UH-1Y reflector sight - Probably not accurate!

[ricnunes 0]

According to the video shown in this site:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=3712

We can see that the UH-1Y in ArmA2 will have a retractable reflector sight similar to what the Vietnam-era Hueys had (and perhaps up to UH-1N) which at first seemed an interesting feature for ArmA2 but after researching a bit more about the UH-1Y I have some reservations about that same feature. The problem is that from what I researched it seems to me that the real UH-1Y doesn't seem to have a retractable reflector sight at all and the targetting/aiming in the UH-1Y is definitly done thru the pilots Helmet Mounted Sight.

Anyone that wants to model an UH-1Y should IMO read the following UH-1Y pocket guide from Bell Textron itself. Here's the link to the UH-1Y pocket guide:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en....web.pdf

Here you can see that aparently there isn't any retractable reflector sight and targetting/aiming is done thru the Helmet Mounted Sight. From the cockpit pictures and text data in that pocket guide, there is no mention to reflector sights, even as a "backup" system.

Please note that the UH-1Y besides being externally similar to previous Huey models is in fact a completly new and diferent helicopter with completly diferent avionics than the vietnam-era Huey and more recent versions like the UH-1N.

So I ask here that BIS take a look into this issue.

[layne_suhr 0]

I also had doubts about the reflector sight..although it did seem cool at the time, i hope this is another thing they change and add some pilot helmet targeting systems like in the AH-64D Longbow to this aircraft

[The_Captain 0]

From what I could tell briefly viewing the video earlier this week, it looked like the HUD/reticle was attached to the helmet and swung up and down, not the helicopter (as it was VERY close to the camera).

I could be wrong though.

[ricnunes 0]

The_Captain, after reading your post I take a "second look" into the video and I ready noticed (but you have to pay a very close atention) that the sight moved with the camera panning so this like you said could indicate that HUD/Sight is helmet mouted instead of being helicopter mounted, which of course is a very good thing.

Nevertheless the real helmet HUD/sight doesn't look anything like the one from the video. To see how the real helmet HUD/sight looks like, go to page 33 of the UH-1Y pocket guide:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en....web.pdf

NOTE: By the way the helmet (and it's integrated HUD/sight) in the UH-1Y is EXACTLY the same as in the AH-1Z!

[xnodunitx 0]

I also had doubts about the reflector sight..although it did seem cool at the time, i hope this is another thing they change and add some pilot helmet targeting systems like in the AH-64D Longbow to this aircraft

IHADSS http://tri.army.mil/LC/cs/csa/apihadss.htm and standard flight helmets http://www.rotorcraft-tech.com/usa_sph4b_u.html are two different things.  The current setup is basicly that you already have IHADSS on every character no matter what their class as the crosshair follows the mouse therefore you head.

Also its not just the AH-64D, AH-64A and Mangusta use this system.

And that is because they both use the same systems Ricune, TSS. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/TargetSightSystem/index.html aside from that I doubt the UH-1 and AH-1 have strayed too far apart in being brother and sister or brothers/sisters whichever floats your boat, since their likleynesses in vietnam.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/2079.mpeg TSS video.

[ricnunes 0]

xnodunitx,

Sorry but I didn't understand you post very well.

Neverthless my points here are:

- The UH-1Y and AH-1Z helmet system projects the flight, target data, aiming cues and IR night vision system in the Helmet's visor (which you can see in the pocket guide - page 33).

-I know there are diferences between the helmet in the AH-1Z/UH-1Y and the Apache's IHADSS but the truth is that from a pilot point of view and even more in a simulation both the AH-1Z/UH-1Y Pilot/Gunner Helmet and the Apache's Pilot/Gunner IHADSS will in the end do the same thing, which is to project the flight, target data, aiming cues and IR night vision directly into the eyes of the pilot/gunner instead towards a fixed visor or HUD.

The diference between both systems is that the Apache's IHADSS projects the image to only one eye of the pilot/gunner while the helmet in the AH-1Z/UH-1Y which is more advanced than the IHADSS projects the image to the helmet's visor and therefore to both eyes of the pilot/gunner.

So in a simulation the end result of both systems is EXACTLY the SAME, which is to have the pretended imaged projected directly into the eyes instead in a fixed position visor (HUD).

