Vanocuver K300

[Xinitiao]

Hi Jussi,

I heard the news that the Gorisek Bros want Vancouver K300 to be unverified and removed from online.
They don't like that it is possible to land so close to the fall line that the jumper either touches the ground lightly before the fall line and falls after the fall line or falls after the fall line.
In the real ski jumping it is as above, you can fall after the fall line and have your record counted. You can even lightly touch the snow and the judges will still allow it, as Kamil Stoch in Planica.
In DSJ4 it was discovered, that if the jumper touches the snow/plastic before the fall line for less than 0,5 seconds, the judges have a chance to not "see" it. I assume it was added deliberately as a feature, as surely it would be easier to code deducting points immediately if snow was touched.
In Vancouver, for the jump to be counted that way, :
1) you have to be be an extremely good DSJ4 player
2) you still have to try to land properly.
Moreover, the profile for Vancouver K300 has been already made and been verified by top players in 2021, like former BM HS200 WR holder Tomasz Karciarz. It is specially designed to be difficult, yet very rewarding. The distances are also accurate to the Skoki Narciarskie 2005 game - in that game it is also very easy to land on the knoll and also to fly far far away and land very close to the fall line.
I remember I've been designing the profile for a very long time to balance it so that it is:
1) F1 playable
2) doesn't wobble the jumper too much
3) it is not excessively hard to fly over the knoll
4) it is impossible to land on flat ground.
I really don't think it is possible to change the profile while retaining all its characteristics.
In my opinion, we also cannot make hills only for top 0,1% of players. If for example in Vinicunca the same situation happened over 485m (with WR currently 489,71m), in that hill in almost 4 years only 7 players ever jumped that far out of 3778 who sent their records - 0,18%.
And the Super Ski Flying hill are supposed to be difficult, and for the more experienced players, because you need to master control of the flight really well to jump far on them, but I really don't think that we should go too far the other way.

To sum up, the behavior on that hill works both as intended and also as in real life.
But please, don't remove this hill from online and from the record lists. The precedent from that would also be very bad, it is devastating enough for the hillmaker for the green checkmark to be taken away for dubious reasons, but a hill which was already added?

As a hillmaker who has made lots of types of profiles, from real to experimental, it is not possible to slightly tweak the profile to remove that behavior and keep the hill as fun as it is. It is either like that or not at all. But the profile is so, so, so enjoyable, it would be a terrible waste to just remove it.

Best regards,

Xinitiao - Vancouver K300 co-author and profile creator


If it really is that bad, then I and BLusiak - the other co-author of the hill - have a request to at least let the hill be enough time in online until it gathers enough AI data.

[Jussi Koskela]

Good argumentation. I am open on discussion and won't do any hasty decisions on this. If the fall point was adjustable in DSJ4 then this kind of situation could be resolved by adjusting the fall line a bit further away, but that's not possible at the moment.

And yes, it was intentional that judges may not see the fall if the ski jumper touches the ground for less than 0.5 seconds (before the fall line).

[MikesCZ]

IMO more hills in game = better , and interesting challenging hills are good. At least it adds some variation to the game. Some other hills are very very similar to each other, so I rather have few unique ones.