Difference between revisions of "User talk:Inceptor57"

From War Thunder Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(About ammunition names)
(The distinction between Radars and other sensors: new section)
Line 77: Line 77:
 
::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)
 
::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)
 
:::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?

Revision as of 17:00, 26 May 2019

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. --Kmsxkuse (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?