P.U.R.E. 0.55
Moderators: Moderators, Content Developer
- clericvash
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 01:05
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Looks awesome as always, love the model, looks great!!
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
There would be no point to using reactive armor on an Aircraft. Reactive armor is for deflecting/defeating a shape charge explosive, it does this by exploding outwards at the incoming shot as it impacts the armor. No one uses shape charges to shoot at aircraft because they lack much in the way of armor plating. Since shape charge is specifically designed to defeat thicker slopped armor there is not much point firing it at an aircraft when a simpler round will penetrate. Also you dont really need to even penetrate a plane to do bad stuff to it. Just the act of hitting it with a projectile can cause serious issues given how tricky flight is. Also as Im sure you can imagine having an explosion come off of one side of your aircraft would not be a good thing even if it defeats a projectile as the force would likely cause the plane to go out of control. This is of course assuming we dont have some "magic" technology involved.
- Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Less chat
Moar splat!
Moar splat!
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Y'know, I didn't bother to look this one up, until you asked. The answer's actually kind've interesting. It appears the answer is "probably not, but it's probably about money, not about whether it's possible."Do planes actually use reactive armour plating?
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
that article doesn't really say that money is the issue. In fact the main point of the article is that current reactive armor systems are:
-Hard to handle due to weight .
-Are better at stopping shaped charges rather than kinetic weapons.
-Greatly increase radar cross section of the vehicle they are on due to their box shape.
Fang's points are spot as to why you wouldn't use reactive armor on them not to mention the nightmare of trying to keep a plane balanced or aerodynamic when you start attaching solid steel boxes full of explosives to the outer surfaces.
-Hard to handle due to weight .
-Are better at stopping shaped charges rather than kinetic weapons.
-Greatly increase radar cross section of the vehicle they are on due to their box shape.
Fang's points are spot as to why you wouldn't use reactive armor on them not to mention the nightmare of trying to keep a plane balanced or aerodynamic when you start attaching solid steel boxes full of explosives to the outer surfaces.
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
<chuckles>
Actually the whole point of the patent, if you read the whole thing, was that they'd come up with a much lighter, stealthy reactive armor design. Patents are generally written by lawyers, who are paid to write lengthy descriptions of why there was a reason why there was a specific need for a given novel design, or Art.
The paragraph that you didn't get to was:
Actually the whole point of the patent, if you read the whole thing, was that they'd come up with a much lighter, stealthy reactive armor design. Patents are generally written by lawyers, who are paid to write lengthy descriptions of why there was a reason why there was a specific need for a given novel design, or Art.
The paragraph that you didn't get to was:
It is an object of the invention to produce a reactive armor box for protecting armor surfaces of vehicles such as tanks, ships, and aircraft or stationary installations and the like from projectiles, utilizing composite light weight materials for reducing the weight of the effective armor box without reducing its effectiveness against such projectiles.
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Doesnt matter if they make it weight Less than nothing, and have the radar crosssection of an atom. There is still NO point to putting it on an aircraft, because you dont shoot shape charge explosives at an aircraft. You dont shoot shape charge explosives at an aircraft because its armor can be penetrated by shrapnel, and other regular bullets.
Additionally, reactive armor works on the principle of EXPLODING outwards at the incoming shot to knock it off course and disperse the effect. Having something EXPLODE off of your aircraft mid flight would play havoc with your manuvering and control.
So baring some sort of magical technological improvements that make it possible to put massive amounts of armor on aircraft, and then nessesitate the need for using specialized shape charge explosives to shoot them down. As well as having some sort of awesome method of canceling out the effect of having something explode off of the plane in only one direction. This isnt even a remotely sensible concept.
Aircraft survivability is based on NOT being hit, either by jamming, or dodging enemy fire, or avoiding being detected at all. I dont foresee a reason to attempt to make aircraft into tanks..
Additionally, reactive armor works on the principle of EXPLODING outwards at the incoming shot to knock it off course and disperse the effect. Having something EXPLODE off of your aircraft mid flight would play havoc with your manuvering and control.
