of event entries. You might not want to pick 20 out of 30 Open contestants and 10 out of 50 Experts. If you think some peculiar combination might happen, come up with a three-dimensional (the three events) chart of how many from each event go to Friday. Trying to do that hurt my head, so I just simplified it per my second post above.
-
This is unnecessary. Stop selling and pay attention.
Howard you are being snotty, I am not selling , PAMPA did do this many years ago..it has Nothing to do with the Expert proposal, I mentioned this because of the 2 days the PAMPA decided they wanted , this will still be PAMPA's and David's call Not mine
No. You cannot both have a fixed and variable number of Open semifinalists. I didn't ask for a variable, I asked for FIXed on OPEN for the reasons stated
The seeding program will have to be modified for Expert. I mentioned Expert seeding weighting as an example of omitted detail and have seen no suggestions.
The suggestion was to use the program criteria of those who have placed at the NATs in the past years Howard, just as we do now
What do you mean, "does not meet the criteria"? I mean someone who has never flown at the NATs before and has NOT a history to seed them by
Arbitrary seeding is a bad idea. One of the conditions I made when I wrote the program you guys think is so trivial is that everything be open and objective. I wanted this because any whiff of arbitrariness could give losers an excuse to accuse me, a contestant, of giving myself an advantage. The openness and objectivity turned out to be a real boon with benefit well beyond my selfish reason for demanding it. I thought Shareen and Warren did a great job, but their arbitrary seeding gave losers a pretense to abuse them. That problem disappeared. If you don't like Paul's seeding method, I again suggest you devise a different objective formula. It's harder than winging it, but it makes for a lot better contest.
As I said Howard I DO LIKE Paul's method of seeding, But it may not work for a NEW pilots that has NEVER been to the NATs, we could have a World Champ come to fly and he would not be seeded using the method we now use, That is why we have an E.D. so problems like this can be dealt with ,if ,needed.
[/size][/size]
-
Hi Howard
Can we also assume, and include the format below? The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping
(Clip)
Howard and Randy,
This may not be the appropriate place to mention this but the following occurred to me after reviewing the longer thread that precipitated this one. It has to do with predicting with any realistic hope of success what the spread of entries in classes is apt to be and whether that will effect any program utilized to handle the processes involved..
The tenor of comments supporting the change implies that it is expected that some of the fliers now electing to fly Advanced but with skills commensurate with Expert Level scores will move from Advanced to Expert thus freeing the Advanced group of people who have previously felt Open was too competitive—or should be the province of “Masters”. We had 21 Advanced entries who flew this year all of whom I watched fly and about 1/3 of whom I thought exhibited higher than “normal” expertise for Advanced. If seven of the 21 opt to fly Expert that will leave a possible 14 Advanced entries.
The corollary expectation in Open seems to be that some percentage will opt to “step down” from the Open Category to find relief from the “usual suspects”. This year we had something like 45 who flew Open. A drop of 1/3 from that would leave 30 Open contestants; a better outlook than for Advanced whose projected numbers would be approaching “modest”.
Using the same assumptions, the expert event, on the other hand would pick up 15 from Expert and seven from Advanced plus the 25 to 30 that Randy has determined will be new attendees attracted by the Expert Class.
The result would be something on the order of: Advanced, 14 entries, Open, 30 entries, Expert, somewhere between 47 and 52 entries. The grand total would be somewhere between 91 and 96 entries. A substantial increase but not particularly well balanced. It might be worth considering the potential for such disparate numbers into your discussion of formatting and the necessary digital doodling to make it all work smoothly.
Ted
Ted
What I said was 15 new pilots , I thought would enter EXPERT, I never said there would be 47 to 52. and also you forgot to mention that the Advanced ranks could be helped out by Intermediate flyers now coming up, if the EXPERTS that fly Advanced were vacated, and also some who don't enter because of that.
This is all a guess on mine and your parts, no one know for sure what will happen.
Randy
-
"Howard you are being snotty"
I am aware of that.
