Miscellaneous desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 10

tactical vehicle

What is the military definition of "tactical vehicle"? 195.87.9.10 (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 10-Nov-2014[reply]

According to this site it is:

A vehicle having military characteristics resulting from military research and development processes, designed primarily for use by forces in the field in direct connection with, or support of, combat or tactical operations.

I found this with a simple Google search. Is there something more specific that you were looking for that you couldn't find with Google? Dismas|^(talk) 08:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this definition but it is a bit general. I try to differentiate tactical vehicles and non-tactical vehicles which are used by military. If we take this definition then every vehicle in military is a tactical vehicle, since military have some specific requirements like special painting or electrical connections,etc. For example are there any specific requirements in terms of mobility characteristics? IF you take a 4x4 Jeep and paint in camouflage, does it become a tactical vehicle? 195.87.9.10 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've focused on the wrong part of the definition. The part that matters is the part that says "direct connection with, or support of, combat or tactical operations." That is, tactical vehicles are ones used either a) to shoot someone with or b) to carry guys around who are shooting people, or something similar. Vehicles that, for example, are used to cart generals around between planning meetings would not be tactical vehicles. --Jayron32 12:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe vehicles that cart generals around would be "strategic vehicles." Edison (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

A picture in a mug

Hello guys, I am planning to go to a place where they put pictures in tshirts, mugs, etc. But I want to carry an edited picture I am working on in Photoshop. The thing is that I don´t know that measurements of a picture that fits perfectly in a mug. Here´s the link to a picture of a similar mug, so you have an idea of what I am talking about: http://www.amazon.com/Rock-Off-USA-109342-Boxed/dp/B005IUB3HG

Can anyone help me here? I don´t know if this is a question that I should be asking here but I am asking anyways, just in case. Thank you very much in advance Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 18:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are some tips for ordering photo mugs? might help, or Recommended image sizes and resolution - Mugs & Drinkware. Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Alansplodge [IP redacted] 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that digital images don't really have a "size". You can take the tiniest icon and draw it over an entire wall - or the most detailed photograph in existence and shrink it to fit onto a postage-stamp. What matters is how well the "resolution" (how many pixels there are in it) matches the size you intend to print it at. For most purposes, an image looks pretty good to the human eye when it's held at normal reading distances and has about 300 to 600 pixels of width and height for every inch. This measurement is "PPI" (Pixels Per Inch) or, sometimes "DPI" (Dots Per Inch)...same deal. In the case of a mug, that 300 to 600 ppi should be about right. But a lot depends on how close you'll ever get to it. If you look at those huge adverts they put up on billboards beside a freeway - nobody ever sees them closer than maybe 50 feet away - so you can get away with a very low number of pixels per inch - maybe 1 ppi would be enough!

For something that's being printed onto a mug, it's probably only going to be 2 or 3 inches tall by about the same wide. So anywhere from 600 pixels to around 1800 pixels wide - by about the same high would be appropriate. Less than 600 would look blurry or (possibly) "pixellated" (when the image looks like a bunch of tiny squares) - more than 1800 would just be a bit of a waste...but no harm done. If you make the image much too high in resolution, then the service you're sending it to might have trouble working with it. A lot also depends on the quality of equipment they are using to do the transfer to the mug. Personally, I'd shoot for at least 1200 pixels by 1000 pixels to ensure best quality.

If you have a color printer, just tell the PRINT dialog to scale the image so it prints a couple of inches across, print it out and tape it onto a mug - that'll give you a good idea of what it's going to look like.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t have a color printer or a printer at all Steve, but you´r answer helped a lot. thanks. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]