CTE/Pro One - Why Not Build a Physical Model?

SpiderWebComm said:
Totally different-- visual alignment means two points meet on a vertical plane (straight up/down in your field of vision, regardless of distance).
Click to expand...
So by "visual lines" you mean the physical lines that the edges actually lie upon, and by "physical lines" you mean the apparently converging lines you "see" in perspective?

That's kind of a backwards way of using the terms, but it doesn't matter. None of the lines change, either physically or visually, when CB/OB distance changes. The single physical line you sight directly along obviously doesn't change and the other two converging lines you visualize in perspective also don't change. The distance of the OB makes absolutely no difference.

Stop hating...
Click to expand...
Doctor, heal thyself.

pj
chgo
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Totally different-- visual alignment means two points meet on a vertical plane (straight up/down in your field of vision, regardless of distance).

Stop hating, Captain Carp. I wonder how long it'll be before the Action Forum has the over/under for when you get plonked again.
Click to expand...

You telling someone to stop hating?

Yet the instant PJ gets back, you RUN to the alternate universe and bump a thread that is all about hating.:rolleyes: I quote. "I figured I'd bump this thread since Patrick Johnson is back from the dead":D

Talk about being a hypocrite.
HAHAHA.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
You telling someone to stop hating?

Yet the instant PJ gets back, you RUN to the alternate universe and bump a thread that is all about hating.:rolleyes: I quote. "I figured I'd bump this thread since Patrick Johnson is back from the dead":D

Talk about being a hypocrite.
HAHAHA.
Click to expand...

I thought you quit going there, Raphael, since Bill outed you.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So by "visual lines" you mean the physical lines that the edges actually lie upon, and by "physical lines" you mean the apparently converging lines you "see" in perspective?

That's kind of a backwards way of using the terms, but it doesn't matter. None of the lines change, either physically or visually, when CB/OB distance changes. The single physical line you sight directly along obviously doesn't change and the other two converging lines you visualize in perspective also don't change. The distance of the OB makes absolutely no difference.


Doctor, heal thyself.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

if i understanding correctly what your trying to say... i believe your wrong :)
 
SUPERSTAR said:
Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong, now would it.:D
Click to expand...

"Where oh where has my little Raph gone...oh where oh where can he be?"

Superstar = Raphael Saldana
Confirmed by numerous sources (in case people here at AZB didn't know, now you know)

I guess you're not Keyser Soze after all.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
"Where oh where has my little Raph gone...oh where oh where can he be?"

Superstar = Raphael Saldana
Confirmed by numerous sources (in case people here at AZB didn't know, now you know)
Click to expand...

Awww. How sweet.:D

But lets get one thing clear.

Trying to deflect the issue doesn't change the fact that when we are talking about hating, you are 100% being a hypocrite.

It must sting, i know.:D
 
SUPERSTAR said:
Awww. How sweet.:D

But lets get one thing clear.

Trying to deflect the issue doesn't change the fact that when we are talking about hating, you are 100% being a hypocrite.

It must sting, i know.:D
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing hating-on (jealousy) versus hating (can't stand). Just like I hate people who are nice in person while instigating behind an anonymous screen name....Raph.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I think you're confusing hating-on (jealousy) versus hating (can't stand). Just like I hate people who are nice in person while instigating behind an anonymous screen name....Raph.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I see.

This coming from someone who maintains a certain level of decency on one forum, while RUNNING to another to voice how they really feel.:rolleyes:

Who's hiding you say?:rolleyes:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You apparently think they "change" as the CB/OB distance changes. But the converging lines that you "see" from the CB's edges to the OB's edges are exactly the same converging lines no matter how far apart the balls are. If you put a second object ball some distance behind the first one, both OB's edges will lie exactly on the same straight, converging lines originating from the CB.....
Click to expand...
Can it be? Could it be? The voice of reason again? Welcome back, Sir!

Jim
 
SUPERSTAR said:
I see.

This coming from someone who maintains a certain level of decency on one forum, while RUNNING to another to voice how they really feel.:rolleyes:

Who's hiding you say?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

i have a feeling your that tool that kicked me out of that SVB live stream on insidepoolmag because i "lol" at a comment someone made about that crazy dude that streams that university rant thing, marty or dan, what ever that guys name is.
 
LAMas said:
Some folks refuse to accept that shifts of the cue prepivot when aimed on a spot on the OB like 3/4/C will be different when the OB is farther away and appears smaller. Most of those think that all lines converge at angles and that all shifts to that spot are the same regardless of the relative size of the OB appearance.

I can use this non convergence to effect a smaller parallel shift from the CTEL and a bigger shift when the OB is closer and appears to be larger.

Please study the distance "A" in the first diagram and ">A" in the second.

This may help some folks.

View attachment 219093

View attachment 219092

This is why the CB doesn't go sailing past the OB on a single angle trajectory, but instead as the OB is farther away from the CB - the shift is smaller and the included trajectory angle is also smaller etc..
Click to expand...
LAMas,

Interesting diagrams. Thank you for posting them.

IMO, none of the standard versions of CTE use pre-pivot alignments like you are suggesting. Also, it appears to me that the scale of your diagrams is very exaggerated/distorted, especially the perspective effect at the small CB-OB distances illustrated. The bridge (pivot) length is also extremely short in your diagrams. Do you think this approach would still work with a more realistic scaling for perspective? Also, do you think it would work for a wide range of CB-OB distances (i.e., would the resulting OB cut angle be the same for all CB distances)? Also, could a fixed and comfortable bridge length then be used for all shots?

Are you proposing a modification to Stan's version on CTE (with an OB-perspective-dimension pre-pivot shift parallel to the CTE line, instead of Stan's one-tip off-center placement)? Are you also suggesting Stan's bridge length changes would no longer be required? If you are proposing a modified version of CTE, could you explain how the procedure would be different from Stan's version? If your approach creates a practical and useful improvement to Stan's method, I would be happy to add it to my CTE resource page (with credit to you, and with a link back to the AZB post where you eventually explain the procedure modifications).

Thanks again for you time and effort.

Regards,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top