Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, barfy said:

Teams have until 30th of Nov to sort out Rule 27.4.

 

Jeez, with the time you spend on the forum you are still not able to understand the fucking rule ?

Teams have no rights, they can speak but have no rigths, NONE.

27.4 Following sailing trials and experience gained by Competitors, the Rules Committee,
with the agreement of COR/D and the Regatta Director, and in consultation with Competitors, may amend
this Rule

27.9 Following sailing trials, COR/D might specify updates to the system which must be installed by all Competitors,
these updates being frozen according to Rule 34.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Jeez, with the time you spend on the forum you are still not able to understand the fucking rule ?

Teams have no rights, they can speak but have no rigths, NONE.

27.4 Following sailing trials and experience gained by Competitors, the Rules Committee,
with the agreement of COR/D and the Regatta Director, and in consultation with Competitors, may amend
this Rule

27.9 Following sailing trials, COR/D might specify updates to the system which must be installed by all Competitors,
these updates being frozen according to Rule 34.

 

Yea, that's what I posted. I posted it cause I read it. The teams that sort out are cor/d. Other teams will have input.

Well done Sherlock. I even posted pictures, that should have helped you with comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We finally got the foil arm amendement published. They tried to balance arm weight increase by decreasing the fairings and FCS weight but the total still increases of 215 kg.

More important perhaps is the distance of the center of mass of the foil vs the foil cant axis goes from 3.3752 to 2.942 m which means that the weight will be more centered, thus a bit less RM.

AC75 Amend 05.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

We finally got the foil arm amendement published. They tried to balance arm weight increase by decreasing the fairings and FCS weight but the total still increases of 215 kg.

More important perhaps is the distance of the center of mass of the foil vs the foil cant axis goes from 3.3752 to 2.942 m which means that the weight will be more centered, thus a bit less RM.

AC75 Amend 05.pdf

But thenLl the teams have put bulbs on the foil... and are not empty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

We finally got the foil arm amendement published. They tried to balance arm weight increase by decreasing the fairings and FCS weight but the total still increases of 215 kg.

More important perhaps is the distance of the center of mass of the foil vs the foil cant axis goes from 3.3752 to 2.942 m which means that the weight will be more centered, thus a bit less RM.

AC75 Amend 05.pdf

Not necessarily. Given:

Moment = force x distance

And basing the moment from the arm as CM x (distance from cant axis + cant axis offset from centreline), then:

Original: M0 = 1,215 x (3.375 + 2.050) = 6,591.375 kgm

New: M1 = 1,385 x (2.942 + 2.050) = 6,913.92 kgm

M1 - M0 = 322.545 kgm

Which is an increase of nearly 5% for the ideal case where the CM is at maximum distance horizontally from the centreline.

If the moment is calculated to the other foil, rather than the centreline, the increased moment doubles to over 600 kgm. But of course the actual moment depends on where the foils are canted too, but in any case I think it's a significant change that can't be ignored as being within tolerance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobG said:

Not necessarily. Given:

Moment = force x distance

And basing the moment from the arm as CM x (distance from cant axis + cant axis offset from centreline), then:

Original: M0 = 1,215 x (3.375 + 2.050) = 6,591.375 kgm

New: M1 = 1,385 x (2.942 + 2.050) = 6,913.92 kgm

M1 - M0 = 322.545 kgm

Which is an increase of nearly 5% for the ideal case where the CM is at maximum distance horizontally from the centreline.

If the moment is calculated to the other foil, rather than the centreline, the increased moment doubles to over 600 kgm. But of course the actual moment depends on where the foils are canted too, but in any case I think it's a significant change that can't be ignored as being within tolerance.

I love it when people bring science to a speculation fight. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RobG said:

Which is an increase of nearly 5% for the ideal case where the CM is at maximum distance horizontally from the centreline.

At the cost of a bigger weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

At the cost of a bigger weight.

Seriously, is there anything that you can't be found to be both wrong about, but yet still whinge about.....? 

