Working Camouflage

[mr.g-c 6]

Hi one of my personal biggest showstoppers in Arma1 is that camouflage cloths are totally worthless in that engine.

No matter if against AI or in PvP games, the engine always reports someone when you are scanning horizon with right mouse button.

Always this "At 12 o'clock, Man at 500m" radio message appears, with a marking on the map, everytime "the engine" spots a person for you - even though you haven't seen them on your own.

Its like cheating so to say.

Especially AI seems to see you without problems even at 500m, no matter if near a bush, other foliage/whatever.

And even worse when you are LYING on the ground, 500m away from AI near a bush - AI still spots you everytime and snipes you to death. Totally impossible in Real-Life!

This breaks gameplay because you should have the possibility to remain concealed - not only for recon missions/whatever.

RL-example:

I was in my youth a very frequently Paintball player and of course we all were wearing camouflage clothes and we made very cool tests to see if its working, so someone was standing still at tree in a wood-isle, we came from a big meadow and we could NOT see him until we were like ~50-70m near him.

Even worse was it when he was covered in shadow. (he was wearing ordinary US woodland BDU with camo helmet).

So this camouflage is working in RL, please do it in-game too!

Thank you very much!

[Rak 0]

I have the same problem. Actually working camouflage could be a very fun addition to Arma 2

I think best way to implement is to give a "visibility factor" to infantry textures. Like a property attached to the general texture.

Say "visibility=1" is, normal spotting range for civilian type non-camo textures. "visibility=0.75" is for usual military type camo and "visibility=0.25" is for Sniper type camo.

Of course these factors have to be multiplied with a "movement factor" when the target is moving. So, when a military type camo target is sprinting, then the game multiplies it's visibility by 1.5 Also visibility should be set to maximum when the target is firing(full auto) . . . and so on.

Dunno, I hope BIS haven't finalised their "feature" set yet.

[mr.g-c 6]

Well, there is a config entry for that already, but as you see its not working.

[JeRK 0]

Turning off auto-report in the difficulty settings fixes that, actually. Many people play ArmA with difficulty settings pushed down and ironically many problems people complain about in ArmA don't exist when you use hard settings.

(crosshairs and third person are for wussies anyway)

[max power 21]

Turning off auto-report in the difficulty settings fixes that, actually. Many people play ArmA with difficulty settings pushed down and ironically many problems people complain about in ArmA don't exist when you use hard settings.

(crosshairs and third person are for wussies anyway)

I like the third person view camera so I have something to look at when I'm on long distance treks, but all those settings are totally customizable anyways. Want all switches except for 3rd person view camera? It can be done.

[Second 0]

I personally think that ArmA's units does stand out from back ground. However good camo (North Sahrani and SLA uniform as example) they are wearing they are just too visible.

I did bit of tests spotting. about 9 months ago, can't say that my memory works flawlessly so can be that i'm wrong.

I placed three SLA guys in grassy area infront of me, while i was standing in high tower. Ranges were something like 200-400 meters. SLA guys had random area of 100 meters where they would be created, while they were lying.

I could find then in less than half minutes without any kind zoom. Basically i just scanned 500 meters wide area it it took very small time to confirm that i stared at SLA guy. There were some amount of rocks and bushes, but they didn't pose much of a problem... If SLA guy didnt' lie behind bush and rock.

Then i changed terrain texture in visitor from plain green into spots ranging from yellow to dark brown (looks ugly as hell). Spotting time increased to even minutes... However when my eyes "learned" to filter new texture time required to spot them dropped to something like minute or minute and half.

[JeRK 0]

I personally think that ArmA's units does stand out from back ground. However good camo (North Sahrani and SLA uniform as example) they are wearing they are just too visible.

I did bit of tests spotting. about 9 months ago, can't say that my memory works flawlessly so can be that i'm wrong.

I placed three SLA guys in grassy area infront of me, while i was standing in high tower. Ranges were something like 200-400 meters. SLA guys had random area of 100 meters where they would be created, while they were lying.

