Difference between pages "Sea Gladiator Mk I" and "User talk:U28580205"

From War Thunder Wiki
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Updated as of 1.89.1.35)
 
(premium color)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Specs-Card|code=gladiator_mk2_navy}}
+
=Pz.II C=
{{About
+
as the person who wrote the base version of the Pz.II C bio, which you appear to have edited -  
| about = British naval fighter '''{{PAGENAME}}'''
+
please go back through and fix some of the grammar.
| usage = other versions
+
also,
| link = Gladiator (Family)
+
a 1 dollar US coin is approximately 1 3/4 inch in diameter. by changing it to "Coin", it's a bit ambiguous.
}}
+
I've not bothered to change it because I really only intended to do a basic Bio, because I knew others would come along to edit it and refine it.
 +
-AManAndHisTank.
  
== Description ==
+
== Wiki Update ==
<!-- ''In the description, the first part should be about the history of and the creation and combat usage of the aircraft, as well as its key features. In the second part, tell the reader about the aircraft in the game. Insert a screenshot of the vehicle, so that if the novice player does not remember the vehicle by name, he will immediately understand what kind of vehicle the article is talking about.'' -->
 
[[File:GarageImage_{{PAGENAME}}.jpg|420px|thumb|left]]
 
{{break}}
 
The '''{{Specs|name}}''' is a rank {{Specs|rank}} British naval fighter {{Battle-rating}}. It was introduced in [[Update 1.49 "Weapons of Victory"]].
 
  
The Sea Gladiator Mk. I is the last of the Fleet Air Arm biplane naval fighters and, as the name suggests, is a naval modification of the regular [[Gladiator Mk II|Gladiator]] seen in the RAF tech tree. As a result, its handling characteristics are very similar to said plane type.
+
Thank you for moving that section on the SU-5-1, I'll be working on updating/filling in some of the pages for USSR, USA, UK, GERMANY, and CHINA. Any suggestions you may have would be fantastic :D
 +
: First, you should sign your posts in talk posts going forward (no worries here though). As for edits, you can always look at our ''[[Help:Creating_articles|Creating Articles]]'' guide to get started on the editing tips. --[[User:U28580205|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205|talk]]) 23:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  
== General info ==
+
== Penetration charts ==
=== Flight performance ===
 
''Describe how the aircraft behaves in the air. Speed, manoeuvrability, acceleration and allowable loads - these are the most important characteristics of the vehicle.''
 
  
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
+
Started putting up pen charts for ground vehicle gun pages, started with SA 18 and KwK 30 for samples. Let me know if it works and I can put up some more --[[User:U78418905|U78418905]] ([[User talk:U78418905|talk]]) 14:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
|-
+
: Charts are acceptable. However, please upload under a consistent naming scheme so they are easy to locate. For example: “PenetrationChart (weapon name and calibre)-> “PenetrationChart KwK 30 (20 mm)--[[User:U28580205|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205|talk]]) 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
! colspan="8" | Characteristics
+
|-
+
: Any chance you could share what process (program used, colour scheme) you used to make them so if myself (or anyone else) feels like making one they can be kept consistent throughout the articles.--[[User:U13682523|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523|talk]]) 20:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
! colspan="8" | ''Stock''
 
|-
 
! colspan="2" | Max Speed<br>(km/h at 4,420 m)
 
! rowspan="2" | Max altitude<br>(meters)
 
! colspan="2" | Turn time<br>(seconds)
 
! colspan="2" | Rate of climb<br>(meters/second)
 
! rowspan="2" | Take-off run<br>(meters)
 
|-
 
! AB
 
! RB
 
! AB
 
! RB
 
! AB
 
! RB
 
|-
 
| 400 || 384 || {{Specs|ceiling}} || 16.8 || 17.9 || 13.1 || 13.1 || 232
 
|-
 
! colspan="8" | ''Upgraded''
 
|-
 
! colspan="2" | Max Speed<br>(km/h at 4,420 m)
 
! rowspan="2" | Max altitude<br>(meters)
 
! colspan="2" | Turn time<br>(seconds)
 
! colspan="2" | Rate of climb<br>(meters/second)
 
! rowspan="2" | Take-off run<br>(meters)
 
|-
 
! AB
 
! RB
 
! AB
 
! RB
 
! AB
 
! RB
 
|-
 
| 430 || 414 || {{Specs|ceiling}} || 15.2 || 16.0 || 18.6 || 15.7 || 232
 
|-
 
|}
 
  
==== Details ====
+
:: Looks like Excel/Google Sheets with a dark theme background. Manually creating these pen charts will be an absolute pain to maintain. I'm normally the guy who's suppose to automate these chart creation but with the new armor pen calculation, all the data I have mean nothing when the armor pen are calculated serverside (as far as I know, I havent found the new pen in the data mine yet). It's very strange, some shells follow the datamine while others dont at random. I really hope Gaijin reverts the new armor pen calculation or decides to release the reference penetration used to calculate the shell pen because Im stuck waiting. --[[User:U16697154|U16697154]] ([[User talk:U16697154|talk]]) 23:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
 
|-
 
! colspan="5" | Features
 
|-
 
! Combat flaps
 
! Take-off flaps
 
! Landing flaps
 
! Air brakes
 
! Arrestor gear
 
|-
 
| X || ✓ || ✓ || X || ✓    <!-- ✓ -->
 
|-
 
|}
 
  
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
+
:::Theoretically we should be able to calculate the pen numbers using DeMarre's formula. However I have not seen the exact formula they are using or how they calculate the drop in striking speed over a certain distance. Both of which would take some time to reverse engineer--[[User:U30585107|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107|talk]]) 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
|-
 
