Jump to content


[0.8.8] Tank Camouflage Tables

camo camouflage spotting

  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

SHISHKABOB #61 Posted Aug 06 2012 - 04:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8799 battles
  • 13,143
  • Member since:
    12-06-2010

Verilogus, on Aug 04 2012 - 22:35, said:

Or you could just do 10% of 400 = 40.
Btw, a lot of that math was redundant when comparing factors. And I would not really trust that wiki formula, experience suggests it`s crap.

wouldn't this table of camo values have been calculated using the formulas found on the wiki?

Terrible_Ivan #62 Posted Aug 06 2012 - 06:05

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13585 battles
  • 229
  • Member since:
    06-18-2012
I knew it!!! That the Renault UE 57 has the best camouflage rating ever!!! I miss that TD!!

Veril #63 Posted Aug 06 2012 - 16:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

SHISHKABOB, on Aug 06 2012 - 04:04, said:

wouldn't this table of camo values have been calculated using the formulas found on the wiki?

You don't need a formula to know that if your spotting range is 400 meters and the target only shows up at 300 it means the target has 25% camo.

Edited by Verilogus, Aug 07 2012 - 21:13.


Gregor_Marethel #64 Posted Aug 09 2012 - 22:28

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 34901 battles
  • 755
  • Member since:
    01-24-2011

Quote

ТТ   10   ИС-4     7,5 1    1,34
Wait a sec... The IS 4 gets BETTER camo while moving and shooting than if it's just moving?  WTF?

Digital_Malamute #65 Posted Aug 09 2012 - 22:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 46759 battles
  • 10,179
  • [SHIMP] SHIMP
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011
Absurd made up numbers for camo values are made up and absurd.

Veril #66 Posted Aug 10 2012 - 00:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

Gregor_Marethel, on Aug 09 2012 - 22:28, said:

Wait a sec... The IS 4 gets BETTER camo while moving and shooting than if it's just moving?  WTF?

It will still be 1 if you fire on the move, what gave you the impression that firing camo would take precedence over stationary camo? As to why it is that way go ask WG.

mp31b30q9, on Aug 09 2012 - 22:50, said:

Absurd made up numbers for camo values are made up and absurd.

Are you one of those who puts camo net on high tier arty? Denial has no effect on reality so your are welcome to it.

Digital_Malamute #67 Posted Aug 10 2012 - 00:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 46759 battles
  • 10,179
  • [SHIMP] SHIMP
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

Verilogus, on Aug 10 2012 - 00:35, said:

It will still be 1 if you fire on the move, what gave you the impression that firing camo would take precedence over stationary camo? As to why it is that way go ask WG.



Are you one of those who puts camo net on high tier arty? Denial has no effect on reality so your are welcome to it.

Nope don't play much high Tier, thanks for asking though.

Veril #68 Posted Aug 10 2012 - 20:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

mp31b30q9, on Aug 10 2012 - 00:38, said:

Nope don't play much high Tier, thanks for asking though.

So what is your problem with the numbers?

HalfTrack81 #69 Posted Aug 10 2012 - 21:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24080 battles
  • 1,226
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011
The veracity of these numbers have, imo, been correctly called into question.  That said, my combined experience in the M3 & M5 Stuart, Chaffee, BT-7, T-50 and Dash2 (4000ish battles) says whatever the origin or date, these numbers are pretty darn reliable for these 6 tanks.

Whether they hold up across the board for all tanks would be interesting to know.  I'd love to see how others who have a lot of experience in specific tanks would rate these numbers.

Edited for content.

Edited by HalfTrack1981, Aug 10 2012 - 21:35.


HalfTrack81 #70 Posted Aug 10 2012 - 21:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24080 battles
  • 1,226
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011
An error occurred


You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

+1 to OP

Veril #71 Posted Aug 10 2012 - 23:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

HalfTrack1981, on Aug 10 2012 - 21:32, said:

The veracity of these numbers have, imo, been correctly called into question.  That said, my combined experience in the M3 & M5 Stuart, Chaffee, BT-7, T-50 and Dash2 (4000ish battles) says whatever the origin or date, these numbers are pretty darn reliable for these 6 tanks.