Have added this to the (lengthy) list. 

Are you this negative and bitter about all other aspects in your life?

These boats - in your opinion - were not going to work, be too unstable, too dangerous, the Kiwi bow was going to cause all sorts of mayhem on contact with the water, their control system was inadequate, lots of touches and splashdowns. A myriad of complaints about not being privvy to rules (as if you were the royal rule adjudicator requiring access to pass fit) Now you have the new rules - you fail to interpret their significance correctly, having bagged out others on their comprehension - and now come down on the position that RM is up but at the expense of greater weight, because lets face it - these are only probably the most complex sailboats ever launched..... and yet they have increased in weight........

Grow Up - you need a bit of Jantelagen in your life.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Boink said:

These boats - in your opinion - were  too unstable

 

Boink, you were part of those denying the reinforcement of the foil arm would have any impact, now the rule tells it's about + 200 kg, you are proven wrong.

You also pretend that i'ts a fraction of total boat mass but fail to understand that each kg is important on a sailboat, moreover a foiler.

You complain that I asked here for a rule that you fail to understand properly,

You dare to imply that those boats are stable after only a few days of sailing for sailing while the brits, the yanks and the italians tell the contrary.

As you are more willing troll than having a serious discussion I have a photo for you. :)

0934405F-B66E-40B0-AC7C-784D9C5D067D.jpeg.27856bf3df3458526f8f4857a1b3f2f4.jpg

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a cool photo... a giant dolphin breaches the surface and morphs into the fastest monohull on the planet. How cool is that?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Boink, you were part of those denying the reinforcement of the foil arm would have any impact, now the rule tells it's about + 200 kg, you are proven wrong.

- Show me where I wrote such stuff....... I have not claimed this. 

You also pretend that i'ts a fraction of total boat mass but fail to understand that each kg is important on a sailboat, moreover a foiler.

- 215kg increase on the gross mass Budget of 7600Kg is a fraction of an increase. If that is what the engineers have deemed necessary to make this class reliably safe then I for one wholeheartedly support it. Bart was a personal friend of mine, so I have direct experience of the loss that skinny margins might produce. So when the teams collaborate and get on the front foot to remedy a problem then good for them.  Fuck your sniffy "holier than thou" attitude to diluting a grand prix rule. The NZ boat has already demonstrated early take off and quite remarkable performance for light air sailing, so the added weight has not killed the concept of cutting egde or performance in the slightest. And to lecture me on what I do or don't understand about the implications of mass on foilers or any other sail boat is both laughable and pathetic.

You complain that I asked here for a rule that you fail to understand properly,

- Why should the organisers make anything public? They don't have to do anything. It is nice that they might; but our visibility of their IP is a favour that they they grace upon us, not a right that we have. Have you entered the competition, paid a bond, invested in a set up? Of course you haven't, but you carp on about it like some entitled asshole - you represent the gob shite majority in todays society of oxygen thiefs, who bring little insight but lots of baggage. But when you get access to an updated rule - you fail to read and comprehend it correctly - but accuse me that I don't understand - again I am not running a whinging commentary on what I haven't had, seen or understood - you are. I am running an observation of your petulant whinging - that is completely different.  But your level of comprehension prevents you from distinguishing such differences.

You dare to imply that those boats are stable after only a few days of sailing for sailing while the brits, the yanks and the italians tell the contrary.

- I haven't dared to imply anything about the stability of these boats, but you have..... I have commented on how your predictions of almost everything have failed to materialise, as have several, if not many, others have. Take some time to read my postings with fresh eyes - I remain open to all possibilities and with no team allegiance to bias my opinion. I have consistently played down the speculation that this place breeds. These are possibly the most complex boats yet designed and operated. Period. Whilst teams grapple with these beast I fully expect to see all manner of mishaps - because that is what happens in testing equipment used in any highly competitive manner. However whilst I am impressed and hopeful for our sport and the direction it is taking - you remain a poorly resolved conflicted soul - claiming it is unsuitable, dangerous and flawed in concept; poorly executed when a few splashdows go filmed; yet whinge about the sanctity of the rule as pinancle technology when it is revealed that the total mass has increased by 215kg - though it affects all boats from all teams from the outset, and they remain mightily impressive...... So nothing has been really compromised. Go figure.

