Infrared (thermal) vision

[fasad 1]

I think a great addition to the engine would be the addition of infrared (thermal) vision.

Active(?) IR (using a IR floodlight as seen on many old tanks) could be easily simulated by creating an alternate light "world" for IR lights. Switching to IR vision would result in the game world illuminated by IR lightsources. In rendering the normal visual spectrum these light sources would do nothing.

Modern passive IR might be accomplished using a new "heatmap" texture that is only visible when in IR mode. Tanks and aircraft have had this technology for decades.

[CyDoN 0]

that would be very cool especialy in moderna armys!

[OKO 0]

I second this proposition

Thermal sight is something could give a really huge progress in the realism, without killing the gameplay.

Actual "radar" could be left only to real radar systems, and thermal sights only to tanks and combat helos.

One good example of thermal sight is T72 balkan in fire.

Weather dependent, but not too sophisticated, nevertheless close to the real thing, very usefull tool, and very realistic.

I don't think there is any real technical problems to implement thermal sight to arma2, if I refer to what I saw on T72 and Steel beasts pro, but this could be done only by BIS, not an addon.

I'm sure, if BIS do that, it will be a fantastic feature, very appreciated by all, and veterans or rookies will love to use it.

This thermal sight is one of the last cruel miss of arma (and even before with OFP) at this time.

With it, arma2 will be not only an infantery simulation but a real modern combat theatre simulation, one step beyond.

[Novicaine 0]

i agree and think this would be very cool, but most definatley for certain vehicles and aircraft only

[My Fing ID 0]

i agree and think this would be very cool, but most definatley  for certain vehicles and aircraft only

Infantry has thermals on the ground. The sites are bulky but they are there, and quiet fun to play with. I agree though, thermals should be added. It'd be nice if we'd see Bradleys again (those things are fun), but I don't think the Marines use them.

The OP also mentioned an IR spotlight. I think we should have that as well as PAQ2/4s (IR Lasers that work with NVGs). You could rig it so that pushing the hold breath button activated the laser so that you didn't have it on all the time. It's not like we don't use those things daily (well, nightly)

[ricnunes 0]

I completly agree with all that was said before. Termal sights are really a must and that sort of "radar" that we currently have in ArmA should be replaced (in aircraft and ground vehicles) by a termal imaging targeting (FLIR) system.

[jackass888 0]

has the bis team access to the stuff bia is developing? cuz thermal imaging is being implemented into vbs2. "soon to include thermal signatures also." or do they mean something else under it?

[max power 21]

i agree and think this would be very cool, but most definatley for certain vehicles and aircraft only

I think it would be very cool for any unit that has thermal imaging IRL. Most night vision can see into the thermal band a certain degree- paving the way for the use of things like spectre lasers and thermal flashlights.

[OKO 0]

thermal sight is designed for night and day target tracking, no to see when its dark, but to pop up target with different temperature than environment, in any situation

nothing to do with light amplification or night vision.

The most problematic situation to use it is when it rains.

We don't need a very sophisticated modelisation (no need for a specific radiation for each unit), but, at least, a clair contrast for target finding, and, if possible, a quite large difference of performance, depending on weather.

This is the main tool of so many land warfare, a real simulation can't avoid to modelise it.

And this shouldn't be too complicated to do if I believe what I saw on different simulations like T-72 balkans or Steel beast pro, nice simulation but far from the graphical sophistication of Arma.

Arma just couldn't be a real simulation without this feature.

Arma really deserve a thermal sight system.

[ricnunes 0]

thermal sight is designed for night and day target tracking, no to see when its dark, but to pop up target with different temperature than environment, in any situation

nothing to do with light amplification or night vision.

The most problematic situation to use it is when it rains.

I agree with everything you say OKO.

But I think that Termal vision is more effective during night than during day (I'm not saying that Termal vision isn't effective during day, only less effective than during night) afterall the contrast of temperature between the target and enviornment is smaller during day than during night, therefore why many believe (wrongly) that Termal vision is only used at night.

[jezpops 0]

This is a possibility,

Although.

The M1A1 tank has one of the biggest thermal images, and any force with heat seeking missiles would disentragrate a platoon of these tanks within minutes - one shot, one kill rate.

Other vehicles have a smaller heatstamp.

Defining the differences in large environments, between all of the possibilites on the map would need a complete revamp of all air weapons and shouldered anti tank weapons, and the end result would cause incompatibility with all of the current released mods - something that would alienate alot of the community on its release.

Perhaps it could be worked on as a seperate mod to the final release?

[ricnunes 0]

jezpops,

Honestly I don't get your post. There aren't that many ground platforms out there that uses Termal vision or lock a target using the target's heat signature to start with.