"didn't ask for a variable, I asked for FIXed on OPEN for teh reasons stated"
That is not "also assume, and include". I proposed a change to a variable number of semifinalists in case Open entries fall below 24, for reasons we both stated. We can debate whether the Top 20 tradition and Rookie of the Year numerology outweigh having judges stand in the sun for two days for naught.
"I mean someone who has never flown at the NATs before and has NOT a history to seed them by"
Another problem is guys who haven't flown lately. Suppose Les McDonald and Jim Casale show up to fly stunt. Come up with a method you think will work and write it down.
"That is why we have an E.D. so problems like this can be dealt with ,if ,needed."
The dark-horse problem pales (how's that for a metaphor?) beside the ED-picking-winners problem. If you don't fancy the bother of writing a better objective seeding method, find some drone to do it. This drone thinks Paul's suffices.
-
"This is all a guess on mine and your parts, no one know for sure what will happen."
Hence the analysis.
-
Hi Howard
Can we also assume, and include the format below? The tradition of Top 20 OPEN along with Rookie of the year may be worthwhile keeping
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
Randy
I think that 20 people for Top 20 day for Open is a good goal. The problem will come when there are so few entrants that qualifying becomes a fun-fly. If we are insistent that this be maintained (please do not use the word "directive"...), then the clear solution is to seed the ADV/EXP/Open over the 4 circles evenly just like now, and take 5 from each circle.
If you take less than 20 in Open (which I think should be seriously considered) then I would suggest segregating Open into 2 circles and flying EXP/ADV in the other two circles to reduce the quantization issue.
I would note that for the "everybody together across 4 circles" plan, you can't take 10 people for ADV and EXP finals. It would have to be 8, 12, 16, or 20 (i.e. divisible by 4). I don't think that we should ever, ever try to take, say, 2 people from one circle and 3 from another (necessary to get 10 total) because that requires some ranking across the different circles. This has even more severe "quantization" effect than it does in Open, since ADV and EXP seeding is so dubious due to lack of reliable data.
After having thought it through some more, this is what I propose - Break the entrants into two groups. When you find out what the entry will be (after entry closes, not on pre-entries), take the two smaller classes and fly them together on two circles, and fly the large class by itself on the other two. In all cases, take some fraction of the total, up to 20, to fly in the finals. On Top 20 day, same sort of thing, take the largest group and fly it on two of the circles, and the two smaller ones on the other two. Worst-case it will double number of flights in one set of circles but it's no worse than qualifying days. In a realistic case you will probably wind up with something less than that because I would be surprised if it ever comes out 20/20/20 after the first few years. Put the Junior and Senior on with the small group on Friday. Still use Top 5 in Open for the fly-off, Walker trophy as normal.
By the way, there's a solution to the skill class placement issue, as well. I don't propose we do this, I merely present it as food for thought. Run everybody together on 4 seeded circles, no classes. Take the Top 20 from qualifying, call that the "A Flight" and have a fly-off for the Championship. Take 20-40, call that "B Flight", and give that some sort of trophy for "B Flight Winner". Nobody has to define themselves in a class, it sorts itself out. It's a completely different way of looking at it (that is used every Friday night most small race tracks in America).
Brett
-
1. There will be three events, each having two days of qualification rounds as Advanced and Open do now, per PAMPA directive
Howard and Brett
The above I typed maybe misunderstood, my meaning was about the Decision made by PAMPA years ago on the 2 day qualifying rounds *ONLY* it had nothing to do with the 3 events we were also talking about, only about giving pilots a chance to fly more than 1 ,8 min flight and then going home after.
I feel this maybe a good thing to preserve also, if we can, and I really do not see any reason we can't keep it intact.
Randy
-
I think that 20 people for Top 20 day for Open is a good goal. The problem will come when there are so few entrants that qualifying becomes a fun-fly.
It starts becoming a fun fly with 23, hence the plan to drop to four semifinalists per circle for fewer than 24.
