Yes, everything in Edit+result (double-click on a table cell in a race column) will be race-specific - the cell is at an intersection of a race and a competitor; it’s a very natural place to hold data for a competitor/race that is specific to both competitor and race; points, place, corrected time etc…
Nobody has ever complained that having a race-specific rating in here has been confusing!!! - the meaning seems to have been obvious - when working out corrected times for this race, if there is a race specific rating for the competitor/race, use it instead of the default rating in the competitor record.
So I continued with that idea since it seemd to work and added a race-specific flight field - there is a rating tab in Edit+result and a flight tab. This allows you to define a race specific flight for the competitor/race. The meaning is similar to the race specific rating: if I’m evaluating a start expression for this race and there is a race-speific flight defined for this competitor/race, use it instead of the default flight in the competitor record. So all the races may have a start with Flight=Green but which competitors that identified changes on a per race basis if you utilise race-specific flights.
You can freely edit both race specific ratings and race-specific flights from Edit+result. SO at this point you could do flight assignments by hand but it’s be a pain. So I added a tool that can set race-specific ratings en-mass - this is setting the race=specific flight field in edit+result for you. So, having used the tool, you can also change things around a little using Edit+result directly.
There are two related series views: one showing race specific ratings and one showing race specific flights - and the view is showing the data in the cell that it’s defined in - double click on the cell and you’ll see the race specific flight/rating and be able to edit it.
So my question is. If race specific ratings cause zero confusion what the hell happened with race specific flights… why didn’t the same trusted and tried method used for one race specific thing work for another…?
I really do need to know. I can’t unleash this on the world if it’s going to cause mass confusion…
I've been wondering: Ain't all we do "Race specific" ?
After being confused for a while, I see that race specific is (the) solution. One big problem is to make all info visible, and I think Colins suggestion for the flight coloumn is a big step forward!
So, what is race specific?
The start is Race specific.
The position which gives you a score is Race specific.
Your score is Race specific,
And if you add all the Race specific scores, you'll get an overall sum
which you subtract the worst Specific race; and you'll get's your final stand.
Your Flight assignment is Race specific.............................
and so on.
BTW: Wasn't it Ralph who said that the flight assignment had to be Race specific, in the beginning.
Regards,
Martin ( Still confused, but probably a little less...)
>>There you go again 'race specific value'
I'll just have to trust you & assume that you are right- whatever it means
;-)<<
??
If you do a flight assignments to race 1, race 2... and then view 'race
flights', you'll see what I mean. To score an AddC series you need a field
that has a race-specific values (we've been calling them flights); but just
Blue, but blue in race 1 and green in race 2 and... i.e. race-specific
values.
Or not. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can do it without race-specific value -
but I don't see how. (Other than locking down reviously scored races such
that they are ignored when a series is scored - but this can lead to
problems if you have to go back and fix a flight assignment for example.)
Yes, everything in Edit+result (double-click on a table cell in a race column) will be race-specific - the cell is at an **intersection** of a race and a competitor; it's a very natural place to hold data for a competitor/race that is specific to both competitor and race; points, place, corrected time etc...
Nobody has ever complained that having a race-specific rating in here has been confusing!!! - the meaning seems to have been obvious - when working out corrected times for this race, if there is a race specific rating for the competitor/race, use it instead of the default rating in the competitor record.
So I continued with that idea since it seemd to work and added a race-specific flight field - there is a rating tab in Edit+result and a flight tab. This allows you to define a race specific flight for the competitor/race. The meaning is similar to the race specific rating: if I'm evaluating a start expression for this race and there is a race-speific flight defined for this competitor/race, use it instead of the default flight in the competitor record. So all the races may have a start with Flight=Green but which competitors that identified changes on a per race basis if you utilise race-specific flights.
You can freely edit both race specific ratings and race-specific flights from Edit+result. SO at this point you could do flight assignments by hand but it's be a pain. So I added a tool that can set race-specific ratings en-mass - this is setting the race=specific flight field in edit+result for you. So, having used the tool, you can also change things around a little using Edit+result directly.