As you are more willing troll than having a serious discussion I have a photo for you. :)

So when I hold your whingefest up for scrutiny and question the manner or approach that you bring, I am the Troll....... Not likely. I want to stamp out the ill considered and poorly reasoned, bratty approaches that are seen in this form - and which you seem to repeteadly bring to this place. I will not stop calling out anti social behaviour wherever I encounter it - Public Transport, Public Places,  Road users or Website forums et al.... If everyone spoke up at such utterances or poor behaviour, we would live in a more polite and considered society - Instead we continue our slide into reality TV, instant gratification and Trumpery........

As to your photo showing a still of a splashdown, so what? Crashes and accidents happen all the time in motorsport by highly experienced and very well paid riders and drivers - what does it prove - they were pushing it....... To extrapolate team fortunes and dire consequences from a still photgraph smacks of low IQ and poorly developed reasoning skills. So keep doing it, you are your own worst enemy...... ;)

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to an ineos insider the software supplied for manoeuvring the foil arms by the kiwis is a mess. They can sail in straight lines fine but can't raise the arms up and down fast enough for completing tacks and gybes. American magic and Luna have the same issues apart from kiwis who have updated there software and are sailing fine but are unwilling to give out the new software. I sence more classic AC law suits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jamem3 said:

According to an ineos insider the software supplied for manoeuvring the foil arms by the kiwis is a mess. They can sail in straight lines fine but can't raise the arms up and down fast enough for completing tacks and gybes. American magic and Luna have the same issues apart from kiwis who have updated there software and are sailing fine but are unwilling to give out the new software. I sence more classic AC law suits

Is the software meant to be supplied as one design?

instead of complaining perhaps the challengers could update the software themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamem3 said:

According to an ineos insider the software supplied for manoeuvring the foil arms by the kiwis is a mess. They can sail in straight lines fine but can't raise the arms up and down fast enough for completing tacks and gybes. American magic and Luna have the same issues apart from kiwis who have updated there software and are sailing fine but are unwilling to give out the new software. I sence more classic AC law suits

So despite pics of ineos and AM completing foiling manoeuvres. You are still going with the crap you wrote about  straight lines only sailing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

So despite pics of ineos and AM completing foiling manoeuvres. You are still going with the crap you wrote about  straight lines only sailing?

Ineos did a foiling tack on there first day. The arms often move at random speeds which is causing massive headaches while trying to tack and gybe. That's what I was told

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Boink said:

 

A lot of writing for not much.

You still claim that the 215 kg increase of the gross budget is not important because you compare it to the gross mass budget. However the increase is not in the center of the boat and if you read the rules properly you should see that they tried to cut it as much as possible on the fairings and the fcs. Then you assert that you know that the loss of skinny margins means, it took you time to admit it.

So stop your denial, your bullshit and the rest: there was a weight increase, they tried to diminish it as much as possible, it has an impact.

TNZ succeeded to foil well  we have to see what the others are doing.

But once a problem is solved another one is seemingly coming with the FCS, which you also are probably going to deny.

To go back to more serious issues for you, did you succeed to open a Facebook account to watch the worthless video with a ball you were desperatly willing to find ? :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamem3 said:

According to an ineos insider the software supplied for manoeuvring the foil arms by the kiwis is a mess. They can sail in straight lines fine but can't raise the arms up and down fast enough for completing tacks and gybes. American magic and Luna have the same issues apart from kiwis who have updated there software and are sailing fine but are unwilling to give out the new software. I sence more classic AC law suits

What is interesting is that you confirm Tom Ehman information which had been considered as unreliable by some here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Yeah... total deja vu... @Boink you are wasting your time mate... 

