Handicap Distance Tasks

At 02:42 05 February 2016, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is
implemented
via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK. I'm scoring at the Region 8
this year and we're considering inviting the contestants to try it. Just
a
thought for the moment.

I'm planning on trying a local club contest to become familiar with the
software.

Mike

PM me if you need any assistance. I expect that your pilots will love it.
We task this way every weekend throughout the season which is good way to
get into practice with the task and scoring process.

Jim

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.

I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.

Chip Bearden

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:59:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.

I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.

Chip Bearden

Chip,

I think if the handicapper is used, the scoring for the day would have to be done in SeeYou and that would be the score for the day. I was a (new) scorer last year at Region 8 and am planning on doing it again this year, but have to admit, I'm still a novice at WinScore and it's finer nuances.

Mike

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:59:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.

I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.

Chip Bearden

I believe you would score the whole contest in SeeYou, using the scoring script of your choice. It should be be possible to write (or modify) a script to implement the US/SSA rules, as Winscore does. The difference here is that each flight log has to be scored against a task that is unique to that glider. Jim's post processor appends that particular task into that particular log (in theory automatically), which is then evaluated by SeeYou for violations, speed, etc. Since the handicapping is done with the task distances, speed is speed - it doesn't need to be adjusted for other than violations.. Points assignment would be done by the SeeYou scoring script to suit your taste in rules.

The big question I see on this task is, just how much benefit do we get relative to the turn area task, the MAT and the long MAT, in allowing gliders of different performance to fly together? And is it worth the costs, complexity, snafus, and learning curve for a task with quite different tasking considerations for CD and strategic considerations for pilots?

Issue 1: Do you get credit for extra distance? Flown UK style, each glider turns exactly at one boundary, and does not get credit for extra distance either by flying to the side of the courseline, or deeper into the cylinder.

US style, we give points for extra distance into all turn cylinders, even on assigned tasks. That is, in my opinion, a highly desirable difference relative to international rules where anything past the first fix in a turn is wasted. You can take your time, look out for other gliders, and approach the turnpoint in a leisurely way, rather than perfect the acrobatics of getting exactly one fix in the cylinder.

However, if we keep that aspect, it means we're even closer to a turn area task. You can keep going in any turn point so long as the lift is really good. You can also follow a cloudstreet that takes you a few miles to the right or left of courseline without paying a penalty, as you get credit for the extra distance covered.

So, one big question if this is to be implemented in the US: Do you still get credit for extra distance flown in the turnpoints? Or do we go back to one fix in and you're done? If the latter, are you ready to explain the quite large procedural and tactical differences to the pilots? Quick, in a turnpoint with 15 mile radius, is it worth being 3 miles to the right of course to follow the cloudstreet, but go a bit extra distance, or is it better to bash through the blue to hit the exact turn "point?"

Issue 2: This smells a lot like a turn area task. The difference, of course, is that if turn 1 is great and turn 2 is horrible, you can't keep going in turn 1, you have to turn where you turn. And you don't have any of the fiddling to figure out how to avoid arriving home undertime. But these are small differences. Are they worth the complexity of a new task type, with a new set of strategic considerations?

The downside: Each glider has it's own assigned "turnpoint," and it's easy for those not to be fair. Ridges have big gaps and transitions. Suppose the low performance gliders don't have to cross the gap at all, the high performance gliders have to thermal off in the blue for 30 miles... and don't have the option of making up that distance at another turnpoint. Or suppose the low performance gliders' "turnpoint" is 3/4 across the gap, but the high performace glider's turnpoint is across the gap, 15 miles down the next ridge and back again. The lower performance now does not have the option of completing the transition and using the ridge, or not bothering with the transition and making up the distance later. In flatland, blue holes, lakes, sea breeze fronts, overdevelopment, etc. all play a similar role.

On really tough days, the lower performance gliders will have a lot of latitude where to go to achieve the turnpoint, while the high performance gliders have to go to one exact spot, perhaps where it's raining.

With an assigned task, the task setters spend a lot of time making sure each turnpoint is achievable. With turn area or MAT tasks, each pilot takes a lot of time to make sure his/her turnpoint is achievable. With a handicap distance task, it's going to be much harder to make sure the task is fair.

That consideration will likely limit the task use to flat terrain and homogenous conditions.

Another strategic question that is likely to arise: The ideal way to fly a turn area task is to go 5 miles further in each turn area, then catch up the gaggle again. This task pretty much forces the lower performance gliders to be markers on every leg.

