Infrared searchlights

[galbaldy 0]

Because it would be unfortunate to be doing night ops and realize that you have no choice but to give away your position using visible light, even though IR lights are bolted right next to them.

[Bouben 3]

this are IR lights? thats smart

[Commando84 0]

can IR lights be used to target heat signatures from aircrafts?

[galbaldy 0]

can IR lights be used to target heat signatures from aircrafts?

It's not a targeting system, it's just a flashlight greatly shifted towards the red part of the spectrum so that shines in the infrared.

And since people can't see IR light it makes it useful for night time illumination.

Here's a photo of an IR light taken through an IR sensitive camera; it's just like a flashlight except you can't see it through the naked eye.

So it's basically like an invisible flashlight; animals aren't disturbed either, so it could be a good feature for Arma.

[Donnervogel 0]

well IR lights glow like the sun when you watch them trough other thermal/IR sights

[frederf 0]

Well that's the point.

Delving into all the IR spectrum military stuff would be quite an accomplishment for BIS. There's IR beacons for soldiers' backs and searchlights and special vision gear, IR stuff for tanks and planes and whew... wouldn't it be nice!

[Donnervogel 0]

Well that's the point.

Well what I was on about is that all this IR beacons and lights only give you an advantage when the other side doesn't have IR sights. But seing there are IR lights on rather old russian equipment it would actually have the opposite effect and give your position away very easily. Because when you're into realism you'd have to give the US side more modern thermal sights that don't use IR lights to illuminate but rather capture natural heat signatures. That way the US side can use thermal sights to find those glowing IR searchlights without giving their own position away. While the IR for the northern forces would be a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

EDIT:

Although I agree it would be great to have the feature in the game

[max power 21]

A running vehicle can be seen easily using FLIR regardless of whether it has a weak source like an ir light pointed out ahead of it.

[galbaldy 0]

Well that's the point.

Well what I was on about is that all this IR beacons and lights only give you an advantage when the other side doesn't have IR sights. But seing there are IR lights on rather old russian equipment it would actually have the opposite effect and give your position away very easily. Because when you're into realism you'd have to give the US side more modern thermal sights that don't use IR lights to illuminate but rather capture natural heat signatures. That way the US side can use thermal sights to find those glowing IR searchlights without giving their own position away. While the IR for the northern forces would be a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

EDIT:

Although I agree it would be great to have the feature in the game

Well see the alternative is that the Northern forces wont have any night time ability at all. With IR they can least "do" night ops.

[Donnervogel 0]

Well I'm not saying they shouldn't have it. I wasn't meaning to make this a game balance issue. I was commenting this:

Quote[/b] ]And since people can't see IR light it makes it useful for night time illumination.

and

Quote[/b] ]So it's basically like an invisible flashlight

hence, in modern warfare it's far from invisible. It can actually give your position away much better

If the feature is implemented they should of course have the useable IR lights.

[Callsign 128]

IR lights are aggresive means of Night vision, whereas image intensification is a passive means

analogy - IR lights are like sonar ie. bing bing bing

- image intensification is like a hydrophone

It would be pretty impressive if Arma had this though.

bootneckofficer

[dreday 1]

I guess I have to set a few things clear here. While soviet vehicles like BRDM-2, BMP-2, and T-72 have active IR lights, these devices are used sparingly in combat because of the reasons that have been mentioned above. Instead, these vehicles use the passive IR systems that are not easily detectible (although they are quite easy to blind). Passive IR is what OFP night goggles are supposed to represent.

Peace,

DreDay

[24Gamer 0]

i thought passive IR was like those cameras you see on

"World scariest police chases" hehe

(where cars and people appear white (IR Heat) etc)

i thought OFP had just plain old Night Vision (i.e. light displayed as green which is a better visible spectrum)

btw i think it would be sweet to have IR heatlights and as someguy said it doesnt make it a disadvantage cuz passive IR would pick up the heat off the BMP ANYWAY!