So baring some sort of magical technological improvements that make it possible to put massive amounts of armor on aircraft, and then nessesitate the need for using specialized shape charge explosives to shoot them down. As well as having some sort of awesome method of canceling out the effect of having something explode off of the plane in only one direction. This isnt even a remotely sensible concept.
Aircraft survivability is based on NOT being hit, either by jamming, or dodging enemy fire, or avoiding being detected at all. I dont foresee a reason to attempt to make aircraft into tanks..
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Explosive reactive armor would most likely pop a hole in the plane with its reaction.
There is a required amount of armor needed for something to use ERA. Even the backs of tanks have too little an amount of armor for usage of ERA.

There is a required amount of armor needed for something to use ERA. Even the backs of tanks have too little an amount of armor for usage of ERA.
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Um, so, you've never heard of the A-10? Do I need to drag out a list of real-world aircraft that have been extensively armored? And with reactive armor, it could use a much lighter charge to defeat the much smaller kinetic energy of shrapnel. Moreover, reactive armor uses a standoff distance between the actual surface of the vehicle and the reactive plates- the idea being to neutralize the incoming projectile before it hits.
It's quite possible to fly heavily-armored stuff- you just need enough thrust and lift. The tradeoff IRL is fuel costs, size, and the cost of armoring the thing that well in the first place. In the USA, we quit developing armored planes in the 1970s, because Stealth is working well, and also because we just didn't think that aircraft like the A-10 would survive against modern missiles. This actually turned out to be wrong- A-10s have proven to be incredibly difficult to shoot down with missiles, and we keep dragging them out of Reserve status when we have a ground war where we need the firepower- they served in the latest debacle in the Middle East, for example.
What about a future where Stealth doesn't work very well, though? Armor might be the only thing that made aircraft viable. After all, it's the Future, and everybody has <uses Dr. Evil voice> la-sers.
Moreover, as a game designer, I need an excuse to make them able to survive a single missile hit
I could call those bulges "reactive pattern shields" or "magnetic defensive array cells", or some other fun bit of pseudoscience... I merely prefer to refer to a technology that exists that might explain how things in the game don't just die in one hit, like most things do IRL. A real-world tank, for example, does not generally die by stages- it either is proof against what shot at it, or it's not, and it dies (with the exception of the tracks, which are fairly vulnerable, but meh, this isn't a bloody sim). In a game where everything dies by stages, I'd like there to be some sort of explanation, however flimsy. I was originally thinking that everything used an ablative multi-layer armor approach, to defeat lasers, plasma, and conventional weapons, but that made little sense for some cases.
It's quite possible to fly heavily-armored stuff- you just need enough thrust and lift. The tradeoff IRL is fuel costs, size, and the cost of armoring the thing that well in the first place. In the USA, we quit developing armored planes in the 1970s, because Stealth is working well, and also because we just didn't think that aircraft like the A-10 would survive against modern missiles. This actually turned out to be wrong- A-10s have proven to be incredibly difficult to shoot down with missiles, and we keep dragging them out of Reserve status when we have a ground war where we need the firepower- they served in the latest debacle in the Middle East, for example.
What about a future where Stealth doesn't work very well, though? Armor might be the only thing that made aircraft viable. After all, it's the Future, and everybody has <uses Dr. Evil voice> la-sers.
Moreover, as a game designer, I need an excuse to make them able to survive a single missile hit

I could call those bulges "reactive pattern shields" or "magnetic defensive array cells", or some other fun bit of pseudoscience... I merely prefer to refer to a technology that exists that might explain how things in the game don't just die in one hit, like most things do IRL. A real-world tank, for example, does not generally die by stages- it either is proof against what shot at it, or it's not, and it dies (with the exception of the tracks, which are fairly vulnerable, but meh, this isn't a bloody sim). In a game where everything dies by stages, I'd like there to be some sort of explanation, however flimsy. I was originally thinking that everything used an ablative multi-layer armor approach, to defeat lasers, plasma, and conventional weapons, but that made little sense for some cases.