Again, we have the turn area task, and the long MAT, to allow racing among gliders of very different handicap. Turn area tasks with many smaller areas give quite a lot of racing feeling. The question is, just what benefit does one get from the handicap distance task relative to these, and is it worth the substantial costs?

PS, UK pilots who wish to do handicapped racing might try the US long MAT some day. Reacap: You fly around a fully assigned set of turnpoints, but with minimum time rules. After x hours, you stop flying turnpoints and come home. This one keeps everyone on exactly the same course, just letting the lower performance gliders skip the last turnpoints. It has pros and cons too, but if you're looking for task types that allow handicap racing, it's worth a try.

John Cochrane BB

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The big question I see on this task is, just how much benefit do we get relative to the turn area task, the MAT and the long MAT, in allowing gliders of different performance to fly together? And is it worth the costs, complexity, snafus, and learning curve for a task with quite different tasking considerations for CD and strategic considerations for pilots?

Issue 1: Do you get credit for extra distance? Flown UK style, each glider turns exactly at one boundary, and does not get credit for extra distance either by flying to the side of the courseline, or deeper into the cylinder.

US style, we give points for extra distance into all turn cylinders, even on assigned tasks. That is, in my opinion, a highly desirable difference relative to international rules where anything past the first fix in a turn is wasted. You can take your time, look out for other gliders, and approach the turnpoint in a leisurely way, rather than perfect the acrobatics of getting exactly one fix in the cylinder.

However, if we keep that aspect, it means we're even closer to a turn area task. You can keep going in any turn point so long as the lift is really good. You can also follow a cloudstreet that takes you a few miles to the right or left of courseline without paying a penalty, as you get credit for the extra distance covered.

So, one big question if this is to be implemented in the US: Do you still get credit for extra distance flown in the turnpoints? Or do we go back to one fix in and you're done? If the latter, are you ready to explain the quite large procedural and tactical differences to the pilots? Quick, in a turnpoint with 15 mile radius, is it worth being 3 miles to the right of course to follow the cloudstreet, but go a bit extra distance, or is it better to bash through the blue to hit the exact turn "point?"

Issue 2: This smells a lot like a turn area task. The difference, of course, is that if turn 1 is great and turn 2 is horrible, you can't keep going in turn 1, you have to turn where you turn. And you don't have any of the fiddling to figure out how to avoid arriving home undertime. But these are small differences. Are they worth the complexity of a new task type, with a new set of strategic considerations?

The downside: Each glider has it's own assigned "turnpoint," and it's easy for those not to be fair. Ridges have big gaps and transitions. Suppose the low performance gliders don't have to cross the gap at all, the high performance gliders have to thermal off in the blue for 30 miles... and don't have the option of making up that distance at another turnpoint. Or suppose the low performance gliders' "turnpoint" is 3/4 across the gap, but the high performace glider's turnpoint is across the gap, 15 miles down the next ridge and back again. The lower performance now does not have the option of completing the transition and using the ridge, or not bothering with the transition and making up the distance later. In flatland, blue holes, lakes, sea breeze fronts, overdevelopment, etc. all play a similar role.

On really tough days, the lower performance gliders will have a lot of latitude where to go to achieve the turnpoint, while the high performance gliders have to go to one exact spot, perhaps where it's raining.

With an assigned task, the task setters spend a lot of time making sure each turnpoint is achievable. With turn area or MAT tasks, each pilot takes a lot of time to make sure his/her turnpoint is achievable. With a handicap distance task, it's going to be much harder to make sure the task is fair.

That consideration will likely limit the task use to flat terrain and homogenous conditions.

Another strategic question that is likely to arise: The ideal way to fly a turn area task is to go 5 miles further in each turn area, then catch up the gaggle again. This task pretty much forces the lower performance gliders to be markers on every leg.

Again, we have the turn area task, and the long MAT, to allow racing among gliders of very different handicap. Turn area tasks with many smaller areas give quite a lot of racing feeling. The question is, just what benefit does one get from the handicap distance task relative to these, and is it worth the substantial costs?

PS, UK pilots who wish to do handicapped racing might try the US long MAT some day. Reacap: You fly around a fully assigned set of turnpoints, but with minimum time rules. After x hours, you stop flying turnpoints and come home. This one keeps everyone on exactly the same course, just letting the lower performance gliders skip the last turnpoints. It has pros and cons too, but if you're looking for task types that allow handicap racing, it's worth a try.