[dreday 1]

i thought passive IR was like those cameras you see on

"World scariest police chases" hehe

(where cars and people appear white (IR Heat) etc)

i thought OFP had just plain old Night Vision (i.e. light displayed as green which is a better visible spectrum)

btw i think it would be sweet to have IR heatlights and as someguy said it doesnt make it a disadvantage cuz passive IR would pick up the heat off the BMP ANYWAY!

I am not an expert on night vision devices. But from what I understand, passive IR amplifies the moon light in order to illuminate up the night. The color spectrum may vary from one device to another, but green is the most common. It is used in more expensive cameras, while active IR is used in consumer cameras.

The devices that pick-up heat (like those that you see on Police helicopters) are thermal imagers (aka FLIR). Older Soviet vehicles were not equipped with them.

Peace,

DreDay

[simulacra 0]

No, IR picks up LIGHT, heat imagers is something different...

[.pablo. 0]

answer to topic: almost certainly eyecandy.

IR technology is one of the things that i have long dreamt about being added to OFP, beginning way back when i played steel beasts and discovered just how much deadlier it makes vehicles that are equipped with such technology (especially when it is combined with image magnification and weapons that are accurate at incredible ranges).  i think to properly simulate the advantage that modern armies have over rag-tag forces you _need_ to have a comprehensive implementation of IR tech.  also, to nitpick at DreDeck, the NV goggles in OFP aren't IR as far as i know because if they were any source of heat would show up as brighter than the cooler surroundings; they simply simulate the magnification of light.

HOWEVER (and this is a big however), BIS can only put so much work into Arma and Game2 before release (unless they were to hire more people), and with those limited resources they have MUCH more important issues that need to be tackled; notably, the AI.  we still play against AI that cannot and do not take cover when fired upon.  the only thing the AI do to avoid getting shot is to lie down.  that's it.  this has to change, and when BIS puts in the necessary work to have enemies of basic intelligence OFP will become more fun than any of us can possibly imagine.

sorry to change the subject but i just need to raise awareness.

[dreday 1]

.

.

.

 also, to nitpick at DreDeck, the NV goggles in OFP aren't IR as far as i know because if they were any source of heat would show up as brighter than the cooler surroundings; they simply simulate the magnification of light.

I don't mind being nitpicked (unless it's physical), but I am DreDay not Deck, although in this thread I might change my name to DreNight...

Also, the kind of light amplification that you are talking about is precisely what's known as passive IR. And yes, that is clearly what OFP night goggles represent.

I agree with your other points.

Peace,

DreDay

[DaveG 0]

Night vision amplifies visible light.

Passive IR (thermal imaging) detects radiated heat (infrared light) normally invisible to the naked eye.

Active IR illuminates the surroundings with an infrared torch and uses a camera sensitive to IR. The same as the “night vision†modes on modern mobile phones.

[dreday 1]

Night vision amplifies visible light.

Passive IR (thermal imaging) detects radiated heat (infrared light) normally invisible to the naked eye.

Active IR illuminates the surroundings with an infrared torch and uses a camera sensitive to IR.  The same as the “night vision†modes on modern mobile phones.

I hate to argue about semantics, but here is how I see it:

Night Vision is just a general term used to describe a wide spectrum of devices that can enhance visibility at night

Active IR - you got it right

Passive IR (aka image intensifiers) amplify both visible and IR light

Thermal Imaging (FLIR) picks up the heat. However some do refer to thermal imaging as passive IR. I'll give you that.

Peace,

DreDay

[max power 21]

omg omg omg.

Someone might want to research the topic a little before answering , this whirlpool of misinformation is driving me insane.

Active IR, as with any active sensor, emits a source of radiation and waits to listen for the reflection of that radiation. Radar is a good example of an active sensor.

