Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Rise of Flight compare utility


  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#1 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 05 November 2010 - 17:15

Edit on request to provide a link to the ROF-viewer.

www.rof-viewer.nl

Original text:
S!
As the IL-2 pilots know, there is for IL-2 the great Hardball aircraft compare utility.
I was looking for a similar tool for Rise of Flight, and didn't find any (yet).
So i started working on a web based version of my own…

Attached Files


  • 0

#2 Endy

Endy
  • Posts: 878

Posted 05 November 2010 - 17:32

Looking good so far. Best of luck with your project.
  • 0

#3 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 05 November 2010 - 17:40

Looking great! And can prove very valuable!
  • 0

#4 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 05 November 2010 - 17:45

You're going to need a sustained turn rate comparison, but looking good so far.
  • 0

#5 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 November 2010 - 18:04

power to weight might also be useful, great idea and work :)
  • 0

#6 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 05 November 2010 - 18:10

You are going to make alot of people happy. This forum is full of people who love pie charts, graphs and or spread sheets. carefull you may end up doing a power point on this.
  • 0

#7 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 05 November 2010 - 18:58

Nice project!

As for your signature, you should really try something like that:

SPAD VII, SPAD VII, SPAD VII… (with appropriate colours, of course)

:D
  • 0

#8 SYN_MrWolf

SYN_MrWolf
  • Posts: 807

Posted 05 November 2010 - 19:56

So..can we already try it?
  • 0

#9 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 05 November 2010 - 21:24

Yes, Hardball's comparisons were essential (I haven't flown IL-2 for at least five years but I remember the utility).

What is the source of your data? Actual testing or the RoF store or a source like Windsock?

Additions like best climb speed, best sustained turn speed, corner speed, etc. are what will make it invaluable.

VERY worthwhile project!

Thank you!

HT
  • 0

#10 BH_Vfw_Klaue

BH_Vfw_Klaue
  • Posts: 324

Posted 05 November 2010 - 21:38

S! Thank you for taking the time.

S! White Tails
  • 0

#11 Brutal_Baron

Brutal_Baron
  • Posts: 633

Posted 05 November 2010 - 22:00

A lot of hard work and it would be appreciated by our members.

PS:

Im my opinion Your sig is a little to large (as are several other members). Perhaps there should be a limit on sig sizes as is the case with other forums and the forum I use to run a few years back.. Just my opinion.
  • 0

#12 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 06 November 2010 - 01:22

What is the source of your data? Actual testing or the RoF store or a source like Windsock?

Additions like best climb speed, best sustained turn speed, corner speed, etc. are what will make it invaluable.

VERY worthwhile project!!

Thank you!

HT


Thx guys, for the replies!
Still working on it… (slowly though)

Some area's I am working on right now:
Highlight the advantages.
Add the menu

@HT
The data is the same as that in the store.
I asume that Neoqb has these figures in the FM's
I'll try an add your sugestions.

Thx again, your comments motivate me to pick up the pace :D

Regards,
FD
  • 0

#13 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:29

Question….


What's the most common screen resolution ROF pilots use for their browser(s).
Currently i have the ROF-viewer constrained on 1024 pixels.
If the common screen resolution is wider, i can add the image of the plane.
  • 0

#14 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:43

Heya Dutchman,

I sent you a pm some time ago, hoping to hear what you think of it :)

Exciting project! Good work.
  • 0

#15 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 09 November 2010 - 11:10

Heya Dutchman,

I sent you a pm some time ago, hoping to hear what you think of it :)

Exciting project! Good work.

Woops, maybe a glitch in the forum software, didn't get any PM's…

Thanks for showing interest, Jorri!
  • 0

#16 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 09 November 2010 - 12:50

As for your signature, you should really try something like that:

SPAD VII, SPAD VII, SPAD VII… (with appropriate colours, of course)

:D

Done :D
  • 0

#17 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 09 November 2010 - 12:54

I can hardly imagine that RoF users are still limited to 1024 res. My wife and I are students, we have a two year old, and even I have a 23" monitor.
  • 0

#18 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 09 November 2010 - 14:05

Heya Dutchman,

I sent you a pm some time ago, hoping to hear what you think of it :)

Exciting project! Good work.

Woops, maybe a glitch in the forum software, didn't get any PM's…

Thanks for showing interest, Jorri!


Dutchman,

I just started working on a ROF community website called http://www.camelfag.com (based on Bender's great bulletin) and if you're interested I'd love to host it on there.

Also, I'll be posting the results of a lot of flying tests a squadron mate of mine and betatester (Mig-77) is doing at the moment, everything from climbing times to top speeds at different altitudes to turning circles and speeds. It might be interesting to combine your/our efforts to get the most informative result (if he agrees but I'm sure he would)?

I'd be honoured if you would consider it because this is a great project I think.
  • 0

#19 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 09 November 2010 - 17:28

As for your signature, you should really try something like that:

SPAD VII, SPAD VII, SPAD VII… (with appropriate colours, of course)

:D

Done :D


Great! Ahaha! One after another, we will conquer the community! :D
  • 0

#20 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 10 November 2010 - 15:55

Great idea and looking good so far.