I could find then in less than half minutes without any kind zoom. Basically i just scanned 500 meters wide area it it took very small time to confirm that i stared at SLA guy. There were some amount of rocks and bushes, but they didn't pose much of a problem... If SLA guy didnt' lie behind bush and rock.

Then i changed terrain texture in visitor from plain green into spots ranging from yellow to dark brown (looks ugly as hell). Spotting time increased to even minutes... However when my eyes "learned" to filter new texture time required to spot them dropped to something like minute or minute and half.

I gotta agree that soldiers are a bit too visible, though I think it's also a bit of a texturing problem. While default BIS soldiers tend to be rather visible almost anywhere, some custom skins like the IC-ArmA custom woodland camo (both OPFOR and BLUFOR) patterns work very well. It depends on how much the texturer focuses on making the pattern work.

I really wonder how visible the marines in ArmA 2 will be as woodland MARPAT is said to be a really effective pattern IRL.

[dentist guba 0]

the new visual effects e.t.c. should make it a bit harder to spot enemies as they will blend in better, also the improvements in foliage e.t.c. will help.

[mr.g-c 6]

Ok, so the PvP part can be *partially* fixed by disabling auto-reporting in difficulties, right?

I wrote "partially" because after some tests i made, you can still see a "pile of pixels", which had a clearly different color, moving at the horizon, which obviously leads you to the assumption that there is a person moving.

Idea to fix, could be to adjust the "pixel-pile" color to the background-color of the horizon. This could simulate "camouflage" more or less properly.

Problem remains for Player vs. AI fights, since AI can spot you everytime.

I hope that at least that will be addressed in Arma2 in conjunction with the other AI-improvements.

[metsapeikko 0]

I have the same problem. Actually working camouflage could be a very fun addition to Arma 2

I think best way to implement is to give a "visibility factor" to infantry textures. Like a property attached to the general texture.

Say "visibility=1" is, normal spotting range for civilian type non-camo textures. "visibility=0.75" is for usual military type camo and "visibility=0.25" is for Sniper type camo.

Of course these factors have to be multiplied with a "movement factor" when the target is moving. So, when a military type camo target is sprinting, then the game multiplies it's visibility by 1.5 Also visibility should be set to maximum when the target is firing(full auto) . . . and so on.

Dunno, I hope BIS haven't finalised their "feature" set yet.

I think some sort of system where that checks the background textures/nearby textures too. It just feels silly if AI can spot SLA guy that is lying in a middle of desert in the same time than RACS guy that is lying in the middle of desert.

[Second 0]

I gotta agree that soldiers are a bit too visible, though I think it's also a bit of a texturing problem. While default BIS soldiers tend to be rather visible almost anywhere, some custom skins like the IC-ArmA custom woodland camo (both OPFOR and BLUFOR) patterns work very well. It depends on how much the texturer focuses on making the pattern work.

I really wonder how visible the marines in ArmA 2 will be as woodland MARPAT is said to be a really effective pattern IRL.

I havent' spotted camo in ArmA which would hide men well. While in reality i can throw ww2 gray mantel on my shoulders and still be able to hide well in wilderness. However this pours down to problem that ArmA's open fields are like football fields. While in reality you'd had all kinds of stuff to hide in. Shadows, long grass, small bushes, nooks etc. In Arma even long grass at longer distances, where actual grass isn't drawn anymore but terrain texture is raised, isn't able to hide men.

True, modern digi camos works even better, even when their best improvement is low visibility to active and passive IR and UV.

[whisper 0]

I gotta agree that soldiers are a bit too visible, though I think it's also a bit of a texturing problem. While default BIS soldiers tend to be rather visible almost anywhere, some custom skins like the IC-ArmA custom woodland camo (both OPFOR and BLUFOR) patterns work very well. It depends on how much the texturer focuses on making the pattern work.

I really wonder how visible the marines in ArmA 2 will be as woodland MARPAT is said to be a really effective pattern IRL.

