Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2008-02-25 12:31**

Hey

I have noticed that there are 2 types of the Scimitar on Fools Road, on with and one without the cage around it. Does the one with cage really take more RPG shots or is it just Design? And is it important where you hit the caged Scimitar with RPG?

Fate

Posted: **2008-02-25 13:00**

I think its just design.... but I'm not really sure. I've never been hit by an RPG in one before

Posted: **2008-02-25 13:36**

In RL, it is known as RPG Caging, its idea is to stop/slow down the warhead (hence the distance's of the caging) prior to impact, and yes it does work to an extent

Heres a write up on it here

The interim slat armor solution forms a metal frame barrier 50 cm ahead of the APC. The cage detonate anti-tank shaped charge warheads such as RPG away from the vehicle and prevent its hot chemical reaction from boring through and causing burns, shock and shrapnel wounds. General Dynamics, the Stryker manufacturer, is also developing an add-on plate armor that will defeat RPGs, planned for deployment by 2005. The slat armor weighs about 5,200 pounds, about 3,000 pounds lighter than the add-on anti-RPG add-on armor plates. The idea behind the cage armor goes back to World War II and Vietnam. Troops in that war improvised with chicken wire and other means to counter the RPG threat.

In Iraq, Slat armor proved quite successful in defeating attacks of High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) of Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPGs). This type of armor is not effective Attacks by high explosive and fragmentation RPG rounds which explode before they hit the cage. In one mission, a Stryker vehicle, with slat armor, was attacked and hit with nine RPGs. The locations of the hits on the vehicle were sporadic. The crew escaped with minor injuries and the vehicle moved under its own power to the nearest operating base for assessment and repair. To improving protection for exposed crews, some units have built a wooden platform over the ramp to hold sand bags to protect the rear hatch. ammunition cans filled with sand were located around the gunners hatch.

While Slat armor does not significantly impact Stryker handling, off or on roads, during the dry season, the additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season. The additional weight of the slat armor was not accounted for in the design of the Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS). The heavy oversized cage causes multiple problems for safe and effective operation of the vehicle.

Slat armor was initially deployed with US Army Stryker AFVs operating in Iraq. The British Army deployed similar protection to augment the armor of the Warrior AIFV. Similar modifications were performed on Australian Light Armored Vehicles.

Posted: **2008-02-25 14:09**

Slat Armor is meant to detonate an RPG away from the body of the vehicle, mainly by hitting the slats and detonating, or (and there's a picture of this somewhere, but I couldn't find it) catching the RPG between slats. But generally it is just detonated away from the hull. Of course vehicles with slat armor have some areas left uncovered, but those are generally the best armored and least easy to hit areas, or at least that is the goal.

Posted: **2008-02-25 15:21**

sorry you got me wrong, I wanted to know if it works in PR, not in RL.

Fate

Posted: **2008-02-25 19:32**

If the RPG hits the slat armour then it will do less damage then it would have otherwise. I think they achieve this by making the slat armour grade a very strong area, any attack on that area would be less effective then if it hits the tracks or whatever

Test it out yourself on single player, the amount of rpg should be noticable.

RPG attack to front of a T90 takes 7 to kill

rear armour its 4 only

Posted: **2008-02-25 19:58**

youR.Fate wrote:sorry you got me wrong, I wanted to know if it works in PR, not in RL.

Fate

It's okay, some people don't know how to read sadly.

-Warned by Masaq for Useless/Unhelpful Post Content

Yay for fair moderation, the post under mine is just as useless and unhelpful, at least mine is true. If it offends someone then maybe they should learn how to read. :\ Now watch me get banned for commenting on the moderation.

Don't be stupid, you won't get banned for that. You will, however, look like a prat: I warned you before the others posted - I could hardly have warned them at the same time.

What was irritating about your post and what earnt you the warning wasn't that it was spammy, but that it was insulting. There's simply no need to make personal remarks about others' ability to read, and certainly not when you're not making a more useful contribution to the thread yourself. You posted in here solely to critise others, not to add anything useful.

I'm redressing your comment via the same method you chose. In future, please contact moderators via the private message system if you wish to take issue with warning points.

Yeah you're right and I understand, I was being an arse and insulting with that comment. This isn't an excuse for my comment but just so you know I would take it as even more of an insult if someone starts explaining stuff to me like I don't know what I'm talking about when they didn't even take the time to understand my post. So yeah I was just bothered by it and felt like I had to retaliate for the op even if it was just a misunderstanding.

