Then I suppose there are a lot of different things that should be looked at for the sake of being looked at:
- paradox
- delays
- delay flexibility
- dex direction
- hippy/leggy
- bag set height
- ducking/spinning & paradox
- number of dexes
- unusual surfaces
- parlor tricks (head stall, etc.)
Throw some more in and lets take a look at these and see if we can do something. These aren't empty words. In the words of Brad Kaplan, "SUPPORT YOUR DAMN SPORT!"
Also, as someone who is just beginning to learn to program, your idea about a computer program that registers moves and outputs a score is a VERY good one, and very doable.
Adding to the add system
I guess the first step would be to establish what sort of scoring system would even be put in place? Would there be multipliers, would there be decimals?
The way I invisioned it would be a fairly linear system for the individual adds for moves, with multipliers for difficult combinations of components. Shred 30 and the like would be another matter entirely.
It merits being looked at like a permutation, but needs to be looked at by people who can actually say something about the components. I, for example, have little to say about a lot of the moves and the combination of components, as I am not very experienced as of yet.
So I think the question after a scoring base has been established would be whether to look at it from the ground up one way, or the ground up another?
From the lowest trick (mirage, atw, clipper, etc.), or by combination of components (spinning ducking vs. spinning diving vs. spinning weaving vs. spinnin zulu vs gyro ducking, etc., etc. the list goes on and on)?
This has the makings of a huge collaborative project, not just among people reworking these systems, but even between this and people developing new footbag resources.
The way I invisioned it would be a fairly linear system for the individual adds for moves, with multipliers for difficult combinations of components. Shred 30 and the like would be another matter entirely.
It merits being looked at like a permutation, but needs to be looked at by people who can actually say something about the components. I, for example, have little to say about a lot of the moves and the combination of components, as I am not very experienced as of yet.
So I think the question after a scoring base has been established would be whether to look at it from the ground up one way, or the ground up another?
From the lowest trick (mirage, atw, clipper, etc.), or by combination of components (spinning ducking vs. spinning diving vs. spinning weaving vs. spinnin zulu vs gyro ducking, etc., etc. the list goes on and on)?
This has the makings of a huge collaborative project, not just among people reworking these systems, but even between this and people developing new footbag resources.
Sadly, I know very little programming so far, otherwise I'd volunteer my help! Regardless, I wouldn't abandon the 3D model completely. That sounds like it has a lot of potential. You never know, if you keep at it, you might be able to figure something you that could be sold as a game on a computer, so bandwidth wouldn't be a problem. Even further, you could even implement it as a shred 30 counter for people to test their potential shred 30's. Wave of the future, right there. That way people could measure both the score aspect, and how the shred looks. Given, style would be an issue, but it sounds with your ingenuity even that might eventually be remedied.