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Lasers would render Reactive armor pointless.
The A-10 is heavily armored BECAUSE IT IS A GROUND ATTACK AIRCRAFT.. most of its armor is designed to deflect sharpnel and AAA rounds. It doesnt get shot at by missiles much, because generally its too low to the ground for missiles to be effective from the ground.
However it is not nigh impervious to missiles, the thing has rarely been in a combat situation where the enemy had an airforce capable of fielding fighters against us without having them annihilated horribly..
The only time that plane has seen real combat duty was during the gulf war.. and most of Iraqs air defence was made up of AAA...
Also dont use currently existing technology on things it doesnt make sense being used on. If you need to make something up just say its made out of some super alloy composite ceramic material that can withstand missile warhead explosions for a number of times before being compromised. Dont give the unit some actual tech that doesnt make sense being used in the purpose your using it for...
You dont need reactive armor on an aircraft there is no point to it. Conventional armor stops shrapnel, and bullets just fine..
The A-10 is heavily armored BECAUSE IT IS A GROUND ATTACK AIRCRAFT.. most of its armor is designed to deflect sharpnel and AAA rounds. It doesnt get shot at by missiles much, because generally its too low to the ground for missiles to be effective from the ground.
However it is not nigh impervious to missiles, the thing has rarely been in a combat situation where the enemy had an airforce capable of fielding fighters against us without having them annihilated horribly..
The only time that plane has seen real combat duty was during the gulf war.. and most of Iraqs air defence was made up of AAA...
Also dont use currently existing technology on things it doesnt make sense being used on. If you need to make something up just say its made out of some super alloy composite ceramic material that can withstand missile warhead explosions for a number of times before being compromised. Dont give the unit some actual tech that doesnt make sense being used in the purpose your using it for...
You dont need reactive armor on an aircraft there is no point to it. Conventional armor stops shrapnel, and bullets just fine..
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Why are you arguing this point so hard, anyhow? Meh, I just like how it looks, and it keeps everything visually consistent. Moving on, I have more models to get done now, if I'm going to start playtesting and getting rough balance done this week...
-
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Maybe they react in other ways? :D
"Reacting" doesn't necessarily mean "exploding outwards".. maybe the reactive armour giggles when it's hit, or gets angry and has a tantrum.
"Reacting" doesn't necessarily mean "exploding outwards".. maybe the reactive armour giggles when it's hit, or gets angry and has a tantrum.
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Sounds good, I like it! Next, I'll make a passive-aggressive mecha, and a bomber that attacks people with "bombs made of pure nerd rage"...
- TheRegisteredOne
- Posts: 398
- Joined: 10 Dec 2005, 21:39
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Its scifi. It doesn't have to make sense lol.Fanger wrote:Lasers would render Reactive armor pointless.
The A-10 is heavily armored BECAUSE IT IS A GROUND ATTACK AIRCRAFT.. most of its armor is designed to deflect sharpnel and AAA rounds. It doesnt get shot at by missiles much, because generally its too low to the ground for missiles to be effective from the ground.
However it is not nigh impervious to missiles, the thing has rarely been in a combat situation where the enemy had an airforce capable of fielding fighters against us without having them annihilated horribly..
The only time that plane has seen real combat duty was during the gulf war.. and most of Iraqs air defence was made up of AAA...
Also dont use currently existing technology on things it doesnt make sense being used on. If you need to make something up just say its made out of some super alloy composite ceramic material that can withstand missile warhead explosions for a number of times before being compromised. Dont give the unit some actual tech that doesnt make sense being used in the purpose your using it for...
You dont need reactive armor on an aircraft there is no point to it. Conventional armor stops shrapnel, and bullets just fine..
-
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
They could also react by emitting a powerful surge of electromagnetic energy (or something equally futuristic) in the direction of incoming guided munitions to fry their circruitry and render their warheads and guidance systens inert. Or something.