You wrote that May 26 :)

"This will be a laugh when the class rules show no weight increase eh! Our debate all for nothing in that case ;-) "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jamem3 said:

According to an ineos insider the software supplied for manoeuvring the foil arms by the kiwis is a mess. They can sail in straight lines fine but can't raise the arms up and down fast enough for completing tacks and gybes. American magic and Luna have the same issues apart from kiwis who have updated there software and are sailing fine but are unwilling to give out the new software. I sence more classic AC law suits

So your insider is suggesting that ETNZ has altered a one design part of the design.  That's a pretty fucking serious allegation.  I'd like them to do it publicly.  Up until then, I'd suggest they're lying, and you're gullible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

What is interesting is that you confirm Tom Ehman information which had been considered as unreliable by some here.

You'll believe anyone and anything if it fits your conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

But once a problem is solved another one is seemingly coming with the FCS, which you also are probably going to deny.

And you are licking your lips over... You to have a hard in for any challenge or issue and become positively orgasmic if it becomes a big problem. Blue balls eh....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

You wrote that May 26 :)

"This will be a laugh when the class rules show no weight increase eh! Our debate all for nothing in that case ;-) "

Errrrm that was a joke - an attempt to cordially conclude a circular heated debate with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

And you are licking your lips over... You to have a hard in for any challenge or issue and become positively orgasmic if it becomes a big problem. Blue balls eh....

I am as interested than you or more to see these boats sailing. But you can speculate as you want :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-yachtie said:

So your insider is suggesting that ETNZ has altered a one design part of the design.  That's a pretty fucking serious allegation.  I'd like them to do it publicly.  Up until then, I'd suggest they're lying, and you're gullible.

Does this mean you fucks will stop with the herbie bullshit since nobody of any note said it publicly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

Does this mean you fucks will stop with the herbie bullshit since nobody of any note said it publicly?

I’ve never talked about the Herbie bullshit. So perhaps you might check who “you fucks” are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 4:23 AM, jamem3 said:

Ineos did a foiling tack on there first day. The arms often move at random speeds which is causing massive headaches while trying to tack and gybe. That's what I was told

Huh? Random speeds? The speeds and range of motion have been confirmed publicly for a LONG TIME. The FCS is one design. It is not open to interpretation. The FCS was designed and built in NZ and sent to all the teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Forourselves said:

The speeds and range of motion have been confirmed publicly for a LONG TIME. The FCS is one design. It is not open to interpretation.

The design parameters perhaps, and only in very general terms. the discussion is now about implementation. Where has the data of actual, on water performance been published?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone knows how many different  foils are permitted for each team?
Can't find it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobG said:

Rule 5.1, six wings are allowed (presumably teams will have 3 sets of two).

On basis that they can probably quite reasonably test foil design  A against foil design B by having them on different sides at the same time, is there upside in having up to 4 different designs before finalising the final set? Lead time might be an issue....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RobG said:

The design parameters perhaps, and only in very general terms. the discussion is now about implementation. Where has the data of actual, on water performance been published?

 

Probably between the teams? They'd presumably need to know when stress limits are reached, so given that assumption, one would assume any on water data is being transferred between the teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Forourselves said:

Probably between the teams? They'd presumably need to know when stress limits are reached, so given that assumption, one would assume any on water data is being transferred between the teams.

So actual performance has not been "confirmed publicly for a LONG TIME".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RobG said:

So actual performance has not been "confirmed publicly for a LONG TIME".

Don't expect it ever will. The modified design meets all testing stress limits, so I guess thats all the teams need to proceed with their own testing programs. The core structure of the arm is one design, but a certain percentage of the arm is open to design in terms of fairing, so I doubt we will ever see any public release of performance data in any area including the foil arm until probably the first regatta, and even then, performance data will no doubt be down to a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 9:11 PM, Rushman said:

Is the software meant to be supplied as one design?

Yes.

