A Guide To Rating files At The swap pages

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maj. Numbskully

Maj. Numbskully

Well-known member
A GUIDE TO RATING FILES AT THE SWAP PAGES

Attention Newly Registered Knife Edge Forum/Swap Page Members...Welcome!
There is a 2 week waiting period before you are allowed to Rate Files at the Swap Pages

This is by no means an attempt to tell any Forum/Swap page member HOW (or what) to Rate Swap Page files , but merely an attempt to point out some things that could be considered when Rating Files at the Swap Pages

RATING

GENERAL OVERVIEW:
DO NOT Rate a Swap Page file just by looking at the THUMBNAIL!!
Download and Import it into the Sim. And LOOK at the file IN THE SIM.
Many people only show the single generic thumbnail generated by the G3x or Rfx file which only shows one view.
In every type of swap page file there are things that may not be shown
Or are impossible to ascertain in a thumbnail(s) or preview
Rating a file WITHOUT Downloading, importing and looking at the file in the Sim. Is NOT REALLY FAIR to the up loader!

RATING FRIENDS FILES:
DON’T rate every file posted by your Forum or MP friends a 10 just because you like them. Every file should be rated on the merit of the file in question Not by whom you know. Besides this kind of rating system abuse is easy to spot When every file or nearly every file from User123 gives a 10 rating on every file or nearly every file from User456 or vice-versa ….its obvious as to what’s going on
Those ratings truly are meaningless and lowers both users rating credibility

REATALIATION RATING:
DON’T…. just because some one else does not like one your files or consistently rates your files poorly, doesn’t give you the right you the right to “return the favor’’. Also keep in mind that NOT EVERY file is a 10 no matter how good you think your upload may be "two wrongs don’t’ make a right, and it just lowers your rating credibility

CUP OF TEA
One of RF’s strengths is that the user can make RF into what he or she wants it to be By which types of stock or imported files they choose to use within RF ,or by choosing to use certain files that are used to join events on line in MP
(For example: EA’s or AV’s with missiles, paintball guns etc. for use in combat in G5) If a file presented at the Swap Page is not your “Cup of tea” maybe you should not download or rate the file anyhow!!

FUN FACTOR / NOVELTY
Many AP and AV files are NOT meant to mimic the real world like …“Tube” or Obstacle Courses and Mach 2 aircraft intended just for flying fun or practice in the Sim.
RF has something for every one and if done properly these types of Files can be fun and help you learn Spatial Orientation and Sharpen your reflexes or both
These skills can help your real world R.C. Aircraft Flying. It’s not fair to rate a file poorly because you think “that’s not very real"
When it was never intended to depict some thing real in the first place

ORIGINALITY
Has it been done before? Or not differ substantially from other files offered? Or even copied?

CREATIVITY
Did much thought or effort go into it? for a CS, is it just a change in color with the original pattern? (Color fill) ...or for an AP is it just a spawn point or something unique with multiple spawn points and/or has made use of Airport objects in a new way? Did it take some thought in laying it out?
 
Last edited:
COMMENTS

NEVER use profanity
NEVER use derogatory terms
NEVER use “put downs” directed at the up loader
Or people who may use the file Besides it being against the forum and swap page rules…Have some class!!!

Leaving a comment is optional when rating a file from 5 through 10
Comments can be seen by “everyone" or they can be made * “Visible to the up loader only” (see below) ALL ratings 4 and below REQUIRE a comment That can be seen by everyone Or (contrary to popular belief) Ratings 1-4 can ALSO can be made * “visible to the up loader only” (see below)

DO LEAVE ONE
Just leaving a Rating does not really help the up loader/downloader learn where the file may have “come up short’’ Or let him / her know the things that he can do to improve the file in question .Or in his/her next offering ,Or It doesn’t let them know the things you liked about the file, so that he/she may incorporate it into his/her future swap page offering (Proper use of the n_tga or s_tga in a CS for example)

* “VISIBLE TO THE UPLOADER ONLY”
Keep in mind that this is not an excuse to use profanity or derogatory termsOr to send offensive Comments (or P.M.s) to the up loaderJust because “they are only visible to him / her’ Also keep in mind
If the up loader cares to 'share" your comment with EVERY ONE He can do so later in the files “description” So don’t say anything that might embarrass you or that you may regret later Above all…..have some class!!

