New Universal Flight Rating System & Graphic Flight Chart

[inbounds]

Introducing:

We've been hard at work on our latest project and given all the recent chatter about flight charts and flight ratings, we're proud to announce the launch of our new disc golf resource: the inFlight Guide.

inbounds Disc Golf
or
inflightguide.net

The rest of the post gets a little verbose, so if you just want the short of it, please visit the links above. Otherwise:



PLEASE NOTE:
We know that there are plenty of folks on here that have absolutely no use for flight charts, so with that in mind, this resource is not for you. Additionally, we recognize that this is the home of Blake_T's universal flight chart, and we're not trying to desecrate Blake's home. Joe's flight numbers are a valued resource to the disc golf community and serve as a cross-check and reference point for our work.


That said...

We believe that the inFlight Guide is the Rosetta Stone of flight charts. Disc flight data contained in the guide comes from a total of 15 different flight charts and rating systems with as many as six different sources being applied to any one disc. Using multiple data sources has a smoothing effect on a disc flight path and eliminates outlier values caused by unnecessary bias, flight testing extremes, and minor rating errors, creating the most reliable flight data available as the "Relative Stability Scale".

Unlike other flight charts that utilize an integer or manufacturer-based numbering system to describe different aspects of a disc's flight, the Relative Stability Scale shows flight characteristics relative to the expected minimum and maximum range of values for all discs and are displayed as a percentage. This flight ratings scale is the easiest to understand and is very simple for players both new and old to apply to the discs in their bag and to aid in disc purchasing decisions. We believe that the exploding population of new and amateur players will find this guide to be the most beneficial disc resource available.

inFlight Guide is available online and in a paperback book and features:

• Simple, easy to understand flight ratings
• Graphic flight charts for over 385 discs by more than 30 manufacturers
• Includes both current and OOP molds
• PDGA specs for all approved discs in the guide
• Overview and description of the most common factors influencing disc flight (important for new players)


Online features:

• Compare up to three discs, side-by-side
• View flight paths based on throwing style (RHBH/LHFH or LHBH/RHFH)
• Individual pop-up window to view all flight ratings and PDGA specs for the approved discs in the guide
• Share your flight charts via social media


Book features:

• Over 110 pages of flight charts and disc data
• Disc flight data table


Please keep in mind that all these flight ratings and graphic flight charts are subjective and disc flight paths will be influenced by a range of variables. When considering the discs in the inFlight Guide, we had to make certain assumptions to account for as many of these variables as possible and these assumptions are detailed in our "Overview" section. We've done our best to document as many of the variables that influence the flight of a disc in a separate section titled "Factors Affecting Disc Flight". This section in particular is crucial for people to read and understand to be able to fully interpret the flight charts and how those charts may changed based on their own throwing style and other environmental factors.

We've already received a lot of positive feedback from retailers that are looking for an independent (instead of from a manufacturer or competing retailer) flight rating system to use on their websites and from disc manufacturers that want a consistent way to characterize the flight of their discs. I had a detailed discussion with Brian Graham at the PDGA and he agreed that an independent, consolidated flight rating system was the way to go as it smooths the variances caused manufacturer bias and player skill differences.


In addition to our inFlight Guide, we also have two styles of dri-fit Ts (and more on the way) at LOW prices in the inbounds Disc Golf Store and we're currently offering FREE SHIPPING for the month of September:

http://inboundsdiscgolf.storenvy.com


Like us on facebook for inbounds updates and for special offers and discounts:

facebook.com/inboundsdiscgolf



Oh, and let us know what you think! We can't make the improvements that you want if we don't know what you need! Some of our long-term features and improvements we're looking to include:

• Saving discs to your bag
• inFlight Guide mobile app
• Modeling flight charts based on the different factors that affect disc flight

 

[Stringbean]

Are the flight charts based on a brand new disc? Or do you have different flight charts over the life of a disc? For instance, one flight chart for a brand new Innova Star Eagle, a different flight chart for a slightly beat Innova Star Eagle, and one more flight chart for a beat Innova Star Eagle.

 

[inbounds]

Are the flight charts based on a brand new disc? Or do you have different flight charts over the life of a disc? For instance, one flight chart for a brand new Innova Star Eagle, a different flight chart for a slightly beat Innova Star Eagle, and one more flight chart for a beat Innova Star Eagle.

Great question. Customizable flight charts based on different environmental variables (such as player arm speed, disc weight, disc wear, etc.) is something that we have in the works for future development, especially when we put out an app. For the time being, we had to make the assumption that the flight path is based on a brand new disc. All the other assumptions (including, but not limited to, disc weight and plastic type) are covered in the Assumptions section of the overview:

http://www.inboundsdiscgolf.com/content/?page_id=569#Assumptions

 

[Cruz Duck]

Thanks for doing this, I can see that a lot of work has been put into this.

I would like to see a relative power requirement for each disc. How much power is required to get the particular disc to fly on its designed path? Maybe I missed it, but I don't see that in your charts. I want to be able to quickly see which discs are in my power range.

You do have distance, but I don't think distance equates to the power requirement of a disc.