If you're talking about enemy aircraft or helicopters decimating a platton of M-1 Abrams, well that's why there is something called Friendly air suport. No US commander in his perfect mind would send a strike of M-1 Tanks if the skies aren't at least particially clear. Anyway, I believe that in ArmA2 like in real life to avoid a decimation of M-1 tanks platoons (or any other kind of plattons), I'm sure that the devs will model:

1- Friendly air support (friendly aircraft)

2- Mobile Ground Air Defence units (Avengers, ADATS, etc..)

From this post of yours and from the one that you posted in an other thread (Helicopter&aircraft targeting system) I get the impression that you really don't know what is a Termal targeting system or more commonly known as FLIR. Look an image from a FLIR (specially the more modern ones) isn't composed of heat blurbs like the ones seen in the 1st, 2nd and 3th generation Air-to-Air Heat seeking missiles (like for example the AIM-9B to AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles), but instead an image from a FLIR image isn't much diferent from a "normal" black and white TV image, so the dificulty of detecting an M-1 Abrams using FLIR isn't much that diferent from detecting for example a BRDM, even with the M-1 Abrams having a bigger heat signature.

Oh, and you're forgeting the obvious, a M-1 Abrams (or other modern MBT such as the Leopard 2) is a very resistant vehicle to enemy fire and there are in fact very few ground launched weapons that can kill an M-1 Abrams with one shot one kill, specially in it's frontal arc.

[hoot 0]

[...]

But I think that Termal vision is more effective during night than during day (I'm not saying that Termal vision isn't effective during day, only less effective than during night) afterall the contrast of temperature between the target and enviornment is smaller during day than during night, therefore why many believe (wrongly) that Termal vision is only used at night.

In 1999 we were guarding NATO bases with Leopards and we were always using thermal sights even at daylight time and temperatures up to 35°C. Of course it is true that thermal imaging is more effective in night than in daylight due to the difference of body temperatures and environment temperature. However, you can see quite well a difference between a stone heated by the sun and a human being, slightly moving in the fooliage. And that's the point, stones don't move like a human does. Also, imagine you are currently in a firefight with a hostile armored vehicle that is blocking your sights with smoke - what to do? Your are using your thermal sights to scan for the enemy inside that smoke.

I remember that at daylight we were scanning with thermal sights and smallest magnification first. Then, if any interesting object appeared, we were switching to full magnification and were constantly switching through the views - thermal and normal - to id the object.

I would really appreciate if thermal sight would find its way into ArmA2, with all its advantages and disadvantages .

[max power 21]

thermal sight is designed for night and day target tracking, no to see when its dark, but to pop up target with different temperature than environment, in any situation

nothing to do with light amplification or night vision.

That does not change the FACT that most night vision sees into the IR band. With the newer night vision systems, things like aluminum and other materials are semi transparent. I didn't make any statement as to what IR was designed for. I was saying that some kind of more complicated IR handling system would be useful for more than just FLIR.

[jezpops 0]

I was directing my post more at the conseqeunces that such a system would have in game, and not at real life, however i do know what thermal imaging is, having spent 12 years of my life in the armed forces.....

Since infrared radiation is emitted by all objects based on their temperatures, according to the black body radiation law, thermography makes it possible to "see" one's environment with or without visible illumination. The amount of radiation emitted by an object increases with temperature, therefore thermography allows one to see variations in temperature (hence the name).

So what i was implying was that such a system would have categorize each vehicle/person dependent on their state. A parked BRDM would have less of signature than a moving one - or should this system ignore that and just have a base image for all things in the thermal imaging device, just to show them up???

There are plenty of ground weapons that can take out tanks btw...

[ricnunes 0]

In 1999 we were guarding NATO bases with Leopards and we were always using thermal sights even at daylight time and temperatures up to 35°C. Of course it is true that thermal imaging is more effective in night than in daylight due to the difference of body temperatures and environment temperature. However, you can see quite well a difference between a stone heated by the sun and a human being, slightly moving in the fooliage. And that's the point, stones don't move like a human does. Also, imagine you are currently in a firefight with a hostile armored vehicle that is blocking your sights with smoke - what to do? Your are using your thermal sights to scan for the enemy inside that smoke.

I remember that at daylight we were scanning with thermal sights and smallest magnification first. Then, if any interesting object appeared, we were switching to full magnification and were constantly switching through the views - thermal and normal - to id the object.

Yes, that's exactly what my point was all about!

[ricnunes 0]

So what i was implying was that such a system would have categorize each vehicle/person dependent on their state. A parked BRDM would have less of signature than a moving one - or should this system ignore that and just have a base image for all things in the thermal imaging device, just to show them up???

There are plenty of ground weapons that can take out tanks btw...

