All that the new version is missing is a search function. You pretty much had to use the search function in the old one too because a huge table with a gazilion entries isn’t intuitive to search either.
By the way, articles like these that have no text other than describing what should be there weren’t exactly helpful imo:
https://old-wiki.warthunder.com/RB_75T
redirecting you to the RB 75 in small font below the banner and telling you, on the article you already got redirected to, to then go to the AGM-65A to find the actual description is beyond lazy.
Not to mention it’s not rare that there’s not much to be read beyond the ingame stat card info.
One more thing that can get fixed now that people have some monetary incentive to write an actual article.
personally I like the new style better tbh. Alot more is collapsable, so it looks more neat and organized instead of hitting you on the head with big blocks of text and big tables. Clicking on some of the parameters gives you brief explanations or in-depth details too.
I feel the opposite? also it’s not just wingspan that they added, you actually get radar frequency, detailed RWR functions, you can quickly get a list of vehicles in the vehicle family, or vehicles from it’s manufacturer, different roles, operator country, etc.
You also see at a glance that it has wing sweep instead of that info being burried in a wall of text near the bottom (and they explain briefly what it does and link to a list of all vehicles with wing sweep, which is neat).
Yeah, the ratings definitely need a bit more fine-tuning, especially more categories, like energy retention. I think it has the potential to be more useful than the pro/con of the old wiki though.
I mean, for your example, why does “Pros: Engines pack a lot of thrust, Cons: Acceleration below Mach 1.0 is below average compared to other planes in the BR” seem so contrary? When I read that, I think: “Cool, alot of thrust means it must accelerate really well. Wait, it’s acceleration isn’t even average? doesn’t that mean its thrust is pretty bad for its weight?”, especially since it doesn’t even say anything about the acceleration above Mach 1.0.
So like I said, the old pro/con section is partially more confusing than helping.
Or things like “RWR is subpar for the BR” doesn’t give you much info, the new wiki listing range, detectable bands and if launch detection / tracking detection / IFF is present or not is MUCH more informative.
that’s probably the point to get people to engage more with it.
yes, a search function is definitely needed, and is confirmed to be added in the future.
because noone wrote them yet and they didn’t want to just copy the old ones over, likely because fact checking thousands of articles at once would’ve been a bit much, and to give incentive to write new articles with more effort (as they will be rewarded now, people might go much more in-depth)
