Aparallel CTCP aiming method

[Mikjary]

Beauty is to the beholder.

View attachment 139768

LAMas,

The second drawing is the 3D representation of your shift.The relative line is the actual perspective. Are you trying to make Jim feel better about this by ignoring the relative line?:grin: J/K Sorry, Jim.

How would you feel about taking your perspective shift and trying to apply it to Dr. Dave's diagram? I think you have approached the idea with your aparallel shift. I'm interested in possibly working on it a little further, but I don't have the diagramming capabilities or math background you guys do.
I have a few questions, though.

In Dr. Dave's diagram (DDD), the last shot is near the short rail with the CB/OB distance the same as the other shots. Would it be wrong to say that even though the CB/OB distance is the same, the perspective point of view hasn't changed from the first shot since you are still standing in the same spot? You may stretch out over the table to shoot it, but when you initially align for the shot you are standing up, away from the table. You are perceiving the shot from the same vantage point. You are still perceiving the 3D aparallel effect. What do you think? Feel free to climb on the table to check this. You don't need one foot on the floor. :grin:

Best,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

This picture?
The far shot?
Where do you want the CB?

 

[LAMas]

OB moved down table from CB - thin cut to the pocket on the right.

 

[LAMas]

"In Dr. Dave's diagram (DDD), the last shot is near the short rail with the CB/OB distance the same as the other shots. Would it be wrong to say that even though the CB/OB distance is the same, the perspective point of view hasn't changed from the first shot since you are still standing in the same spot? You may stretch out over the table to shoot it, but when you initially align for the shot you are standing up, away from the table. You are perceiving the shot from the same vantage point. You are still perceiving the 3D aparallel effect. What do you think? Feel free to climb on the table to check this. You don't need one foot on the floor.

Best, "
Mike
---------------------
Mike,
I misread you question.

Short answer - It doesn't affect the mechanics.

Though I say to ignore the CB when sighting the OB (down table), The CB is the viewing/focal plane and the tip of the cue is just in front of it and the cue traverses the aparallel distance in front of it (CB).


If I step back from the shot, both the OB and CB appear smaller than before, but the two aparallel lines (start and finish of the rollng of the dowel - i:e., 9:00 to 3:00) are the same as they were right in front of the CB. They appeared closer together but that's because the CB and OB are farther away from the eye and appear smaller. They also didn't move their relation ship to the now smaller appearing CB.

Since the bridge will be the same distance from the CB whether I am close to the CB or reaching across the table, That is where the cue is to pivot back to the center of the CB creating the angle that sends the CB to the contact/impact point of the GB/OB. The CB is sent to the doubled distance point.

[From a top view, there are some equalteral and right triangles in there someplace.]

I did have one knee on the table ala Busta, but I was using a cue extender as well LOL

Later.

 

[Mikjary]

"In Dr. Dave's diagram (DDD), the last shot is near the short rail with the CB/OB distance the same as the other shots. Would it be wrong to say that even though the CB/OB distance is the same, the perspective point of view hasn't changed from the first shot since you are still standing in the same spot? You may stretch out over the table to shoot it, but when you initially align for the shot you are standing up, away from the table. You are perceiving the shot from the same vantage point. You are still perceiving the 3D aparallel effect. What do you think? Feel free to climb on the table to check this. You don't need one foot on the floor.

Best, "
Mike
---------------------
Mike,
I misread you question.

Short answer - It doesn't affect the mechanics.

Though I say to ignore the CB when sighting the OB (down table), The CB is the viewing/focal plane and the tip of the cue is just in front of it and the cue traverses the aparallel distance in front of it (CB).


If I step back from the shot, both the OB and CB appear smaller than before, but the two aparallel lines (start and finish of the rollng of the dowel - i:e., 9:00 to 3:00) are the same as they were right in front of the CB. They appeared closer together but that's because the CB and OB are farther away from the eye and appear smaller. They also didn't move their relation ship to the now smaller appearing CB.

Since the bridge will be the same distance from the CB whether I am close to the CB or reaching across the table, That is where the cue is to pivot back to the center of the CB creating the angle that sends the CB to the contact/impact point of the GB/OB. The CB is sent to the doubled distance point.

[From a top view, there are some equalteral and right triangles in there someplace.]

I did have one knee on the table ala Busta, but I was using a cue extender as well LOL

Later.

LAMas,

Here is the DDD that I was talking about.