John Cochrane BB

To a couple of your points:

This kind of contest has worked well out of Truckee, which is not flat terrain or homogenous conditions. Certainly it would be possible to intentionally call a task more favorable to one end or the other of the handicap, just as it is possible to avoid doing so.

The high performance gliders do not have to go to an exact point - it depends on how the scratch glider is defined. The highest performing glider in the competition typically still has a cylinder, which can be made as large as is thought fair, so they do get to chose a favorable turn location within limits (that are a little narrower than the low performance gliders).

Many of the same considerations apply to an AAT, in that the high performance gliders MUST go further into the cylinder or risk not making minimum times, even if conditions at the far edge are not favorable.

In perfectly flown tasks, the low performance gliders are markers exactly half the time, and the high performance gliders makers the other half.

In any handicapping scheme, there is unfairness due to conditions. Any contest type rewards certain tactical skills more than others.

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:48:49 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

To a couple of your points:

This kind of contest has worked well out of Truckee, which is not flat terrain or homogenous conditions. Certainly it would be possible to intentionally call a task more favorable to one end or the other of the handicap, just as it is possible to avoid doing so.

The high performance gliders do not have to go to an exact point - it depends on how the scratch glider is defined. The highest performing glider in the competition typically still has a cylinder, which can be made as large as is thought fair, so they do get to chose a favorable turn location within limits (that are a little narrower than the low performance gliders).

Many of the same considerations apply to an AAT, in that the high performance gliders MUST go further into the cylinder or risk not making minimum times, even if conditions at the far edge are not favorable.

In perfectly flown tasks, the low performance gliders are markers exactly half the time, and the high performance gliders makers the other half.

In any handicapping scheme, there is unfairness due to conditions. Any contest type rewards certain tactical skills more than others.

Since you seem to understand this task, can you explain to me what problem we have with the current tasks used in the US that this task solves?
Another way- what benefit does it provide over existing tasks?
Thanks
UH

BB,

Please excuse spelling errors as I type this quickly on my cell phone between meetings.

Your question misses the whole point. In fact I'm embarrassed for our sport when I read such comments. It's as if you RC guys are from a different dimension. You guys seem to consistently find very weak reasons to dilute and pervert the few good, clean, race centric tasks which remain in the USA. This is incredibly irritating.

Extra distance? No! No, no, no, NO! For the love of all things special, NOOOOOOO! That is the whole purpose of the Handicap Distnace Task (HDR). It's intended to be a real race!

Do I hear heads exploding in the distance? I said "race!" .......boom!

The HDR calculates a simple set distance requirement for each gliders handicap. It intentionally does not provide aloof freedoms to decide what you want to do. This is becuase that kills the idea of "racing" and creates a new sport entirely (OLC). A new paradigm. The whole point of the HDR task is simplicity and a fair, even, SIMPLE race between a range of different gliders. This is not intended to be an OLC or TAT task John. It is an effort to get away from it (more heads exploding in the distance....)

If your head is still intact, please try and stay with me here.

This IS (intentionally) NOT a timed task. The idea is for all competitors to get to the closest point in their ring as fast as possible and turn. No watches. No scoring formulas. No weather gambles (well, as few as possible). The shortest time wins. Wow!

Yes, lower performance gliders with larger diameter turn points may have more lateral range to work with. Depending on how it goes, I may define narrowed segments (pie shapes) to limit that lateral range for the low handicap gliders in Ionia (for example). Simple to do. An improvement I think.

TATs - Turn area tasks are depressing tasks because they allow far too much choice in A) what side of the turn cylinder to guess, gamble, put your chips on (and that is a significant part of the results). B) It also allows pilots to choose how far to go into various turn areas (this also significantly effects results). The average US "turn area" in our TAT tasks is 40 miles!

The (timed) TAT is, simply put, not much of a race at all. It's a timed, distance, weather gamble game. The task allows pilots to choose between tens of thousands of optional square miles to fly thru. It is intentionally free (barely constrained) and fundamentally completely different for each competitor, each day.

Some call the TAT a test of skill. The truth is that there is usually significant luck involved in the results. The variables available between A) widely different start times and B) three 40 mile diameter turn areas (for example) are absolutely ENORMOUS. This huge variability results in low quality, almost subjective competition results, especially at the beginner levels.