Passive IR, as with any passive sensor, is tuned to some wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum and simply listens. Your eyes are a good example of a passive sensor. Passive IR sensors include thermographs, FLIR, and anything that detects heat without producing a beam of heat to reflect.

Night Vision goggles (which may be passive or active systems) work by amplifying ambient light through an electronic system. Some (very new) night vision goggles can see a significant amount into the IR spectrum, giving those who use them a little IR spotting capacity- but most seen into the near IR spectrum which is somewhat visible with the naked eye. The way NVG's work depends on their generation. Generation 3+ is able to see into IR, and I know precious little about generation 4 (which is the bleeding edge right now if I'm not mistaken). The systems you're likely to encounter in the american military are generation 3. Most systems you are likely to buy for 'midnight bird watching' or whatever are generation 2 or 1. Generation 1 requires near IR frequency illumintion. I've seen a guy walking around with a set and the IR illuminators are visible by the naked eye. The 'eyes' of the system appear to glow a dull red.

edit: Let's also distinguish IR radiation from heat, shall we? IR radiation is a biproduct of heat and is not actual heat (heat can also be considered a biproduct of IR radiation). Heat is a measure of energy of matter. Matter that has a lot of heat energy dissipates that energy in a number of ways, one of which is emitting IR wavelength photons. Thermographs can measure heat if the emissivity of the material for any given temperature is known, and must be calibrated to what you're looking at if you wish to use the tool as a remote heat measurement device (like it was intended).

[frederf 0]

Well that's quaint, but it's largely wrong, DreDay.

Just noticed someone has slipped a post in under me that says basically what I wanted to, so I'll make it brief.

NVGs, Flashlights (like the kind you buy at Walmart) and your Eyes work primarily in the visible spectrum.

IR, FLIR, IR Searchlights work in the IR spectrum. FLIR is just "forward look" IR. And IR and heat sensors are the exact same. You are not "detecting heat" you are detecting the light that a hot object gives off. Something that is hot gives off light, it's how lightbulbs work and when something glows hot and even how the sun shines. The reason that IR stuff allows you to detect heat is that it detects light of low energy (IR) that is given off by stuff that's much cooler than stuff that glows hot in the visible.

Anytime you start emitting electro-magnetic radiation (read: light and everything we're talking about here is light) you increase your chances of being detected if they have that kind of detector.

Fighting a sophisticated force using active IR (shin' out light) would be dumb yeah because it would be the same as turning on your HMMWV's headlights. So you'd obviously go passive only at that point.

Now my friend above is right about there being overlaps in the equipment. After all, light is light, we're just playing with the color.

[dreday 1]

Plantiff1 and Frederf,

Thanks for the detailed explanations.  Obviously my knowledge of physics is quite lacking in this area.

What I can tell you for a fact though, is that there are certain classifications of night vision devices that are used in the military literature.  Within those classifications there is a distinction between passive IR/passive night vision systems (which are used for vehicles, not just NVGs) and thermal imaging.

I guess those classifications are scientifically inaccurate.  I gladly accept your corrections on that.  

BTW, here is a good discussion on the differences between scientific and military calssifications of passive IR:

Tanknet

Now in terms of ArmA, ideally there would 3 different modes of night vision: active IR, passive image intensification(can we agree on that term?) , and thermal.  In reality, we would probably have the same night vision as in OFP.

Peace,

DreDay

[max power 21]

I see no such discussion in that thread.

[dreday 1]

I see no such discussion in that thread, and I don't see where those guys disagree with me and agree with you.

You might want to reread the part that explains that  thermal imaging should not be confused with the passive IR image intensifiers even though it is passive and is using IR.  Alothough to be fair, I have seen other sources refer to thermal as passive IR. Like I've said before, it is just a matter semantics...  

Peace,

DreDay

[24Gamer 0]

just checked on Wiki, aparently there are two types of IR, Near and Far, Far being Thermal Imaging, Near being an extension of visible light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision

GBee:yeah, sry, hehe