View attachment 139806

The last shot compared to the first shot on the straight line. With CTCP and 90/90 there are adjustment points to compensate for the angle change. The more easily explained is the CTCP perception for the aparallel shift. As the CP moves so does the x distance. You are using the ghostball, double the distance, offset with a pivot (GBDDOW/P).

The 90/90 adjustment is mainly the changing aiming point on the OB. As the angle increases you would use a 90/half ball or 90/reverse 90 setup.
I say mainly because how you look at the shot dictates your aiming line setup. With CTE you don't alter your approach until the shot becomes a thinner cut by aiming to the other side of the OB. What happens in between as the DDD suggests? This is what I was referring to in my other posts and your aparallel perception coupled with these sample shots. I think for explanation purposes there is something to be looked at here. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

Mike,
The resolution on .ppt is bad but you get the picture?
Is this what you asked for?

 

[Mikjary]

Mike,
The resolution on .ppt is bad but you get the picture?
Is this what you asked for?

View attachment 139853

LAMas,

The diagram is very good. Thank you for putting in the time to do that. It visually represents a contact point (ghost ball) aiming system using an offset and pivot. My question is how does this differ from CTE systems? They both have an aiming point, an offset and a pivot. We already know and understand how well aparallel aiming is working, so I will look at how CTE works.

Like all pivot systems there is an edge or center initial aiming point or sighting line. How you approach this alignment is critical just as it is in all systems. If you don't line up correctly your testing the rails or steering your stroke.

Lets say you are in the right line (that's a different thread) and are aiming at the edge or center of the OB , pre-pivot. What is the variable here versus CTCP to hit the correct CP when you pivot? Shorten your bridge a mm, or an inch, or more? That's tough to do with any consistency or feel for the shot. I think you leave the bridge length alone and simply adjust your pivot arc as the shot distance changes.

This where the parallax vision and perspective come into play. Some players are terrible with depth perception and have a very hard time pocketing balls with any system. As their perspective strengthens they improve. This is true with CTE. If you are having trouble getting it to work you need to realize you are not approaching the shot correctly and make adjustments. Take a different look at it. Move your eyes from side to side. Adjust your bridge alignment and stance. I did and things improved quickly for me.

Your brain takes in this perspective info and adjusts for distance just like you adjust to roll the CB a foot past the OB or draw back two feet for shape. But can you trust your subconcious mind? Or is everything in pool done only by rational thinking and orders from # 1? Forget that 'in the zone' crap. I like to tell my body how to shoot every shot!

Your system is the missing link :grin: I think between traditional and CTE systems. What do you think?

Thanks again for the drawing,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

Mike,
In my line of work, I am tested on every design that I effect. They are peer reviewed; they are prototyped, qualified, analized by the "best and the brightest"...then pre production and full rate production.

I abide by Occam's Razor to get to the nut. I/we reverse engineer the competition, and employ cutting edge science. We have taken Carpet Bombing out of the equation and developed the GPS guided WW2 bombs..."One target, one bomb in any weather". We are getting the Bad Guys in the ME.

As I said at the outset, this is an academic excercise for me. I became impatient with the vague CTE explanations. I don't think that it is fair to teach the student how to employ parallax to alter CTE to accomplish the other cut angles not presented by the single angle of CTE.

I shoot with discipline for I lack natural talent. I have shot against my peers who shoot by feel...when they are on, they are unbeatable, but when they are off - they have nothing to fall back on. If they lack the fundamentals, they are lost.

Aiming must be understood and the more methods that one has in their pocket, the sooner one can get back on track on those bad days. I have found the double distance method the most parsimonious for it is succinct and not frought with the many variables of pivot systems.

Back in the day, there were no teachers..."don't feed the fish" etc. lol.

I had to teach myself or go broke. The survivors had a sense of the game. Though reading the CTE threads, teachers are instructing those without that sense....which side of the OB to send the CB to the pocket on the left???...Where CTE is useful.

I don't flatter myself as having found anything new with Aparallel CTCP for all systems must deliver the CB to the GB.

What I am surprised with is the lack of clarity in the description of what one proffers. That is why these threads go on for 700+ posts before they die...with recrimination that there are aiming threads in the first place. This one hasn't though since I have lost my audience several posts ago...save you?

Perhaps I have landed on a novel method of aiming that could be of use to some...or not. I don't know for I don't teach nor are there many that are amenable to instruction where I shoot when I try.

I thank dr_dave, Jal and you for peer reviewing my academic folly. It seems that only you appreciate the impact of perspective on learning the game we love.