! colspan="5" | Limits
 
|-
 
! rowspan="2" | Wing-break speed<br>(km/h)
 
! rowspan="2" | Gear limit<br>(km/h)
 
! rowspan="2" | Combat flaps<br>(km/h)
 
! colspan="2" | Max Static G
 
|-
 
! +
 
! -
 
|-
 
| {{Specs|destruction|constructions}} || {{Specs|destruction|chassis}} || 520 || ~11 || ~5
 
|-
 
|}
 
  
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
+
:::: There is this quote from the Q&A article about the new pen mechanics:
|-
+
:::: ''Q. Can you show us the exact formula where penetration is calculated? It is unclear where we should use the mass of a core and where the mass of a round is used.''
! colspan="4" | Optimal velocities
+
:::: ''A. In the future the exact characteristics of the rounds will be shown in the War Thunder Wiki directly from the game in articles specifically for guns.''
|-
+
:::: So maybe the devs are going to do something similar to the new side bar, but for guns?
! Ailerons<br>(km/h)
 
! Rudder<br>(km/h)
 
! Elevators<br>(km/h)
 
! Radiator<br>(km/h)
 
|-
 
| < 240 || < 180 || < 330 || > 190
 
|-
 
|}
 
  
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
+
::: Kmsxkuse & blastedryan check your forum PM when you have time. --[[User:U13682523|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523|talk]]) 11:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
|-
 
! colspan="3" | Compressor (RB/SB)
 
|-
 
! colspan="3" | Setting 1
 
|-
 
! Optimal altitude
 
! 100% Engine power
 
! WEP Engine power
 
|-
 
| 4,100 m || 810 hp || 850 hp
 
|-
 
|}
 
  
=== Survivability and armour ===
+
:: Will do, thanks. Process I'm using is to copy data from the current in-game information card for the ammo, and render that using Excel 365 and Scattergram ("X Y Scatter", Style #6. Chart is then pasted into Paint3D and saved as a PNG. Agree that maintenance will be difficult without access to an online source for that data as opposed to in-game (I don't have datamine access). The trouble with independent DeMarre as a method is it's calculated relative to a reference shell for which everything is known... ie it's always comparative. So without knowing their reference shell there's not much you can do. You would also need a reasonably accurate velocity estimate at each range bracket for each shell (so at minimum, agreed-upon ballistic coefficient numbers for each shell, as well). And you'd need to know their formula, as mentioned. Their use of a value for explosive shell filling variable and a ballistic cap modifier in the online calc means its not a "vanilla" DeMarre, for sure. The formula the online calculator they are using also starts to hit a limit of applicability <30mm shell diameter or so... probably because they are using a larger calibre (>100mm if I had to guess) as their DeMarre reference shell, and once you get down to 12-25mm that's going to start giving higher-than-historical results. Lastly it'd be great if Gaijin starts to populate the Wiki guns pages, so this could just be interim. I just like having the range break point to switch between shell types available to me, and since I'm doing it already nothing wrong with sharing. --[[User:U78418905|U78418905]] ([[User talk:U78418905|talk]]) 14:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
''Examine the survivability of the aircraft. Note how vulnerable the structure is and how secure the pilot is, whether the fuel tanks are armoured, etc. Describe the armour, if there is any, and also mention the vulnerability of other critical aircraft systems.''
 
  
== Armaments ==
+
== Thank you for your contribution ==
=== Offensive armament ===
 
<!-- ''Describe the offensive armament of the aircraft, if any. Describe how effective the cannons and machine guns are in a battle, and also what belts or drums are better to use. If there is no offensive weaponry, delete this subsection.'' -->
 
{{main|Browning .303 (7.7 mm)}}
 
  
The '''''{{PAGENAME}}''''' is armed with:
+
Hello, it looks like you are migrating data from the old warthunderwiki, which is good.
* 2 x 7.7 mm Browning .303 machine guns, fuselage-mounted (600 rpg = 1,200 total)
 
* 2 x 7.7 mm Browning .303 machine guns, wing-mounted (400 rpg = 800 total)
 
  
== Usage in battles ==
+
== A million thankyous ==
<!-- ''Describe the tactics of playing in an aircraft, the features of using aircraft in a team and advice on tactics. Refrain from creating a "guide" - do not impose a single point of view, but instead, give the reader food for thought. Examine the most dangerous enemies and give recommendations on fighting them. If necessary, note the specifics of the game in different modes (AB, RB, SB).'' -->
 
At rank I {{Battle-rating}}, this plane will typically be one of the first fighters a new player will research. However, the Sea Gladiator, like its land-based cousin, may be difficult to seek success in, especially in Realistic Battles mode. Within RB, when up-tiering comes into play, it will have to deal with not only biplane adversaries such as the [[CR.42]], [[F3F-2|F3F]] and the very manoeuvrable [[Ki-10-I|Ki-10]], but also more advanced fighters such as the [[P-40E-1|P-40E]], [[Bf 109 E-1|Bf 109s]], [[I-16 type 10|I-16s]], and [[Ki-43-I|Ki-43s]]. All these plane types have several varying advantages against the Sea Gladiator, which can make early grinding a bit unbearable for some players.
 