Quote

instead of complaining perhaps the challengers could update the software themselves

Teams aren't allowed to modify the FCS software, it's a black box.

As far as we know, there is an API that the teams can use to move the arm. It will allow incremental movements in the 0° to about 80° range (i.e. between fully down and highest sailing position), and a single movement between 80° and 119° degrees (highest sailing position and fully raised). The input might be as simple as a pressure value to apply to the hydraulic ram, so teams will calibrate movement vs pressure themselves. Or it might be a cant angle, or a ram extension length and time to extend, or rate of extension, or something more complex.

Presumably details are in the FCS spec that hasn't been made public.

As noted earlier, while the design limits have been stated in general (which I think is about 3 seconds from fully raised to fully lowered and about 17 seconds to fully recharge), the actual performance of the arm in use is unknown. Things like repeatability of movements, rates of movement under different loads, rate of recharge for small movements, effect of partial recharge on small movements, etc. I imagine teams are thoroughly testing it to calibrate their control software. It wouldn't take long to discover that the arm is not moving consistently for a given set of parameters.

We know that the FCS software has logic to attenuate bouncing of the arm at the end of a movement, it may also have other logic at other steps that affect how the arm moves. INEOS may want to know what that logic is so they can fit their movement instructions to what the FCS software is doing, rather than having to reverse engineer it. Presumably the (unpublished) specification doesn't have that detail.

In an ideal world, the arm software would be developed entirely independently of all teams (including ETNZ) based on a published (but perhaps on public) detailed design. All teams should have access to the source code and test suit, though not be able to modify code. It seems that's not the case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RobG said:

Yes.

Teams aren't allowed to modify the FCS software, it's a black box.

As far as we know, there is an API that the teams can use to move the arm. It will allow incremental movements in the 0° to about 80° range (i.e. between fully down and highest sailing position), and a single movement between 80° and 119° degrees (highest sailing position and fully raised). The input might be as simple as a pressure value to apply to the hydraulic ram, so teams will calibrate movement vs pressure themselves. Or it might be a cant angle, or a ram extension length and time to extend, or rate of extension, or something more complex.

Presumably details are in the FCS spec that hasn't been made public.

As noted earlier, while the design limits have been stated in general (which I think is about 3 seconds from fully raised to fully lowered and about 17 seconds to fully recharge), the actual performance of the arm in use is unknown. Things like repeatability of movements, rates of movement under different loads, rate of recharge for small movements, effect of partial recharge on small movements, etc. I imagine teams are thoroughly testing it to calibrate their control software. It wouldn't take long to discover that the arm is not moving consistently for a given set of parameters.

We know that the FCS software has logic to attenuate bouncing of the arm at the end of a movement, it may also have other logic at other steps that affect how the arm moves. INEOS may want to know what that logic is so they can fit their movement instructions to what the FCS software is doing, rather than having to reverse engineer it. Presumably the (unpublished) specification doesn't have that detail.

In an ideal world, the arm software would be developed entirely independently of all teams (including ETNZ) based on a published (but perhaps on public) detailed design. All teams should have access to the source code and test suit, though not be able to modify code. It seems that's not the case.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RobG said:

Yes.

Teams aren't allowed to modify the FCS software, it's a black box.

As far as we know, there is an API that the teams can use to move the arm. It will allow incremental movements in the 0° to about 80° range (i.e. between fully down and highest sailing position), and a single movement between 80° and 119° degrees (highest sailing position and fully raised). The input might be as simple as a pressure value to apply to the hydraulic ram, so teams will calibrate movement vs pressure themselves. Or it might be a cant angle, or a ram extension length and time to extend, or rate of extension, or something more complex.

Presumably details are in the FCS spec that hasn't been made public.

As noted earlier, while the design limits have been stated in general (which I think is about 3 seconds from fully raised to fully lowered and about 17 seconds to fully recharge), the actual performance of the arm in use is unknown. Things like repeatability of movements, rates of movement under different loads, rate of recharge for small movements, effect of partial recharge on small movements, etc. I imagine teams are thoroughly testing it to calibrate their control software. It wouldn't take long to discover that the arm is not moving consistently for a given set of parameters.

