Training bug, covering

[Robyklebt]

Somebody already posted about this or something similar a while ago.

Situation how it used to be should be: Nobody really remembers. Probably it was something like this:
- training at 21-23, nothing needs to be covered, no minus trainings possible.
- training at 24 Everything over 60 needs to be covered. 65 for sprint? (Unless you are ok with downtrainings)
- training from 25 on: Everything over 50, except sprint where it's 55, needs to be covered

Situation at 24 now: Nothing needs to be covered. See my Wüthrich at 54-82-78, I have everything at mountain, no down % at all. There should be for his 82+78. But not for 52 TT

At 25 then it seems ok.

[flockmastoR]

Somebody already posted about this or something similar a while ago.

Situation how it used to be should be: Nobody really remembers. Probably it was something like this:
- training at 21-23, nothing needs to be covered, no minus trainings possible.
- training at 24 Everything over 60 needs to be covered. 65 for sprint? (Unless you are ok with downtrainings)
- training from 25 on: Everything over 50, except sprint where it's 55, needs to be covered

Situation at 24 now: Nothing needs to be covered. See my Wüthrich at 54-82-78, I have everything at mountain, no down % at all. There should be for his 82+78. But not for 52 TT

At 25 then it seems ok.

We discussed about it in my Next Gen Stats discussio thread

[Robyklebt]

OK, now at least we have it in the bug forum. Because IMO it's a bug (or should it go into the "new c4f part" since it's a flash-react transition problem????
I'm not completely sure if that old system was indeed like that btw, but think it was.

[flockmastoR]

OK, now at least we have it in the bug forum. Because IMO it's a bug (or should it go into the "new c4f part" since it's a flash-react transition problem????
I'm not completely sure if that old system was indeed like that btw, but think it was.

Bugs is the right place for now, but I really have problems understanding

1) If something has changed at all
2) If yes > is it only a display bug and the backend calculations are not effected (that would mean the shown numbers are not the actual ones)
3) If yes > Why and when it was changed

I can just remember that the numbers I got from my training_percentage script didn't match with the ones displayed for a certain age/value combination (I think its the one you discribed), but I wouldn't find a reason for it looking at the code.

Will take a closer look.

Issue#17

[Robyklebt]

My best guess is change somewhere in the transition flash-react? But don't know. But think I remember that this +10 was a thing in the past, Under 60 didn't need to be covered for one year (month, season) This +10 was a thing, now maybe it never worked at all, that is possible too, maybe never tried at 24, but remember that +10 was a thing.

Can only find 2 issues in the forum