The TAT is also WILDLY over called in the USA (60-70% of our current tasks).. Here is the test: If glider pilots are able to reach both sides, and varying depths, of 3 turn cylinders (areas) THEN an ASSIGNED TASK would have worked out perfectly for this given content day! When you look at the IGC traces of most US tasks (over the past 5 years) you will see that that test fails the vast majority of the time!

Again, The TAT is a COMPROMISE TASK developed for dealing with less than perfect weather or wide handicap or skill range. It is intended to reduce land outs. It is not the ideal form of a competition becuase LUCK is a major element of the task. The area task allows gliders to (somehow, via formulas, rules, etc) "compete???" on an entirely different track...in other words...not a race at all. The area task is not a race, it's a compromise. Watered down. Muted. Boring. Annoying. A weather guessing task.

I don't care who you are. Nobody can predict the weather that perfectly. It's just to dynamic on a 50 mile scale. So to those who say they want a weather test, give me a break. An assigned task is a far better weather test becuase decisions are exponentially more critical as you must get back to the same exact points after each weather decision on each leg.

I stand amazingly opposed to the idea of extra distance being a good thing. It's THE WORST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF SOARING. Awful.

Sean

BB,

Please excuse spelling errors as I type this reply out quickly on my cell phone between meetings. The subject of the TAT task makes my skin crawl.

Let me start by saying I think your a very smart guy and mean well. You do great things for the sport! But when it comes to tasking philosophy, we stand far, far apart... Please don't take this too seriously.

Your question about extra distance shows me that you are entirely missing the point of the Handicap Distance Task. I'm shocked and amazed when I read such questions and comments. It's as if you RC guys are sometimes writing from an entirely different dimension. Somehow you find reasons to continue the anti racing task crusade (even though racing tasks are down to under 3% in the USA and only a few pesky pockets or resistance remain!). Even a newly proposed handicap racing task gets your attention (already struck down by the USRC!) and suffers from your instinct to look at ways to pervert it. This is incredibly irritating.

Extra distance? No! No, no, no, NO! For the love of all things special, NOOOOOOO! That is the whole purpose of the Handicap Distance Task (HDR). It's intended to be a real racing experience for the handicap gliding environment.

Uh oh. Did I just hear the muffled sounds of heads violently exploding in the distance? I said the word "racing" on a US glider forum, big mistake,................boom!

http://youtu.be/B_Lnz64vXB8

The HDR task calculates a simple set distance (around common assigned turn points) for each gliders handicap. It intentionally does not provide aloof freedoms for each pilot to further decide what they want to do when they reach the turn. This is because that freedom would completely kills the idea of "racing" and creates a new, non-racing sport entirely (see OLC, US tasking).

The whole point of the HDR task is simplicity and fair, even, SIMPLE racing between a range of different gliders. This is not intended to be an OLC or TAT task John. In fact, The HDR is an effort to get away from not racing (more heads exploding off in the American countryside distance....)

If your head is still intact, please try and stay with me here.

The HDR is (intentionally) NOT a timed task. The idea is for all competitors to get to the closest point in their "ring" as fast as possible and turn towards the next assigned point. No watches or countdown timers. No scoring formulas. No weather gambles (well, as few as possible). Fly the task as fast as you can. The shortest time wins the RACE. A Ventus 2cxm could race fairly against a LS1 with this task. How great is that. No, wait a minute, you want to add more variables.

Yes, lower performance gliders with larger diameter turn points may have more lateral range to work with. Depending on how it goes, I may define narrowed segments (pie shapes) to limit that lateral range for the low handicap gliders in Ionia (for example). Simple to do. An improvement I think. Better yet would be a series of one km turn points on the task leg radial. Also simple to code up.

Back to the pain of TATs - Turn area tasks are depressing tasks because they allow far too much choice in A) what side of the turn cylinder to guess, gamble, put your chips on (and that is a significant part of the results) and B) how far to go into various turn areas (this also significantly effects results). The average US "turn area" in our TAT tasks is 40 miles! That's 1257 square miles!

The (timed) TAT is, simply put, is not a race. Not even close. It's a timed, distance, weather gamble game in a loosely defined area. The TAT task allows pilots to choose between thousands of optional square miles to fly over and turn to the next area over. It is free form by design (lightly constrained) and fundamentally completely different for each competitor, for each segment of the day (early starters, late starters...). The weather variability is also enormous over these ranges.