There are two related series views: one showing race specific ratings and one showing race specific flights - and the view is showing the data *in the cell that it's defined in* - double click on the cell and you'll see the race specific flight/rating *and* be able to edit it.
So my question is. If race specific ratings cause zero confusion what the hell happened with race specific flights... why didn't the same trusted and tried method used for one race specific thing work for another...?
I really do need to know. I can't unleash this on the world if it's going to cause mass confusion...
I've been wondering: Ain't all we do "Race specific" ?
After being confused for a while, I see that race specific is (the) solution. One big problem is to make all info visible, and I think Colins suggestion for the flight coloumn is a big step forward!
So, what is race specific?
The start is Race specific.
The position which gives you a score is Race specific.
Your score is Race specific,
And if you add all the Race specific scores, you'll get an overall sum
which you subtract the worst Specific race; and you'll get's your final stand.
Your Flight assignment is Race specific.............................
and so on.
BTW: Wasn't it Ralph who said that the flight assignment had to be Race specific, in the beginning.
Regards,
Martin ( Still confused, but probably a little less...)
>>There you go again 'race specific value'
I'll just have to trust you & assume that you are right- whatever it means
;-)<<
??
If you do a flight assignments to race 1, race 2... and then view 'race
flights', you'll see what I mean. To score an AddC series you need a field
that has a race-specific values (we've been calling them flights); but just
Blue, but blue in race 1 and green in race 2 and... i.e. race-specific
values.
Or not. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can do it without race-specific value -
but I don't see how. (Other than locking down reviously scored races such
that they are ignored when a series is scored - but this can lead to
problems if you have to go back and fix a flight assignment for example.)
There is not need to apologise; really, I would not have got this far without you. Perhaps I’m overreacting and in fact we’re talking about minutae now and as long as whatever is there is explained in the help file, we’re OK…
However I am going to make some changes! - Firtsly I’ll put back the flight assignment tool as a descrete entity (that was a generalisation too far - I’m a sucker for symmetry and generalisations) and secondly I’m going to add flight and rating tabs in Edit+competitor with a list of the race values under the default value together with some explaining words. In the flight case I’ll add an option to auto populate the default value from the latest race value (so the flight column always shows a useful bit of into). Or somethign like that. I think having the race values visible like that (without having to go into edit+result) will really make it clear that they exist! So if you’re doing a topper nationwide type event you can use any field (including the default flight field) for the ‘flights’ since they dont change, but if you’re rotating ‘flights’ per race, you must use the flight tab and the race values.
I have a glossery in the help file and I will define flight something like this:-
“If a race is scored across more than one start and the results from each start are allowed to stand (i.e. there will be multiple firsts, seconds etc in the race results) then the group of competitors in each start is called a flight.”
Martin, I’m not going to remove the Flight field in Edit+competitor (it’s too useful for non AddC events - I know from experience users look for a flight field - we had such en event at out club recently) - but the user interface will be much better and obvious that you do not target the flight field when assigning race flights. There will also be a facility to populate the flight field with the latest race flight value.
Yes, everything in Edit+result (double-click on a table cell in a race column) will be race-specific - the cell is at an **intersection** of a race and a competitor; it's a very natural place to hold data for a competitor/race that is specific to both competitor and race; points, place, corrected time etc...
Nobody has ever complained that having a race-specific rating in here has been confusing!!! - the meaning seems to have been obvious - when working out corrected times for this race, if there is a race specific rating for the competitor/race, use it instead of the default rating in the competitor record.
So I continued with that idea since it seemd to work and added a race-specific flight field - there is a rating tab in Edit+result and a flight tab. This allows you to define a race specific flight for the competitor/race. The meaning is similar to the race specific rating: if I'm evaluating a start expression for this race and there is a race-speific flight defined for this competitor/race, use it instead of the default flight in the competitor record. So all the races may have a start with Flight=Green but which competitors that identified changes on a per race basis if you utilise race-specific flights.
You can freely edit both race specific ratings and race-specific flights from Edit+result. SO at this point you could do flight assignments by hand but it's be a pain. So I added a tool that can set race-specific ratings en-mass - this is setting the race=specific flight field in edit+result for you. So, having used the tool, you can also change things around a little using Edit+result directly.
