On Jun 19, 10:50*am, Ron Gleason wrote:

The 3rd area where WS needs help is with MAT's. *WS does a good job determining what TP's were accomplished but may not get the best speed. *Each flight will need to be reviewed based on what the pilot submits.

One quick follow-up to this: Winscore *is* a good tool overall; but I
have also seen it guess MATs wrong when it auto-claims a TP a second
time, without the pilot visiting two other TPs before returning to the
earlier TP. For example, "9, 26, 40, 26, 18" - which is not valid
since the pilot returned to TP 26 too soon. The correct MAT claim
would be "9, 26, 40, 18". Or perhaps "9, 26, 40, XX, 26 ,18" where
"XX" is some TP that Winscore missed - or, more likely, a TP where the
pilot barely nicked the 1sm cylinder and didn't get a valid GPS fix in
before leaving the cylinder.

Also, the recent rules-change for low finishes may not be fully
incorporated into Winscore... I ran into a situation last week where
Winscore applied a "rolling finish" to my task/score because I came
home about 400 feet below the gate (rain at 4 miles out washed me
down)... But the new finish rules stipulated I should be marked as a
landout, no rolling finish allowed. It took a bit of fiddling with
Winscore to get it right (partly because 9 of 12 pilots in our class
didn't make it home due to the weather, so the day was devalued and I
had the longest distance with my pseudo-finish so the calcs got
wonky).

But for the vast majority of circumstances, Winscore gets it right.

--Noel