In my opinion, it's imperative to use figures for such a program derived completely from the game. So, hopefully, there is a way to glean them from true data and/or they match what is listed in the store.

Second, I'd like to point out that there is a definitive difference between Hardball's aircraft viewer and the IL2Compare program. Hardball's is more like the "Idiot's guide to aircraft comparisons" (with some data not quite accurate), whereas IL2Compare provides a bit more specific data generated directly from the source.
  • 0

#21 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 10 November 2010 - 16:42

Yes I think if Flying Dutchman and MiG 77 work together it will be of great benefit to both :D
  • 0

#22 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 11 November 2010 - 07:26

I'd be honoured if you would consider it because this is a great project I think.

I'll consider it.
  • 0

#23 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 11 November 2010 - 14:38

Thanks ;)
  • 0

#24 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 12 November 2010 - 21:05

So..can we already try it?

S! Mr Wolf, now you can take it for a spin…

http://www.rof-viewer.nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.rof-viewer.nl

Still very much WIP!!
  • 0

#25 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 13 November 2010 - 05:09

Looking good, cheers :) Could you perhaps include both planes in both lists, maybe with a seperate dropdown for French, British, German, Entente, Central, All etc to limit the selection? That way you can have German and Entente preset but we can still combat all with all.
  • 0

#26 SYN_MrWolf

SYN_MrWolf
  • Posts: 807

Posted 14 November 2010 - 15:18

I like it! Good work FD!
  • 0

#27 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 15 November 2010 - 22:18

Updated the viewer….

take a look…
  • 0

#28 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 November 2010 - 22:29

That's great, and really really useful and easy.

Would be awesome to see it combined with in-game stats rather than the store ones.
  • 0

#29 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 15 November 2010 - 23:06

Normally, powerloading is weight/power (lower numbers are better). It would also make sense to use units from the same measurement system, i.e. kg/(kilo)watt, lb/hp, etc.

Quite stunning to notice that the D.Va has slightly better powerloading than the Camel. You wouldn't know from in-game performance.
  • 0

#30 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 15 November 2010 - 23:10

That's great, and really really useful and easy.

Thanks!

Would be awesome to see it combined with in-game stats rather than the store ones.

This will always be a subject of discussion, in-game test data will never be exact science,
the store data isn't either. (don't know where Neoqb got 'em)
The weathermodel will be a deciding variable in the equation, test flight data will be influenced by it.
Considering this we can only conclude (i.m.h.o.) that the store data is as valid as any data obtained in whatever setting.

Normally, powerloading is weight/power (lower numbers are better). It would also make sense to use units from the same measurement system, i.e. kg/(kilo)watt, lb/hp, etc.

Quite stunning to notice that the D.Va has slightly better powerloading than the Camel. You wouldn't know from in-game performance.

If you take a Camel up with 50% fuel and a DVa with 30%, i'll guess you will be surprised :-)
That number is calculated with max t.o. weight.

.
  • 0

#31 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 16 November 2010 - 00:19

I know that. Even with both at max weight, the Camel outclimbs the D.Va by a large margin.
  • 0

#32 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 12 February 2011 - 08:49

Correted Gotha data.

Uptodate now!

www.rof-viewer.nl
  • 0

#33 I/JG53_Kurtz

I/JG53_Kurtz
  • Posts: 177

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:01

Thanks! Great work.
  • 0

#34 J2_Wallenberg

J2_Wallenberg
  • Posts: 1600

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:45

Respectable and highly seeked for!
  • 0

#35 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 12 February 2011 - 14:28

Great work Flying Dutchman.

FYI, the OAW Albatros D.III did not enter service in 1916.
  • 0

#36 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 12 February 2011 - 20:14

Great work Flying Dutchman.

FYI, the OAW Albatros D.III did not enter service in 1916.

Thanks!

Corrected the entered service year for the (OAW) Albatros D-III (thx for the pointer)
  • 0

#37 EclecticRazor

EclecticRazor
  • Posts: 631

Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:41

Nice piece of work there Dutchman. Thank you for satisfying my craving for more stats. Keep it coming.
  • 0

#38 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 08 March 2011 - 11:57

S!,

I have a question for the community regarding the use of the ROF-Viewer.
How frequent do you visit my site to compare aircraft.
I'm wondering if there are a few people who visit frequently or more people who take a peek now & then.
I'm pleased to see counter data rising by the day.
My gues is that USA based pilots use it more often.

www.rof-viewer.nl
  • 0

#39 ST_ami7b5

ST_ami7b5
  • Posts: 2137

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:52

Hi!

Just discovered your Viewer.
Nice work, thanks for that!
Bookmarked.
  • 0

#40 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 08 March 2011 - 13:21

Hi!

Just discovered your Viewer.
Nice work, thanks for that!
Bookmarked.

Thanks!
You're welcome.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users