-As a side note, only the AH-1Z uses the TSS! The UH-1Y uses a system called NTIS (Navigation Termal Imaging System) which seems to be (but I could be wrong) a dumbed down version of the TSS. Note that the UH-1Y cannot for example aim and shoot Hellfire missiles which is an another proof that the UH-1Z doesn't use the AH-1Z TSS. Please read carefully the pocket guided, you probably won't find better info about the UH-1Y than that and it explains that the UH-1Y optical system is the NTIS!

- I also meant that in terms of avionics that the AH-1Z and the UH-1Y are very similar. If you (again) carefully read the UH-1Y pocket guide (in page 2) you see that 84% of the techonogies from both UH-1Y and AH-1Z are exactly the same. This can be seen by watching for example the MFD pages of both helos. They are basically the same. For a comparison you can watch the AH-1Z pocket guide al well, here:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en....web.pdf

- Finally I also meant that the modern AH-1Z and UH-1Y have absolutelly NOTHING to do with the Vietnam era UH-1 and AH-1. The newer models have completly diferent and new engines, transmissions and totally diferent avionics! Again, only the external airframe look similar, but again only similar - Newer version don't even look the quite same as older ones.

I hope I make myself clearer now...

[xnodunitx 0]

Nope, I understood your points though I didn't quite know that the UH-1Y used a dumbed down version of TSS.

As for the vietnam remark I was only adding that in that I doubt their flight systems have changed much (from eachother) since they shared alot from their first theatre, not since vietnam

[ricnunes 0]

Ah ok, you're taking about the diferences between the Vietnam era AH-1 and UH-1 and the diferences between AH-1Z and UH-1Y, right?

Sorry for not having understood you the first time  

Also note that I'm not 100% sure that the UH-1Y targetting system is a dumbed down version of TSS, but it sure look like that! But the targeting systems from AH-1Z and UH-1Y are diferent (even if "slightly").

[ricnunes 0]

Unfortunally by taking a close look at the lastest ArmA2 video (ArmA2 Impressions part IV) it definitly seems that the UH-1Y sight in ArmA2 is helicopter fixed (helicopter fixed reflector sight, like the vietnam-era Hueys) instead of being Helmet mounted like it should and it is in reality!

I get the ever incressing impression that BIS is simply not doing their homework, regarding the research about military hardware/equipment!

[lt.chris 0]

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunally by taking a close look at the lastest ArmA2 video (ArmA2 Impressions part IV) it definitly seems that the UH-1Y sight in ArmA2 is helicopter fixed (helicopter fixed reflector sight, like the vietnam-era Hueys) instead of being Helmet mounted like it should and it is in reality!

I get the ever incressing impression that BIS is simply not doing their homework, regarding the research about military hardware/equipment!

But however like BIS have said "dont complain now, complain after we realese the game"

[mattxr 9]

Unfortunally by taking a close look at the lastest ArmA2 video (ArmA2 Impressions part IV) it definitly seems that the UH-1Y sight in ArmA2 is helicopter fixed (helicopter fixed reflector sight, like the vietnam-era Hueys) instead of being Helmet mounted like it should and it is in reality!

I get the ever incressing impression that BIS is simply not doing their homework, regarding the research about military hardware/equipment!  

Yeah that's in reality.. this game is fiction...  

Anyways the sounds are bloody awesome...!

[ricnunes 0]

Yeah that's in reality.. this game is fiction...  

Well, ArmA is suposed to the ultimate realistic combat simulator.

To me this is more than enough to justify realism. For that matter instead of having realistic looking M-16, AKs, etc... with realistic sights, we could have Sci-Fi Laser guns and everything would be normal since the game is fiction!

[mattxr 9]

Yeah that's in reality.. this game is fiction...  

Well, ArmA is suposed to the ultimate realistic combat simulator.

To me this is more than enough to justify realism. For that matter instead of having realistic looking M-16, AKs, etc... with realistic sights, we could have Sci-Fi Laser guns and everything would be normal since the game is fiction!  

Exactly it would then be called "The ultimate realistic combat simulator of the future.

anyways lets not get offtopic now

[max power 21]

Yeah that's in reality.. this game is fiction...  

Well, ArmA is suposed to the ultimate realistic combat simulator.

To me this is more than enough to justify realism. For that matter instead of having realistic looking M-16, AKs, etc... with realistic sights, we could have Sci-Fi Laser guns and everything would be normal since the game is fiction!  

This ridiculous argument again.

Do you often take marketing slogans as scientific evidence or as face value truth? Taking that tact, I can't imagine the disappointment upon entering the fare at a chain restaurant after seeing a tv commercial about it.

