[NSRCA-discussion] Could this allow automated scoring?

[John Gayer]

The judges are expected to consider the track of the plane in an earth 
coordinate system. For example the judges are supposed to consider that 
a 45 degree climb appears steeper at the end of the box than it does in 
the center. So the track should be analyzed by the judges in an earth 
coordinate system and the track of the model rather than attitude.

The location of the pilot is actually irrelevant but the location of the 
box is clearly of critical importance. Knowing the actual location of 
the plane with a fairly quick update rate is critical. At 120 
feet/sec(approx 80 mph), horizontal position is no problem. At this 
speed you need an update rate of about 80 milliseconds to get a data 
point about every 10 feet. Not sure how good the GPS update rates are 
these days but this should be achievable. IF the altitude update rate is 
too slow then augment with an altimeter. Since we are downloading this 
data from the model, roll attitude could be transmitted as well for 
wings level.

We would still need a zero judge for snaps, spins and stall turns and to 
establish when the pilot is lost in a maneuver. It might be necessary to 
have an "advance to the next maneuver" switch for that case.

It would actually be a fascinating project to download accelerations, 
roll, yaw and pitch rates for analysis while observing snaps visually to 
see if standards could be established about what is a snap and what isn't.

John

On 5/8/2015 1:24 PM, Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> Not by itself.  Judging/Scoring is from the perspective of the pilot + 
> judges, not from the perspective of the plane.  (As opposed to IAC, 
> where it's from the perspective of the pilot in the plane).  For it to 
> be done right you'd need to know the precise location of the plane and 
> the precise location of the pilot, then calculate the geometry of the 
> plane's movements relative to the perspective of the pilot's location.
>
> The SoloShot 2 automatic cameraman does close to what we want in 
> tracking the movement of the plane relative to a ground station, but 
> from that you'd still need to calculate geometries, and wings level, etc.
>
> Peter+
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
>     Cheap, Centimeter accuracy GPS <http://goo.gl/mZg6RG>.
>
>     No more complaints about biased judging?
>
>     -Keith Hoard
>
>     klhoard at hotmail.com <mailto:klhoard at hotmail.com>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>     NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
> Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150509/967bd1c3/attachment.html>