We know that the FCS software has logic to attenuate bouncing of the arm at the end of a movement, it may also have other logic at other steps that affect how the arm moves. INEOS may want to know what that logic is so they can fit their movement instructions to what the FCS software is doing, rather than having to reverse engineer it. Presumably the (unpublished) specification doesn't have that detail.

In an ideal world, the arm software would be developed entirely independently of all teams (including ETNZ) based on a published (but perhaps on public) detailed design. All teams should have access to the source code and test suit, though not be able to modify code. It seems that's not the case.

Best article on the FCS ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RobG said:

Yes.

Teams aren't allowed to modify the FCS software, it's a black box.

As far as we know, there is an API that the teams can use to move the arm. It will allow incremental movements in the 0° to about 80° range (i.e. between fully down and highest sailing position), and a single movement between 80° and 119° degrees (highest sailing position and fully raised). The input might be as simple as a pressure value to apply to the hydraulic ram, so teams will calibrate movement vs pressure themselves. Or it might be a cant angle, or a ram extension length and time to extend, or rate of extension, or something more complex.

Presumably details are in the FCS spec that hasn't been made public.

As noted earlier, while the design limits have been stated in general (which I think is about 3 seconds from fully raised to fully lowered and about 17 seconds to fully recharge), the actual performance of the arm in use is unknown. Things like repeatability of movements, rates of movement under different loads, rate of recharge for small movements, effect of partial recharge on small movements, etc. I imagine teams are thoroughly testing it to calibrate their control software. It wouldn't take long to discover that the arm is not moving consistently for a given set of parameters.

We know that the FCS software has logic to attenuate bouncing of the arm at the end of a movement, it may also have other logic at other steps that affect how the arm moves. INEOS may want to know what that logic is so they can fit their movement instructions to what the FCS software is doing, rather than having to reverse engineer it. Presumably the (unpublished) specification doesn't have that detail.

In an ideal world, the arm software would be developed entirely independently of all teams (including ETNZ) based on a published (but perhaps on public) detailed design. All teams should have access to the source code and test suit, though not be able to modify code. It seems that's not the case.

 

I would imagine that TNZ would not trust that process or unintended consequences of farming it out and would rather control the outcome using the defender advantage while still maintaining the appearance of a degree of fairness with the other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rob,

7 hours ago, RobG said:

As far as we know, there is an API that the teams can use to move the arm. It will allo

This is really conjecture. Of course there will be a means of input, and presumably some data output. But really, other than the fact that there is Need to move the arm, we know nothing.

The API could be three contacts for up, down, ect, and a pot for the bit between.

There is not going to be a calibration valve, this is bleeding edge hydraulics they will take a couple months to tune.end of November is the date for fcs usage and limits to be concluded, I hope all the teams get some sailing in so they can contribute.

2 hours ago, Crux said:

All teams should have access to the source code and test suit, though

Sorry, Rob g said that I think. You can't let teams have the source on a one design component. Input, test data, bugs, yes. Source, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RobG said:

ll teams should have access to the source code and test suit, though not be able to modify code. It seems that's not the case.

They signed up for the rules. Before the match all code will be equal.

If I remember rule 25 - dates, there is a year to develop the firmware. Early days

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 5:31 PM, barfy said:

Thanks Rob,

[The API] is really conjecture. Of course there will be a means of input, and presumably some data output.

Um, you just described an API. Figure 23.1 shows the FCS being given commands from, and providing feedback to, an ECC, so no conjecture. There is an API for controlling the FCS. We have no idea of the details, they're in the non–public FCS specification. We also have no information on the FCS software development process, so we're free to speculate. Proposing an ideal scenario just provides a baseline for ideal, reality is almost certainly something less.

