Reduce the default thermal intensity for vehicles without a heatmap

[Defunkt 431]

Just wanted to pimp a feature request I've just now added to CIT for your voting pleasure:

One of the things that really exacerbates the difference between models with a detailed OA heatmap and those older items which don't (at least don't yet) is that the fallback texture is so bright white all over when 'on'. I feel if this was toned down to half its current intensity the older units wouldn't stick out nearly so badly when viewed through TI. Units with a proper heatmap warm up in patches yielding an overall mid-tone intensity where the all-white all-over fallback is just way too visible.

Please avoid using this as an opportunity to demand a proper detailed heatmap for everything, it's not helpful. Whether we eventually enjoy such an upgrade or not it's clearly a matter of resource where this is something that could significantly help in the meantime and should be quite quick to achieve.

Current:

Proposed:

[Beagle 684]

This would be the best solution so far to a full upgrade of the ArmA II units to have IR heatmaps.

[Daniel 0]

Excellent idea, voted.

[icebreakr 3132]

Voted.

[wolfbite 8]

Ingenious! Voted.

[avengerzx 10]

+1 (and 10 characters more)

[jagheterjan 10]

Voted as well.

[Pyronick 21]

Voted.

[kotov12345 10]

why wheels more contrast - how gum can be hotter than steel ?

Heat map should included engine area and gun when firing and hot air from engine rest details should be more visible than area around vehicle + when engine of should not be visible at all unless firing.

[max power 21]

how gum can be hotter than steel ?

From friction with the ground, like so:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XdDBtPHSy3M/0.jpg

[kotov12345 10]

From friction with the ground, like so:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XdDBtPHSy3M/0.jpg

lol - it is nightview - not thermal

[soul_assassin 1723]

lol - it is nightview - not thermal

that picture is clearly FLIR

[max power 21]

lol - it is nightview - not thermal

Yeah, because the car engines are glowing visible light, right kotov? With your recent assessments of flir and how it looks, I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what flir is.

[kotov12345 10]

ok sorry I just read about flir - but it is really new technology.

Google told me that m1a1 starting equipping with flir just in 2005.

but now I didn't see season to change anything :)

[max power 21]

ok sorry I just read about flir - but it is really new technology.

Google told me that m1a1 starting equipping with flir just in 2005.

but now I didn't see season to change anything :)

I think you might be thinking of the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV), which was an additional FLIR camera for the commander on the M1A2. I think the M1 tank family has always had a thermal gun sight.

[Beagle 684]

I think you might be thinking of the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV), which was an additional FLIR camera for the commander on the M1A2. I think the M1 tank family has always had a thermal gun sight.

Not until M1A1 upgrade. the original M1 had no such device, it came with the Leopard II Weapons system that was the main part of the A1 upgrade.

[kotov12345 10]

why we still use night view in game ? :)

[Bazul14 10]

Are you serious, or just trolling?!?! The Abrams and lots of Western armor in game has thermal sights AND night vision, at least for the gunner.

[johncage 30]

neither. he's just somewhat slow.

[ArmAriffic 10]

+1 (insert other characters here)

[max power 21]

Not until M1A1 upgrade. the original M1 had no such device, it came with the Leopard II Weapons system that was the main part of the A1 upgrade.

tencharsof

Fielded in February 1980, the M1 General Abrams main battle tank revolutionized armored warfare. Incorporating an advanced shoot-on-the-move fire control system, a thermal imaging sight, a 1500 horsepower gas turbine engine and an advanced armor design similar to the Chobham armor developed in England, the M1 was the most lethal armored vehicle in the world. Conceived in 1971 as a replacement for the aging M60 tank, which was itself an extension of the 1050s era M 47/48 program, the M1 was going to be of a completely new design, establishing a new family of American main battle tanks.

[Beagle 684]

You better dont believe all of what this FAS site says, they are often incorrect. The first batch of M1 had the old 105mm Cannon and FCS from the old Challenger 1...the M256 is a license build Rheinmetall L44 based system originally build for the Leo II.

There had been a MBT 80 programm as a joint venture beetween USA and Germany back in the 70's that was splitted in the late 70's but is the origin of the similarities the Leo II and M1 shared.

And believe me, I have insider infos from my time in german army MBT platoon...we had quite often the chance to visit the US forces here in Germany thereoff I know that back in the early 90's the US Force were not that all high tech as today...hell they even had M-60's in service here.

The US tanker really admired our Leopard II A4 and it took them another five years to catch up with the M1A1 when they received the M1A1 with the License build Rheinmetall maingun and FCS...with integrated...not retrofitted TI.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Beagle

[max power 21]

You better dont believe all of what this FAS site says, they are often incorrect. The first batch of M1 had the old 105mm Cannon and FCS from the old Challenger 1...the M256 is a license build Rheinmetall L44 based system originally build for the Leo II.

There had been a MBT 80 programm as a joint venture beetween USA and Germany back in the 70's that was splitted in the late 70's but is the origin of the similarities the Leo II and M1 shared.

And believe me, I have insider infos from my time in german army MBT platoon...we had quite often the chance to visit the US forces here in Germany thereoff I know that back in the early 90's the US Force were not that all high tech as today...hell they even had M-60's in service here.

The US tanker really admired our Leopard II A4 and it took them another five years to catch up with the M1A1 when they received the M1A1 with the License build Rheinmetall maingun and FCS...with integrated...not retrofitted TI.

In the beginning, the m60a3 'starship' had better systems and thermal imaging than the M1.

I'm not sure what you're saying there. The point wasn't the rhetoric, but what the site said about the initial qualifications of the M1. Are you saying that the M1 did not have TI?

Here's a pic of a 'low initial rate production' M1. You can see the Thermal Weapon Sight in the square housing on the left side of the turret.

The M1 design benefited, since the start, from special armor, thermal imaging sights, advanced gun fire controls, and turbine engines.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Max Power

[Beagle 684]

I'm out of arguments, but the crew stated they had the TI retrofitted so it was not the original system. Since the M1 and the M-60A3 shared the same gun and FCS that might be was is meant here. The TI in this case was not up to date compared to the one integrated by beginnign in the Rheinmetall L44 EWNA that was labeled M256 FCS in the A1 update to the M1. But note this...the M1A1 FCS was stripped of some features the Leo II had to keep costs lower due to higher number of unit procurement.

What were we talking about? Lower TI textures for ArmA OA...

How did we came to this topic here? It doenst matter anyway since ArmA does not simulate any early production M1.

[max power 21]

I'm out of arguments, but the crew stated they had the TI retrofitted so it was not the original system. Since the M1 and the M-60A3 shared the same gun and FCS that might be was is meant here. The TI in this case was not up to date compared to the one integrated by beginnign in the Rheinmetall L44 EWNA that was labeled M256 FCS in the A1 update to the M1. But note this...the M1A1 FCS was stripped of some features the Leo II had to keep costs lower due to higher number of unit procurement.

What were we talking about? Lower TI textures for ArmA OA...

How did we came to this topic here? It doenst matter anyway since ArmA does not simulate any early production M1.

The reason we're talking about this is Kotov12345 stated that FLIR was a really new technology and the M1 tank series didn't get it until 2005. At any rate, it seems like at least some M1s had FLIR, but maybe some of them didn't, I don' t know. I was just unable to find any information on M1s without flir, and evidently you have never seen them. You've just heard that they had retrofitted sets. The point is that FLIR is not new. I was just finding information for Kotov12345.