Online plane database is up

[calan]

Hey guys (and gals)!

Sorry for cross-posting, but in case you don't often check out the Planes and Vehicles forum...

I am creating an online and active AH plane database:

http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Vehicles.asp

It has (and will have many more) sorting and filtering options, as well as advanced tools for organizing planes in different ways. The primary target is for us newbs, but I think even you dusty old AH aces will be able to benefit from it.

We need a few knowledgable and open-minded AH veterans to take a minute or two and rate any planes that you are familiar with. It is really simple and self-explanatory, and only takes 20-30 seconds per plane. If you do rate a plane or add comments, please enter your AH name in the space provided.

Please read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page... I know this is SUBJECTIVE

Once we get a general consensus on the information, we will lock the data entry and start adding tools, links, and info pages.

Eventually, we will be adding pics, charts, and other goodies.

TIA!

Calan

[zorstorer]

Very cool setup Calan big


Might have to do the Hurri Mk1

Also might need a comment pop-up or something, I added some info about the N/A's I put in the Hurri's write up.

[calan]

Tks Zor.. it should be interesting to see where it goes  

I should mention...

If any of you guys modify the data and add comments (or see that something has changed since you modified it), please check the comments field every now and then for the planes you've modified.

Also be sure to update the "best alt" and "nickname" fields.

While we are in the initial "population" mode, I might make minor adjustments due to something I have in mind with the data. In this case, I'll post something in the comments field to explain the method behind my madness  

Tks

Calan

[LLv34_Snefens]

If I'll choose to edit a plane that was already rated, will it delete the first rating or be an average of the two?

[calan]

LLv,

It will replace the existing rating. (I actually have the functionality to average multiple ratings already set up, but it's disabled for the moment).

I'm hoping that we can get a consensus on ratings by using the experience of the AH vets. My thinking is that if someone rates a plane, then they are at the mercy of someone with more knowledge of that plane and how it relates to the "elite" plane in the category. By including the pilot name in the rating, I hope to aleviate some of the arguments that are bound to happen with people that are rating based on preference rather than fact.  

Eventually, I hope to get a group of well-experienced and non-subjective AH vets to put their mark of approval on the ratings that people have submitted. I'm not quite sure how or when that will happen, but it seems like it needs to.

Right now I just want to get as much reasonable information as possible entered, so I can start playing around with different ways of analyzing the data.


Calan

[Octavius]

excellent job calan!  

However, like Snefens, I hope 'replacing' or 'updating' a specific aircraft's desciption will be up for review (or maybe a vote?) before replacement.  False or misleading information can easily be transmitted in the current format.

[calan]

Thanks octavius...

Yeah...   not quite sure how to handle the review/validation thing yet.

Right now I just wanna get everything populated, so I can play around with some advance queries, sorting, and filtering. We definitely need to come up with a plan though, to:

1. Validate the numbers as closely as possible with agreed upon values, based on the "usual" gameplay

2. Prevent some 12 yr old with an attitude from skewing everything.

Ideally, I'll get a couple of experts who are familiar with all AH planes to help validate the ratings, once they are populated. Otherwise, I may just end up using the rater's name (and reputation in AH) as validation.

I dunno...  we'll see how it works out. But the possibilities (as my beer-induced vision sees them) are very interesting

Calan

[TexMurphy]

Just wana point one thing out...

A plane cant have a different rating in accelleration and in climb rate... In your chart the F4U-1D has 4 3 and the F6F 3 4.. it doesnt make sence... climb rate IS accelleration..

Other wise very good charts.

Tex

EDIT: Another thing Low Speed and High Speed turns should be split into sustained turn and instant turn.

Plus that you should add roll rate, flaps rating and rudder rating as these are even MORE important then turn rate.

[Kazaa]

Great stuff man, I added my 2 pence.

[croduh]

note: seafire is f/a now
Wtg on that

[FiLtH]

Looks great! Are you going to take an average for each plane and post it as such, after everyone has put their 2 cents in?

[Simaril]

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Just wana point one thing out...

A plane cant have a different rating in accelleration and in climb rate... In your chart the F4U-1D has 4 3 and the F6F 3 4.. it doesnt make sence... climb rate IS accelleration..

Other wise very good charts.

Tex

EDIT: Another thing Low Speed and High Speed turns should be split into sustained turn and instant turn.

Plus that you should add roll rate, flaps rating and rudder rating as these are even MORE important then turn rate.

Also, "deceleration" and "energy retention" are 2 sides of the same coin, arent they?

[TexMurphy]

Originally posted by Simaril
Also, "deceleration" and "energy retention" are 2 sides of the same coin, arent they?

This depends on what deceleration means.

If it means "Ability to Bleed E" then no it doesnt have to be the same. E can be bled with rudder, combat flaps and instant turn rate.

If Deceleration means how the plane slows down when you cut throttle or how it slows down in a sustained turn then yes it is the same as energy retention.

I do think that this hasnt been clear to the people who have evaluated the planes....

As it sometimes looks like the evaluation is made based on Deceleration=Energy Retention and sometimes E Bleed ability=Deceleration.

Imo a name change of the variables should be done to make this clearer.

[Simaril]

A thought....

One wasy to deal with the consensus problem would be to handle it the way that Wikipedia does. People can change others input, but there is a coupled discussion thread that is open for controversy and clarification.

In fact, it occurs to me that DoKGonzo has set up a Mini-Wiki on his website with the specific goal of creating a combat sim aircraft oriented encyclopedia. I wonder if you two could work something out between you, so that you cross link each others work? That way, controversy in your ratings could be read by others and a better sense of consensus could emerge, while his encyclopedia approach would benefit from more content....

[Scrap]

Very cool! !