Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: ActionWeb on October 21, 2009, 07:31:07 pm
-
You've got to have a good eye and accuracy to build a model properly, yes?
Now's the chance to test it...
http://woodgears.ca/eyeball/
Have fun :}
-
OK i had a go and my score was 11.25 good or bad ? :embarrassed:
-
Just had another go 8.55 (i really need to get a life ) :-)) :-))
-
My engineer mates are getting 3s and 4s...
Wonder what FLJ will score when he finds this :D
-
would be good to see more members results 3 or 4 :embarrassed: think i need more practice O0
-
4.27
very good test for those of us who guess all day. :embarrassed:
ken
-
5.4 at the first shot. Ain't gonna try again - that'll do.
FLJ
-
Cme up with 7.5...not bad with only 1 eye working correctly! BY.
-
7.6 so one up on Bryan and leaving FLJ for dust.....
-
3.3- and I need glasses!!!
-
Overall score: 5.74
-
I have had a go and my score way 16.87 first time and
15.65 second time.
-
3.49
2.8 the second time, the Parallelogram keeps catching me out
-
7.43 - and that's WITH my glasses! (must be an age thing Colin and Bryan??)
Danny
-
3.1 It did say lower is better didn't it ?
-
5.34, second time around
Frank
-
26.01 the first time, 3.89 the second when I knew what I was supposed to do!
-
7.6 so one up on Bryan and leaving FLJ for dust.....
You are supposed to get a low score Colin %)
-
5.2 second go - great at angles, useless at parallelograms!
Danny
-
4.95, that'll do for now.
Colin don't forget you are trying to get as low a score as possible!
-
woohoo I got on the high score board, I knew I must be good at something {-)
-
Oh well!
-
Oh dear
-
Overall score: 3.72
-
Ah, yes, good people...but would you kindly and honestly state how long you took doing it? My attempt (at 7.51) took just under 1.5 minutes as I thought it was just a bit of fun...this thing is getting some momentum....which silly sod started all this!? BY.
-
3.62 with more than a few cans inside me... ;)
-
3.33 for me. Who's setting up the league table??? {-)
-
Ah, yes, good people...but would you kindly and honestly state how long you took doing it? My attempt (at 7.51) took just under 1.5 minutes as I thought it was just a bit of fun...this thing is getting some momentum....which silly 'xxx' started all this!? BY.
About a minute why?
-
4.40 for me I'm afraid. :embarrassed:
-
3 tries approx 1 minute each
6.32
7.53
3.20
-
mmmmmmmmmmmmm sorry
6.8 seconds on my 24" HD flat panel O0 ......my first attempt at home this morning
14.2 seconds on a 19" CRT monitor :(( later @ work on my second attempt
With subsequent trials on the 19" CRT ...I could not get below 11 seconds <:(
The CRT certainly does distort beyond what we think we see %% ...........Derek
OK...so on reflection I wondered if the work results were altered by work stress >>:-( ......so after returning from work + two glasses of wine to relax.... :-))....you guessed the latest score my 24" HD flat panel
13.9 seconds ...I rest my case your honour :police: {-) {-) {-) {-)
-
4.22 at first go, and I'm as blind as a bat
kiwi
-
mmmmmmmmmmmmm sorry
6.8 seconds on my 24" HD flat panel O0 ......my first attempt at home this morning
14.2 seconds on a 19" CRT monitor :(( later @ work on my second attempt
With subsequent trials on the 19" CRT ...I could not get below 11 seconds <:(
The CRT certainly does distort beyond what we think we see %% ...........Derek
OK...so on reflection I wondered if the work results were altered by work stress >>:-( ......so after returning from work + two glasses of wine to relax.... :-))....you guessed the latest score my 24" HD flat panel
13.9 seconds ...I rest my case your honour :police: {-) {-) {-) {-)
Umm...
The score isn't time. It's deviation from the correct results. The lower the number, the more accurate you are.
-
this thing is getting some momentum....which silly 'xxx' started all this!? BY.
Me. Someone sent it to me and I thought it would appeal to you lot.
-
2.72 just under 2 minutes, as my headmaster would have said could do better.
-
OK.....thanks ActionWeb........."Umm...The score isn't time. It's deviation from the correct results. The lower the number, the more accurate you are"
apologies....yes ...even in OZ ...with enough glasses of wine I can confuse units of measure ....... {-) %% O0 :} :-)) Derek
PS....the resultant did not necessarily improve my score <:(
-
Just had two goes, the first was to understand the second counted,
3.77 that will do me for an old git.............. :-))
Roy
-
OK, I retire "hurt"! BY.
-
6.31 in about a minute on my first go. Now that I see it's a comp I am going to have another go...
-
Woohoo 7.33 Despite Never Having Heard Of A Bisect Angle %%
-
I got 4.0 on my first go, which I thought was good. Then I called my son, who sat down and scored 2.31 on his first go, including a couple of sub 1s. Interestingly, that would have put him fourth on the board, but he was not asked for a name or anything....
Ah, what it is to have young eyesight! Or, perhaps, a non-distorting CRT...
-
6.35
-
2,88 second go. Paralelgram thingie is a "xxxxx"!
-
Humm 7.95 on my first go
Now must try again O0
-
3.70 second try, must get out more
-
Turns out to be quite easy to cheat, by placing a rule on the screen......