If you were to take them to court, the definitions of the words 'simulation' and 'ultimate' are vague, and the aims of that sentence are unclear. When a marketer says that something is an 'ultimate' anything certainly will never mean that it is incapable of being surpassed, or even close to the limit.

[ricnunes 0]

plaintiff1,

Do you always read everything SO literally, or do you have problems in understanding other's posts or perhaps I exposed my point of view in a confusing way? (if it's the later case, than sorry)

Nevertheless what I meant with my previous post was the following:

- There's NO reason to have a realistic simulation, which realistically models the foot soldier part, with realistic balistics, damage, sights (optical, ironsights, etc...), with realistic wound system (if a arm is hit the precision will degrade, it a leg is hit movement will degrade, a well placed single shot from a rifle even if it hit's the torso will KILL, etc...), WHILE the other parts of this sim which includes aircraft and ground vehicles targetting system are simply ARCADE instead of realistically looking.

My anology in my previous post was (and this is what I meant) that the current targeting system we have in ArmA (and had in OFP) is just as REAL as having a laser gun (or other Sci-fi) stuff in the same game!

I hope that this helps you to understand what I meant with my previous post!

[max power 21]

The reason for what you described, ricunes, is that there are only so many hours in a day and dollars in the world.

[ricnunes 0]

Yeah, yeah, whatever suits you...  

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Yeah, yeah, whatever suits you...  

Haha nice.

[max power 21]

Yeah, yeah, whatever suits you...  

Ricunes, I wasn't saying that your requests were not valid, but the argument that something vague in some ad campaign means something specific in the real world is just not cogent. I hope I have not confused you with my simple English. I have only a lesser mastery of the language.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Hmm,

Well the reason for the 'arcade' radar and targeting is simplicity and robustness - the same system is used for all vehicles, therefore the same code is linked to the rest of the simulation and it all works nicely together.

The bonus of this is twofold:-

Firstly theres a small learning curve - many players get put off by even the current level of realism in the ArmA simulation (try just turning the map markers, crosshairs or 3rd person view, off on a server and experience the whiners, lol).

Secondly Addons that the community makes can share in this generic code, and simply add in the required radar and targeting system with no real bother at all.  Addons can be difficult to make anyway, so BI's generic interface is a welcome feature.

I do think that the current system could be improved a bit, as I wrote elsewhere on icons instead of blobs and priority/distance targeting modes.

What would be the point of spending shedloads of time effort and money on creating individual systems for each vehicle and system deployed in ArmA, there's simply too many, too complex and folks would never ever be satisfied with even a close representation of these things anyway.

HOWEVER, I think that a generic HUD display, with optional components (toggled on/off per addon) would be adequate for these things that folks want to have provided.  That same HUD could then be used by game-assets and addon-assets, and everyone gets some new cool toys that everyone can learn quickly and not have to learn again every time they try a new vehicle.

Optional components like target highlights, current-target highlight, ALT/SPeeD/VSL etc could be 'there' but on/off depending on what vehicle you're in.

I think at times that 'realism' is getting to be too sought-after and folks are forgetting how OFP managed to have such a large-scope of vehicles and be such an all-encompassing success.  The generic/shared facilities such as the radar have made - and continue to make - that possible in the first place.

Highly detailed HUDS and custom-display (a moving map was on the cockpit instruments) can be custom-made already, so the engine can support this, although since OFP and DKM's addons in particular I have not seen that level of detail ever again.

So, a generic HUD, toggled components per addon, fixed-forward view, or optionally able to turn with the head is, I firmly think, the best that we can ask for, and that could fit in with the engine's already existent main strengths.

[ricnunes 0]

WarWolf,

What I'm asking for ArmA2 isn't even a ultra-realistic targettig system, but a one that looks (to the player eyes) the same as the real one but with basic functions only and rather easy to operate.

Of course I wouldn't complain if we would have realistic avionics and targetting systems in ArmA2. Actually this IMO would be a good thing instead of a bad thing like you said, because:

- In real life not everyone is tailored to be a helicopter/aircraft pilot and with more realistic avionics and targetting systems only the ones that know how to fly and fight in an aircraft would really crew those machines. I see in several online servers that kiddies and/or players that don't have a clue what is to fly and fight in an aircraft that sometimes are the ones that take up the pilot slots (or fly the aircraft if there's no restrictions of whom can or not fly/crew aircraft). IMO, realistic avionics and targetting systems would help to keep such player from flying or crewing aircraft, thus making the game more realistic which afterall is the purpose of ArmA - To be a realistic combat simulation.