[[File:FighterImage_SeaGladiator 1.55.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Sea Gladiator in-flight (default camouflage)]]
 
  
There are a couple of issues with the Gladiator, all of which can make it an easy target at times:
+
Dear Inceptor,
* Its power plant configuration, which includes a three-blade fixed-pitch propeller, can make the Gladiator a slug in acceleration and climb. In flight testing the Gladiator can usually only sustain at most around 3,000 fpm (roughly 15 m/s) in a climb at around 180-200 km/h (111-124 mph) indicated airspeed, and its top speed isn't great either (at sea level it can only manage around 335 km/h, and testing has yielded 396 km/h at 4,000 m altitude).
 
* The Sea Gladiator manoeuvres well. However, it bleeds a lot of speed in sharp turns, and while its turn radius is good enough to shake off reserve planes, the loss of speed can make the plane a slower and henceforth more vulnerable target to any other enemy planes in the area. Using flaps does help a bit with decreasing the amount of speed lost in a turn, but it is not beneficial enough to allow for minimal loss of speed. And like most early British fighters, it hates high speeds in dives.
 
  
However, the Sea Gladiator has four 7.7 mm (.303) Browning machine guns with a total of 2,000 rounds on hand. The Gladiator's four Browning armament can come in handy at times - when equipped with tracer belts, the plane is capable of taking down even the fiercest of opponents if you play your cards right. A good approach to combat is to attempt to side climb as much as you can on any given map, then use your altitude advantage and turn advantage wisely.
+
Hi there- I'm Aussie_Mantis, a dude whose contributions to the Spitfire IIB article you looked over and made less f***ed in the head-
  
The Sea Gladiator is outclassed by most of the fighters it comes across. It is inferior in manoeuvrability to the F3F, I-16 and Ki-43, in speed to the 109s, P-40 and CR.42, and in armament to the Bf 109E-3 and P-40E.
+
Thankyou. A million bloody times you f***in mad c***. I'd get you a beer or something, but, well, this is digital, so...
  
=== Manual Engine Control ===
+
yeah.
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
 
|-
 
! colspan="7" | MEC elements
 
|-
 
! rowspan="2" | Mixer
 
! rowspan="2" | Pitch
 
! colspan="3" | Radiator
 
! rowspan="2" | Supercharger
 
! rowspan="2" | Turbocharger
 
|-
 
! Oil
 
! Water
 
! Type
 
|-
 
| Controllable || rowspan="2" | Not controllable<br>Not auto controlled || rowspan="2" | Not controllable<br>Not auto controlled || rowspan="2" | Not controllable<br>Not auto controlled || rowspan="2" | Separate || rowspan="2" | Not controllable<br>1 gear || rowspan="2" | Not controllable
 
|-
 
|}
 
  
=== Modules ===
+
Thanks for editing the article edits I made and reformatting it- I had **NO** clue about what to do about those, so what you did is like... friccin magic... anyway, I play the british tech tree often, and I've played my share of simulator games, ranging from IL-2 Sturmovik to Strike Fighters 2- and I'll likely be making more edits soon, and I hope that my edits won't take up much of your time to look over-
{| class="wikitable"
 
! colspan="1" | Tier
 
! colspan="2" | Flight performance
 
! colspan="1" | Survivability
 
! colspan="1" | Weaponry
 
|-
 
| I
 
| Fuselage repair
 
| Radiator
 
|
 
| Offensive 7 mm
 
|-
 
| II
 
|
 
| Compressor
 
| Airframe
 
| New 7 mm MGs
 
|-
 
| III
 
| Wings repair
 
| Engine
 
|
 
|
 
|-
 
| IV
 
|
 
| Engine injection
 
| Cover
 
|
 
|-
 
|}
 
  
=== Pros and cons ===
+
Best of luck on the wiki!
<!-- ''Summarise and briefly evaluate the vehicle in terms of its characteristics and combat effectiveness. Mark its pros and cons in the bulleted list. Try not to use more than 6 points for each of the characteristics. Avoid using categorical definitions such as "bad", "good" and the like - use substitutions with softer forms such as "inadequate" and "effective".'' -->
 
  
'''Pros:'''
+
Sincerely
* Armament is equal to or better than other fighters in its BR class
 
* Good manoeuvrability in a turn
 
* Tracer belts, like all other planes fitted with Browning machine guns, can be deadly
 
* Has flaps, unlike most other biplane fighters
 
  
'''Cons:'''
+
Aussie_Mantis 18/3/2019
* Sluggish in acceleration and top speed (fixed-pitch propeller can emphasise this problem)
 
* Performance deficiencies can make it an easy target for experienced or more difficult adversaries
 
* Not the best climber
 
* Bleeds speed in turns, even when using flaps
 
[[File:FighterImage_SeaGladiator takeoff.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Sea Gladiator taking off from a carrier]]
 