Posted: **2008-02-25 21:38**

It'd be cool if you could grill steaks on them.

- Warned by Masaq for Useless/Unhelpful Post Content (C'mon guys, posting blatant spam directly under a warned post is asking for it!)

Posted: **2008-02-26 01:03**

are MREs possible?

- Warned by Masaq for Useless/Unhelpful Post Content (C'mon guys, posting blatant spam directly under a warned post is asking for it!)

Posted: **2008-02-26 05:53**

ZaZZo wrote:It'd be cool if you could grill steaks on them.

wow...

- Warned by Masaq for Useless/Unhelpful Post Content (C'mon guys, posting blatant spam directly under a warned post is asking for it!)

Posted: **2008-02-26 10:04**

The cage isn't intended to be cosmetic. I'm not too sure about how well it actually works in game against munitions, but I do know that there are currently a few issues with it when it comes to collisions with other objects. Not too sure if they're fixed for the new version either.

I'm also rather curious about Masaq ragging on Sleepy for a useless post when the three following it were even more so. BBQ^2? Mod accuracy is another thing we need to patch? =P

Posted: **2008-02-26 15:56**

How about checking out the edit/warn times then, before people start mouthing off? For example the fact that I warned Sleepy before the other posts were made?

I don't have any problem with being called up on my moderation but if people are going to do it they should:

A) Check facts first.
B) Do it via private message.

This will help stop them looking like a prat.

Posted: **2008-02-26 16:13**

So do they work in-game or not? Seems that no one really knows it

Posted: **2008-02-26 16:28**

Well this thread seems to be heading downhill, all that is needed is for a dev or someone with the 'knowledges' to tell us whether the slat armour on the Scimitar does any good.

I personally thought it upped the health just a little, but not specifically increasing armour at the points where there were slats.

Posted: **2008-02-26 16:33**

'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;617020']How about checking out the edit/warn times then, before people start mouthing off? For example the fact that I warned Sleepy before the other posts were made?

I don't have any problem with being called up on my moderation but if people are going to do it they should:

A) Check facts first.
B) Do it via private message.

This will help stop them looking like a prat.

Woah there, little buddy. Just a wee bit hostile, don't you think? Given that Sleepy edited his post some time after you warned him, I couldn't have known that you went after him before the other posts were made.

I don't see any real issues with pointing out problems in the public eye, rather than going all sneaky. 'Sides, everyone likes having something on public record when calling out mods as it prevents some of that nasty cloak and dagger shit.

If I get a spare moment, I'll try dicking around with the caged scimitar to see if it actually works and get back to you, Brummy.

Posted: **2008-02-26 17:23**

WRT to cages: I'm pretty sure that opening up the vehicles' files would tell you if there's any difference between the caged and the non-caged? Anyone care to take a peek?

Kinote wrote:Woah there, little buddy. Just a wee bit hostile, don't you think? Given that Sleepy edited his post some time after you warned him, I couldn't have known that you went after him before the other posts were made.

I don't see any real issues with pointing out problems in the public eye, rather than going all sneaky. 'Sides, everyone likes having something on public record when calling out mods as it prevents some of that nasty cloak and dagger shit.

Okay, I'll explain why the tinge of hostility. The moderators, between them, spend hours of their time working to keep this community going without much of the **** that invades most online forums. We work hard, we try and be as fair and as balanced as possible, and we very very rarely get thanks.

Being a mod means you'll almost certainly have to issue a warning for someone you respect and like, that people will virtually always second-guess your actions and question your decisions, and you *will* piss someone off.

In return, I don't think it's much to ask that if somebody has an issue with the way a warning was issued that they get in touch with the moderator personally to discuss it.

I receive private message responses to around half the warnings I issue, and I respond to every single one explaining in detail. I have been known to retract warnings when reading people's messages.

Now, a mod can issue a warning for a post and it goes completely unnoticed by the community at large. I believe that this has drawbacks as almost inevitably it means that when you warn somebody for bad language (for example), they respond with "But I've seen this word: XYZ used by someone!".

I believe that yes, mods being clearer with the community as to what kind of posts are receiving warnings and which are let slide is a Good Thing. Individually, moderators can choose to edit posts with a "This post was warned" message, as I did in this case. Some of us do, some of us don't.

I chose to keep the warn in the open, for the benefit of transparency, and in return what happens? People complain that the rules aren't being applied equally; somehow it goes from being Sleepyhead's right to respond to his warning to every Tom, **** and Harry's, even when they're not aware of the order of events.

See why it might make a man somewhat peeved?

