Avaiojet

The rewards go to those that don't build.

cocobear

My Feedback: (2)

Charles, that may be if you exclude the joy and satisfaction gleened from the build itself. What rewards are we talking about? A ten dollar trophy? I build for me.

Avaiojet

Cocobear,

Yes, I understand that we build for ourselves.

If we wait for a pat on the back, it will be long in coming.

I'm beginning to understand why we, as "scratch builders," are hated. Taken a while, but I'm learning.

WHAT ARE YOU BUILDING!!

Charles

abufletcher

As I've said before, I'd be more drawn to a contest where 90% of the score came from some sort of judging of the building itself (not just the final product) and a 10% "bonus" for going through a simple almost perfunctory flying routine (e.g. take off, demonstrate stable flight through basic maneuvering, land).

The "documentation" for this new style of judging would include photo of the construction process. Points would be awarded for attempting "scale construction," for example, a real metal skin on a P-38 or scale interior structure on a Camel.

In short, if we're going to reward BUILDERS let's reward them on their skills at BUILDING scale models (that fly).

(BTW, I also don't understand why an "average" static score wouldn't be in the 70s. The way I see it, only 10% of the models in any scale contest should be getting marks in the 90s. Maybe that's just the teacher in me.)

Veltro

My Feedback: (1)

I’ve competed in a couple of qualifiers and a couple of championships. I’ve noticed that you can win with a great static store and mediocre flying scores, but you can’t win with a mediocre static score and excellent flying scores.

I think the static score carries way too much weight, especially in today’s world. I’ve commented to a few friends that it would be interesting to require a minimum static score to continue on in the contest, but then throw out that score and make the competition purely a flying contest. The top static scores would be recognized separately with plaques. I think this would also address the comments I often hear from the spectators of “These guys don’t fly very well.�

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

your idea is fine except it doesnt eliminate the cheating aspects that we are talking about here. Sounds to me like you are talking a funscale event.....

abufletcher

I suppose for some it's "flying SCALE models" while for others it's "FLYING scale models."

TFF

50/50 is fair and I cant remember when a winner had less than 95s in both to win. 78s should not be a standard; it is not about a feel good hug, it is about who can bring the best plane and fly it! When it comes to scoring it is not about recognition for everyone, it is about the best. The harshness of scoring, though, is balanced with the appreciation that modelers have for all the planes entered. Never once, have I heard something bad about someone's airplane, and almost always hear compliments no matter the skill level. Might not get the recognition with scores but peer appreciation is worth it.

abufletcher

I guess what I don't understand is why nearly all the static scores seem to be in the 90s. It's sort of like in gymnastics were gymnasts are rarely given below a 9.0. Anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider to competition.

TFF

Mine are not in the 90s, more like 80-85. More like 80. The people at the top, who play the game well, are showing up with planes that are hairsplitting close in quality. Refined is the best term. "That will do" is not in the lexicon. Take your best plane and spend the next year fixing the known flaws, then have friends over to find the ones you missed and fix those. Then thats your starting point. I would think a plane at 90 would be the best plane at the average club.

rcphotog

Hi Don,

I don't want to stray too far off topic ( cheating ) but I think by your comment you don't fully understand the static scoring method used in Scale Masters and Top Gun and the like.

Simply put, the model is compared to the documentation that the contestant provides. The model starts with a perfect score of one-hundred and then deductions / downgrades are made. A full point downgrade for a mismatched item is considered a huge / major error. Re: Scale Masters scoring, models entered in "expert" , "team" or "advance" class are very well executed and documented and therefore generally recieve minor ( 1/4 pt. , 1/2 pt. ) downgrades for each "mis-match". For something to receive / deserve a full one-point deduct, it means that the section or part is way off and very noticeable. So an "expert" enrty with a final static score of 97, for example, would mean either that there were six 1/2pt downgrades (most common) for minor mis-matches or 3 points for major things wrong (not going to happen often) or any combinations thereof.

The "bell-curve" method is not used...

Hope this helps shed some light.
Ken.

abufletcher

Thanks for the clarification. So it IS the same as gymnastics scoring, e.g. deductions for a perfect score rather than adding up points. Returning to the topic of a BOM rule, I guess I'd rather see points "added up" for scale construction steps (as documented in build photos).

TFF

If the scoring is done to equal standards, would you not end up with the same score if subtracting from perfect or adding from 0?
Also, there is a time restraint in the rules for judging, but there is also a pratical time restraint; it has to get done or the show cant go on. Lets say there are 4 judged classes 6 planes in each of the classes, two teams of judges taking two classes each as the team has to see all the planes in class for consistancy. That comes up to 6 man hours of judging at 15 min per plane; if early judging is not available on the Friday evening, that is a lot of work to cram all in on a Saturday morning when the first round of flying is trying to take place at the same time.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

I think its easier to set the base line as "perfect" and then work backwards as is the case now. The reason being is that there is an establish standard, perfect where the divergence is established from. And no I don't think you would get the same results adding points. What are you adding points to?
Like ALL subjective judging the system is not without issues. As a competitor you should know and expect that going into the comp.

Fidelity of outline: its perfect save a small area right before the fin intersects the fuse and the shape of the canopy at the front. By adding you would ask the judges to, in theory, add all the perfect shapes and come up with a score and then the not so perfect shapes and come up with another score and add the two. Why would you want to do that?

Flight judging is no different, its subjective as well.

Don, the build alongs belong on the pages of magazines and web threads, not in a contest. Fidelity to scale when viewing the final product is the goal here.

Imagine the disparity for contestants between building a WWII fighter airframe vs a WWI fighter airframe and then providing build pictures to show fidelity to scale. Relatively simple for the WWI types. Not so for the rest.

semeraro

"Scratch builders are hated".....

Since when? All I feel is the love .

Dave

GerKonig

Good points. What I wonder then, what is the difference between someone that purchases a Top Flite P-51 ARC, and turns it into a scale model, and the guy that purchases a Yellow kit (or a BMW, or one of so many other composite kits...) and finished the kit into a scale model... I can answer my question: None, it is the same thing.

The market has changed, the rules will have to change accordingly.

Gerry

Avaiojet

Gerry,

Here look, These are apples and over here are oranges.

Apples here oranges there.

Apples, oranges.

Ya got it!