  
== History ==
+
== Regarding atgm page ==
<!-- ''Describe the history of the creation and combat usage of the aircraft in more detail than in the introduction. If the historical reference turns out to be too long, take it to a separate article, taking a link to the article about the vehicle and adding a block "/ History" (example: <nowiki>https://wiki.warthunder.com/(Vehicle-name)/History</nowiki>) and add a link to it here using the <code>main</code> template. Be sure to reference text and sources by using <code><nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki></code>, as well as adding them at the end of the article with <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code>. This section may also include the vehicle's dev blog entry (if applicable) and the in-game encyclopedia description (under <code><nowiki>=== In-game description ===</nowiki></code>, also if applicable).'' -->
 
The Gloster Sea Gladiator was, as the name suggests, a naval modification of the Gladiator biplane fighter in use by the Royal Air Force (RAF). Ninety-eight Sea Gladiators were completed: 38 "interim" airframes modified from the existing [[Gladiator Mk II]] production line (serial numbers  N2265 – N2302), and 60 purpose-built airframes (serial numbers N5500 – N5549 and N5565 – N5574); differences from the Gladiator Mk IIs in service with the RAF included the planes being fitted with catapult attachment points and a tail hook, the airframe being strengthened to withstand carrier landings, and a dinghy lifeboat being made mountable to the underbelly of the plane. As with the Gladiator Mk II it was based off, the Sea Gladiator was powered by a nine-cylinder Bristol Mercury VIIA radial engine rated at 840 hp and mated to a three-blade Fairey metal fixed pitch propeller, and armed with four 7.7-millimeter (.303) Browning machine guns. 54 Sea Gladiators were still in service with the Fleet Air Arm by the time Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939.
 
  
Sea Gladiators saw service in the Atlantic aboard Royal Navy carriers, and in the Mediterranean theater during the Siege of Malta.
+
Initially, i wanted to make that subsection to differentiate between different ATGM characteristics for different types of vehicles. As in, how they would be used in tactical manner. Although in the end i wrote it pretty much as you describe it.  
  
== Media ==
+
I guess, it's possible to merge first two subsections into something of "direct fire launchers", but explaining, that they were used on different ranges, mostly close range for non-dedicated vehicles, and long range on dedicated launchers. Then "indirect fire launchers" and pretty much leave section as is, and then "hybrid tanks", just so it's less confusing. As for borderline fiction, well, i even mentioned myself, that i'm not sure whether to explain if from game perspective or common sence perspective, so i guess it happened to be neither.
''Excellent additions to the article would be video guides, screenshots from the game, and photos.''
 
  
== See also ==
+
I'll try to fix it a bit, then you can choose either version and censor it a bit harder, if i fail again. Or delete it altogether, IDK. I'm not going to be mad about it, i know the rules. :) --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 10:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
<!-- ''Links to the articles on the War Thunder Wiki that you think will be useful for the reader, for example:''
 
* ''reference to the series of the aircraft;''
 
* ''links to approximate analogues of other nations and research trees.'' -->
 
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Gladiator English Wikipedia article on the Gladiator (all variants)]<br />
 
* [http://live.warthunder.com/feed/camouflages/?q=%23seagladiator War Thunder live camouflages for the Sea Gladiator]
 
  
== External links ==
+
== Regarding '&nbsp' I used on the T-55A page ==
''Paste links to sources and external resources, such as:''
+
Hey, Inceptor.
* ''topic on the official game forum;''
 
* ''encyclopedia page on the aircraft;''
 
* ''other literature.''
 
  
{{Britain fighters}}
+
I found out that wikitext has the concept of no break space, which works as a usual space but doesn't separate the words that it is placed between if a new line is needed to be displayed. For example 250&nbsp;mm in source code does this: 250 //mm OR 250// mm changed to //250 mm OR 250 mm// (not respectively), where double-slash is a new line.
 +
 
 +
You have edited those out, but it is good to have those to account for many different screen sizes and better readability. It's not major, but I thought I would just let you know :) [[User:U36258839|U36258839]] ([[User talk:U36258839|talk]]) 19:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
: Hello, thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep that perspective in mind next time. --[[User:U28580205|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205|talk]]) 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== About ammunition names ==
 +
Hello!
 +
 
 +
Wanted to ask, should I rename APHE shells which are just listed as APCBC or something along these lines in tables, or just note it below the table? I mean, surely player can notice the "explosive mass" being present in the table instead of N/A, but it would make more sense to name them AP(HE)CBC or something like that, at least on wiki, as here is no colour indicator to instantly differentiate them? --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 09:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
: Ammo designation is preferred to be the same as that stated in-game at each shell stat card. However, for visual indicators, I have been thinking about using the icons on the page [[Tank ammunition]] for that purpose. --[[User:U28580205|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205|talk]]) 15:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
::I like the idea of icons, helps break up the wall-of-text and aids in drawing the eye to key areas. [[User:U64962917|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917|talk]]) 15:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::Well i've seen people on .ru wiki using icons in text, that may work. As for tables, should i put icon next to shell types or instead of them? --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 16:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== The distinction between Radars and other sensors ==
 +
 