I havent' spotted camo in ArmA which would hide men well. While in reality i can throw ww2 gray mantel on my shoulders and still be able to hide well in wilderness. However this pours down to problem that ArmA's open fields are like football fields. While in reality you'd had all kinds of stuff to hide in. Shadows, long grass, small bushes, nooks etc. In Arma even long grass at longer distances, where actual grass isn't drawn anymore but terrain texture is raised, isn't able to hide men.

True, modern digi camos works even better, even when their best improvement is low visibility to active and passive IR and UV.

Possible workaround for this : higher grass layer at long distance.

In fact, what would suit is variable grass layer height (depending on what the hidden guy can see himself), + more diverse texture pattern on distance grass layer, not something uniform with lil pixels here and there a bit darker, making a helmet stand out easily when seen from afar.

[Commando84 0]

I gotta agree that soldiers are a bit too visible, though I think it's also a bit of a texturing problem. While default BIS soldiers tend to be rather visible almost anywhere, some custom skins like the IC-ArmA custom woodland camo (both OPFOR and BLUFOR) patterns work very well. It depends on how much the texturer focuses on making the pattern work.

I really wonder how visible the marines in ArmA 2 will be as woodland MARPAT is said to be a really effective pattern IRL.

I havent' spotted camo in ArmA which would hide men well. While in reality i can throw ww2 gray mantel on my shoulders and still be able to hide well in wilderness. However this pours down to problem that ArmA's open fields are like football fields. While in reality you'd had all kinds of stuff to hide in. Shadows, long grass, small bushes, nooks etc. In Arma even long grass at longer distances, where actual grass isn't drawn anymore but terrain texture is raised, isn't able to hide men.

True, modern digi camos works even better, even when their best improvement is low visibility to active and passive IR and UV.

woot! Thought digi camo just was for the looks :P

It looks ugly compared to the bdu 80's style imo or the 92 desert camo, hmm interesting that texture can disrupt electronical systems like IR

[Second 0]

Possible workaround for this : higher grass layer at long distance.

Granted i'm modding n00b, but i've not found way to do it. I already started to think level of grass layer was hard coded.

I agree with rest of your suggestions.

Commando84: I don't know do you mean game or real life, but i was talking about color and cloth of real-life digi camos which makes them less visible (note: not from thermals, that requires more). Havent' infact tested do they work better in ArmA... I doupt it.

[gsleighter 0]

I wasn't aware that the new camo disrupted IR in any way. I know with the BDUs, soldiers were required to keep them pressed and ironed, which required copious amounts of spray-on starch. I do know that the built-up starch on the uniforms would reflect IR. Soldiers and Marines aren't required to starch and press the Marpat or ACU uniforms, maybe that's what you mean by disrupting IR?

I should also note that by IR, you're basically talking about the IR headlamps on a vehicle, not some kind of Splinter Cell-esque thermal scanner. If you look at an armored vehicle, there's little purple headlights, those are black light markers, used for illuminating the road at night when driving with NVG's.

[Second 0]

I wasn't aware that the new camo disrupted IR in any way. I know with the BDUs, soldiers were required to keep them pressed and ironed, which required copious amounts of spray-on starch. I do know that the built-up starch on the uniforms would reflect IR. Soldiers and Marines aren't required to starch and press the Marpat or ACU uniforms, maybe that's what you mean by disrupting IR?

I should also note that by IR, you're basically talking about the IR headlamps on a vehicle, not some kind of Splinter Cell-esque thermal scanner. If you look at an armored vehicle, there's little purple headlights, those are black light markers, used for illuminating the road at night when driving with NVG's.

I'm talking about Active IR whch illuminates terrain (found usually form Soviet era tanks, problematic to use as it can be seen) and passive (found in soldier's NVGs, can't be seen). And also about ultaviolet frequencies, used mostly at recon drones and stuff. Problem is that all these behaves bit differently, so to my understandment it requires a lot of study to find out right mix. Suit which is stealthy for passive IR, might not be as much for active IR or UV.

I dont' know from which things lower visibilty comes from but mostly cloth, color pattern and maybe also additional chemicals (i've heard that even little amount of aluminium to give some stealth again thermals). I know that clothing atleast from early 90's tries to mimic natural colors (such as leaf green) as much as possible, however to my understandment modern (past 2000) digi camos are considerably better at this. Basically it doesn't distrupt, it just tries to mimic natural colors in various wavelenghts (normal light, both near-IR frequencies and UV). Camo suits from early ages, 70's and before, are mostly designed just for frequencies visible for normal eye.

[gsleighter 0]

Active and Passive IR both work the same way, by picking up reflected IR light in the environment. The only difference between a passive and active system is that an active system provides some of its own IR light, either because not enough exists in the environment, or the IR sensor doesn't have the power to make out anything without the extra light.

Here's an M-577 command vehicle. The black set of headlights are IR Bulbs, called "Black Light Markers." If there's not enough ambient IR light to drive safely at night with NVGs, you can turn those on, and they work like headlights you can only see through night vision goggles. You would then be using "active IR" to drive safely. All IR systems are passive, the only difference is using those bulbs, either for lack of ambient light, or because old soviet IR sensors weren't as advanced as US sensors.

It doesn't matter if you're talking about IR light from a vehicles headlamps or from the stars, though. A heavily starched uniform looks shiny through NVGs because the starch reflects IR light like tinfoil reflects visible spectrum light. There may be other metals in the fabric that have an effect on their visibility on IR light, but the main reason the Army stopped starching uniforms was it makes you shiny in IR.

[Second 0]

Active and Passive IR both work the same way, by picking up reflected IR light in the environment.

....

There may be other metals in the fabric that have an effect on their visibility on IR light, but the main reason the Army stopped starching uniforms was it makes you shiny in IR.

Fabrigue does react differently to Active IR. They might even start clowing, that i've seen from photos. So outcome is different.

Humor of situation is that US Army in Iraq gets issued washingpowder which has optical brightners. Basically ruining whole low visibility thing. Few guys seemed to be pretty pissed about that

[gsleighter 0]

I guess Iraqi insurgents probably don't have the IR devices in any large number, so it's more important to be visible to friendlies through IR?

[soul_assassin 1723]

Talking about IR. I think to do with camouflaging and stuff, BIS could implement an IR map into their basic shader, This would make it possible to make IR sensors i.e. NVGS work properly. A black and white texture ala bumpmap where the shades of grey define IR reflectance instead of height.

a constant flux of infrared energy can be programmed in the engine and then every vehicle can have the option to have IR emmiters to intensify the picture.

[Jex =TE= 0]

I gotta agree that soldiers are a bit too visible, though I think it's also a bit of a texturing problem. While default BIS soldiers tend to be rather visible almost anywhere, some custom skins like the IC-ArmA custom woodland camo (both OPFOR and BLUFOR) patterns work very well. It depends on how much the texturer focuses on making the pattern work.

I really wonder how visible the marines in ArmA 2 will be as woodland MARPAT is said to be a really effective pattern IRL.

If you ever played Vietcong you could hide 5m away from another human player and not be seen until you moved. This was achieved by making the camo textures the same shade as the terrain textures so you blended in really well.

[Jex =TE= 0]

I think some sort of system where that checks the background textures/nearby textures too. It just feels silly if AI can spot SLA guy that is lying in a middle of desert in the same time than RACS guy that is lying in the middle of desert.

That could easily be acheived by adding zones to maps and and giving models a camo number (1 = desert, 2 = woodland, etc). That way if I moved into zone 1 (desert zone) with camo 2 on i'd be more visible?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I agree the auto reporting (server controlled) and right mouse button reporting is extremely annoying at times. Which is why we play without AI voices.

The default keybinding of right mousebutton = reveal should be reconsidered. I've setup my keys so that a different key is needed for reveal, and also a dedicated one for hold breath. It helps lower my own reporting, but others will still report wildly, 'cluttering the comms'.

Edit: As for camouflage, I'd like to see working nets, nets that lower the visibility of objects underneath them.

Edited April 20, 2009 by CarlGustaffa