If you take less than 20 in Open (which I think should be seriously considered) then I would suggest segregating Open into 2 circles and flying EXP/ADV in the other two circles to reduce the quantization issue.
I might put the two-four threshold lower on Open because of the more reliable seeding you mentioned. Unless all three events are tiny, you could put the biggest in Groups 1-4, one of the other two on Groups 1 and 2, and the remaining one on Groups 3 and 4, favoring Open as the four-circle event.
After having thought it through some more, this is what I propose - Break the entrants into two groups. When you find out what the entry will be (after entry closes, not on pre-entries), take the two smaller classes and fly them together on two circles, and fly the large class by itself on the other two.
You will note that if 40-some people fly Open as they did this year, your suggestion would spread their flights over more time. The two-four break should be a function of number of Open (or one of the others if it's way bigger) entrants: it need not be compromised by the additional event.
I would note that for the "everybody together across 4 circles" plan, you can't take 10 people for ADV and EXP finals. It would have to be 8, 12, 16, or 20 (i.e. divisible by 4). I don't think that we should ever, ever try to take, say, 2 people from one circle and 3 from another (necessary to get 10 total) because that requires some ranking across the different circles.
Hence Assumption 5. Randy proposed 10 and 10, but the proposal also says, "The Expert event can be run very easily with the circles and manpower we use now, by simply adding them to the 2 qualifying circles we use for the Advanced class." He said that Advanced is currently run on two circles, which would make 10 and 10 viable.
By the way, there's a solution to the skill class placement issue, as well. I don't propose we do this, I merely present it as food for thought. Run everybody together on 4 seeded circles, no classes. Take the Top 20 from qualifying, call that the "A Flight" and have a fly-off for the Championship. Take 20-40, call that "B Flight", and give that some sort of trophy for "B Flight Winner". Nobody has to define themselves in a class, it sorts itself out. It's a completely different way of looking at it (that is used every Friday night most small race tracks in America).
Food for thought indeed. It might have to wait until all events fly by the same age and BOM rules: replacement of Open with Expert. I like the idea of flying off for skill classes. But then you'd have the sandbaggers holding back in the qualification rounds, but not too much, lest they not make the Advanced (B) finals, then pouring on the coal in the Finals.
-
...giving pilots a chance to fly more than 1 ,8 min flight and then going home after.
I feel this maybe a good thing to preserve also, if we can, and I really do not see any reason we can't keep it intact.
I think everybody agrees to that, and the tables above propose a way to make the qualifications meaningful whatever the entry in each event precisely to preserve the format.
-
The above I typed maybe misunderstood, my meaning was about the Decision made by PAMPA years ago on the 2 day qualifying rounds *ONLY* it had nothing to do with the 3 events we were also talking about, only about giving pilots a chance to fly more than 1 ,8 min flight and then going home after.
I feel this maybe a good thing to preserve also, if we can, and I really do not see any reason we can't keep it intact.
Agreed, that should be maintained and there's no obvious reason it can't. But the qualifying rounds have to mean something. I wouldn't ask the judges to stand out there for two long days just for symbolic purposes.
Brett
-
Agreed, that should be maintained and there's no obvious reason it can't. But the qualifying rounds have to mean something. I wouldn't ask the judges to stand out there for two long days just for symbolic purposes.
Brett
Yes i agree , however I am not too worried about the judges being worked too hard because they are done by early afternoon just after lunch, and they have tents and chairs , so we have done a lot to help that situation. I guess it would be nice to have over 100 flyers there again, and have this problem to worry about.
Randy
-
Yes i agree , however I am not too worried about the judges being worked too hard because they are done by early afternoon just after lunch, and they have tents and chairs , so we have done a lot to help that situation.
You missed my point - if there are only 18 entrants, you don't want to do four rounds of qualifying to select the Top 20. Neither of us are so self-indulgent as to make them stand out there for even an extra hour if it means absolutely nothing. In fact, any Open flier who *didn't* pass all four flights in that situation, I would have to wonder about.