 +
Hi I just created a page for the tracking system used on the SIDAM 25 (the [[3JB10]]), seeing as it is not actually a radar it raises a couple of questions. For now I have just added it to the ground radar category, but is it better to make a new category called something like "sensors", with radars as a sub category of it? It seems likely we will get more systems which are not technically radars (i.e. the ADAD on the Stormer HVM coming next patch), so it might be worth doing for future-proofing. At the same time however I can see the argument for just leaving them all counted as radars for simplicity's sake. There are also two different Radar Warning Receivers (one for American and one for Russian helis) modelled in game, however at present they are modelled very basically and not worthy of separate articles. Maybe if the way Radar Warning Receivers work gets overhauled in the future (seems likely they will have to as the radar mechanic becomes more advanced and more aircraft with RWRs get added) they will be worthy of articles, in which case again a sensors category might make sense. Just wondering what your (and anyone else's) thoughts on the matter are?
 +
: At the time, in terms of in-game practicality, I believe filing it under the "Radar" category would be most fitting of the 3JB10 at the current time being. However, should more of such systems of various types get modeled into the game, I can consider expanding these systems into its own category, with "radar" being a sub-category of that.--[[User:U28580205|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205|talk]]) 07:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
: As far as i know what sidam does is practically a lidar, but game treats it as a radar when doing warnings in AB anyway. For time being i just called them "rangefinder substitute" in the https://wiki.warthunder.com/SPAA_radars , because in vulcan case it's literally rangefinder+calculator slapped onto it. Also, when vulcan turned on it's radio tracker i got "radar" alerts as well. I'm pretty sure it's fine calling them "radars" per say, as game does too for now, at least until they release something more sophisticated, or mechanically different? IDK, if new sensors won't be able to track targets in exactly same way as well, it may require splitting the sections, otherwise i don't know really.
 +
: As for warning system, take a look at the https://wiki.warthunder.com/Talk:SPAA_radars - i was wondering if RB alerts are same as in AB, for example if sidam really is invisible to enemy or not, and does it look the same in RB anyway. As for amount of them existing, as far as patch notes claim, the german top helicopter is supposed to have warning system as well (not the import soviet heli). I have no idea if its the same as the other 2 or not, though. If nothing, you can just take that piece of article, slap the names of detectors onto these helis in the list and just add it to the actual page somewhere in the end, to make it at least look properly. When/if they get overhauled - just make separate pages for them, as it will be easy to find which is which anyway by opening the list. But pardon me, i do not know which french helis have detection system at all. (Probably at least one does, but it wasn't mentioned anywhere) --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 18:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:: Well, here we go - [[Update 1.89 "Imperial Navy"|patch notes]] specifically mentions new targeting mechanic - "passive optical systems". Of course, SIDAM is omitted as an old vehicle, so it may still have radar mechanics, but if you are right and SIDAM really is invisible in RB, then it may be paired up with Stormer HVM ADAD and Bradley ADATS in new category? Of cource, assuming it really works same way. It says, they only provide directional tracking or something like that. We will have to find out if it affects the fuses on normal ammunition or not, along with other things.
 +
::Also, with nerfs to radars, probably tables with them would now need some additional columns. First thing to be noticed is probably the "tracking error" they mentions, as they say now radar tracking accuracy depends on range away from target? They also mention "to increase probability of hit optical sight must be used", but if radar did set proximity fuse itself, won't ammo and missiles just explode themselves at wrong range anyway, even if your turret looks at the enemy? I feel like this is just too confusing and every SPAA will now have to be tested on practice... --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 11:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::: I'll admit as for being invisible to RWRs i was working on the belief that if other Passive systems were modelled correctly it was too (finding people with high tier Helis and Italian tanks unlocked to test this stuff is hard).
 +
::: As for the accuracy stuff, there are values specified however working out what they mean (other than a blind guess) will take quite a bit of trial and error testing.
 +
 
 +
:::: Well, i'm sure you already have some SPAA, but here is [[Media:Stormer_HMV_passive_system_lock_on.jpg|Stormer lock-on screenshot]], if that helps you. It is super awkward to aim, as you have to aim yourself, using enemy speed to aim. I wish i had SPAA with guns that has this system, so i could say for sure, that it's how it works and there arent aiming reticle just because of that. But at least you can tell it is a passive system by replaced "power" icon by letters, though i'm not sure if it's just not a name for scanning mode (the camera that spins around wildly) and SIDAM will have same name. --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== pictures efficiency question ==
 +
 
