Might be a bit late to this, but I wondered if anyone knows if there are any modifiers for vehicle-mass in the .blk files?
I went through some things out of pure boredom and noticed that in the PUMA (& VJTF)'s .blk, their mass is set to 54000 (54t), which seemed odd to me and sure enough, it should be 43000 (43t)…
(according to statcard that is… 43t also is the maximum weight the Bundeswehr allows the PUMA to have, it’s more of a legal weight class, PSM used a 40.7t figure at some point but that’s a different topic ig)
Now, again, maybe I missed something (some sort of modifier ?) but when I checked the Begleitpanzer 57 mm’s .blk file, its mass (weight) was set to 28500 (28.5t), therefore 1:1 as its irl weight (according to the vehicles’ brochure) and 1:1 compared to the statcard.
The lines of code I'm refering to (mass)
Now, if there arent any modifiers I overlooked and the weight is infact incorrectly set to 54t, how would I go about bug-reporting that? Because I’ve heard people say they don’t accept reports on vehicle’s .blk files(?)
Same question kinda goes for a different issue; (once again, maybe I missed a modifier or something, feel free to lmk) the 30x173mm KETF Round (PMC 308/“AHEAD”) has a segment named "shatterDamage": { under which there is a line with "count": 32,. I assume that is what sets the amount of shrapnel coming from the shell once it fuses, but I’m not certain whether there is another multiplier that increases that amount, since the actual amount of fragments in the 30x173 KETF round would be 162 (according to Rheinmetalls own datasheet).
The lines of code I'm refering to (shatterDamage)
If anyone knows/has an idea whether there are some sort of multipliers I’m not aware of, or knows whether I’d be allowed to use the Puma’s (and for the second issue; the gun’s) .blk file in a bug-report, please let me know.
You’re looking at the wrong line, for empty mass you want "Empty", for full mass you want "TakeOff".
The weight is correctly 43 tons, there is nothing to bug report about it. The line you were looking at is a remnant from AI ground units and has no effect on “us” players.
Datamine is not allowed in bug reports in any way, shape, or form, exactly due to the easy misunderstandings like in this weight example. You’ll have to show the issue through reproducible in-game testing.
Not really that title goes to the IS-6, remember when it had 300mm on the turret due to a “bug” that gave it double it’s designed values. And it continued for like 6 months iirc, before it was DATAMINED and finally changed.
Don’t get me wrong the PUMA was introduced to low, this due to the awkward test servers.
I tried it and faced contant 10.7 T-80B & Leopards, which have little problem when facing/dealing with the PUMA.
For the rest i fully agree with your points about the glaring defects that were and still do plague the PUMA.
which is strange since iirc it was designed to take 30mm from the front and 14.5 from the side in the lightest config and the C-armour variant (which we have in game ) should also be able to take 30 from the side. Not certain about the range.
from wiki:
Spoiler
The basic armor can resist direct hits from 14.5 mm Russian rounds, the most powerful HMG cartridge[28] in common use today (and up to twice as powerful as the western de facto standard 12.7 mm .50 BMG cartridge).[29] The frontal armor offers protection against medium caliber projectiles and shaped charge projectiles.[30] In protection class C, the flanks of the Puma are up-armored to about the same level of protection as is the front, while the roof armor is able to withstand artillery or mortar bomblets.
The whole vehicle is protected against heavy blast mines (up to 10 kg) and projectile charges from below, while still retaining 450 mm ground clearance. Almost all equipment within the cabin, including the seats, has no direct contact to the floor, which adds to crew and technical safety. All cabin roof hatches are of the side-slide type, which make them easier to open manually, even when they are obstructed by debris. The exhaust is mixed with fresh air and vented at the rear left side. Together with a special IR-suppressing paint, this aims at reducing the thermal signature of the IFV.
according to the AMAP wiki, the PUMA uses both AMAP-B & AMAP SC.
AMAP-B (ballistic) provides protection against kinetic energy penetrators such as bullets, autocannon calibers such as 20 mm to 30 mm, and against APFSDS of tank guns like modern 120 mm or 125 mm rounds. Like MEXAS AMAP-B exists in three versions. Light offers protection against small arms for light armoured or soft-skinned vehicles, helicopters, aircraft and boats.[6] The medium version of AMAP-B is normally used on medium armoured vehicles such as the IFVs and APCs. These vehicles normally need protection against autocannons up to 30 mm caliber. The heavy AMAP-B version is for use on tanks.[6]
AMAP-SC (shaped charge) has a very high mass-efficiency, the EM is between 8 and 10.[12] AMAP-SC has multi-hit capability and protects also against other threats including mines.[12] Since AMAP-SC is passive armour, in contrast to ERA, no explosives are used, so collateral damage is reduced to a minimum.
chat gpt tends to take any article or anything as true since it cant define between propaganda or lies, so yeha dont take chatgpt or any AI as a source if you want source look at procurements, EDR magazine its also good but only as a secondary source, and even some pdf’s
there is bug reports with more than enough proof that show how Clara ERA works against kinetic and that it can stop 30 mm apfsds, i have document regarding that if needed, Clara its basically an insensitive ERA wich only reacts to heat charges but also acts as a cushion for kinetic
Still would’t be useful as an aps, but if Gaijin adds the ability to slave smoke launchers to the LWS it would be a bit useful since it can also detect beam riding missiles unlike a generic LWS
