Some good posts on aiming systems and supplemental aiming systems started me thinking about such things. From my perspective often aiming systems seem to be starting from the wrong viewpoint. Generally speaking, during a run if a shot is moderately difficult the easier part of the shot is pocketing the object ball and the more difficult part is stopping the cue ball in the right area, preferably approaching that area from a direction that gives the largest margin of error. Therefore it seems primary focus should be on the cue ball's path and final position.
It is easy to create a fairly simple aiming system since the angle that we hit the object ball is only one variable and by altering the other two, cue ball spin and speed, we can indeed only hit a comparatively few predetermined spots on the object ball. The catch is that speed and spin are usually the major factors determining where the cue ball ends up since we can only vary the hit on the object ball a comparatively few degrees.
Where I am going with all this is simple. My opinion is that first we need to decide the area we want the cue ball to come to rest in and the direction we prefer to approach the area from, granting that it may not always be practical to get an ideal approach angle but it should be considered. Then rather than using only four contact points or however many limited contact points, a system only gives us a rough area on the cue ball to contact and the precise spot hit varies with spin and speed needed to place the cue ball where desired. Leaving the exact angle the cue ball is struck until last doesn't strike me as an adjustment, rather the key to any successful aiming system.
To sum up, it seems that usually what the cue ball is doing after the collision requires more thought than what the object ball is doing if we controlled the cue ball on the last shot. I don't want to modify my preferred spin and cue ball speed to pocket an object ball except as a last resort. This appears to be basic but I have seen both aiming systems and banking systems that seem to ignore what happens to the cue ball. When both speed and spin are determined by what is needed to make the object ball hitting it at a narrowly defined angle we no longer have control of where the cue ball stops at.
Thoughts?
Hu
It is easy to create a fairly simple aiming system since the angle that we hit the object ball is only one variable and by altering the other two, cue ball spin and speed, we can indeed only hit a comparatively few predetermined spots on the object ball. The catch is that speed and spin are usually the major factors determining where the cue ball ends up since we can only vary the hit on the object ball a comparatively few degrees.
Where I am going with all this is simple. My opinion is that first we need to decide the area we want the cue ball to come to rest in and the direction we prefer to approach the area from, granting that it may not always be practical to get an ideal approach angle but it should be considered. Then rather than using only four contact points or however many limited contact points, a system only gives us a rough area on the cue ball to contact and the precise spot hit varies with spin and speed needed to place the cue ball where desired. Leaving the exact angle the cue ball is struck until last doesn't strike me as an adjustment, rather the key to any successful aiming system.
To sum up, it seems that usually what the cue ball is doing after the collision requires more thought than what the object ball is doing if we controlled the cue ball on the last shot. I don't want to modify my preferred spin and cue ball speed to pocket an object ball except as a last resort. This appears to be basic but I have seen both aiming systems and banking systems that seem to ignore what happens to the cue ball. When both speed and spin are determined by what is needed to make the object ball hitting it at a narrowly defined angle we no longer have control of where the cue ball stops at.
Thoughts?
Hu