Posted: **2008-02-26 17:41**

'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;617134']WRT to cages: I'm pretty sure that opening up the vehicles' files would tell you if there's any difference between the caged and the non-caged? Anyone care to take a peek?

Okay, I'll explain why the tinge of hostility. The moderators, between them, spend hours of their time working to keep this community going without much of the **** that invades most online forums. We work hard, we try and be as fair and as balanced as possible, and we very very rarely get thanks.

Being a mod means you'll almost certainly have to issue a warning for someone you respect and like, that people will virtually always second-guess your actions and question your decisions, and you *will* piss someone off.

In return, I don't think it's much to ask that if somebody has an issue with the way a warning was issued that they get in touch with the moderator personally to discuss it.

I receive private message responses to around half the warnings I issue, and I respond to every single one explaining in detail. I have been known to retract warnings when reading people's messages.

Now, a mod can issue a warning for a post and it goes completely unnoticed by the community at large. I believe that this has drawbacks as almost inevitably it means that when you warn somebody for bad language (for example), they respond with "But I've seen this word: XYZ used by someone!".

I believe that yes, mods being clearer with the community as to what kind of posts are receiving warnings and which are let slide is a Good Thing. Individually, moderators can choose to edit posts with a "This post was warned" message, as I did in this case. Some of us do, some of us don't.

I chose to keep the warn in the open, for the benefit of transparency, and in return what happens? People complain that the rules aren't being applied equally; somehow it goes from being Sleepyhead's right to respond to his warning to every Tom, **** and Harry's, even when they're not aware of the order of events.

See why it might make a man somewhat peeved?

YAY MODS thanks for keeping the **** from the forums.

I have no idea about anything so I could tell by opening up the vehicle files.

Posted: **2008-02-26 17:41**

'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;617134']
Okay, I'll explain why the tinge of hostility. The moderators, between them, spend hours of their time working to keep this community going without much of the **** that invades most online forums. We work hard, we try and be as fair and as balanced as possible, and we very very rarely get thanks.

Being a mod means you'll almost certainly have to issue a warning for someone you respect and like, that people will virtually always second-guess your actions and question your decisions, and you *will* piss someone off.

In return, I don't think it's much to ask that if somebody has an issue with the way a warning was issued that they get in touch with the moderator personally to discuss it.

I receive private message responses to around half the warnings I issue, and I respond to every single one explaining in detail. I have been known to retract warnings when reading people's messages.

Now, a mod can issue a warning for a post and it goes completely unnoticed by the community at large. I believe that this has drawbacks as almost inevitably it means that when you warn somebody for bad language (for example), they respond with "But I've seen this word: XYZ used by someone!".

I believe that yes, mods being clearer with the community as to what kind of posts are receiving warnings and which are let slide is a Good Thing. Individually, moderators can choose to edit posts with a "This post was warned" message, as I did in this case. Some of us do, some of us don't.

I chose to keep the warn in the open, for the benefit of transparency, and in return what happens? People complain that the rules aren't being applied equally; somehow it goes from being Sleepyhead's right to respond to his warning to every Tom, **** and Harry's, even when they're not aware of the order of events.

See why it might make a man somewhat peeved?

Sure, we all have our bad days. Regardless of that, I'll still call you out for being a **** and you'll do the exact same to me, the only exception being that I can't throw points at you and insert fancy red text into your posts.

The only reason people were complaining that the rules weren't being applied equally is because at the time, they weren't. You've since correct that problem, perhaps in part to the issue being brought to your attention in a timely manner, and all is well once more. I fully agree that having the community being able to know what is acceptable and what is not, is a good thing. However, that was how the first issue came to be. One person was punished while several others got away with it, this sends a bit of a mixed message. If the mods simply weren't online to see it and deal with it as soon as they can, that's fine. When it appears that infractions have been ignored, that's not cool.

Back on the topic train: Looking at the code doesn't always show the true story, hence the reason for hopping in game and checking things out.

Posted: **2008-02-26 18:10**

As jonny said; they are pretty much identical in the .tweak files.
but you need the editor to see the diffrence, luckily I happen to have the editor

heres a picture of the diffrent materials of the scimitar with cage. Diffrent colors = diffrent amount of damage when hit in that area.

And heres a list that explains what color is what material.

It appears that the cage have the same material as the top. which is the weakest point on the whole "tank". as far as i can see the scimitar with cage seems weaker than the one without due to a hit on the cage = a hit on the roof.

But I might be way off.

Project Reality Forums

Scimitar Grills

Scimitar Grills