 +
I wanted to ask, if there is a way to add a .gif to the page without making page weight too much (like, make it display only 1 slide as a preview first and download only on click, but not to break like I had them to earlier)? And is there any quota on this anyway?
 +
Kind of restricting myself in this department, because, knowing myself, I could add way too many of these, and it will look like 90-s internet, kind of why I'm doing .jpg for everything.
 +
Making YouTube shorts is also kind of awkward for something that could be put in 10 seconds of display, but static gif that I made before is not a very good solution for some cases.
 +
Also, animated files category is a red link for some reason. Is that alright? I could actually go and tag all of the screenshots, when I got time, but so far I only saw 4 categories - ingame, historical, garage and animated . There were also those icons which seem to belong to some WW alpha-test period (used one in my own profile), should these be marked somehow? --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 12:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
:This page (https://wiki.warthunder.com/F-86A-5) has a .gif which is static until you click on it and it loads in a pop-up where it functions like a .gif (<nowiki>[[File:F86-MiG15_guncamera_Korea.gif|thumb|right|A view from the gun camera on an F-86 Sabre capturing the downing of a MiG-15 over the skies of Korea (''Click image to view .gif footage'')]]</nowiki>) Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not. [[User:U64962917|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917|talk]]) 12:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
:: Checked it with browser console, it would seem that intentionally breaking .gif by making preview image disproportional to original .gif really works, at least on older browsers (kind of what I was trying to avoid on other pages and had to pinpoint gif size for downscale so it still works).
 +
:: The other questions still stand, though - how many should I use per page (IE, reasonable amounts), should I limit myself to file amount (they aren't that light when they are detailed, so would be nice to know how much space we got for all this anyway) and should I do something about uncategorized pictures? --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 13:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
::: One animated file per page would be a reasonable amount to allow their existence without them spamming up a page. There is no need for you to handle uncategorized images at this time. --[[User:U28580205|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205|talk]]) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::: Understood, so one file per page or so.
 +
:::: Well, i do understand that it's not that necessary, it's just that with the mass uploads i kind of increase amount of work someone else has to do (probably, yourself), if i don't drop the category tag there. I'll leave the 4 category tags i know near to upload link on my own page, just add more there if there are any, will see how it goes from there. If i'll have free time i'll just open the global image pool and check them to spend time. --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 13:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== premium color ==
 +
 
 +
Do you know what the color code is for premium vehicles? <div style="background-color:#ffd800">I think it's around this</div>--[[User:U30585107|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107|talk]]) 13:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 +
: I do not know, but I think it is a little darker than that. You mean from the button tabs that are shown in the tech tree, correct? --[[User:U28580205|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205|talk]]) 15:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 +
::Yeah I ran the image in the background [[:File:Item_prem.png]] through a color code finder and got this <div style="background-color:#3C341B">a</div> which is unusable with normal black text. So I wanted to see if there is a recommended color.--[[User:U30585107|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107|talk]]) 15:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:55, 8 June 2019

Rank IV USSR | Premium | Golden Eagles
Tu-1 Pack

Pz.II C

as the person who wrote the base version of the Pz.II C bio, which you appear to have edited - please go back through and fix some of the grammar. also, a 1 dollar US coin is approximately 1 3/4 inch in diameter. by changing it to "Coin", it's a bit ambiguous. I've not bothered to change it because I really only intended to do a basic Bio, because I knew others would come along to edit it and refine it. -AManAndHisTank.

Wiki Update

Thank you for moving that section on the SU-5-1, I'll be working on updating/filling in some of the pages for USSR, USA, UK, GERMANY, and CHINA. Any suggestions you may have would be fantastic :D

First, you should sign your posts in talk posts going forward (no worries here though). As for edits, you can always look at our Creating Articles guide to get started on the editing tips. --Inceptor57 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Penetration charts

Started putting up pen charts for ground vehicle gun pages, started with SA 18 and KwK 30 for samples. Let me know if it works and I can put up some more --Bruce_R1 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Charts are acceptable. However, please upload under a consistent naming scheme so they are easy to locate. For example: “PenetrationChart (weapon name and calibre)” -> “PenetrationChart KwK 30 (20 mm)” --Inceptor57 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Any chance you could share what process (program used, colour scheme) you used to make them so if myself (or anyone else) feels like making one they can be kept consistent throughout the articles.--Flame2512 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Excel/Google Sheets with a dark theme background. Manually creating these pen charts will be an absolute pain to maintain. I'm normally the guy who's suppose to automate these chart creation but with the new armor pen calculation, all the data I have mean nothing when the armor pen are calculated serverside (as far as I know, I havent found the new pen in the data mine yet). It's very strange, some shells follow the datamine while others dont at random. I really hope Gaijin reverts the new armor pen calculation or decides to release the reference penetration used to calculate the shell pen because Im stuck waiting. --KornFlaks (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Theoretically we should be able to calculate the pen numbers using DeMarre's formula. However I have not seen the exact formula they are using or how they calculate the drop in striking speed over a certain distance. Both of which would take some time to reverse engineer--blastedryan (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There is this quote from the Q&A article about the new pen mechanics:
Q. Can you show us the exact formula where penetration is calculated? It is unclear where we should use the mass of a core and where the mass of a round is used.
A. In the future the exact characteristics of the rounds will be shown in the War Thunder Wiki directly from the game in articles specifically for guns.
So maybe the devs are going to do something similar to the new side bar, but for guns?
Kmsxkuse & blastedryan check your forum PM when you have time. --Flame2512 (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Process I'm using is to copy data from the current in-game information card for the ammo, and render that using Excel 365 and Scattergram ("X Y Scatter", Style #6. Chart is then pasted into Paint3D and saved as a PNG. Agree that maintenance will be difficult without access to an online source for that data as opposed to in-game (I don't have datamine access). The trouble with independent DeMarre as a method is it's calculated relative to a reference shell for which everything is known... ie it's always comparative. So without knowing their reference shell there's not much you can do. You would also need a reasonably accurate velocity estimate at each range bracket for each shell (so at minimum, agreed-upon ballistic coefficient numbers for each shell, as well). And you'd need to know their formula, as mentioned. Their use of a value for explosive shell filling variable and a ballistic cap modifier in the online calc means its not a "vanilla" DeMarre, for sure. The formula the online calculator they are using also starts to hit a limit of applicability <30mm shell diameter or so... probably because they are using a larger calibre (>100mm if I had to guess) as their DeMarre reference shell, and once you get down to 12-25mm that's going to start giving higher-than-historical results. Lastly it'd be great if Gaijin starts to populate the Wiki guns pages, so this could just be interim. I just like having the range break point to switch between shell types available to me, and since I'm doing it already nothing wrong with sharing. --Bruce_R1 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution

Hello, it looks like you are migrating data from the old warthunderwiki, which is good.

A million thankyous

Dear Inceptor,

Hi there- I'm Aussie_Mantis, a dude whose contributions to the Spitfire IIB article you looked over and made less f***ed in the head-

Thankyou. A million bloody times you f***in mad c***. I'd get you a beer or something, but, well, this is digital, so...

yeah.

Thanks for editing the article edits I made and reformatting it- I had **NO** clue about what to do about those, so what you did is like... friccin magic... anyway, I play the british tech tree often, and I've played my share of simulator games, ranging from IL-2 Sturmovik to Strike Fighters 2- and I'll likely be making more edits soon, and I hope that my edits won't take up much of your time to look over-

Best of luck on the wiki!

Sincerely

Aussie_Mantis 18/3/2019

Regarding atgm page

Initially, i wanted to make that subsection to differentiate between different ATGM characteristics for different types of vehicles. As in, how they would be used in tactical manner. Although in the end i wrote it pretty much as you describe it.

I guess, it's possible to merge first two subsections into something of "direct fire launchers", but explaining, that they were used on different ranges, mostly close range for non-dedicated vehicles, and long range on dedicated launchers. Then "indirect fire launchers" and pretty much leave section as is, and then "hybrid tanks", just so it's less confusing. As for borderline fiction, well, i even mentioned myself, that i'm not sure whether to explain if from game perspective or common sence perspective, so i guess it happened to be neither.

I'll try to fix it a bit, then you can choose either version and censor it a bit harder, if i fail again. Or delete it altogether, IDK. I'm not going to be mad about it, i know the rules. :) --bangerland (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding '&nbsp' I used on the T-55A page

Hey, Inceptor.

I found out that wikitext has the concept of no break space, which works as a usual space but doesn't separate the words that it is placed between if a new line is needed to be displayed. For example 250 mm in source code does this: 250 //mm OR 250// mm changed to //250 mm OR 250 mm// (not respectively), where double-slash is a new line.

You have edited those out, but it is good to have those to account for many different screen sizes and better readability. It's not major, but I thought I would just let you know :) CriminaI (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep that perspective in mind next time. --Inceptor57 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

About ammunition names

Hello!

Wanted to ask, should I rename APHE shells which are just listed as APCBC or something along these lines in tables, or just note it below the table? I mean, surely player can notice the "explosive mass" being present in the table instead of N/A, but it would make more sense to name them AP(HE)CBC or something like that, at least on wiki, as here is no colour indicator to instantly differentiate them? --bangerland (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ammo designation is preferred to be the same as that stated in-game at each shell stat card. However, for visual indicators, I have been thinking about using the icons on the page Tank ammunition for that purpose. --Inceptor57 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of icons, helps break up the wall-of-text and aids in drawing the eye to key areas. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Well i've seen people on .ru wiki using icons in text, that may work. As for tables, should i put icon next to shell types or instead of them? --bangerland (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The distinction between Radars and other sensors

Hi I just created a page for the tracking system used on the SIDAM 25 (the 3JB10), seeing as it is not actually a radar it raises a couple of questions. For now I have just added it to the ground radar category, but is it better to make a new category called something like "sensors", with radars as a sub category of it? It seems likely we will get more systems which are not technically radars (i.e. the ADAD on the Stormer HVM coming next patch), so it might be worth doing for future-proofing. At the same time however I can see the argument for just leaving them all counted as radars for simplicity's sake. There are also two different Radar Warning Receivers (one for American and one for Russian helis) modelled in game, however at present they are modelled very basically and not worthy of separate articles. Maybe if the way Radar Warning Receivers work gets overhauled in the future (seems likely they will have to as the radar mechanic becomes more advanced and more aircraft with RWRs get added) they will be worthy of articles, in which case again a sensors category might make sense. Just wondering what your (and anyone else's) thoughts on the matter are?

