BEARSO Invitational

Area to advertise for your competitions!
User avatar
CrayolaCrayon
Member
Member
Posts: 346
Joined: October 25th, 2017, 8:24 am
Division: C
State: PA
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by CrayolaCrayon »

bjt4888 wrote: October 27th, 2020, 6:10 pm

Good job doing the research. Yes, I hope Michigan has a live event before the end of the school year. I'm judging a Satellite Wright Stuff event for the Bellville and the Boyceville Wisconsin Invitationals. If your team can enter, and you can get into a flying site of some kind to video a "flight period", maybe you could enter.

Brian T
Glad to hear you'll be judging!
MIT '25
MIT Wright Stuff ES '22
BirdSO Wright Stuff ES '22
User avatar
xiangyu
Member
Member
Posts: 276
Joined: April 6th, 2019, 8:32 pm
Division: Grad
State: MI
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by xiangyu »

bjt4888 wrote: October 27th, 2020, 6:10 pm
Xiangyu,

Good job doing the research. Yes, I hope Michigan has a live event before the end of the school year. I'm judging a Satellite Wright Stuff event for the Bellville and the Boyceville Wisconsin Invitationals. If your team can enter, and you can get into a flying site of some kind to video a "flight period", maybe you could enter.

Brian T
Ahh, very nice! Sadly I don't think my team is attending those two invitationals. There were so many options to choose from now that everything is online!

I think my regionals tournament is planning to have the builders compete in person in March. Do you know if your region is going to do something similar?

Xiangyu
Medal & Ribbon Count: 33
Former EGRHS Team Captain 2017-2021
https://scioly.org/wiki/index.php/User:Xiangyu
User avatar
bernard
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2498
Joined: January 5th, 2014, 3:12 pm
Division: Grad
State: WA
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 789 times
Contact:

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by bernard »

Event Supervisor Review: Digital Structures

Thank you to everyone who competed in the Digital Structures event (previously known as Computilever)! We sincerely appreciate your flexibility and willingness trying out the new event! I personally love the event because it's not only a great virtual alternative for Boomilever where in-person competitions cannot be hosted but also the perfect opportunity to introduce students to working with computational models that are becoming all the more important for engineering in our digital age.

Submissions/Alternate Submissions: Submissions were required through three methods: Scilympiad (for submitting the estimate), SkyCiv (for submitting scores), and Google Forms (as a back-up submission). Teams that made an on-time submission via SkyCiv were ranked in Tier 1 and Tier 2. A handful of teams encountered technical difficulties with testing and/or submission. Most of these teams were able to reach a resolution and submit before the end of the event block. We were flexible with teams that did not submit a structure via SkyCiv as this was the first time ever the event was run. All coaches of teams that had submitted an estimate in Scilympaid were notified via email and their students given the same time frame to submit a screenshot of their structure via Google Forms. Teams that made a valid submission via Google Forms but not SkyCiv were then ranked together in Tier 3—rank 42 for Division B and rank 115 for Division C.

Construction Violations: A surprisingly high number of teams had Construction Violations in their submissions, despite the Science Olympiad add-on in SkyCiv displaying explicitly the numbers used for scoring. Across both divisions, 106 teams had Construction Violations, leaving only 49 teams in Tier 1. Of the Tier 2 teams across both divisions, 73 violated the Contact Width, 27 violated the Contact Depth, and 57 violated the Minimum Loading Distance. (The sum of these numbers exceeds 106 because some teams were affected by multiple violations.) Most teams with violations had numbers very close to the specifications we provided, suggesting that they may have neglected to account for cross-sectional size of members as specified in the rules. Still, this should have been caught before submission as the software shows you the numbers!

Overall: I was very impressed with the submissions by students, regardless of whether they were affected by Construction Violations. In both tiers, I saw many impressive scores and beautifully intricate structures. I even tried copying the designs of the winning teams but still couldn’t beat their scores—so like Boomilever, it’s more than just the design! In both divisions, the winning teams were at least 100 points ahead of the runner-up, each earning themselves their own bar on the histogram.

SkyCiv Improvements: We’re working with SkyCiv to improve the Science Olympiad add-on based on feedback we received from students. Some improvements SkyCiv has already made include adding more help text (such as reminders to turn on Competition Mode and to check for Construction Violations) and enabling submissions for participation points if a device cannot be tested. Your experience and feedback have been very helpful!

I’ve also written a detailed tutorial to using SkyCiv on the Scioly.org Wiki, which includes a list of common mistakes made by teams. I hope you’ll find these resources helpful.

computilever_2021_bc_bearso_scores_v3_public_cropped.png
computilever_2021_bc_bearso_scores_v3_public_cropped.png (167.51 KiB) Viewed 3955 times
These users thanked the author bernard for the post (total 7):
bearasauras (October 28th, 2020, 3:03 pm) • Godspeed (October 28th, 2020, 3:18 pm) • xiangyu (October 28th, 2020, 7:51 pm) • gz839918 (October 28th, 2020, 10:19 pm) • Giantpants (October 29th, 2020, 12:45 am) • Mr.Epithelium (November 5th, 2020, 9:03 pm) • MadCow2357 (December 21st, 2020, 10:57 am)
"One of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there." – Steve Jobs
bjt4888
Member
Member
Posts: 872
Joined: June 16th, 2013, 12:35 pm
Division: C
State: MI
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by bjt4888 »

CrayolaCrayon wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:03 pm
bjt4888 wrote: October 27th, 2020, 6:10 pm

Good job doing the research. Yes, I hope Michigan has a live event before the end of the school year. I'm judging a Satellite Wright Stuff event for the Bellville and the Boyceville Wisconsin Invitationals. If your team can enter, and you can get into a flying site of some kind to video a "flight period", maybe you could enter.