I have asked a couple of optics experts at work and they seem to think that what I have been toying with is collimation, but I won't go there...here.

I will explore if the bridge length behind the CB has any effect on the shift and pivot.

Thanks for your interest and your humoring me.

 

[Mikjary]

Mike,
In my line of work, I am tested on every design that I effect. They are peer reviewed; they are prototyped, qualified, analized by the "best and the brightest"...then pre production and full rate production.

I abide by Occam's Razor to get to the nut. I/we reverse engineer the competition, and employ cutting edge science. We have taken Carpet Bombing out of the equation and developed the GPS guided WW2 bombs..."One target, one bomb in any weather". We are getting the Bad Guys in the ME.

As I said at the outset, this is an academic excercise for me. I became impatient with the vague CTE explanations. I don't think that it is fair to teach the student how to employ parallax to alter CTE to accomplish the other cut angles not presented by the single angle of CTE.

I shoot with discipline for I lack natural talent. I have shot against my peers who shoot by feel...when they are on, they are unbeatable, but when they are off - they have nothing to fall back on. If they lack the fundamentals, they are lost.

Aiming must be understood and the more methods that one has in their pocket, the sooner one can get back on track on those bad days. I have found the double distance method the most parsimonious for it is succinct and not frought with the many variables of pivot systems.

Back in the day, there were no teachers..."don't feed the fish" etc. lol.

I had to teach myself or go broke. The survivors had a sense of the game. Though reading the CTE threads, teachers are instructing those without that sense....which side of the OB to send the CB to the pocket on the left???...Where CTE is useful.

I don't flatter myself as having found anything new with Aparallel CTCP for all systems must deliver the CB to the GB.

What I am surprised with is the lack of clarity in the description of what one proffers. That is why these threads go on for 700+ posts before they die...with recrimination that there are aiming threads in the first place. This one hasn't though since I have lost my audience several posts ago...save you?

Perhaps I have landed on a novel method of aiming that could be of use to some...or not. I don't know for I don't teach nor are there many that are amenable to instruction where I shoot when I try.

I thank dr_dave, Jal and you for peer reviewing my academic folly. It seems that only you appreciate the impact of perspective on learning the game we love.

I have asked a couple of optics experts at work and they seem to think that what I have been toying with is collimation, but I won't go there...here.

I will explore if the bridge length behind the CB has any effect on the shift and pivot.

Thanks for your interest and your humoring me.

LAMas,

Good post. I'm sending coordinates to you for my ex-wife's house. :grin:

I agree about getting info on CTE off some of these threads. It's a crap shoot unless you use a good filter. I'd heard of pivot systems about 30 years ago, but the references were vague and without adjustments they were confusing at best. I worked on these techniques and other types of aiming systems with people that eventually published their work on the subject. I learned alot from and with them over the years, but I was always curious about the pivot systems.

From my own experimentation I know I can create any line of sight I need, pre-pivot, to shoot any shot by adjusting my bridge length. This is a big variable obviously because no two shots are exactly the same distance apart. Your stroke would also suffer and your mechanics would probably break down. Your pivot arc is more manageable using a hip pivot and should be the feel for the shot.

When you are sighting the shot your depth perception/perspective is automatically engaged by the eyes. Your pivot with practice becomes second nature. When you reach for a beer on the bar do you have to think about it or does your depth perception/perspective take over(until you reach too many times and your depth perception goes away )?

I can pivot from several different aiming locations, setups and offsets and one seems to be as accurate as the next. Why is this? I've home brewed, as you have, some pivot combinations that pocket balls without ever reading about them. They work for me, but probably won't for others. I've taken a couple of traditional systems and added a pivot to them and they work, too. I believe once you have a sense of the pivot you can manipulate it without thinking about it and this is important. If you have to think about a physical movement you're in trouble. It should be like your stroke. Once you learn it let it happen. Don't think about it (do you breathe in or breathe out on your final stroke? :grin: ).

I shoot by feel and only rely on a system when I have to spin the CB or hit it with speed. It helps to remove that last second swoop because you told that voice in your head to take a walk on that particular shot. You've cinched the ball and are now able to concentrate on position and speed control. I find when playing 9 or 10 ball the last several shots are much easier to run out when you get that perfect position on the 7 or 8 ball. :wink: On my bad feel days I have a backup plan which increases my confidence level and shortens the slump. I no longer have to worry about making balls. Only the mechanics and let the system work for me.

Who knows where it will take me? I will play around with it for awhile longer since it does have some interesting possibilities.

Best,
Mike