It's hardly surprising that on such a long and complex development project that things that seemed straight forward turn out not to be. These are stupidly complex boats, good software is essential to optimal performance so hardly surprising that teams want every skerrick of information they can get. I can't see any issue with giving teams access to the source code. It's a pretty common requirement in software development projects that the client can view the code anytime they like and get third party independent reviews if they want. There are also plenty of automated tools to do the job. It's not an onerous or otherwise fraught requirement.

As for "they signed up for the rules", that's just a nonsense defence. There is a defined process for changes to the rules and protocol, both of which have been modified since version 1. Teams are well within their rights to seek changes to the rules and protocol (though I don't see access to FCS software source code mentioned specifically).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RobG said:

I can't see any issue with giving teams access to the source code. It's a pretty common requirement in software development projects that the client can view the code anytime they like and get third party independent reviews if they want. There are also plenty of automated tools to do the job. It's not an onerous or otherwise fraught requirement.

All good points. When I think of an API I guess I think of libraries where you can interrogate various systems status. I have no idea what level of integration is planned here but as a black box I assume, as others have mentioned, a much slimmer feedback loop. Maybe that's why some teams want more. Not sure.

But this is not a collaborative software design project. It is a one design AC black box. Again, part of the rule decreed by the defender. So common software design client-coder preconceptions will not apply. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 11:33 PM, Tornado-Cat said:

A lot of writing for not much. 

But I felt so much better for getting it off my chest - and the Likes and PMs that it has generated have also been very supportive, so it cannot have been wide of the mark.

So stop your denial, your bullshit and the rest: 

I refer you to my first answer above; and then to my earlier request to quote me to these things that you wrongly attribute to me - but cling so voraciously to. You haven't bothered - because you can't.....

there was a weight increase, they tried to diminish it as much as possible, it has an impact. 

So a One Design part fails its test bed simulation at the horror of all the attending engineers - they beef the part up with a full redesign - add 215kg to the arm part, but offset it with reduced fairing weights - net gain is increased RM with changes in geometry - every team implements the changes - but you are jumping up and down like some spolit and entitled brat...... Go Figure.....

TNZ succeeded to foil well  we have to see what the others are doing. 

So you write this - but the 215kg may penalise some other team....... Words fail me here...... You are......... Special......... Unbelievable....... Doug Lord?

But once a problem is solved another one is seemingly coming with the FCS, which you also are probably going to deny. 

I am not the one here looking to deflect the conversation onto some other perceived problem - that has clearly so hindered the team that raised this "problem", now that they have managed to complete dry tacks and publish that feat on video; when someone puts the blowtorch to your infantile reasoning..... Good tactic buddy.....<_<

To go back to more serious issues for you, did you succeed to open a Facebook account to watch the worthless video with a ball you were desperatly willing to find ? :D

I do not come here to validate my life or try to lord it over others with crack pot reasoning or fan boy thinking. I distill the the observations posted here by many and discard the rantings of a few - yourself included - which as others have mentioned is just deja vu from earlier cup cycles.

As to my personal decision to not wish to engage with a Facebook - whereby users give up all rights to privacy, an eternity of profiling and adverts - in exchange for a small few benefits; well if you consider that an indictment against my capabilities, so be it. But seeing as you clearly do have a faceboof presence - then I wish you all the luck in the world, and remain even more determined to not join that "commmunity". Did you enjoy giving up your data and privacy for a video with a ball?

You have a vendatta against me - I get that, know that and accept you for what you are and represent - but I will continue. So suck it up Buttercup...... 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RobG said:

....

As for "they signed up for the rules", that's just a nonsense defence. There is a defined process for changes to the rules and protocol, both of which have been modified since version 1. Teams are well within their rights to seek changes to the rules and protocol (though I don't see access to FCS software source code mentioned specifically).

So in fact what you are saying is: " they signed up for the rules"...

But I agree that you should not use that as a defense per se. Just stick to the rules!

PS. And thanks for your earlier post on FCS software!

Edited by Fiji Bitter
PS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now