Brian T
Glad to hear you'll be judging!
Looking forward to some good flight videos.

Brian T
User avatar
eagerlearner102
Member
Member
Posts: 147
Joined: December 29th, 2017, 5:20 pm
Division: C
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by eagerlearner102 »

This is a general question but do you foresee future invitationals, regionals, or state competitions that will require Zoom proctoring to prevent people from searching up answers? I know for USNCO (chemistry olympiad) there were proctors using zoom, but this was possible because of the low proctor to student ratio.
2019:Fermi Questions, Protein Modeling, Sounds of Music
2020: Designer Genes, Protein Modeling, Ping Pong Parachute
2021: Chem Lab, Experimental Design, Protein Modeling
User avatar
Umaroth
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 398
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 8:51 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 167 times
Been thanked: 325 times

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by Umaroth »

eagerlearner102 wrote: November 22nd, 2020, 5:12 pm This is a general question but do you foresee future invitationals, regionals, or state competitions that will require Zoom proctoring to prevent people from searching up answers? I know for USNCO (chemistry olympiad) there were proctors using zoom, but this was possible because of the low proctor to student ratio.
I highly doubt it, like you mentioned, the student to proctor ratio is very high at many scioly tournaments. High quality tournaments would have a lot of unsearchable questions anyways, so the main issue would be tournaments with inexperienced writers who mostly write a lot of trivia questions. At that point, that's an issue that can only be solved with better writing. I still maintain my idea that with sufficient preparation on the student end and a well-written test, there isn't any need to worry about the cheaters.
These users thanked the author Umaroth for the post (total 3):
sneepity (November 23rd, 2020, 1:59 am) • Unome (November 23rd, 2020, 9:08 am) • MadCow2357 (December 21st, 2020, 10:57 am)
Cal 2026
Troy SciOly 2021 Co-Captain
Proud Padre of the Evola SciOly Program 2018-now
Dank Memes Area Homeschool Juggernaut 2018-now
Sierra Vista SciOly Co-Head Coach 2020-now

Umaroth's Userpage
User avatar
sneepity
Member
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: February 13th, 2020, 2:35 pm
Division: C
State: NY
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Has thanked: 950 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by sneepity »

eagerlearner102 wrote: November 22nd, 2020, 5:12 pm This is a general question but do you foresee future invitationals, regionals, or state competitions that will require Zoom proctoring to prevent people from searching up answers? I know for USNCO (chemistry olympiad) there were proctors using zoom, but this was possible because of the low proctor to student ratio.
I think that it would be too much effort and preparation, and there's a time limit to the tests too. 50 minutes should safely guarantee that kids won't have time to look up answers. And also, like Umaroth said, tests will have some questions that don't ask facts but instead ask for application or experience based question, which would need competitors to prepare beforehand. Cheating shouldn't be a major issue if coaches can monitor too! :D
B)
neetivaidya
Member
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: January 20th, 2020, 11:52 am
Division: B
State: WA
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by neetivaidya »

Is it possible to get a score of >2000?
If so, how?
User avatar
gz839918
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 237
Joined: April 27th, 2019, 6:40 pm
Division: Grad
State: WI
Pronouns: Ask My Pronouns
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 373 times
Contact:

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by gz839918 »

neetivaidya wrote: December 7th, 2020, 6:30 pm Is it possible to get a score of >2000?
If so, how?
Yep, a few teams have managed to build boomilevers of very high efficiency! You might find it helpful to refer to last year's boomilever discussion, as well as this season's boomilever forum as well. Since you also say that you're from Washington, you may also be interested in the SkyCiv Wiki page to learn more about testing a boomilever virtually. Good luck!!
These users thanked the author gz839918 for the post:
neetivaidya (February 2nd, 2021, 8:51 pm)
I ❤ sounds of music! About meRate my tests

Carmel High School ’19
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ’23
“People overestimate what they can do in a day, and underestimate what they can do in a lifetime.” –Unknown
User avatar
Pebble
Member
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: April 14th, 2021, 2:08 pm
Division: B
State: MD
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

Re: BEARSO Invitational

Post by Pebble »

neetivaidya wrote: December 7th, 2020, 6:30 pm Is it possible to get a score of >2000?
If so, how?
I know this is way too late, but tips would be optimizing your boomilever to hold a little more than 15k to get that bonus, and eliminating unnecessary members that cause extra weight. Section size experimentation is important.
ok
Locked

Return to “2021 Invitationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests