I'll comment on a couple of these points.
- scoring system: I'm certainly not against an e-scoring format, nor is anyone, I think. Cost is a significant factor, but as much so is the investment in Score and how interconnected it is to many other operations. Adopting an e system that's not compatible with Score (I don't know that it is or isn't, but I suspect not) is a major obstacle.
- box: We've been there, done it, and there's a very valid reason why it was done away with. However, stay tuned for some airspace re-conceptualization ideas in the near future.
- number of figures: Just personal opinion here, I like the 10 figure sequence as the standard. It allows you to fly more scored rounds in front of more judge combinations per day. From a time standpoint, if we went to a 17 - 19 figure sequence you'll very likely lose 2 - 3 known flights per contest.
t

I'm just quoting Ty's post, as Doug's is very similar, and there are particular bits I want to talk about in Ty's.

-Obviously I'm not particularly in the know in terms of what is connected or not by Score!, but from the laymans view, i'm not sure I see the fixation on what score! does other than regional points, which NSCRA has their own variation of regional points, so rather that trying to integrate Vogel into Score! perhaps there's a way to accomplish all of the same things that Score! does without Score!. Again i'm only seeing the top level stuff, so take this all as you will.

-Frankly i'm not as sold on the box as I am on an emphasis of centering.

-Your point about more flights in front of more judges I disagree with vehemently. As i mentioned in my post (and using SW region contests as the basis) with our typical contests we fly 3 double sequence rounds plus a single sequence unknown. Because the rounds are double sequence you are flying in front of 4 pairs of judges, even if you lost 2 rounds, which I don't think you would, I think at most you would lose one, particularly if we retain a 10 sequence unknown, which I think we should, than you are flying in front of the same amount of judges, but with more scored figures as I pointed out in my post.

I would say that a typical double sequence round takes an average of 11 minutes (more for unlimited less for the lower classes obviously) that's 20 figures for an average of 33 seconds per figure. Dropping to 15 plus take off and landing would reduce time by at least a minute and half per pilot. Mandating a maximum number of trim passes (a slight tangent but a relevant one Y think; I didn't see a single pilot take an extra at the pattern contest, and if I needed to trim, I trimmed after takeoff and on the downwind, with our planes and servos etc. there is no reason to take an extra trim pass, take off turn twice and enter the box) An easy way to shorten the sequences more was alluded to in my post as well, and that's to make the figures simpler and force pilots to fly them better, Pattern guys are averaging under 8 minutes for their 19 figures including takeoff and landing. BUT assuming you save only a minute and a half per pilot per round, and assuming 30 pilots, that's 135 minutes over the 3 known rounds. I don't think it would be a stretch to have 3 17 figure sequences (including takeoff and landing) flights on day one, and a known (17 figure) and an unknown (10 or 12 figure) on day two. This gives you 78-80 judged figures in front of 5 panels, as opposed to 50 in front of 4.

A.J.

Edited by user Wednesday, April 17, 2019 11:19:53 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I might as well pile on

Everything that AJ is bringing up would obviously only work if we (IMAC) is willing to change, and change will only come if its truly the right move for our SIG. I feel there is a lot of merit to his points and hopefully they can be looked at with open eyes to see if there is a positive way that we could incorporate them to better IMAC.

- Electronic Scoring - I know various people are currently working on finding a way to integrate this into IMAC and I hope they find a simple and economic solution that will allow us to benefit from it like the NSRCA has.

- Sequence difficulty - I don't fly unlimited so no comment, but I can appreciate the idea.

- Score take offs and landing - ABSOLUTELY, for every reason AJ listed. I've never been a fan of the holding pattern.

- More maneuvers per Known (single sequence rounds) - Yup, all about it. I feel it would add multiple levels of benefits to our sport. It would be more inclusive to electric pilots in every class. You should see more of the available class maneuvers in the aresti catalog. You could tame the current sequences down a bit (see above point), by not cramming an 8 point roll into an immelmann but make one maneuver an 8 point roll and then the next an immelmann. It would put you in front of more judging combos, not less. IMO, it would make it feel like you are flying more per contest. It could be tiered as they do in pattern, with the Basic Known having the least amount of maneuvers (say 10 plus judged take offs and landing) and Unlimited having the most (say 17) with other classes mixed between. Keep the unknown to 10 maneuvers.