I see you're point regarding the BRDM and while there is a point that a parked BRDM has less heat signature than a moving one and a thing which I suspect that ArmA can model at some extend, since for example in ArmA it's already much harder to lock a parked UAZ than a moving one while flying a AH-1Z. So modeling your first solution would at first be the most logical way, the thruth is that it's not much harder to find and lock a parked BRDM than a moving one using modern FLIRs like the ones that equip the AH-1Z so we must be very carefull when modeling the diferent heat signature for the same vehicle, so that the diferences don't become unrealitically huge. The second solution that you mentioned would make sure that the problem that I mentioned before wouldn't happen and at the same time making things "easier" to model for the game devs. Of course I'm not saying that the devs should go for the second solution.

Regading the ground weapons that can take out tanks, sure they are plenty of them (specially if we consider mobility kills), but like I previously said there are only very few that can kill a modern MBT with a 1 shot 1 kill ratio specially when hitting the frontal arc of the tank.

[jezpops 0]

One problem i can foresee with this is the use of dynamic group creations and unit cacheing. Whereas now in MP it is not possible (well its always a possibility dependent on the range that the mission designer makes them spawn at) to see a group magically appear out of nowhere this is something that may be apparent when employing thermal/IR devices unless somehow the range of the device is limited.

I agree a system should exist, though i think it should be limited to certain vehicles.

Most tankbusting rigs fire the projectile upwards to come top down on the tank, usually the place that has no reactive or chobham armour. They're very expensive though

[ricnunes 0]

Well, in reality Termal sights are limited to certain vehicles therefore they should have be limited in ArmA2 as well, not for gameplay balance but for better realism.

But you already have this limitation in ArmA in which certain vehicles (such a MBTs) have that weird arcadish radar (which seems to somehow model Termal or Radar sensors) while most of the others (such as Humvees, UAZs and others) don't. So I strongly believe that if BIS model Termal sights, not all vehicles/units will have it, only the ones that are supposed to have.

So what is asked here in this thread is that BIS replaces in ArmA2 that "arcadish radar" that we currently have in ArmA and OFP with a more realistic looking termal sights (and if possible a more realistic radar, for the units that carry one).

Regarding that "Most tankbusting rigs fire the projectile upwards to come top down on the tank", well I disagree because in fact most of the AT ground weapons that I know of travel in a straight line from the firing position to the target instead going upwards and coming down. Examples of this are:

TOW, Eryx, Kornet, Milan, all kinds of LAWs/RPGs, etc...

The only ground lauched that is fired in a "upwards to come top down on the tank" profile that I can remember right now is the Javelin. Of course that there are probably more systems that are fired in such profile but the truth is that most of the AT weapons are fired in a straight line profile. A similar things happens with helicopter lauched weapons where the Hellfire is the only one that I remember that can be fired in such profile (again of course there could be more similar systems).

And of course you're right, when saying that such systems are in fact very expensive, therefore their numbers are somehow reduced when compared with other similar weapons.

[max power 21]

Bill2, TOW2B, MBTLAW, and a few others are top attack weapons. They don't fly up and then come down on the tank, but rather overfly it and blast their explosive formed penetrators downwards. It's the new vogue in ground launched atgms. Hellfire did it before it was cool, though.

[P226 0]

Doesn't XAM 1.4 mod (and others) already have FLIR? So it should be very easy for BI to have it ready by then!

Also depending on "what will be available" in ArmA 2 it might be great to have thermal weapon sights on sniper rifles (of course I am aware the "range" of these aren't the same of a chopper or plane).

In urban combats for example imagine: a sniper covering a squad moving into the streets by night, snipers inside dark rooms waiting for the squad to ambush them. He sees the guy behind the window, can alert the team, shoot the guy (or let the team nearby deal will him without much noise). That could be a scenario where this could be useful.

Of course someone might want to say: we can have a chopper around the town and do the same job. But what if the mission editor doesn't want any chopper in the area like "far behind enemy lines" scenario etc...

[Novicaine 0]

Bradleys? no way man. AMTRACS, and LAV FTW! its a marine based game... OOO RAH!

[HogRoot 0]

Here is a vid I made using the upcoming ACE mod. Halfway through it switches to thermals. If you look close as the infantry fire you can see the HE rounds exploding.

[dslyecxi 23]

Here is a vid I made using the upcoming ACE mod. Halfway through it switches to thermals. If you look close as the infantry fire you can see the HE rounds exploding.

The video depicts multiple WIP systems that are not meant to be shown off at the present time. You, as a tester, should not be making such videos - that's the job of the ACE team. Please remove that video immediately and contact me or Q next time you'd like to contribute towards an ACE media release.

[.kju 3240]

Thanks Placebo editing out the link.

HogRoot we will talk via pm.