So I think the issue boils down to how to deal with the possibility of reduced entry *per class* for qualifying and the Finals, i.e. how do decide how many people to take for "top 20" day, and then how to set it up for variations. All ahead of time so your software can handle it.
Brett
-
Hi Brett
I didn't miss your point, I got it.
I don't think we will have that problem, But you are correct and I do agree that if we do, we have to be prepared for it.
Thanks for the input.
Randy
-
Top 8 from Advanced (it was that way before) Top 8 from Expert (its new and may not have big numbers) and top 20 from Open (just because, and I don't think that 50% of them will move "down" to Expert). Fly everyone on all 4 circles so that the current format will still work. This will also make Advanced and Expert qualifying "mean" something because it will not be that easy to get into the finals.
Or:
IF we/they/whoever decide to use ten from each group it is not that complicated either. With our current Nats system, lets say that I am on circle 1 on Wednesday and Brett is on 3. On Thursday I am on 3 and Brett is on 1. Aren't he and I technically in the same group because Wednesday's high score is added to Thursday's high score and aren't we actually taking ten from a larger group that is split into two circles but are still flying in front of the same judges? So, couldn't we (in Advanced and Expert) take five people from group 1-3 and five from group 2-4 and still come out with ten for each event as Randy originally suggested? Just food for thought.
Derek
-
Will BOM, as it is applied to in Advanced, apply for Expert? Not sure, what with all the back and forth going on. Thanks. A little off topic, but Derek, what do you use for a clearcoat finish? D>K
-
Will BOM, as it is applied to in Advanced, apply for Expert? Not sure, what with all the back and forth going on. Thanks. A little off topic, but Derek, what do you use for a clearcoat finish? D>K
DuPont 480s but I am having a hard time finding it anymore. Thanks a lot EPA!
Derek
-
Will BOM, as it is applied to in Advanced, apply for Expert? Not sure, what with all the back and forth going on. Thanks. A little off topic, but Derek, what do you use for a clearcoat finish? D>K
There is no BOM requirement in Advanced only appearance points if you did in fact build your own model. And yes it would be the same in Expert. You can fly something that you did not build you just cant expect appearance points for it.
Derek
-
A lot of hasseling over what is going to happen when we don't know for sure how many contestants there will be for any of the classes. I remember the year the joke was going around about Intermediate was going to take top ten to final flights. Joke was there was only nine entries. In my opinion and it can be ignored because I don't fly at the NATS, is a max of ten for final flights in Adv and Exp. Then if not enough in Open, say only 30 or less, only the top ten fly a finals for top 5. H^^
-
A lot of hasseling over what is going to happen when we don't know for sure how many contestants there will be for any of the classes.
The "hasseling" is precisely to generate a plan to handle an unknown number of entries. It's very easy to say "just figure it out on the fly, what's the big deal?", but there is a tremendous amount of work in generating scoresheets and handling judge distribution. All that is handled by software, that has to be designed, written, and tested beforehand, meaning you have to have a plan that both handles variable entry levels but also is sufficiently well-defined to determine the software requirements and where to distribute software-based and manual operations.
That is the reason we are having this discussion at all. This is a devilishly difficult problem, if it seems trivial or petty, you don't understand the issue.
Brett
-
The "hasseling" is precisely to generate a plan to handle an unknown number of entries. It's very easy to say "just figure it out on the fly, what's the big deal?", but there is a tremendous amount of work in generating scoresheets and handling judge distribution. All that is handled by software, that has to be designed, written, and tested beforehand, meaning you have to have a plan that both handles variable entry levels but also is sufficiently well-defined to determine the software requirements and where to distribute software-based and manual operations.
That is the reason we are having this discussion at all. This is a devilishly difficult problem, if it seems trivial or petty, you don't understand the issue.
Brett
Brett is right, I know from experience that "the Program" does not like unexpected changes. It can make your life hell. On the other hand when everything is going as expected the program works great and makes life a lot better for the administration.
