User talk:Inceptor57/Archive

From War Thunder Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



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...


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!


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


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 , 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 - 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 ( 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
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)
What about using this instead? It's the main colour of the golden eagle logo. DnaGonite (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Screenshots with visible bugs

Hello. I have some screenshots which only make sense together, but on last one I have "dead alive" hull break bug (when 120 mm kinetic hullbreak fails, you look dead, even on UI, but are not really). Should I try to make better example screenshots, or anything goes? --bangerland (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say try your best for the image you think will more accurately represent what message you are trying to convey. If you are dissatisfied with how the image turned out and is being shown, you should redo it. --Inceptor57 (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Miiro_Nyholm's tables

where are my tables in i-go ko? who deleted them?

Hello, you deleted them yourself in one of the page's edit. --Inceptor57 (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

penetration tables

As you might be aware i add 60 degree pen to autocannon tanks tables, due to how it is necessary to show their weaknesses at angled combat and recent 30 mm changes mostly affect just angled performance. Due to a high amount of stealth patches recently, it might be necessary to do this for other shell sizes and types as well, at least to have a reference material. Do you mind if i do this to every tank page i come across, or should i do this in some other way? --bangerland (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel like there needs to be another way to do this. Adding the additional 60 degree is helpful, but it looks quite cramped in the large table of numbers. I'm also not in favor of making another table just for 60 degree either as that'll just clutter the pages more. I'll look into the formatting and see if there are better ways to display the information. Until then, can you please hold off on doing it to every page? --Inceptor57 (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that's why i'm asking. Only added this to 30 mm's and a few 35 mm's where it seemed drastically different from others so far. Just drop me a message, when you have a better solution. --bangerland (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the optics instructions

The way you shortened the instruction up should work, at least until ATGM tank are introduced. (because they are the ones which specifically can't fire without optics for some reason) Most of those have NVD anyway, so i guess it works? Considering i'm going to fill in the tables anyway, the "try to fill the table" part or "refer to gallery" part can also be omitted, i guess. Is the instruction on NVD-fitted tanks alright in your vision? --bangerland (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a NVD section description? I will have to take a look at another time as I will be preoccupied for a while soon. Also, just want to standardise (that I didn't do on the ST-A1 page), we should try to have the optic subsection in the main armaments come below the ammunition/ammo-racks subsection rather than before them.
..."Alright in your vision", hah, that's funny. --Inceptor57 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
As for NVD pages, i tried it out on a few vehicles i tried out to "trial and error" them to find out if any problems would arise. For example: This is how i think it would look like when it's just barely filled out, is filled out "complicated tank" page and is how "complicated atgm" page is filled out (as in, what details might arise from looking at optics functionality > what can be pointed out to look for). Also by default i listed optics into/past ATGM weapon slot if it exist because of how it affects that weapon specifically (could just give it same level as weapon i guess?) and before machine guns, i guess my brain just went offline when i did it to ST-A1. As for standartization of placement, i'm not sure, for some tanks it seems more important than for others. The ST-A1 page to begin with is in a bit of a mess because of how i had to write text for it in other time and does not take well to inserts in between. I guess pushing optics past gun and ammunition on all pages works. The SPAA pages have "radar" section as well, but for them optics might be useless as well (with stormer and otomatic as exception i guess, the first one might as well have them straight after the gun). unintentional puns best puns. --bangerland (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, preparations are all done due to Flame2512 and DnaGonite help. With outside sources, it is now possible to fill out most of the data. If it is fine, i'll just put optics on same row as weapons themselves (the === row), past the weapon and their ammo but before MG and radars (because optics are more or less correlated with the main weapons) and go fix ammo tables and optics on all normal tanks (considering the last ST-A1 page edit as default). Meanwhile, you can decide on the NVD ones - just set me the bar by editing one of the mentioned pages and i'll fix the rest. --bangerland (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

109 K-4 Horsepower Chart - Talk - F4Knight - Question

Hello. I'm F4Knight and I decided to share some of my work (specifically talking about the horsepower charts) and I was wondering how I would verify it. For the F-82E, I included screenshots of the localhost of the planes stats (Horsepower and such) on a Google Doc. Is that enough to verify the chart or is there more needed? Just wanted to make sure before doing more horsepower charts. Thanks - F4Knight

Hello there. Firstly, I think the hp charts you're trying to make are a neat addition. But as you may have heard from the other user that contested your charts initially, there's a lot of factors and such that affects aircraft horsepower than altitude. I'm trying to find out on my end what's the perfect setting to test these stats, but for right now can you say on what map did you test the current F-82 charts?
I would also recommend some changes on the chart:
  1. Adding the game's version number so that users are aware when the chart was last updated should the engine performance ever change in the future.
  2. Adding dots on the hp line where each 1000 meter mark is. It's rather hard to eyeball it at a quick glance.
    1. To reduce the text clutter at the bottom, you can title the axis "Altitude in 1000 meters" and then just label each vertical axis mark "1, 2, etc."
  3. See if its possible to remove the empty space below the 1000 hp mark.
  4. See if the chart's standard can be converted to 100% rather than WEP, considering some planes don't have WEP. Or have the two data coexist.
Lastly, when you edit in talk pages, you can sign your edits with the --~~~~ code.--Inceptor57 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Aight, I will take note of your advice. I did the F-82 chart in the test flight so whatever map that is. I know horsepower will change depending on your speed so I tried to get to the highest speed I could reach on 100% Throttle then went on WEP for a few seconds, got a screenshot then climbed and repeated it. Ok quick update, I have updated the chart to how it looks right here I'll do the 100% Throttle data later but as of now does that look fine to you?--F4K (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


You got rid off my talk page thing

You got rid of it saying it had "profanity". "Crap" isn't a swear word.TravelByTrain (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


Hey, just wanted to send a big Thank You for the edits you make improving grammar and an overall readability of the articles. Excellent, and an extremely helpful work. As someone who's far from being an English native speaker, I can only say that I'm really grateful of your contributions to improving the edits I, and others, have made. :) Jareel_Skaj (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Award Request Images

Hello, I don't need the pictures I uploaded anymore. You can totally delete them. --Colok76286 (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi, can you create the icon for frigates, like the one for Destroyers? They are a separate class of ships above the sub-chasers, so I think it would be good to have them in the Fleet page, given that they've been added with the latest patch. Jareel_Skaj (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, we currently don't have a icon for frigates, nor am I the creator of most of the naval icons. However; I added Frigates to the "large vessel" category so that it is displayed. Apologies for the late response. --Inceptor57 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)