[NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does theDogHunt on points made?

[Ed Alt]

Brett:
I think there's really a couple of tiers of SA pilots, with some very polished precision flyers in the top ranks.  You are right though, there's also a good sized contingent that handle their sleds the way you describe.  Often, they are the "checkbook pilots" who recently arrived on the scene and are just plopping recipes together and playing follow the leader as best they can.  Dave Michael made some excellent points, one of which I would dub the "fade factor" with SA pilots.  Everything he said was right on - the planes have great appeal, they get tons of press, you see them everywhere etc.  So it attracts the masses.  To a degree, that's great because it does help everything grow at a rapid pace.  On the other hand, it can lead to an implosion, such as what seems to currently be happening in the NE region.  When all you have to do is buy your way in, the event tends to attract larger numbers of people with no particular awareness or concern over what it takes to be an actual modeler involved with precision aerobatics.  That's what it seems like from here at least.

Dave had some great ideas about promoting Pattern, which have mostly worked for IMAC / SA.  I think that the main thing that we have to avoid is anything that would veer us away from concentration on precision, which is where IMAC has led the SA rules recently. Sequence design has also run amok with IMAC calling the shots every year over what goes in the AMA rulebook, resulting in what amounts to variations on methods to display snap rolls to the crowd.  It's a lazy way to run up the K-factors in the sequences, which has become even more problematic for them since they have shortened the sequences to about 10 figures per class.  Mess up one snap in a high K figure and you are done, hence they have done ever more to encourage snap cheats, all the while they valiantly attempt to teach otherwise in judging clinics.  For proof, check a couple of the RCU experts forums, where they describe how they do snap cheats to help teach the masses. That's what SA pilots are going to school on for the most part.  

We can learn a bunch from IMAC, good and bad.

Ed

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: brett terry 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does theDogHunt on points made?


  At my last IMAC competition I tried to present my maneuvers somewhat close, tried to be precise, and tried to increase the visibility of my plane.  The judges told me to fly further away, because it can slow down the routine.  People were flying the back side of the roller at the limits of vision, and this is with 35% - 40% planes!  Some of these planes could fly away from the transmitter, and still be within vision limits.  So much for positioning and "presentation".  It is exceedingly difficult to recognize the difference between a vertical line and 15 degrees off...The deviation point deductions are mere speculation.  Forget about trying to determine the number of wingspan deviations during a hammerhead. 

  Most people, myself included, want to learn all the fun freestyle tricks with the big planes.  Most spectators don't care about how well an IMAC plane can slow roll, or maintain track during unweighted snaps, or perform precision aerobatics, they want to see it blast out of a hover, Panic, Blender, Rolling Harrier, Roller Coaster, Waterfall, and in general act like a foamie.  

  It has become the Olympic Snowboard Half Pipe event of the model airplane world, including the requisite adjectives, "Extreme", "Alternative" (if 'alternative' is in the mainstream, can it still be considered 'alternative'?), "Radical", "Hucking", etc. 

  There, I feel better now.  Back to precision.  Of course, I do enjoy the turnaround setup...

  Brett



  On 3/2/06, Ed Alt < ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:
    For all practical purposes, Scale Aerobatics has no box anymore.  It exists as an abstract concept on a piece of paper in that it has a defined height, width and depth, but since they eliminated the 75 degree markers, there is nothing left to measure it against.  Additionally, they eliminated the concept of zones, so you are free to place things where it seems good to place them, i.e., a figure that would appear to be meant for the center of the box doesn't have to be flown directly in front of you. Your choice of placement has some kind of connection to the so-called Presentation Score as it was originally 'defined'.  There are no deductions for centering inaccuracy.  Once you enter the box, you still need to get figures in the correct order and direction, though cross box figures leave direction (in or out) to the discretion of the pilot.  Currently, there may or may not be enforcement of a pure impressionist extra figure known as the Presentation Score.  It passed as a rule, then everyone was instructed by the IMAC BOD not to follow the AMA rule they pushed through.  I heard rumblings that maybe they are going to allow or encourage CDs to follow that rule again.  Not sure, I don't really track what they do very closely anymore.

    Ed

    ----- Original Message -----




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060302/8dc42848/attachment-0001.html