Derek
-
Like I said in my earlier post, I think 8 to 10 Expert and Advanced pilots in the finals is a safe number to start with. Just my .02
Derek
-
Like I said in my earlier post, I think 8 to 10 Expert and Advanced pilots in the finals is a safe number to start with. Just my .02
Derek
8 or 10 in each of those events should not be so hard to accept. Yes, a handfull of those who would otherwise qualify would get to fly more, and get bragging rights about "qualifying", but the outcome would not change appreciably in the final placing of those who did not qualify. Except for that bragging right about qualifying, it really is not any more significant about placing 12th with 20 qualifiers, that placing 12th with 10 qualifiers. And the computer programs can make this determination, as well as the determination can be calculated manually. It is not rocket science. The work load on the judges and tabulation is also reduced with no real downside to taking fewer finalists with the scenarios being discussed.
Gee whiz, "Back in the day", often there were only 10 Open finalists at the Nats. I think one year when PAMPA was running one of their early Nats, we had 15 finalists, 5 from each of 3 circles.
Keith
-
Brett is right, I know from experience that "the Program" does not like unexpected changes. It can make your life hell. On the other hand when everything is going as expected the program works great and makes life a lot better for the administration.
This is essentially a software development question. I have worked this sort of issue from many different aspects over the years and there are two things that are critical - get a clear idea what you want to do up front, and make the various functions as modular as possible so when you *do* need to change it, it has a minimal side effects.
Brett
-
8 or 10 in each of those events should not be so hard to accept. Yes, a handfull of those who would otherwise qualify would get to fly more, and get bragging rights about "qualifying", but the outcome would not change appreciably in the final placing of those who did not qualify. Except for that bragging right about qualifying, it really is not any more significant about placing 12th with 20 qualifiers, that placing 12th with 10 qualifiers. And the computer programs can make this determination, as well as the determination can be calculated manually. It is not rocket science. The work load on the judges and tabulation is also reduced with no real downside to taking fewer finalists with the scenarios being discussed.
Gee whiz, "Back in the day", often there were only 10 Open finalists at the Nats. I think one year when PAMPA was running one of their early Nats, we had 15 finalists, 5 from each of 3 circles.
I think we are in agreement that "fewer than 20" is justified in cases where the entry is small enough. Once we get over that hump it's a matter of how to select the number of finalists, and how to arrange the circles to come up with a fair way of doing it.
It was possible to change your plan easily on the fly when it was all done manually. Once you have software involved, you lose some flexibility. I don't think we will find a lot of volunteers to go back to the 3-in-the-morning manual methods.
I would much prefer, in general, qualifying on fewer circles with more taken from each. I much preferred taking 10 each from two groups over 5 each from 4, but that doesn't work if the entries are not even.
Brett
-
"I would much prefer, in general, qualifying on fewer circles with more taken from each. I much preferred taking 10 each from two groups over 5 each from 4, but that doesn't work if the entries are not even.
Brett"
Hi Brett
Agreed I would also perfer that, It would also make seeding not as critical.
Randy
-
Ted
What I said was 15 new pilots , I thought would enter EXPERT, I never said there would be 47 to 52. and also you forgot to mention that the Advanced ranks could be helped out by Intermediate flyers now coming up, if the EXPERTS that fly Advanced were vacated, and also some who don't enter because of that.
This is all a guess on mine and your parts, no one know for sure what will happen.
Randy
Sorry, Randy. I understood you to say at the EC meeting that you had talked to "at least 25" who would come to an Expert event if it were held. If not, I apologize. The 47 to 52 was a composite of your numbers from the EC meeting and those who might potentially move up from Advanced (one source of complaint) and those who might opt to move "down" from Open to avoid competing against the "Masters." I simply felt it was appropriate to make some "reasoned" guess as to what fliers might go where and what resulting Programming parameters might have to be employed for Howard to develop a predictably valid vehicle for accomplishing the administrative tasks. Ted
-
Sorry, Randy. I understood you to say at the EC meeting that you had talked to "at least 25" who would come to an Expert event if it were held. If not, I apologize. The 47 to 52 was a composite of your numbers from the EC meeting and those who might potentially move up from Advanced (one source of complaint) and those who might opt to move "down" from Open to avoid competing against the "Masters." I simply felt it was appropriate to make some "reasoned" guess as to what fliers might go where and what resulting Programming parameters might have to be employed for Howard to develop a predictably valid vehicle for accomplishing the administrative tasks. Ted
Howard who?