 

[JR]

I gave a brief non comprehensive look at the numbers without checking how you came at those aside from the OP. The distances were something i didn't try to check out because it looked odd having thrown many discs farther than the indicated numbers and warp speeders less than the given number. Putters and mids generally go a lot farther than the indicated number. APX fade is seriously off. Anode, Beast and Buzzz HST too. Axis too if it is given a pure throw. I think many here would argue about the Comet numbers with a clean release. Coyote LSF seems a little high. DD2 might be right at high speeds if it is a beat P-Line or a Blizzard but way way off if an S-Line because people would be so misled wanting a turning driver and getting a power hog in an S-Line that i recommend adjusting the numbers. With a flat shot the Epic won't turn. Flick ain't the most overstable disc out there so 100 % overall rating is off i think the high speed and low speed numbers are too high. The Giant is more overstable than the Flick but still a little high on the numbers. Not all Katanas are that flippy when Stars and CFR champs need a lotta nuttage to turn at all. Some Kings flip harder than indicated and that is the majority come to think of it and none fade nearly as hard as indicated. LEGENDa premium should be 0-a few % HST compared to other drivers it is very beefy now. I think the later runs are more HST and i haven't thrown first runs. Mako fade is 7 % and that is very similar fade to the Coyote so i'd be happy to see the same number or 8 % for the Coyote. New PDs don't turn. I haven't trown QKs in a long time because for me it turns so the 0 % HST seems optimistic. I think Mark Eliis and i will argue to no end about the numbers on the Rattler like we're on a crusade. Find me a disc that fades less than the Rattler when new. Many might turn it more. I could live with a higher fade number for the Ridge and the Ringer. River fade seems too high. No Roadrunner i've thrown has been that flippy and it doesn't fade less than the River. You've got beefy Rocs for the fade numbers. Yeah DX Ranchos start out fairly hard fading but not that hard. Sinus fades harder than that. There are some Stalkers that flip but most won't so the numbers are off on the whole especially with Glo Zs and Tis thrown into the mix. TD might be right for flat gummy ones but the majority are harder domier plastic with straighter to the point of not flipping flight and a little harder fade. Broken in DX Valk flips like that and not even the Star Valk fades as hard. VP fades harder. XD is also off because the turn is for a DX and the fade for a CFR disc.

Still i'd say that you've got a good thing going already because each chart has glaring mistakes and that must corrupt your numbers as well. I wouldn't want to rate your numbers against the accuracy of other charts because it is close to some and i haven't gone over each disc in each chart with a magnifying glass. It is good now but there is room for improvement. How about plastic by plastic rating for each mold? Many discs fly differently in different plastics XS having a huge difference between X and Z etc.

 

[inbounds]

Thanks for doing this, I can see that a lot of work has been put into this.

I would like to see a relative power requirement for each disc. How much power is required to get the particular disc to fly on its designed path? Maybe I missed it, but I don't see that in your charts. I want to be able to quickly see which discs are in my power range.

You do have distance, but I don't think distance equates to the power requirement of a disc.

Thanks for the feedback. Power is tricky. Although Blake does a good job of providing that for the Joe's numbers, none of the other flight rating systems have a metric close to that. So therein lies the rub. When trying to determine the arm speed required to minimally achieve the displayed flight path based on the manufacturer, retailer, and all other flight ratings, you have to go with the value that can be most closely correlated with power, and in this case, that's distance. With this being an early iteration of this resource, we have the opportunity to make improvements in future versions and feedback like this is helpful.

I gave a brief non comprehensive look at the numbers without checking how you came at those aside from the OP. ...[edited for brevity]...Still i'd say that you've got a good thing going already because each chart has glaring mistakes and that must corrupt your numbers as well. I wouldn't want to rate your numbers against the accuracy of other charts because it is close to some and i haven't gone over each disc in each chart with a magnifying glass. It is good now but there is room for improvement. How about plastic by plastic rating for each mold? Many discs fly differently in different plastics XS having a huge difference between X and Z etc.

That's the DGR response I was waiting for. As you're well aware, disc flight paths are subject to a wide array of variables (including many that you noted) and, as such, need to be viewed with a subjective lens. While I value and respect your input, considering these flight values were aggregated from many different flight charts, I would suspect that you would argue many of these same points for most of the source charts. What needs to be taken away from this (and we fully acknowledge this) is that no flight chart/rating system can be all things to all people, but (understanding that everyone throws differently) it should get you in the ballpark. Regardless, thanks for the notes.

A for the variations among plastics, wear, weights, etc., we're working on a model to dynamically change the chart based on a wide range of variables to fine tune the flight path based on the player's actual disc and ability. Like us on facebook to be sure you get all the timely updates about future releases, features, and products

 

[JR]

I think i wrote that i disagree with some discs on all charts so it is very likely that your source charts are off which naturally skews the numbers on your chart. One major concern for traditional charts has been the inability to take into accounts personal throwing form. Snap or speed dominant throwing. For example all MVP products like a spin based snap dominated throw way more than a strong armed speed based relatively lower spin throw. I have long thought that a chart ranking discs in stability from lowest to most is the most helpful for buying decisions of unknown discs. There the relative rank of a disc vs others should be easier to get right vs giving exact numbers that are more prone to individual form variations. The chart gets more proofing against the minutest levels of gradation errors this way.