- Centering/Box - Centering, YES! Box, not sure, I would have to try it first hand. I have had a big problem with the subjective scores (ACS and Sound) that we see on every score sheet. If there is anyway possible to remove them with a more structured process, I'm all on board.

- IMAC benefits - Agree here as well. I wouldn't want to have it any other way.

As AJ has asked, I hope this can continue down a path of discussion and not something negative. Our current leadership has shown that they are willing to work for the benefit of our entire group, shown by their efforts with the Novice class and Annual Meeting. I hope that some of these points are held high enough for some serious discussion or modification to continue making IMAC a stronger SIG.

#IAmIMAC

Good insight Adi, definitely some good take aways.

I know we (IMAC) will always strive to be a replica of full scale aerobatics competitions and I will always appreciate that, but I think that we should keep an open mind to making exceptions to the rule if it's in the benefit of our group as a whole. As long as we keep in the spirit of IAC, we will retain everything that we have built so far.

Hi Adi....I agree that we can and should use a centering criteria, which would also require sequences to be developed that have clearly defined center-box maneuvers.
As far a full scale goes....centering is usually a no-brainer for the pilot, as a center-box maneuver always follows an end-box maneuver with another end-box following it. With a well-defined (and almost always very well-marked) box, the pilot doesn't have much time to relax between the ends if there is a center maneuver. 1000 meters goes by quickly at 180 mph (or more!) . G forces really don't play much of a part in centering.

As for complexity....yes IMAC unlimited sequences are very complex, although in many cases not much more than many full scale knowns or unknowns. As an example this is one of the Unknowns from the IAC 2018 US Nats. Figures 1, 3, 5,and 8 range from 45 to 68 K and would be challenging for IMAC as well.

BTW - for the pilots flying this sequence, Figures 5 and 7, with down pull-humptys following neg G entries or elements are sometimes difficult and often referred to as sleepers for a reason. IAC 2018 Unknown.jpg (203kb) downloaded 8 time(s).

Cheers,
Earle

I would say that the 4 more complex ones are just as hard to judge as any others I've seen in IMAC unlimited. Can't answer your question about the last few being easier.....although for the pilot it certainly provides a bit of breathing room.

As far as I'm concerned judges SHOULD be able to judge all of them according to the criteria, regardless of how many are in the sequence.....or they should NOT be in the chair.

As we all know ANY sport/endeavor that is subject to human judging will always be subject to ridicule/bias/fairness/griping, etc. Full scale certainly has it and they have a much more rigorous judge's training and apprenticeship than IMAC.....but there's MUCH more on the line and they don't get to fly anywhere near the amount of sequences we do. Also, no drops. They do utilize statistical programs in the scoring that helps to minimize bias.

First off, being a new IMAC member and having not competed as of yet, I would like to say what I have read in the thread sounds eerily familiar.
I am one of the pilots AJ flew against in F3A at Bear Mountain. I returned to Pattern flying last year after a 25 year hiatus. I fly Advanced this year after winning the District 7 championship in Intermediate last year.
I am going to be trying IMAC next month at Walnut Grove, starting in Intermediate (I think).and flying a Pilot RC 35% Extra 330. There are a number of folks who fly "IMAC" size planes where I fly, but only a couple ever competed when I met them last year. Now there are 6 who have at least one contest under their belt. As far as I know I'm the only Pattern flier who competes, in a 100 mile radius.
Pattern, as well as IMAC, (at least what I read) are struggling for attendance, new pilots and a host of other issues. I for one struggle with the combining of "classic pattern", EDF jets and F3A all flying the same contest. Maybe it will draw more attendance, maybe not. Time will tell. But right now, there are 14 rounds squeezed in to a two day event. The same pilots fly, just some fly 14 rounds.
F3A is where my heart was at the beginning of the season. I'm not so sure it's there now. I'm hoping that IMAC will provide the competition experience I returned to RC aviation for.
But I digress, It was great to meet AJ and a few other IMAC pilots at Bear Mountain last month. Without trying, and not even knowing it, it convinced me to try IMAC.
At the end of the day, I figure it's basically the same, only different!