There are two related series views: one showing race specific ratings and one showing race specific flights - and the view is showing the data *in the cell that it's defined in* - double click on the cell and you'll see the race specific flight/rating *and* be able to edit it.
So my question is. If race specific ratings cause zero confusion what the hell happened with race specific flights... why didn't the same trusted and tried method used for one race specific thing work for another...?
I really do need to know. I can't unleash this on the world if it's going to cause mass confusion...
I've been wondering: Ain't all we do "Race specific" ?
After being confused for a while, I see that race specific is (the) solution. One big problem is to make all info visible, and I think Colins suggestion for the flight coloumn is a big step forward!
So, what is race specific?
The start is Race specific.
The position which gives you a score is Race specific.
Your score is Race specific,
And if you add all the Race specific scores, you'll get an overall sum
which you subtract the worst Specific race; and you'll get's your final stand.
Your Flight assignment is Race specific.............................
and so on.
BTW: Wasn't it Ralph who said that the flight assignment had to be Race specific, in the beginning.
Regards,
Martin ( Still confused, but probably a little less...)
>>There you go again 'race specific value'
I'll just have to trust you & assume that you are right- whatever it means
;-)<<
??
If you do a flight assignments to race 1, race 2... and then view 'race
flights', you'll see what I mean. To score an AddC series you need a field
that has a race-specific values (we've been calling them flights); but just
Blue, but blue in race 1 and green in race 2 and... i.e. race-specific
values.
Or not. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can do it without race-specific value -
but I don't see how. (Other than locking down reviously scored races such
that they are ignored when a series is scored - but this can lead to
problems if you have to go back and fix a flight assignment for example.)
One of the really great elements introduced to SW recently, has been when making multiple record changes, we now have the option to to select from a list & apply a single action eg Delete Competitors or Races
This is so much easier & quicker than editing each competitor in turn.
In some instances, the option to select is based upon all records with a certain value as in your Select Competitors buttons but sometimes the automated processes (which are great) need manual intervention, changing the flight of a competitor as a result of RDG or protest hearing springs to mind
You mention that you are going to make changes in the Edit + Competitor windows.
If possible (but not if it is too much work) it would be nice to continue the listing & multiple selection principle which is so easy to use
This is just thinking publicly & is not a request to change tack!!
There is not need to apologise; really, I would not have got this far without you. Perhaps I’m overreacting and in fact we’re talking about minutae now and as long as whatever is there is explained in the help file, we’re OK…
However I am going to make some changes! - Firtsly I’ll put back the flight assignment tool as a descrete entity (that was a generalisation too far - I’m a sucker for symmetry and generalisations) and secondly I’m going to add flight and rating tabs in Edit+competitor with a list of the race values under the default value together with some explaining words. In the flight case I’ll add an option to auto populate the default value from the latest race value (so the flight column always shows a useful bit of into). Or somethign like that. I think having the race values visible like that (without having to go into edit+result) will really make it clear that they exist! So if you’re doing a topper nationwide type event you can use any field (including the default flight field) for the ‘flights’ since they dont change, but if you’re rotating ‘flights’ per race, you must use the flight tab and the race values.
I have a glossery in the help file and I will define flight something like this:-
“If a race is scored across more than one start and the results from each start are allowed to stand (i.e. there will be multiple firsts, seconds etc in the race results) then the group of competitors in each start is called a flight.”
Martin, I’m not going to remove the Flight field in Edit+competitor (it’s too useful for non AddC events - I know from experience users look for a flight field - we had such en event at out club recently) - but the user interface will be much better and obvious that you do not target the flight field when assigning race flights. There will also be a facility to populate the flight field with the latest race flight value.
Yes, everything in Edit+result (double-click on a table cell in a race column) will be race-specific - the cell is at an **intersection** of a race and a competitor; it's a very natural place to hold data for a competitor/race that is specific to both competitor and race; points, place, corrected time etc...
Nobody has ever complained that having a race-specific rating in here has been confusing!!! - the meaning seems to have been obvious - when working out corrected times for this race, if there is a race specific rating for the competitor/race, use it instead of the default rating in the competitor record.