-
Sorry, Randy. I understood you to say at the EC meeting that you had talked to "at least 25" who would come to an Expert event if it were held. If not, I apologize. The 47 to 52 was a composite of your numbers from the EC meeting and those who might potentially move up from Advanced (one source of complaint) and those who might opt to move "down" from Open to avoid competing against the "Masters." I simply felt it was appropriate to make some "reasoned" guess as to what fliers might go where and what resulting Programming parameters might have to be employed for Howard to develop a predictably valid vehicle for accomplishing the administrative tasks. Ted
Hi Ted
What i stated in the meeting, and to many others, and wrote online was that I had talked with and knew of about 15 people, I then said that there could be as many as 25 people enter Expert. Again I have no crystal ball and cannot see the exact numbers that will be there, I do know that this economy will have a big effect one way or another, Let's just hope for better in the Future
Randy
-
"I would much prefer, in general, qualifying on fewer circles with more taken from each. I much preferred taking 10 each from two groups over 5 each from 4, but that doesn't work if the entries are not even.
Brett"
Hi Brett
Agreed I would also perfer that, It would also make seeding not as critical.
Randy
But this could complicate the Judge ranking formula (not that I am a big fan of how it is done now) because some judges will never see the Open guys fly. This is also kind of unfair to the judges unless you are upfront with them in the beginning about where they will be judging. It is hard enough to find judges without offending them by putting them in what could be considered the "lower classes".
Sorry guy I am a fan of the current format and I think we could make Expert work within those guidelines.
Derek
-
Once you have software involved, you lose some flexibility.
Once you have objectivity involved, you lose some flexibility. It would be dead easy to do seeding, judge assignment, circle allocation, and circle balancing arbitrarily, either by hand or with software. That would return us to the dark ages of losers raising a stink and volunteers being abused.
Edited to attribute the quote to Brett. Myself, I'd be glad to get credit for stuff Brett says (for the most part).
-
Once you have objectivity involved, you lose some flexibility. It would be dead easy to do seeding, judge assignment, circle allocation, and circle balancing arbitrarily, either by hand or with software. That would return us to the dark ages of losers raising a stink and volunteers being abused.
That quote was not from me?????
Derek
-
But this could complicate the Judge ranking formula (not that I am a big fan of how it is done now) because some judges will never see the Open guys fly. This is also kind of unfair to the judges unless you are upfront with them in the beginning about where they will be judging. It is hard enough to find judges without offending them by putting them in what could be considered the "lower classes".
Sorry guy I am a fan of the current format and I think we could make Expert work within those guidelines.
Unless Open entries fall way below 24, I'd keep it on four circles. That all the judges would get to judge Open in the qualification rounds is another benefit of keeping it as is.
-
But this could complicate the Judge ranking formula (not that I am a big fan of how it is done now) because some judges will never see the Open guys fly. This is also kind of unfair to the judges unless you are upfront with them in the beginning about where they will be judging. It is hard enough to find judges without offending them by putting them in what could be considered the "lower classes".
Sorry guy I am a fan of the current format and I think we could make Expert work within those guidelines.
Derek
I was addressing the what if...if it fell below 20 and we had to do things differently. I would much rather have 50 entries in OPEN and keep the 4 circles also. But if we have to change, I think it best to arrange the format to suit the pilots and the competition rather than have a contest for the judges
Randy
-
I was addressing the what if...if it fell below 20 and we had to do things differently. I would much rather have 50 entries in OPEN and keep the 4 circles also. But if we have to change, I think it best to arrange the format to suit the pilots and the competition rather than have a contest for the judges
Randy
Oh, well hopefully that doesn't happen any time soon. I get what you are saying now.
