A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Benalla



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 19th 17, 01:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default Benalla

Sure, you can take a percentage of a percentage, but it kind of misses the bigger picture about how scoring math works and what the tradeoffs are. You can't just talk about one objective in isolation. You have to check snider how they play off against each other.

If your goals a

1) Not penalize landouts so much that coming up 2km short knocks you out of the contest - especially if you are unlucky enough to be the only landout for the day. This is the case being discussed where scoring encourages staying in gaggles most of the flight.

2) Award points roughly proportional to speed/winner's speed.

3) Not have long landouts score more than the slowest finishers.

4) Allow for wide variations in finishers speeds and still have proportional scoring as in #2.

You have a problem that is constrained such that you can't maximize all the constraints at once. My personal view is id rather compromise on #4 a bit and somewhat on #3 in order to optimize more around #1 and somewhat on #2. The reason is because doing that helps prevent a bit of bad luck from knocking a pilot totally out of contention (the gaggle incentive problem).

Increasing weighting on #3 and #4 might be good if you are optimizing for score differentiation in the bottom half of the scoresheet, but they also contribute to separating the bottom half from the top half because slow finishers and landouts get even fewer points.

In the US rules we used to have 400 max points for a land out which allowed finishers to get points differentiation down to 40% of the winner's speed. We've upped it to 60% now.

I don't know if 75% is too much, but it's pretty clear that if you want to reduce incentives for taking risks flying away from the gaggle, reducing the penalty if it doesn't work out would help - as was demonstrated to clearly by Sean's situation, which was exacerbated by how IGC devaluation works where a lone landout gets 300-plus points. Miss the last thermal getting home and drop from 3rd to middle of the pack. It's no wonder people elect to stay in the glider tornado even though they mostly claim that they hate it.

One person's perspective FWIW.

9B

  #2  
Old January 19th 17, 01:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default Benalla

"check snider" -- "consider"

(autocorrect)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WGC 2017 - Benalla Renny[_2_] Soaring 6 October 26th 16 12:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.