U.S. Scale Masters TP3 Testing

On the polling idea. Two years ago, I did that.  I sent e-mail out to all qualified pilots who didn't attend.  What I got was fairly interesting.  I got about a 40% response, and of those 75% were finance related.. rest were scattered among lost plane and didn't have another to fly, could not take that much time off.  Very few were actually related to the short notice of two years ago.

I also got a good many replies to the e-mail invite saying thanks but can't attend..  Most were to close to labor day or just can't afford it... 

See-ya
Mitch

That's some good information Mitch. How many is a good number for this year?

If money is a significant issue for not attending, given the current economy, that may not be going away anytime soon. So to open up another line of thinking, would doing regional champinonships East/West.

Chow
John

QuoteIf money is a significant issue for not attending, given the current economy, that may not be going away anytime soon. So to open up another line of thinking, would doing regional championships East/West.

John,

Just one of my proposals in the rebirth topic.

Larry

  
Well I am not a member of USSMA but was a positive supporter/member for years when Earl Aune was taking over on Harris Lee`s commitment but did start seeing the drop in the east in the mid 2000`s and at my end personal things got in the way(college support) plus economy hurt as in the travel involvement was but looking to come back in. But this thread it should be on normalization scoring change not the Scale Master attendance issue But do Support 100% John and Larry`s comments.

Jim

Thanks Jim, was about to say the same thing.. Let's get back on the topic of Normalization, if you have another topic to discuss, please open another thread.    I'm going to start one.. keep an eye out..

--Mitch

OK all you computer scoring smart guys. Tell my why the normalizing did not show the real winner? Yes I voted for this change but only because I flew IMAC and it was started and used. Did we apply it somewhat different? I don't think we can normalize the static. So work needs to be done on the program. May be we acted too quick on this, sorry Bob. I don't think the NASA org will addopt this. If we did it would take 3 years to implement because of the rule cycle. Maybe that's why we have that type of check on new rules. As far as TG don't know I will ask Frank when I see him.
Mike Barbee   

I think you have to look at how I understand IMAC applies normalizing and how it was done at the Championships.

In IMAC I understand that all of one class flies a round in front of the same judges, then they all fly in front of another set of judges.  They are not split up over several judges for one round.

If we did that normalizing would work - but you would have lopsided flight lines - the line with the class that had the most entries would always finish last and it would just keep getting worse.

That is how IMAC does it around here anyway.

You can say that they all see the same judges, but they don't all in the same round - there is always a scrooge set of judges and a santa claus set.

I did not see any overwhelming reason to go to normalizing anyway.  The only complaints about the current scoring system that I have ever heard (discounting easy or tough judges) was that 50% of your score was based on static, and nowadys if you don't have about a 98 static you are pretty much out of the money.  But no suggestions on how to fix that.

  The only complaints about the current scoring system that I have ever heard (discounting easy or tough judges) was that 50% of your score was based on static, and nowadys if you don't have about a 98 static you are pretty much out of the money.  But no suggestions on how to fix that.
[/quote]
"But no suggestions on how to fix that" ...

I hate to be the one to "poke the beast in the belly" ...but I think we need to be reminded of the "original idea" of the U.S. Scale Masters. It was to reccognize skills and talents in BUILDING as well as FLYING.

That's why our final score is weighted 50% for building and 50% for flying. If your not receiving static scores in the mid-to-high-nineties then you need to pay more attention to details as you construct the model of YOUR choice. Remember, WE get to select the type of plane that we're going to compete with. ( that's a good thing ) If you feel that the reason for a low static score might be "lack of documentation" available....then select another subject to model. Remember that the first step is to do your research first and find all the documentation first before you start to build.

I'm not a fan of "score-normalizing" for our contest. (see next post ) I'm having problems with this "reply box"

The way I see it,
Score-Normalizing is like "grading on a curve". Anyone who attended public schools during the 1970s will remember when they implemented the dreaded - "Bell Curve" grading system. This was done so that kids would not get their feelings hurt. "everyone will be a winner" and no child is a loser.
If you are a fan of Major Leaque Baseball then you know why there will never be another Babe Ruth. The "bell-curve" is one reason why no one will ever bat 400 again. But I digrees.

