It is worth much because it is exactly the same between my Woo's 2.0 and 3.0. It's Good the video is there but there are only 2 Woo's used ...
joriws wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:43 amNice video with effort - and finally some used camera-horizon -plane level (with a drone). But with mast plane-video would not have battery issues and they would have got more jumps..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyHMidSRxK8
We all THINK Woo isn't accurate, and all we know from the video is that generally the 3 reads higher than the 2.Kitemenn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:29 amWe all know WOO isnt that accurate but I agree the test done in this video is not sufficient to draw any conclusions! I think if she used 2 WOO 3.0 or 2.0s she would even get different readings. Anyway there remains a high request for a good check...anyhow previous tests all indicate minor differences between 2 and 3. there is difference between 1 and 2 / 1 and 3 but still reliable testing required to indicate which is better...my assumption would be 3 as the measurements got improved...
No, the camera at certain height filming horizon removes perspective and lens disortion effects. On video (starting 10:20) they used DJI drone to film from 5m and "3.5m" jump was below horizon from 5m camera-level as it should have been. Over 5m jump was above horizon from 5m camera. So when you film jump you have to elevate cameras to form "perspective free measuring planes" similar to construction lasers. And when filmed against distant horizon, none of the lens disortions matter, because you are actually measuring was jumper higher or lower than camera-horizon plane. How much 5m jump was above camera - that cannot be reliably said because perspective, jumpers distance, lens disortions matters.maffhieu wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:38 pm-Jumping in front of the camera and trying to mesure from the take off point is far from accurate because depending if you go to the camera or away from it while in the air, even if the jump is the same height, one is gonna look higher than the other... because of perspective.
agree with most of the above comments.maffhieu wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:38 pm
Nice video but :
-Testing a Woo with a foil is pointless because it is not supported as per say the CEO of Woo and the readings are not fair to the other users (much higher readings)
-I don't want to be mean but her jump technique is poor...
-The 2 WOOs are not placed ideally on the board (one on each rail) and this can result in very different readings (should be placed in the center)
-I feel like tubeless kites don't jump the same at all... but i don't know the consequences to the Woo readings.
-Jumping in front of the camera and trying to mesure from the take off point is far from accurate because depending if you go to the camera or away from it while in the air, even if the jump is the same height, one is gonna look higher than the other... because of perspective.
Anyway, it is a fun device regardless of accuracy
An excellently balanced viewpoint and consistent with our experiences across many riders, many woos, all woo versions and 1000's of sessions. It's really the average that is quite accurate. It is imperfect but pretty damn fun. The people that are tops are tops and really hard to beat and people know the truth based on what they see with their eyes.deniska wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:38 pmagree with most of the above comments.maffhieu wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:38 pm
Nice video but :
-Testing a Woo with a foil is pointless because it is not supported as per say the CEO of Woo and the readings are not fair to the other users (much higher readings)
-I don't want to be mean but her jump technique is poor...
-The 2 WOOs are not placed ideally on the board (one on each rail) and this can result in very different readings (should be placed in the center)
-I feel like tubeless kites don't jump the same at all... but i don't know the consequences to the Woo readings.
-Jumping in front of the camera and trying to mesure from the take off point is far from accurate because depending if you go to the camera or away from it while in the air, even if the jump is the same height, one is gonna look higher than the other... because of perspective.
Anyway, it is a fun device regardless of accuracy
Would not it kill them to put both woos in the center of the board and close to each other, as the manual actually suggests?
Why did not they try to put them in the opposite corners of the board? That would create even more controversy
Another issue with their "average" claims - they are mostly based on smallish jumps (around 4-7meters)..
For those woo3 tends to read higher. I am not sure if it's a side effect of more sensitive accelerometer, badly tweaked algorithm or clever marketing...
Probably a side effect as they try to market new woo to more sports... If you remember woo1 would not even register most jumps under 4 meters, that would make it useless for cable wakestyle.
A friend tried to do a similar test just a week ago... he got 10cm height difference between woo2 and woo3 on his highest jump (I think it was 10-11m)... Woo3 read 10cm higher..
This is just another test, and he was not pushing any agendas, curiosity mostly. If anyone interested, PM me and I'll send you his woo name and date of those 2 sessions...
The girl on the video made some valid points. You are not guaranteed that the reading of a single jump will be correct to a centimeter or maybe even a meter.. that's just how it is.. But you can take best 5 or 10 jumps out of a session average them and the result will be pretty accurate reflection of person's skill and conditions IMHO. I doubt that the guys with badges [15 over 15m] got those by mistake... I wish woo would introduce special hashtags like #best10 and do leaderboard filter for people who are interested..
I know some local groups that did competition based on 10 best jumps and everyone agreed that it was pretty accurate way to measure boosting skills...