Derek
-
Derek, I think www.shopforpaint.com has the 480s, certainly appears so. #^
-
I was addressing the what if...if it fell below 20 and we had to do things differently. I would much rather have 50 entries in OPEN and keep the 4 circles also. But if we have to change, I think it best to arrange the format to suit the pilots and the competition rather than have a contest for the judges
I think that in a two-circle plan, you just send Open group 1 to Circle 1, Open group 2 to Circle 2 on Wednesday, and send Open to 3 and 4 on Thursday, every judge gets one day of Open.
-
I think that in a two-circle plan, you just send Open group 1 to Circle 1, Open group 2 to Circle 2 on Wednesday, and send Open to 3 and 4 on Thursday, every judge gets one day of Open.
That works too.
Derek
-
Derek, I think www.shopforpaint.com has the 480s, certainly appears so. #^
Found it! Thanks a bunch John!!!!!!!!
Derek
-
This is a long thread and somewhat confusing. So how about this for running Open and Expert.
First dispense with all the Pre-Game Pageantry.
Open Qualify: Wednesday__3 circles_1 flight on each circle, throw out the low score and sum the two best scores to determine the final 10
Open Finals: Thursday__ 2 circles, 2 flights on each circle (4 total), take the two highest scores for each finalist, add them together and get your winners.
Expert: Friday__3 circles_1 flight on each circle throw out the low score, average the two highest scores__get your winners
Fly the Walker Cup on Friday after the first round of Expert.
Friday Evening: Post Game Pageantry Potpourri (PGPP)
Display all the airplanes, vote and pick the Concurs winner.
Award trophies
Set up a podium in the corner with folding chairs so those who feel compelled to make speeches can do so and those who feel compelled to listen can squat and lend ear.
Serve your food….cocktail wieners, cookies and Alka Seltzer_____or whatever your poison.
Have a Monte Carlo night with airplane stuff as prizes
Too provocative you say, how about airplane stuff Bingo!
Still to provocative?? How about just watch recordings of stunt flights
For those who miss picking ping pong balls for flight order, they will be provided at the PGPP. That way you can see when you could have flown instead of when you did.
Display computers with programs for seeding, printing scores, overhead projecting et al for those who are interested, those who just want to see how they work and those who want to make them work differently
Opps, did I forget appearance points…..my bad!
It’s the NATS for peat sake. You’re not buying a house. Participation won’t be encouraged or increased by exacting even more pain and misery prior to the big event.
If you’re ready, get there on Tuesday, Qualify on Wednesday, win on Thursday.
If you’re NOT ready get there as far in advanced as you need and proceed to Wednesday and Thursday.
QED
-
It looks like the two main issues are: 1) how many in each class advance from the qualification round to the next round and 2) circle allocation. It looks like these are sufficiently independent to be considered separately, so how about considering #1 first?
1. I have been thinking that the number of contestants advancing to Friday in each event should be a function of the number of entries in all three events. Do you think that the number of contestants advancing to Friday in each event can be a function only of the number of entries in that individual event? That would be a nice simplification if it's justified. For example, if you get 8 in Expert and 30 in Advanced and go by the chart in the second post in this thread for Expert, do you take 6 in Expert and 10 in Advanced to the finals, or do you take 6 and 14 to give a total of 20? Please consider all combinations of entries among the three events when coming up with an answer.
My charts above are based on Brett's 3/4 criterion, plus the requirement to eliminate at least one person in each qualification group, as stated in the first post. I have since received suggestions off-line that we eliminate half each group in the qualifications, with some maximum, eg. 20 for Open. Thus the Open semifinals would only be the top 20 if there are at least 39 Open entries. I (or you) can make new charts assuming 1/2 or some other fraction. The fraction to use looks like a matter of opinion. Is there any good reason for a particular fraction?