Some call the TAT a test of skill. The truth is that there is usually significant luck involved in the results. The options and variables available to a pilot between A) widely different start times and B) three 20 mile radius (for example) turn areas are absolutely ENORMOUS. This huge variability results in low quality, almost subjective competition results, especially at the beginner levels.

The TAT is also WILDLY over called in the USA (65-70% of our current total task).

Here is the sniff test: If glider pilots on a TAT are able to reach both sides, and varying depths, of 3 turn cylinders (areas) THEN an ASSIGNED TASK would have worked out perfectly for this given content day! When you look at the IGC traces of most US tasks (over the past 5 years) you will see that that test fails the vast majority of the time! I would say 75% of hand. I'm happy to back that up but, better yet, go look for yourself.

Again, The TAT is a COMPROMISE TASK developed for dealing with less than perfect weather forecasts or wide handicap or skill range. It is intended to reduce land outs when weather is unpredictable and give competitors a chance to finish. It is not the ideal form of a competition because LUCK is a major, major element of its results. The area task allows gliders to (somehow, via formulas, rules, etc) "compete???" on an entirely different geography and at entirely different times. Does this sound like a race to you? It's a huge compromise at best. Watered down. Muted. Boring. Annoying. A weather gamble task. I propose that we should only be calling TATs when we must. It should not be our, by far, most common task.

I don't care who you are. I don't care if you are Mother F. Nature. Nobody can predict the weather well enough to consistently succeed at a TAT. The statistics of the task alone prove this. Weather, on the scale of cross country gliding, is just to random and dynamic. This is why non contest pilots like OLC. They have a hard time completing tasks they call for themselves and get frustrated. Why, weather is impossible to predict. OLC allows for this weather problem and "kinda" results in some measurable form of accomplishment (distance), albeit usually at a different location, different time of day and over an entirely different quadrant of a clubs flying area.. Golf clap to you....! You won!?

So to those who say they want a "weather test," give me a break. An assigned task is a far better weather test because decisions are exponentially more critical as you must get back to the same exact same points to complete each assigned leg. Weather decisions are force CONSOLIDATED on every leg of an assigned task. Just because two gliders are not fifty miles apart in the same "turn-area" does not mean that there are not weather implications. It's quite the opposite.

I stand amazingly opposed to the idea of extra distance being a good thing. It's THE WORST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF SOARING. Awful.

Here is to the hope of the handicap distance task catching on, despite the constant opposition to simple, non-complex, pure racing tasks in the United States.

Sean Fidler

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 5:57:22 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:48:49 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

To a couple of your points:

This kind of contest has worked well out of Truckee, which is not flat terrain or homogenous conditions. Certainly it would be possible to intentionally call a task more favorable to one end or the other of the handicap, just as it is possible to avoid doing so.

The high performance gliders do not have to go to an exact point - it depends on how the scratch glider is defined. The highest performing glider in the competition typically still has a cylinder, which can be made as large as is thought fair, so they do get to chose a favorable turn location within limits (that are a little narrower than the low performance gliders).

Many of the same considerations apply to an AAT, in that the high performance gliders MUST go further into the cylinder or risk not making minimum times, even if conditions at the far edge are not favorable.

In perfectly flown tasks, the low performance gliders are markers exactly half the time, and the high performance gliders makers the other half.

In any handicapping scheme, there is unfairness due to conditions. Any contest type rewards certain tactical skills more than others.

Since you seem to understand this task, can you explain to me what problem we have with the current tasks used in the US that this task solves?
Another way- what benefit does it provide over existing tasks?
Thanks
UH

This kind of task is not better or worse than another, flown in isolation. It has slightly different tactical considerations. I like it in conjunction with a simultaneous start, as I have mentioned before. I like that because it is the only sailplane competition that is like a real race: if you are ahead, you are ahead. Other types of tasks are properly called a time trial, not a race. With large cylinder AAT and MAT tasks, there is little difference between them and OLC, might as well fly OLC - costs less and I can fly my day. An AT in a meter class with a simultaneous start would have the same benefits, provided the gliders were really identical.

The only reason for pilots to get together at a specified time and place is to race head to head against others. Racing against the clock can be done anytime, anyplace. I am rather uninterested in traditional US competition where you start at some random time, fly around a loosely defined course occasionally seeing others, then learn how you did after dinner. I got interested in racing again due to the handicapped distance task (and, I will add, Flarm). Take those away and I will go back to touring, OLC style.

Let me ask this: are the currently used tasks so successful that there is an increasing number of participants leading to a full schedule of oversubscribed races?