Whether they hold up across the board for all tanks would be interesting to know.  I'd love to see how others who have a lot of experience in specific tanks would rate these numbers.

Edited for content.

Perhaps you should see the original Russian post, the number of +1s and replies. Don't underestimate the power of peer review with such a gigantic player-base over there, any mistakes that might have occurred have been found and corrected, the tables are accurate.

Guest_Gryphon__* #72 Posted Aug 19 2012 - 17:11

  • Guest
+1 to OP for a very important post.

I have started a discussion on scout camo factor here if anyone is interested

FallschirmPanzer #73 Posted Sep 19 2012 - 06:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20310 battles
  • 49
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
I know that the camo net decreases detection chance by 25%.
Its mean +25% of this value while motionless.

Example:
A Stationary ELC AMX equip with camo net will be same value to motionless Hetzer, StugIII & JpzvIV with no camo net equipment.
(If U disagree with this simple estimation, plz provide a calculation or mathematical proof)

Did anyone know how much detection chance decreases for a 100% camo skill for entire crew member?

Veril #74 Posted Sep 27 2012 - 15:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

FallschirmPanzer, on Sep 19 2012 - 06:01, said:

I know that the camo net decreases detection chance by 25%.
Its mean +25% of this value while motionless.

Example:
A Stationary ELC AMX equip with camo net will be same value to motionless Hetzer, StugIII & JpzvIV with no camo net equipment.
(If U disagree with this simple estimation, plz provide a calculation or mathematical proof)

Did anyone know how much detection chance decreases for a 100% camo skill for entire crew member?

From some lazy tests I did a while back it's somewhere from 20% to 30% but I could be wrong, it may even depend on something else for all I know.

Mazz #75 Posted Sep 27 2012 - 15:39

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9271 battles
  • 882
  • Member since:
    07-02-2010
They come up with any 263 numbers yet? Curious to see how it stacks up before I wander into one.

Also, i had a dude (decent clan starting w/ H) yell at our team because we didn't stop the enemy before he was spotted in his GW T in the forest on Muro. I made a comment about his camo compared to the mediums in there with him and he made sure to state my 3k games played gave me no idea about spotting mechanics (obviously ignoring the other 2 numbers being higher then his). He then went on to say he had camo crew and a net. All i wanted to do is make sure to remind him that 25 percent of zero is still zero.

FallschirmPanzer #76 Posted Sep 29 2012 - 04:48

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20310 battles
  • 49
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
Yeah.. Anyone have a link to 8.0 camouflage-tables

please post it here

Veril #77 Posted Sep 30 2012 - 05:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

View PostFallschirmPanzer, on Sep 29 2012 - 04:48, said:

Yeah.. Anyone have a link to 8.0 camouflage-tables

please post it here

Not yet available to my knowledge, I will update it when it is.
Keep in mind that in all probability 99%+ of this table is accurate.

_Angry_ #78 Posted Oct 22 2012 - 19:04

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14608 battles
  • 418
  • Member since:
    08-06-2012
There should be a MM% attached to some camo values. Example, as long as lights keep getting treated like shit by the MM they should automatically get an extra 5%, so the Chaffees should be around 24% or so

Feminist #79 Posted Oct 22 2012 - 19:25

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11622 battles
  • 957
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
Why is it that T95 was higher than the Jagdtiger historically and yet it is smaller in game and has more camo?

You don't believe in anti-german bias? That's cute, sugarcube.

jerv #80 Posted Oct 25 2012 - 06:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 7697 battles
  • 5,409
  • [BURNS] BURNS
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

View PostVerilogus, on Aug 06 2012 - 16:43, said:

You don't need a formula to know that if your spotting range is 400 meters and the target only shows up at 300 it means the target has 25% camo.

If the equation were linear, you would be correct.  It isn't, so you aren't.

Your way does not really allow for accurate calculation of the effects of Camouflage skill, Camo nets, or anything other than the base camo of the tank with no modifiers of any kind.

In your example above, it could also have a camo of ~13.7% and a Camouflage skill of 100. Or maybe it's only ~11.7% with 110 Camo skill and a net... unless it also has a fancy paint job.

Don't be lazy; do the math.





Also tagged with camo, camouflage, spotting

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users