-
1. I have been thinking that the number of contestants advancing to Friday in each event should be a function of the number of entries in all three events. Do you think that the number of contestants advancing to Friday in each event can be a function only of the number of entries in that individual event? That would be a nice simplification if it's justified. For example, if you get 8 in Expert and 30 in Advanced and go by the chart in the second post in this thread for Expert, do you take 6 in Expert and 10 in Advanced to the finals, or do you take 6 and 14 to give a total of 20? Please consider all combinations of entries among the three events when coming up with an answer.
I think it should be independent. I can see no reason to punish or reduce the participation of one class because of the turnout in a different class, and, as you note, it's a lot simpler to deal with. It will be messy enough even without that.
In terms of fractions, we have typically started having serious discussions of reducing the size of "Top 20 day" when we got under 30 Open. The first time I recall talking about it was in 1994, where there were 28 Open entrants. We went with 20 anyway in that case, which was 71%. I think there is some good value having 20 people in the Finals, it's still manageable even if you get 20 in each. Maybe you hold Open at 75% or 20, and ADV/EXP the others could go to 50% since the Finals are really final, and there is a value in reducing the number of competitors to make it easier to pick the winner. Open goes to a flyoff the next day, too, so there is less gain for reducing the participants for the "Finals".
I would also note that the more you reduce it, the more you want to use a 2-circle format instead of a 4-circle format for qualifying. It also tends to solve the debate on how to group them.
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. Run ADV/EXP together in two circles (1 and 2), run Open in two circles (3 and 4), seed as usual. Flip the circle assignments on Thursday so the judges all get the same overall workload during qualifying. Run the finals as normal, with whatever numbers you end up with, Open by itself on two circles, ADV/EXP by itself on the other two circles. ADV/EXP are done. Open flyoff as per normal the next day.
I would also consider running Jr/Sr after Open on "Top 20 day" on the same circles. That will even out the finishing times a bit. Open "Top 20" day will be done before ADV/EXP most of the time.
Brett
-
This is starting to sound a lot more complex than Jr, Sr, Open.
-
But this could complicate the Judge ranking formula (not that I am a big fan of how it is done now) because some judges will never see the Open guys fly.
Brett showed how that could be done, as you noted. There is a problem with the judge ranking formula, though. It works OK when all judges judge about the same number of flights. I suspect the scores may not be normalized. If so, and if that doesn't get addressed, judges on circles with fewer contestants than others will get a score that's too low (or too high: I forget which). Just another detail that should have been considered from the get-go. We can cover this in the circle allocation discussion.
-
This is starting to sound a lot more complex than Jr, Sr, Open.
Too bad two weeks ago it didn't start to sound as complex as it is.
-
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. Remember that if you give
a lazy guy a job he will find the easiest way to do it. We're not doing a moon
or a Mars landing and we have some fellas on here who actually can do that.
Step back, think easy and just do it. As for me, as someone here said, I'm just
in it for the booze, broads and bread! I'm just sayin'...RJ
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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..
-
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.
-
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
(http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=27927.0;attach=108957;image)
Or any derivative there of!
-
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?
-
So go to the effort to show what the ramifications are of what fraction you pick.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thanks. However, I can't get at it. I get this message:
how about this?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6826362/nats%20puzzle.xls
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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! LL~ LL~ LL~
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Please. I am not blaming anything on anything. Don't be so thin skinned. At least when I'm tapping.
-
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
-
Right.
-
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
-
I totally agree. The 4 day drama of Open. Fabulous.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Just a detail here: 23 guys got scores on the board in Advanced at the 2012 Nats (http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=27782.new#new). It's not a big deal. It could have been 21, but it wasn't.
-
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.
I made the program. Fiddle with it and see what you think. I'll send it to people who have participated in this discussion. If anybody else wants it, email me and I'll send it to you.
-
I updated the program to include Steven's formulae for how many guys advance to the next round. Things we have been discussing are user-entered variables:
max number of contestants advancing per event (for large entry)
fraction of contestants advancing per event (for small entry)
max number of contestants per event before we spread the event over another circle
You can enter separate numbers for each event.
I'll also hose this one around to discussion participants and anybody else who wants it.