- Realistic avionics and targetting systems are too hard for some player to learn? NO Problem! Go and fight as a foot soldier, which is what happens in reality! In ArmA NO one (and hardly no mission) forces anyone to fly aircraft! Besides I believe that most that don't understand much about aircraft will keep from flying aircraft NO matter if the avionics and targetting systems are realistic or not.

[ricnunes 0]

Ricunes, I wasn't saying that your requests were not valid, but the argument that something vague in some ad campaign means something specific in the real world is just not cogent.  I hope I have not confused you with my simple English.  I have only a lesser mastery of the language.

Ok, no problem.

Anyway, what I did was an anology in which I meant that the current targetting system we have in ArmA is just "as realistic" as having Sci-Fi laser guns in ArmA as well.

If BIS put Sci-Fi laser guns in ArmA everyone would complain and rightly so because such weapons are not realistic and ArmA is meant to be a realistic game.

I make a similar complaint regarding the current ArmA targetting system which is not realistic and doesn't suit a realistic game like ArmA. The diference is that this situation is a real one while the "Sci-Fi laser guns" is an hypothetical one.

Nevetheless I'll try in the future to be more direct and use less anologies.

Sorry if I confused you (or others).

[Wolfrug 0]

Aw man I'd love it if BIS put in some sci-fi lasers and a UFO easteregg in ArmA II! Would totally make my day

That aside, I applaud WarWolf's post! It quite succinctly and, in my eyes, correctly sums up the reasons why BIS's "arcade" simulation of the many various radar systems deployed on the many various vehicles around the world is, when push comes to shove, a fully workable and intuitive solution.

I recently watched a youtube video of someone taking a little spin in that KA-50 Blackshark simulator "game". The person in question showed how all the little knobs and buttons could and should be pressed so that the chopper could actually lift off and start spinning around. Just to engage a target he had to manipulate an insane amount of weird gadgets - and he himself said he didn't know what half the things did. (here's the topic: KA50 Blackshark)

That's wonderful, if you're an "enthusiast" and want to pretend you're actually flying a KA-50. The thing is that that's a whole game - the entire game is centered around a SINGLE aircraft. There is absolutely no way BIS could -ever- model even a single fricken aircraft to act -anything- like the real thing within the budget and timeframe of a mainstream game. Hence why having an "arcadey" radar solution that nonetheless is a far cry better than anything BF2, or any other game in the genre I've seen so far.

To be perectly frank I don't -want- to have to learn which buttons to press to activate the correct air-to-ground mode or which other widgets to whack at before I can finally fire some goddamned missiles up the enemy's ass. It's a game, after all! I've had my fun in making my ingress, flying low over the target area, scouting out the enemy positions, picking out the most dangerous targets, selecting my weapon with care, dodging AA fire, and finally seeing my attacks strike home before hightailing out of there, black smoke rising towards the sky and a case of cold beer on ice for me waiting back at Firefly base.

I suppose that makes me less of a hardcore simulator fan - so be it then.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[ricnunes 0]

Like I said for the a zillion of times, I don't want ArmA2 to have such a hardcore avionics/targetting systems that we see in hardcore sims like for example the upcoming Ka-50 Black Shark.

What I wish is a targetting system that looks similar to the real ones but works simplier than the real ones. I'm talking about a system that instead of the arcadish/wierd radar that we now have in ArmA, we would have a camera (which could also be termal) and where the targetting is made by aiming the camera into the target and then by pressing a key (for example the right mouse button). Is this hard to learn and operate? Don't think so...

By the way, such system would be generic and therefore easy to use with other aircraft (both modded and original).

[7 0]

Like I said for the a zillion of times, I don't want ArmA2 to have such a hardcore avionics/targetting systems that we see in hardcore sims like for example the upcoming Ka-50 Black Shark.

What I wish is a targetting system that looks similar to the real ones but works simplier than the real ones. I'm talking about a system that instead of the arcadish/wierd radar that we now have in ArmA, we would have a camera (which could also be termal) and where the targetting is made by aiming the camera into the target and then by pressing a key (for example the right mouse button). Is this hard to learn and operate? Don't think so...

By the way, such system would be generic and therefore easy to use with other aircraft (both modded and original).

yeah, people seem to have a problem understanding that. in their world its a decision between nothing at all or a 100% hardcore simulation. were asking for realism. what would you say if you were able to press tab and lock onto other soldiers without having to use the crosshair or the sights. would you like it? maybe. would it make the game easy for players? yes. does that mean we should have it? no.