Trajectory C

[bernard]

[knightmoves]

Targets are 1m square or larger. Do I understand that any strike on the 1m square is full points, and that otherwise the distance measured is the distance between the strike point and the closest part of the target?

[Godspeed]

Targets are 1m square or larger. Do I understand that any strike on the 1m square is full points, and that otherwise the distance measured is the distance between the strike point and the closest part of the target?

I believe that it's actually just the distance measured between the center of the target and the initial strike point.

[knightmoves]

Targets are 1m square or larger. Do I understand that any strike on the 1m square is full points, and that otherwise the distance measured is the distance between the strike point and the closest part of the target?

I believe that it's actually just the distance measured between the center of the target and the initial strike point.

I agree that that makes sense.

But:

6b. Two targets [...] must have a minimum diameter / length / width of 1.00m Supervisors are encouraged to place sand / cat litter etc. in the area around the targets to help indicate landing spots.

So a target is defined as an area on the floor of at least 1m in size, and the area surrounding the target should / could have some way of measuring strike locations. But not the target itself. The rules don't suggest you should put sand on the target.

7b. TS is 2000 (near) or 4000 (far) minus the straight line distance in mm from the centre of the impact to the target.

"The target" was defined as a 1m-scale object. It's not the center of that object, or a point marked on that object.

If the rules wanted to score distance from a target point, then there's no point in specifying a size for the target, because the actual target would be a point. And then, ideally, you'd want sand / cat litter / high-speed video looking at a 4m circle around the far point and a 2m circle around the near point (because that's where you get a non-zero score). But they don't say that.

The phrase "center of the target" doesn't appear anywhere in the rules. The target is never defined as a point - it is always defined as the 1m-scale object.

[maxbajcz]

The target is typically a "pin" that sticks up in the center of the 1m square. The sand around it makes it easier for the event supervisors to accurately measure from the pin to the actual impact point. Outside of the 1m square, accuracy of measurement is far less critical.

[knightmoves]

The target is typically a "pin" that sticks up in the center of the 1m square. The sand around it makes it easier for the event supervisors to accurately measure from the pin to the actual impact point. Outside of the 1m square, accuracy of measurement is far less critical.

That makes sense, and I understand from the old forums that that is what was done last time this event was done. But can you show me where in the current rules this is defined? Everything I see in the rules defines "target" as a minimum 1m-sized, preferably square object. Nowhere defines "target" as a point in the center of that object.

Obviously what you're saying makes sense. If we score max points by hitting anywhere on a 1m-scale target, there are going to be a lot of teams with the same score. I just don't see how the sensible things that you are saying, and that Godspeed said, match what's written in the event rules.

[0ddrenaline]

The target is typically a "pin" that sticks up in the center of the 1m square. The sand around it makes it easier for the event supervisors to accurately measure from the pin to the actual impact point. Outside of the 1m square, accuracy of measurement is far less critical.

That makes sense, and I understand from the old forums that that is what was done last time this event was done. But can you show me where in the current rules this is defined? Everything I see in the rules defines "target" as a minimum 1m-sized, preferably square object. Nowhere defines "target" as a point in the center of that object.

Obviously what you're saying makes sense. If we score max points by hitting anywhere on a 1m-scale target, there are going to be a lot of teams with the same score. I just don't see how the sensible things that you are saying, and that Godspeed said, match what's written in the event rules.

I think they actually made a mistake in the wording, unless your interpretation is right. The previous wording in Air Trajectory 2015/2016 was "Two targets, designated by small marks on tape on the floor or panels lying on the floor" and now it's "Two targets, designated by tape on the floor or panels lying on the floor" and it also says that the targets must be 1 square meter, as opposed to the "small marks" of previous years. It really does sound like what once was a small point on the field is now a 1 meter square. I really don't think they intended this and I'll probably sumit a rules clarification request.

[knightmoves]

I think they actually made a mistake in the wording, unless your interpretation is right. The previous wording in Air Trajectory 2015/2016 was "Two targets, designated by small marks on tape on the floor or panels lying on the floor" and now it's "Two targets, designated by tape on the floor or panels lying on the floor" and it also says that the targets must be 1 square meter, as opposed to the "small marks" of previous years. It really does sound like what once was a small point on the field is now a 1 meter square. I really don't think they intended this and I'll probably sumit a rules clarification request.

Thanks - I agree with you about their likely intent, but I thought I was going crazy trying to find something about that in the rules. So I'm glad you agree that it isn't there. (And if there happen to be any of the rules committee watching - well, we have to wait a couple of weeks until the system will accept a clarification request, but you know what's coming...)

[yummytofu]

Anyone have pictures of this event from prior years. I just want to make sure my mental image is actually what the event looks like.

[CookiePie1]

Anyone have pictures of this event from prior years. I just want to make sure my mental image is actually what the event looks like.

Check the gallery! https://scioly.org/gallery/category.php?c=3

Otherwise, a simple google search for it also brings up some images.