At the time, in terms of in-game practicality, I believe filing it under the "Radar" category would be most fitting of the 3JB10 at the current time being. However, should more of such systems of various types get modeled into the game, I can consider expanding these systems into its own category, with "radar" being a sub-category of that.--Inceptor57 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
As far as i know what sidam does is practically a lidar, but game treats it as a radar when doing warnings in AB anyway. For time being i just called them "rangefinder substitute" in the https://wiki.warthunder.com/SPAA_radars , because in vulcan case it's literally rangefinder+calculator slapped onto it. Also, when vulcan turned on it's radio tracker i got "radar" alerts as well. I'm pretty sure it's fine calling them "radars" per say, as game does too for now, at least until they release something more sophisticated, or mechanically different? IDK, if new sensors won't be able to track targets in exactly same way as well, it may require splitting the sections, otherwise i don't know really.
As for warning system, take a look at the https://wiki.warthunder.com/Talk:SPAA_radars - i was wondering if RB alerts are same as in AB, for example if sidam really is invisible to enemy or not, and does it look the same in RB anyway. As for amount of them existing, as far as patch notes claim, the german top helicopter is supposed to have warning system as well (not the import soviet heli). I have no idea if its the same as the other 2 or not, though. If nothing, you can just take that piece of article, slap the names of detectors onto these helis in the list and just add it to the actual page somewhere in the end, to make it at least look properly. When/if they get overhauled - just make separate pages for them, as it will be easy to find which is which anyway by opening the list. But pardon me, i do not know which french helis have detection system at all. (Probably at least one does, but it wasn't mentioned anywhere) --bangerland (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, here we go - patch notes specifically mentions new targeting mechanic - "passive optical systems". Of course, SIDAM is omitted as an old vehicle, so it may still have radar mechanics, but if you are right and SIDAM really is invisible in RB, then it may be paired up with Stormer HVM ADAD and Bradley ADATS in new category? Of cource, assuming it really works same way. It says, they only provide directional tracking or something like that. We will have to find out if it affects the fuses on normal ammunition or not, along with other things.
Also, with nerfs to radars, probably tables with them would now need some additional columns. First thing to be noticed is probably the "tracking error" they mentions, as they say now radar tracking accuracy depends on range away from target? They also mention "to increase probability of hit optical sight must be used", but if radar did set proximity fuse itself, won't ammo and missiles just explode themselves at wrong range anyway, even if your turret looks at the enemy? I feel like this is just too confusing and every SPAA will now have to be tested on practice... --bangerland (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll admit as for being invisible to RWRs i was working on the belief that if other Passive systems were modelled correctly it was too (finding people with high tier Helis and Italian tanks unlocked to test this stuff is hard).
As for the accuracy stuff, there are values specified however working out what they mean (other than a blind guess) will take quite a bit of trial and error testing.
Well, i'm sure you already have some SPAA, but here is Stormer lock-on screenshot, if that helps you. It is super awkward to aim, as you have to aim yourself, using enemy speed to aim. I wish i had SPAA with guns that has this system, so i could say for sure, that it's how it works and there arent aiming reticle just because of that. But at least you can tell it is a passive system by replaced "power" icon by letters, though i'm not sure if it's just not a name for scanning mode (the camera that spins around wildly) and SIDAM will have same name. --bangerland (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

pictures efficiency question

I wanted to ask, if there is a way to add a .gif to the page without making page weight too much (like, make it display only 1 slide as a preview first and download only on click, but not to break like I had them to earlier)? And is there any quota on this anyway? Kind of restricting myself in this department, because, knowing myself, I could add way too many of these, and it will look like 90-s internet, kind of why I'm doing .jpg for everything. Making YouTube shorts is also kind of awkward for something that could be put in 10 seconds of display, but static gif that I made before is not a very good solution for some cases. Also, animated files category is a red link for some reason. Is that alright? I could actually go and tag all of the screenshots, when I got time, but so far I only saw 4 categories - ingame, historical, garage and animated . There were also those icons which seem to belong to some WW alpha-test period (used one in my own profile), should these be marked somehow? --bangerland (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This page (https://wiki.warthunder.com/F-86A-5) has a .gif which is static until you click on it and it loads in a pop-up where it functions like a .gif ([[File:F86-MiG15_guncamera_Korea.gif|thumb|right|A view from the gun camera on an F-86 Sabre capturing the downing of a MiG-15 over the skies of Korea (''Click image to view .gif footage'')]]) Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Checked it with browser console, it would seem that intentionally breaking .gif by making preview image disproportional to original .gif really works, at least on older browsers (kind of what I was trying to avoid on other pages and had to pinpoint gif size for downscale so it still works).
The other questions still stand, though - how many should I use per page (IE, reasonable amounts), should I limit myself to file amount (they aren't that light when they are detailed, so would be nice to know how much space we got for all this anyway) and should I do something about uncategorized pictures? --bangerland (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
One animated file per page would be a reasonable amount to allow their existence without them spamming up a page. There is no need for you to handle uncategorized images at this time. --Inceptor57 (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Understood, so one file per page or so.
Well, i do understand that it's not that necessary, it's just that with the mass uploads i kind of increase amount of work someone else has to do (probably, yourself), if i don't drop the category tag there. I'll leave the 4 category tags i know near to upload link on my own page, just add more there if there are any, will see how it goes from there. If i'll have free time i'll just open the global image pool and check them to spend time. --bangerland (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

premium color

Do you know what the color code is for premium vehicles?
I think it's around this
--blastedryan (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not know, but I think it is a little darker than that. You mean from the button tabs that are shown in the tech tree, correct? --Inceptor57 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I ran the image in the background File:Item_prem.png through a color code finder and got this
a
which is unusable with normal black text. So I wanted to see if there is a recommended color.--blastedryan (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)