When you "normalize" scores, you are using the scores from other contestants to find (for lackof a better term ) a "reference-point".A datum point from which you base "other" scores upon. In other words, your final score does not reflect your individual skills but rather how you compared to the other contestants at a particular event. In Scale Masters, we only compete against ourselves and NOT against others.So your "normalized" value has no meaning outside of a particular contest. Just remember that as you fly YOUR model in front of judges, that your score is refective of how well you flew each maneuver as described during your judges-brief before you took off. That's why it's imparitive that you brief each set of judges as to how YOU will fly YOUR model.

Ken.

Quote from: rcphotog on Sat, 10/06/12, 03:54 AM

...but I think we need to be reminded of the "original idea" of the U.S. Scale Masters. It was to recognize skills and talents in BUILDING as well as FLYING
.
Did not Harris Lee want this?   I have to Agree.

" In Scale Masters, we only compete against ourselves and NOT against others.So your "normalized" value has no meaning outside of a particular contest. Just remember that as you fly YOUR model in front of judges, that your score is refective of how well you flew each maneuver as described during your judges-brief before you took off. That's why it's imparitive that you brief each set of judges as to how YOU will fly YOUR model. "

    Yes

Jim

Quote from: rcphotog on Sat, 10/06/12, 03:54 AM

I hate to be the one to "poke the beast in the belly" ...but I think we need to be reminded of the "original idea" of the U.S. Scale Masters. It was to reccognize skills and talents in BUILDING as well as FLYING.

That's what I have been saying...    it's suppose to be more difficult than AMA or Top Gun.. Quality not quantity... 

See-ya
Mitch

Quote from: Mike Barbee on Thu, 10/04/12, 07:40 PM
OK all you computer scoring smart guys. Tell my why the normalizing did not show the real winner? Yes I voted for this change but only because I flew IMAC and it was started and used. Did we apply it somewhat different? I don't think we can normalize the static. So work needs to be done on the program. May be we acted too quick on this, sorry Bob. I don't think the NASA org will addopt this. If we did it would take 3 years to implement because of the rule cycle. Maybe that's why we have that type of check on new rules. As far as TG don't know I will ask Frank when I see him.
Mike Barbee   

Good questions Mike.  After you brought this up, I started wondering the same thing.  If normalization is just "creating" a curve for the highs and lows in judging, then normalizing should not change the final outcome.  So I started looking close at the numbers and different combination of the numbers. 

I agree, static should not be normalized, there is no high judge/low judge so there should not be a need for it.  And it was just that which caused the shift in place. 

Now I don't want to take anything away from the winner of the champs...  He had a great plane and did a great job of flying. And under the scoring change described after round 2 and voted on by the pilots, the winner is the winner.

That being said, on to analysis of the scoring.  It would seem that the normalizing of static is what caused the shift in the score.  If we had added raw static score to the top 3 avg'ed normalized flight, the outcome would have been different.  If we had just totaled all 5 normalized flight scores and added either of the type static scores, the outcome would have been different, if we had just totaled the top 3 normalized flight scores and added either type of static score, the outcome would have been different.

So the conclusion I have is that the implementation that was given to use, was flawed and not properly tested before being introduced at the championships.  In fact, after some investigation, it was not used in any other event prior to the championships.

--Mitch

I do not wish to sound like a broken record here BUT Mitch does in my view have a Very Good understandable post there for a positive reason why normalizing static points should not be used. Thanks

Jim

Hey Mitch,

You are absolutely correct. What I think happens when you use the raw static score and normalized flight scores, the outcome changes because the static score becomes a smaller percentage of the total score. The raw score is based on 100 total, the flight scores is 1000.
Even if you normalize to 100, and use the raw static score, there is an increase in the overall flight scores, the outcome is different, and that part I understand why that happens.