Practice Aiming on Your Computer

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
... nobody has ever produced clear, precise instructions here or anywhere else

Dave:
I disagree. Procedures, along with precise explanations and illustrations for how and why they can work, can be found here:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE

Dave, let's try to keep this real. Which of those "procedures" really has "precise explanations"? Which produces precise aim, without feel, that average real-life players like the ones who post here as "pivot system users" can use on more than a few shots?

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Procedures, along with precise explanations and illustrations for how and why they can work, can be found here:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE

Dave, let's try to keep this real. Which of those "procedures" really has "precise explanations"?

None, depending on how you define "precise."

Which produces precise aim, without feel, that average real-life players like the ones who post here as "pivot system users" can use on more than a few shots?

The published procedures certainly don't offer the type of "precision" you are seeking. Obviously, if the procedures are followed literally without any conscious or subconscious feel-based adjustments (e.g., varying the "effective pivot length" with cut angle and CB-OB distance), then the procedures are not very "precise" at all (for most shots).

Again, the explanations and illustrations for how and why the systems work when they are used effectively can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

With appropriate conscious or subconscious feel-based adjustments, the systems can create "precision" when used effectively.

The systems also offer many potential benefits to some people.

I think it is important to stress the positive benefits of systems while realistically and honestly acknowledging the practical challenges to using the systems effectively for a wide range of shots. I think I do both on my CTE resource page.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think it is important to stress the positive benefits of systems while realistically and honestly acknowledging the practical challenges to using the systems effectively for a wide range of shots. I think I do both on my CTE resource page.

Regards,
Dave

I do too, and as you know I try to do that. I just wanted to clarify for purposes of this particular tangent of the topic, which is focused on whether or not "pivot aiming systems" instructions have been given for precise aiming solutions.

Thanks,

pj
chgo

 

[pdcue]

Jeesh - everybody take a deep breath and listen closely...

Good shot makers, no make that even competent shot makers, have zero problems
aiming. Hitting the proper spot with the cue ball is where the problem lies.

Dale

 

[Apocalypse2017]

I have the demo version of VP3...(which is limited to 4ball in the garage :frown

I have been playing the VP3 demo for a little while today after reading this thread. I just figured out that if you press "G" it gives you the ghost ball. And if you press "T" it gives you the line that the OB and CB will travel. Isn't that what this thread is about? You can press "R" and replay the shot over and over again...

carry on... arguing about the same f'n thing over and over again. Sorry to interrupt :wink:

 

[TATE]

BTW do you know if Celeris will release mobile version of VP for Bada system (Samsung Wave)?

Marek,

The next new operating system supported will be Android but no plans at this time for Bada.

Chris

 

[LAMas]

I disagree. Procedures, along with precise explanations and illustrations for how and why they can work, can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

Regards,
Dave

Dr.Dave,

First, thanks for including my old post in your website. I have tried what I proffered then at the table. I have now modified my observations to include all cut angles. I ask you to remove the old post and replace it with the new one below if you find it has more value.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another version shared by LAMas starting with a CTCP alignment, shifting based on the perceived distance to the OB center (instead of the CB edge), and pivoting back to the CB center (AKA, center-to-contact-point-to-center or CTCPTC):

1. Aim the center of the CB at the contact point on the OB that sends the OB to the pocket/target.

2. Parallel shift the cue to the center of the OB. Do this without regard for the CB. The shift will be a large distance when the CB and OB are close together and a small distance when the CB and OB are far apart - for the same cut angle. This is because the OB, being down-table, will appear to be a small[er] diameter than the CB which is in front of your eye/s.
This changing shift (distance) helps to reduce the trajectory/angle as the OB is separated from the CB – post pivot.

3. Pivot back from the new bridge location until the tip of the cue is aimed at the center of the CB and then shoot the shot. This gets you close to where the ghost ball should be.


The bridge is what you are comfortable with, say 12.0” or so behind the CB – no change in the bridge distance is necessary for different separations between the CB and OB.
Here are some examples of the same bridge pivot length (12.88”) being used for different cuts angles:

 

[Jal]

...
The bridge is what you are comfortable with, say 12.0” or so behind the CB – no change in the bridge distance is necessary for different separations between the CB and OB.....

Sorry Lamas, but to my understanding, this part is not true (per the graphs regarding an image plane parallel shift).