So I continued with that idea since it seemd to work and added a race-specific flight field - there is a rating tab in Edit+result and a flight tab. This allows you to define a race specific flight for the competitor/race. The meaning is similar to the race specific rating: if I'm evaluating a start expression for this race and there is a race-speific flight defined for this competitor/race, use it instead of the default flight in the competitor record. So all the races may have a start with Flight=Green but which competitors that identified changes on a per race basis if you utilise race-specific flights.
You can freely edit both race specific ratings and race-specific flights from Edit+result. SO at this point you could do flight assignments by hand but it's be a pain. So I added a tool that can set race-specific ratings en-mass - this is setting the race=specific flight field in edit+result for you. So, having used the tool, you can also change things around a little using Edit+result directly.
There are two related series views: one showing race specific ratings and one showing race specific flights - and the view is showing the data *in the cell that it's defined in* - double click on the cell and you'll see the race specific flight/rating *and* be able to edit it.
So my question is. If race specific ratings cause zero confusion what the hell happened with race specific flights... why didn't the same trusted and tried method used for one race specific thing work for another...?
I really do need to know. I can't unleash this on the world if it's going to cause mass confusion...
I've been wondering: Ain't all we do "Race specific" ?
After being confused for a while, I see that race specific is (the) solution. One big problem is to make all info visible, and I think Colins suggestion for the flight coloumn is a big step forward!
So, what is race specific?
The start is Race specific.
The position which gives you a score is Race specific.
Your score is Race specific,
And if you add all the Race specific scores, you'll get an overall sum
which you subtract the worst Specific race; and you'll get's your final stand.
Your Flight assignment is Race specific.............................
and so on.
BTW: Wasn't it Ralph who said that the flight assignment had to be Race specific, in the beginning.
Regards,
Martin ( Still confused, but probably a little less...)
>>There you go again 'race specific value'
I'll just have to trust you & assume that you are right- whatever it means
;-)<<
??
If you do a flight assignments to race 1, race 2... and then view 'race
flights', you'll see what I mean. To score an AddC series you need a field
that has a race-specific values (we've been calling them flights); but just
Blue, but blue in race 1 and green in race 2 and... i.e. race-specific
values.
Or not. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can do it without race-specific value -
but I don't see how. (Other than locking down reviously scored races such
that they are ignored when a series is scored - but this can lead to
problems if you have to go back and fix a flight assignment for example.)
If you don’t want to, don’t remove the flight Competitor field.
My suggestion was based upon the fact that AddC is a flight race, like all other flight racing. So, if anyone are doing “simple” flight racing it will be useful to have the Flight field. But, if they are going to put boats into different flights later on (which most flight races do!!), it will work but will be confusing when the flight field is available!
It is my experience. In fact I did a AppLE AddC race (EYC) this summer, using that field only… Since I trained ROs for 3 of 5 days, it worked for 3 days… Then we spent 2 hours to correct their misunderstanding… (actually it was MY misunderstanding of SW).
I’ve also been an advisor for class associations, who wants to run flights other ways than Add.C. As you say, the’re looking for a Flight field to use. The only thing is that they must use it right…
Maybe it could be a “Race specific Competitor field”? That would make sense to me…
Anyway: Keep on the good work! I know I’ll be satisfied anyway!
There is not need to apologise; really, I would not have got this far without you. Perhaps I’m overreacting and in fact we’re talking about minutae now and as long as whatever is there is explained in the help file, we’re OK…
However I am going to make some changes! - Firtsly I’ll put back the flight assignment tool as a descrete entity (that was a generalisation too far - I’m a sucker for symmetry and generalisations) and secondly I’m going to add flight and rating tabs in Edit+competitor with a list of the race values under the default value together with some explaining words. In the flight case I’ll add an option to auto populate the default value from the latest race value (so the flight column always shows a useful bit of into). Or somethign like that. I think having the race values visible like that (without having to go into edit+result) will really make it clear that they exist! So if you’re doing a topper nationwide type event you can use any field (including the default flight field) for the ‘flights’ since they dont change, but if you’re rotating ‘flights’ per race, you must use the flight tab and the race values.