RELEVENCE:
Does your rating comment have relevance? For example: Comment(s) like these …..
3: “I don’t like this EA file Because I DON”T LIKE ___Cessna’s…. try making a Hang glider instead next time “ It may be true that You may not like Cessna’s, But if the file is accurate in its 3d modeling, physics model, and default CS but Your not liking Cessna’s and the fact that you would prefer a hang glider has really nothing to do with the quality of the file.
10 : “I love this file Because I LOVE ___Cessna’s” You may indeed love Cessna s …. But if it flies like a brick Or is maybe even missing a key part(s) common on Cessna’s like wheel pants or landing gear altogether It’s not a very good EA file…. is it?

HELP:
Does your comment help the up loader improve the file that you’re Rating / commenting on? Or maybe His next Swap Page offering? Can you offer tips that may help the up loader learn or try something new? That may help him to improve his skills .Does your Comment (In a respectful manner) Point out something that May not be correct or not look Right in the file?
 
Last edited:
Now let’s look at specific things that maybe you should keep in mind when Rating specific types of files:

Rating EA s
Ea files really are 3 files in one…
The 3d Modeling(what you see in the sim.) Is the first and most important part of an EA file. An EA file also contains 2 embedded sub-files
The default Color Scheme (paint job) and the Physics Model, (How the aircraft flies and interacts with the virtual environment in RF)
While all “parts” of the EA file should be taken in to consideration when rating an EA file MORE EMPHISIS Should be given to the 3d Modeling part of the file for the following reason:
EA files once posted are “*Semi-Permanent” in that if there is a flaw in the 3d Model there is NOTHING that the file User can do to change it. (It is what it is) If there is something less than desirable in the physics model or the CS, it CAN be corrected With a follow up Posting of either a new physics model (an “AV ”… preferably by someone familiar with the RW model) or with a new CS by the original up loader OR by another User …ONLY the Original Designer / up loader can Re-Edit the 3d Modeling! But only*IF he is able to delete the EA file
*For a more detailed explanation as to why the original up loader MAY NOT be able to delete the EA file send me a “Private Message”

3D MODELING:
How does it look? , Does it look real and properly proportioned? Is it detailed and does it look like the model it’s trying to represent? With all key parts, Unique to that aircraft. Is it the right scale?

* DEFAULT CS
(* See CS section below )

PHYSICS MODEL:
Again the physics model can ONLY be ascertained IN the Sim. How does the aircraft fly and interact with the virtual environment in RF As compared to the R.W. model it represents under similar conditions in the R.W.? Based upon your experience with the R.W. model is its flight model (physics) accurate? (If you have never flown the R.W. model represented…how would you know?)

MIRRORED
Was the 3d model created by mirroring parts? Mirroring parts is an easier way to 3d model and can be considered a Shortcut and as a result the CS mapping is also mirrored And thus makes it impossible for the CS file to have lettering, tail numbers or graphics that contain lettering. On one half of the aircraft That is not reversed (backwards) Mirroring parts can severely limit the creativity/quality of any CS that may be done for that EA file in the future either by the up loader or other users

Since you are only allowed to give an EA file only one Overall Numbered rating. You may wish to give the pro or con in the “Comment” section and give a Rating 1-10 for each part of the EA file. That way you could more accurately convey what you liked or disliked about the file and how you arrived at you’re Over all Rating and it is more helpful to the up loader in determining where he or she did or did not do a very good job.
Example of a hypothetical G4.5 exported / uploaded Rfx file and Rating / Comment
____ CESSNA EA Rfx
RATING: 8
COMMENT: 3d modeling: 7 My ___Cessna has wheel pants on the main landing gear, why did you not include them?
Physics model: 8 My ___Cessna has a much lower stall speed
Color Scheme: 10 Nice ___Cessna Color Scheme, the graphics are sharp and it looks just like my ___Cessna . Nice use of the n_.tga , the panel lines and rivets are distinct, yet not overdone
 
Last edited:
Rating AV s
(AIRCRAFT VARIANTS) User edited alternate
physics model for Stock or EA Aircraft models

APPERANCE
Keep in mind that the visual appearance of ANY of RF’s Aircraft Can NOT be changed With the exception of: Propellers, helicopter blades, Color Schemes (paint job) , Scale (size) and “engine to show” Added components such as Spoilers, Flaps, Airfoils, Landing Gear etc. That is NOT part of the EA or stock Aircraft’s original visual 3d Model although functional…. will NOT be SEEN in the Sim.

