[NSRCA-discussion] APPARENT GEOMETRY (PARALLAXED VIEW)

[Fred Huber]

Distance in/out has no effect on parallax.  Its the angle relative to the viewed line.

The judges and pilots will have the same parallax to deal with if the pilot flys a 30 inch model at 85 yards away as they will with a 60 inch model at 170 yards.  You might be hard pressed to tell plane which is which on film...  Thats why 1/4 and 1/2 scale models get used for making movies.  The camera can remove perspective clues that indicate distance and scale.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Black 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 11:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APPARENT GEOMETRY (PARALLAXED VIEW)


  I tend to agree with Ed. Furthermore, what hard facts could possibly be stated about this in the rule book? Would you want it to say that when observing end maneuvers the judge should downgrade if the angle doesn't look steeper than 45 deg.? IMO this is inappropriate for the rule book, though it's perfectly acceptable to point out in a judges clinic or judging tips document.

  Keep in mind also that the distance in our out will also change the look of the end 45 deg. angle. This means that this discussion also would need to be in the rule book. I think the rule book should just state facts, educating the pilot and judge on how to recognize geometry so they can enforce the rule book is important but ancillary to the official rule book.

  My opinion.

  Keith Black 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Ed Deaver 
    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 11:04 PM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APPARENT GEOMETRY (PARALLAXED VIEW)


    Have been thinking about this discussion (currently going on elsewhere also) and suddenly had the light bulb go on.

    At some clubs as we enter the driveway that leads to the field, 1/2 mile away or maybe a bit more, or the NATs site for example from site 3 (grass field I think) to site 2, it is very easy to watch the geometry of the plane being flown.  At this distance, there is almost zero vertical parallax due to the distance from the pilot.

    Sooooo, what do we see at this distance.  Loops sure do look round to me when flown by good pilots, 45's look like 45's or maybe 50's (my contention is a slight bit steeper always scores better than a slight bit flatter) and even though the pilot is standing "under" the manuever, the good pilots still keep the geometry when looked at from a distance, Correct.

    At the end of the box, standing this distance away it is easier to see the geometry again, with only a very little parallax and the good pilots, IMO still keep the geometry very close to what it should be.  The 45's may be a slight bit steeper, but from a distance the 1/2 cuban 8 flown well, will still have a round radius, with very close to a 45 degree downline (again depending on what the local teacher states), with the rolling element centered.

    My point is, too much is being made of this parallax issue and think judges will reward the pilot that flies the correct geometry, which again IMO, can be verified by watching a flight from a distance.

    Just my $.02

    Ed

    rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
      A question has been posted from an IMAC gentleman (who is trying to write better IMAC rules) as to how Pattern people fly and judge skewed appearance of maneuvers at box ends or in center when tall maneuvers (Hourglass, Vert Sq 8, Rolling Ess, etc) are involved. 

      Some of us have searched the book and found no wording written that describes what the pilots' responsibilities and the judges' responsibilities are in the performance of the skewed apparent geometry. There is a statement in the Judges Training tape in regard to end maneuvers.... that these will appear different even when accurately flown. The oness is essentially on the judges to know how the True Geometry should appear when flown at an angle to the eye, and must not downgrade for Apparent or Parallaxed appearance difference.

      Spoke with Don about this earlier today and we decided to present the question to the group and get some conversation going. We should be explicit in the book regarding how such Apparent Geometry should be treated....ie- what is the pilot's responsibility and what is the judge's. Description improvements could be written over the next couple rule cycles.

      The pilot's responsibility may appear easy.... they simply need to fly precise geometry per the book. True enough, BUT.....consider what is actually flown, especially by the top guys, and what scores well. These are not necessarily as precise as one might think. The better pilots tend to fly purposely flawed maneuvers that give the impression of precision. 

      MattK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

      _______________________________________________
      NSRCA-discussion mailing list
      NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
      http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion




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


    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


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


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070410/5dc4cb9b/attachment.html