I have a glossery in the help file and I will define flight something like this:-
“If a race is scored across more than one start and the results from each start are allowed to stand (i.e. there will be multiple firsts, seconds etc in the race results) then the group of competitors in each start is called a flight.”
Martin, I’m not going to remove the Flight field in Edit+competitor (it’s too useful for non AddC events - I know from experience users look for a flight field - we had such en event at out club recently) - but the user interface will be much better and obvious that you do not target the flight field when assigning race flights. There will also be a facility to populate the flight field with the latest race flight value.
Yes, everything in Edit+result (double-click on a table cell in a race column) will be race-specific - the cell is at an **intersection** of a race and a competitor; it's a very natural place to hold data for a competitor/race that is specific to both competitor and race; points, place, corrected time etc...
Nobody has ever complained that having a race-specific rating in here has been confusing!!! - the meaning seems to have been obvious - when working out corrected times for this race, if there is a race specific rating for the competitor/race, use it instead of the default rating in the competitor record.
So I continued with that idea since it seemd to work and added a race-specific flight field - there is a rating tab in Edit+result and a flight tab. This allows you to define a race specific flight for the competitor/race. The meaning is similar to the race specific rating: if I'm evaluating a start expression for this race and there is a race-speific flight defined for this competitor/race, use it instead of the default flight in the competitor record. So all the races may have a start with Flight=Green but which competitors that identified changes on a per race basis if you utilise race-specific flights.
You can freely edit both race specific ratings and race-specific flights from Edit+result. SO at this point you could do flight assignments by hand but it's be a pain. So I added a tool that can set race-specific ratings en-mass - this is setting the race=specific flight field in edit+result for you. So, having used the tool, you can also change things around a little using Edit+result directly.
There are two related series views: one showing race specific ratings and one showing race specific flights - and the view is showing the data *in the cell that it's defined in* - double click on the cell and you'll see the race specific flight/rating *and* be able to edit it.
So my question is. If race specific ratings cause zero confusion what the hell happened with race specific flights... why didn't the same trusted and tried method used for one race specific thing work for another...?
I really do need to know. I can't unleash this on the world if it's going to cause mass confusion...
I've been wondering: Ain't all we do "Race specific" ?
After being confused for a while, I see that race specific is (the) solution. One big problem is to make all info visible, and I think Colins suggestion for the flight coloumn is a big step forward!
So, what is race specific?
The start is Race specific.
The position which gives you a score is Race specific.
Your score is Race specific,
And if you add all the Race specific scores, you'll get an overall sum
which you subtract the worst Specific race; and you'll get's your final stand.
Your Flight assignment is Race specific.............................
and so on.
BTW: Wasn't it Ralph who said that the flight assignment had to be Race specific, in the beginning.
Regards,
Martin ( Still confused, but probably a little less...)
>>There you go again 'race specific value'
I'll just have to trust you & assume that you are right- whatever it means
;-)<<
??
If you do a flight assignments to race 1, race 2... and then view 'race
flights', you'll see what I mean. To score an AddC series you need a field
that has a race-specific values (we've been calling them flights); but just
Blue, but blue in race 1 and green in race 2 and... i.e. race-specific
values.
Or not. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can do it without race-specific value -
but I don't see how. (Other than locking down reviously scored races such
that they are ignored when a series is scored - but this can lead to
problems if you have to go back and fix a flight assignment for example.)
> Maybe it could be a "Race specific Competitor field"?
> That would make sense to me....
No you're beginning to sound like me! That is the logical, generalised
progression, but I probably won't go there and there is still the potential
confusion of assigning into the 'default' competitor field or the race
fields. If I can't make the user interface more clear about default flight
and race flights I may still remove the default flight, but presently I can
visualise a solution that should clear things up and not lead users to
assign into the default flight field.
Maybe it could be a “Race specific Competitor field”?
That would make sense to me…
No you’re beginning to sound like me! That is the logical, generalised
progression, but I probably won’t go there and there is still the potential
confusion of assigning into the ‘default’ competitor field or the race
fields. If I can’t make the user interface more clear about default flight
and race flights I may still remove the default flight, but presently I can
visualise a solution that should clear things up and not lead users to
assign into the default flight field.