- TheRegisteredOne
- Posts: 398
- Joined: 10 Dec 2005, 21:39
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
pixie dustSpikedHelmet wrote:They could also react by emitting a powerful surge of electromagnetic energy (or something equally futuristic) in the direction of incoming guided munitions to fry their circruitry and render their warheads and guidance systens inert. Or something.
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Bahahahah, we actually do have reactive armor that does something similar to this.SpikedHelmet wrote:They could also react by emitting a powerful surge of electromagnetic energy (or something equally futuristic) in the direction of incoming guided munitions to fry their circruitry and render their warheads and guidance systens inert. Or something.
Wiki quote.
A new technology called electric reactive armour (also known as electromagnetic reactive armour, or colloquially as electric armour) is in development. This armour is made up of two or more conductive plates separated by some space or by an insulating material, creating a high-power capacitor. In operation, a high-voltage power source charges the armour. When an incoming body penetrates the plates, it closes the circuit to discharge the capacitor, dumping a great deal of energy into the penetrator, which may vaporize it or even turn it into a plasma, significantly diffusing the attack. It is not public knowledge whether this is supposed to function against both KE-penetrators and shaped charge jets, or only the latter. This technology has not yet been introduced on any operational platform.
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Um, I thought I'd mention that I finally got a DoW squad control (i.e., select one guy, select 'em all) Gadget working. It's not perfect yet, there are some things that need to happen in terms of optimization and cleanup, but it works...
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Cooooooool. Is it only selection, or does it actually do anything with keeping them spread out and stuff?Argh wrote:Um, I thought I'd mention that I finally got a DoW squad control (i.e., select one guy, select 'em all) Gadget working. It's not perfect yet, there are some things that need to happen in terms of optimization and cleanup, but it works...
Re: P.U.R.E. 0.55
Just selection, for now. That was hard enough, lol! I had already created a squad system, where they were born as squads and used factory waypoints, but I was finding it irritating to have to select individuals in a squad of 15 (that's what it is right now, subject to change at any time, due to balance or whatever, of course) just to get them to do stuff. At typical game scales and zoom, they're not really big on the screen, so clicking on individuals is pretty much a waste of time. Now, you can just grab a few, and the whole squad responds to you.
Among other reasons why I decided to knock this out was that I've implemented a "true prone" state that actually changes the hit profile of the unit, among other things, to give infantry, the weakest unit in the game, some tactical situations where they'll genuinely excel, just like they do IRL. Well, now you just click on the squad, hit the On/Off button (yes, I should use a custom LUA button, but the Activate button's the only one that AIs will ever understand, so I'm very reluctant)... and voila, they all go prone. I'm usually not somebody who hates micromanagement, but meh, this was too much.
I do not plan on implementing a fancy UI or the DoW replacement system, much as I liked that, though. It'd be a ton of work, for very little payoff, in the current design, imo. For now, it's just a better way to control stuff. Formations are actually possible, using this method I've developed, but personally I think that the custom line-move Widget is what most people want to actually use anyhow, and it'd just make the code run more slowly. Just my $0.02 on this.
Among other reasons why I decided to knock this out was that I've implemented a "true prone" state that actually changes the hit profile of the unit, among other things, to give infantry, the weakest unit in the game, some tactical situations where they'll genuinely excel, just like they do IRL. Well, now you just click on the squad, hit the On/Off button (yes, I should use a custom LUA button, but the Activate button's the only one that AIs will ever understand, so I'm very reluctant)... and voila, they all go prone. I'm usually not somebody who hates micromanagement, but meh, this was too much.
I do not plan on implementing a fancy UI or the DoW replacement system, much as I liked that, though. It'd be a ton of work, for very little payoff, in the current design, imo. For now, it's just a better way to control stuff. Formations are actually possible, using this method I've developed, but personally I think that the custom line-move Widget is what most people want to actually use anyhow, and it'd just make the code run more slowly. Just my $0.02 on this.