IMPROVMENT
Does the file improve upon or does it have a more accurate Physics model? That is closer to the R.W. Model than the original Stock or EA model that it was edited from? Or was it posted for the fun factor or novelty

SCALE (size)
Has the model‘s scale size been increased or decreased? If so Were the physics properly scaled as well.. I.E. weight, CG, thrust to weight ratio etc. Or was the model just made “bigger”
 
Last edited:
Rating CS s
(COLOR SCHEMES) user created aircraft “paint jobs” used On both “stock” or “EA” aircraft

SCALE Was it intended to be Scale? (Not size)… but an accurate duplication of a R.W. full size or R.W. R.C. Aircraft Color Scheme? Is it an accurate representation of the model it’s meant to depict? Are the graphics, lettering or artistic markings clear, accurate and of high resolution? And are they accurately placed? Is it based on a R.W. RTF or ATF R.C. Model? How well does the CS match the R.W. models stock CS ? And is it of high Quality?

MIRRORED / REVERSED
Keep in mind that some EA’s are created by mirroring parts and as a consequence so is the accompanying .tga file used to make Color schemes As a result Lettering or tail numbers may be reversed on one side of the aircraft that is not the fault of someone making a CS…They have to work with what is given to them by the users who create and post EA s that were mirrored

REQUESTED
Was it a “Requested” CS If so…is it accurate, does it meet what the requester asked for? (*If known)Many people up load a CS for some one who may have asked for a Color scheme That matches “their” R.W. , R.C model and is not really meant for General consumption

* NORMALS MAPS (n_.tga) AND * SPECULAR MAPS (s_.tga)
Was use of the n_tga and the s_tga? (G4.5 /G5.0) incorporated or maintained? And were they used in a convincing way (Panel lines not to deep or shallow or rivets protruding too far?) Or was a new one made from scratch for use in G4.5 / G5.0 From a file that previously did not support or Make use of the n_tga or s_tga For example….from an older G3x file exported from G3.0 / G3.5 or an Rfx file from G4.0

*CS files exported from older versions of RF(G3.0 / G3.5 / G4.0)
Do not support user created n_tga or s_tga files and this should not be considered when rating G3x or Rfx CS files exported from these older versions
 
Last edited:
Rating AP s
(3D AIRPORTS) User created (edited) custom
Airports

CUSTEM AIRPORT OBJECTS
(User /up loader created original custom airport objects)
Does the AP include non stock (3D modeled) airport objects? Adding to a files creativity/originality or realism (A nagging wife in a lawn chair or an Ice Cream truck for example)

REALISIM
Is it realistic …Like a Real RC Club field? Or represent something somewhere in the RW were you would fly? Are he location of spawn points, and object placement Are they where you would expect them to be in the R.W.?

WIND AND WEATHER
Are the default settings correct, for what the AP was intended for?
(Outdoors, indoors, slope gliders, thermals, Dynamic Soaring? Etc.)
 
Last edited:
Rating P I s
(PANORAMIC IMAGES or “photo fields”) user created original Custom “Photo fields”

Aside from some of the things listed above in APs:

IMAGE QUALITY
Are all of the images sharp? And do they all line up correctly?
Is there wide depth of field (focused near AND far?)
Were the exposure settings Correct? Is the lighting in the image “even” through the whole 180x 360? Or does it at least graduate in a convincing or a realistic manner?
Does the Image have proper perspective? (Walls not appearing to bow) in an indoors flying site. Or have a distorted appearance …..Does it look “Fish eyed”?

DEPTH BUFFERS / COLLISION OBJECTS
Were the Depth Buffers (Collision Objects in older versions of RF) placed accurately or used correctly…..
Or were they used at all?
Does the default sun angle correspond with the shadows in the Image?
Were 3d Airport Objects placed within the panoramic Image?
And if so are they the correct scale? And placed at the right distance so that
They look natural and look like they belong within the Panoramic Image?

I hope this has been informative and gives potential Raters some things to think about when Rating Swap Page files.
 
Last edited:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Please Do not Post In This Thread<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If you have any Comments , Suggestions or Questions Please forward them to me in a Personal Message.
Thanks to dirtyharry3033 , opjose, jeffpn, mlsnews and other forum members for there help and suggestions :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top