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

LAMas:
2. Parallel shift the cue to the center of the OB. Do this without regard for the CB. The shift will be a large distance when the CB and OB are close together and a small distance when the CB and OB are far apart - for the same cut angle. This is because the OB, being down-table, will appear to be a small[er] diameter than the CB which is in front of your eye/s.
This changing shift (distance) helps to reduce the trajectory/angle as the OB is separated from the CB – post pivot.

I think this description needs a little work to be truly accurate. To really shift parallel and really end up with the cue pointed at the center of the OB, you must shift the same distance no matter how close or far the OB is. If you shift a smaller distance, then you're either not really shifting parallel or not really pointing the cue at the center of the OB.

I think I get what you're saying, but I also think it should be described some other way to avoid confusion. Maybe "shift the cue until it seems to be parallel and pointed at the center of the OB"?

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

LAMas,

Thanks for the revision. I want to think about this more and try it out before I replace what I have already. I think what I have currently posted does a better job of showing the effects of true parallel shifts, and how taking into consideration the actually contact point can possibly improve the basic systems.

Thanks,
Dave

Dr.Dave,

First, thanks for including my old post in your website. I have tried what I proffered then at the table. I have now modified my observations to include all cut angles. I ask you to remove the old post and replace it with the new one below if you find it has more value.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another version shared by LAMas starting with a CTCP alignment, shifting based on the perceived distance to the OB center (instead of the CB edge), and pivoting back to the CB center (AKA, center-to-contact-point-to-center or CTCPTC):

1. Aim the center of the CB at the contact point on the OB that sends the OB to the pocket/target.

2. Parallel shift the cue to the center of the OB. Do this without regard for the CB. The shift will be a large distance when the CB and OB are close together and a small distance when the CB and OB are far apart - for the same cut angle. This is because the OB, being down-table, will appear to be a small[er] diameter than the CB which is in front of your eye/s.
This changing shift (distance) helps to reduce the trajectory/angle as the OB is separated from the CB – post pivot.

3. Pivot back from the new bridge location until the tip of the cue is aimed at the center of the CB and then shoot the shot. This gets you close to where the ghost ball should be.


The bridge is what you are comfortable with, say 12.0” or so behind the CB – no change in the bridge distance is necessary for different separations between the CB and OB.
Here are some examples of the same bridge pivot length (12.88”) being used for different cuts angles:

View attachment 164578

 

[LAMas]

Sorry Lamas, but to my understanding, this part is not true (per the graphs regarding an image plane parallel shift).

Jim

You are correct sir, but it is close enough for handgrenades and Pool aiming systems.

In an earlier experiment, I reverse engineered this CTCP and came up with a shift forward or backward of the bridge of a couple of inches which resulted in fractions of degrees.

Like CTE, it gets the beginner close enough to make small adjustments to suit his perception/s and results.

If you look closely at the diagrams you will notice that the 44 degree figure is a tad left of center of the OB.

One can reverse engineer (like your graphs) all of the distances between the CB and OB for the same cut angles from 1 through 89 degrees to derive a look up table for where to more accurately place the bridge behind the CB, but who would/could use it?

I have a hard enough time judging the actual cut angles to the pocket. Do I line up from the center of the CB to the center of the OB or do I more correctly line up from the center of the CB to the center of the GB?

Again it is academic for me....just sayin.

Thanks.

 

[LAMas]

I think this description needs a little work to be truly accurate. To really shift parallel and really end up with the cue pointed at the center of the OB, you must shift the same distance no matter how close or far the OB is. If you shift a smaller distance, then you're either not really shifting parallel or not really pointing the cue at the center of the OB.

I think I get what you're saying, but I also think it should be described some other way to avoid confusion. Maybe "shift the cue until it seems to be parallel and pointed at the center of the OB"?

pj
chgo

PJ,
You are correct.
I could have said "seemingly" parallel or sarcastically "Aparallel? as before.
Thanks.

 

[LAMas]

LAMas,

Thanks for the revision. I want to think about this more and try it out before I replace what I have already. I think what I have currently posted does a better job of showing the effects of true parallel shifts, and how taking into consideration the actually contact point can possibly improve the basic systems.

Thanks,
Dave

Dave,
The attachment is smaller and may be more usefull/visible than the verbage.
Thanks.