Thermal vision on WMD-7 not real

[cdromer]

First of all, thank you Deka for making such an amazing module!

 

Ok back to the topic, I find the modeling of the thermal vision of the WMD-7 pod in the game is a little bit disappointing. I say this because I actually operate several thermal vision/goggles/sights in real life that I can easily distinguish a vehicle/a deer from the background trees or buildings because of the fundamental temperature differences between them. But in the JF-17 module, I think the developers lack the first hand experience of how huge the differences really are, which makes it pretty hard to recognize a tank from the backgrounds at first glance thru the pod, not to mention the IR module on a real pod is actually cooled to boost the performance of the thermal sensor array. In short, it should be much easier for target finding than using civilian thermals, like the ones that I have, or some rather obsolete military systems like the LLTV pod on a SU-25T. But in the current early release, the LLTV pod actually outperforms the WMD-7.

 

I'd not say it's a bug but maybe Deka should consider tuning up the brightness level of soldiers/vehicles/tanks, making them stand out from the adjacent background in the game to reflect the real world experience and the physical reality.

 

Thanks.

[TJTAS]

It's a DCS issue in general not a JF17 specific issue.

[statrekmike]

As already stated, this is not really anything that Deka Ironwork can do much about on their own. IR modeling has always been rather badly implemented in DCS. Fortunately, Eagle Dynamics is working on a new IR system for DCS that will correct the issue and be a lot more realistic.

[dorianR666]

thats DCS issue, all targeting pods in the game behave unrealistically like that. deka cant do anything about it, IR rendering is done on the level of the game and not the module.

 

 

ED said they will bring new IR renderer with ATFLIR for hornet but thats gonna be a long long time...

[shaHeen-1]

Lol try looking at your stores during flight from the tpod. You'll see interesting stuff XD

[some1]

While DCS does not model IR properly, WMD-7 image leaves a lot to be desired. Same vehicles as seen from 12 NM in JF-17 and A-10C

 

 

[uboats]

we are still beginners of fx, and now learning it hard

we will try to improve them via fx

[DarkStar79]

I agree, it needs some tweakin cause its hard to distinguish hot objects from the background. Its like the trees is the same color as the hot vehicles. So you often mistake trees for cars and such.

[Manuel_108]

While DCS does not model IR properly, WMD-7 image leaves a lot to be desired. Same vehicles as seen from 12 NM in JF-17 and A-10C

 

 

 

Interesting. How does ED manage to do this while still using the same rendering tech?

Edited December 15, 2019 by Manuel_108

[some1]

Interesting. How does ED manage to do this while still using the same rendering tech?

 

Fundamentally, it's the same image, just overbright. Instead of black background, gray road, white tanks, in JF-17 have gray background, white road and tanks.

[AeriaGloria]

I wonder if changing gain and contrast makes a difference. The A-10C always seems to have it perfect as default, but I find the default WMD-7 picture with -2 contrast very dark. 0 x 0 looks about right to me, need to do more testing

[Manuel_108]

Fundamentally, it's the same image, just overbright. Instead of black background, gray road, white tanks, in JF-17 have gray background, white road and tanks.

 

So, if the image was less bright you would be able to distinguish the tanks more easily?

In the A-10 render the tanks are way brighter than the trees, in the JF-17 the brightness looks very similar, as you said.

 

Or does ED use a different brightness value for in-game assets as an interim solution?

[L0op8ack]

play with gain and level will let your life easier

[Tippis]

Just in general, the default gain and brightness values of all optical sensors (including the AKG:s seeker) seem to be set to for maximum muddiness. :P

 

 

It's usually possible to get a good, clear picture, but it always requires a dozen button presses or so every time you switch to (or just switch back to) a new sensor. It would be neat if either the default was tweaked a bit, or if the settings are retained as you switch between sensors.

[cdromer]

While DCS does not model IR properly, WMD-7 image leaves a lot to be desired. Same vehicles as seen from 12 NM in JF-17 and A-10C

 

 

 

Yup that's what I was talking about.

 

If you can't distinguish a tank from the road, it means they are at the same temperature level, which can only be true if the tank has stopped its engine and been parking there for quite a while, couple of hours if not a day.

 

The pic below is much more realistic if someone asks me. So I think at least Deka is capable of doing it better even with the current limitations of the DCS engine. That's my 2 cents.

[cdromer]

Also, a modern thermal vision usually can't give you a crystal clear/very sharp image because of its much less pixels if compared with a modern EO sensor. But it provides you a much better 'concept' of the world you are looking at -- basically no textures, just geometric shapes. It's kinda blurred but you can easily 'understand' the surroundings in a second.

 

The pod vision of the A-10C gives me this realistic feeling of 'thermal' but the JF-17's does not.

[Harlikwin]

First of all, thank you Deka for making such an amazing module!

 

Ok back to the topic, I find the modeling of the thermal vision of the WMD-7 pod in the game is a little bit disappointing. I say this because I actually operate several thermal vision/goggles/sights in real life that I can easily distinguish a vehicle/a deer from the background trees or buildings because of the fundamental temperature differences between them. But in the JF-17 module, I think the developers lack the first hand experience of how huge the differences really are, which makes it pretty hard to recognize a tank from the backgrounds at first glance thru the pod, not to mention the IR module on a real pod is actually cooled to boost the performance of the thermal sensor array. In short, it should be much easier for target finding than using civilian thermals, like the ones that I have, or some rather obsolete military systems like the LLTV pod on a SU-25T. But in the current early release, the LLTV pod actually outperforms the WMD-7.

 

I'd not say it's a bug but maybe Deka should consider tuning up the brightness level of soldiers/vehicles/tanks, making them stand out from the adjacent background in the game to reflect the real world experience and the physical reality.

 

Thanks.

 

LOL, I have a few decades of experience with thermal imaging systems. And honestly while the overall DCS "thermal" modeling is laughable in a great many ways, actually having some difficulty spotting stuff is not one of them. Quite often its difficult to find and detect targets using thermal and thermal is fairly straightforward to hide from. Most folks seem to think "thermal" imagers, spot heat, and that's true in some ways, but it really depends what kind of heat, what kind of sensor, and the emissivity and reflectivity of what is actually being imaged. NONE of which is modeled in DCS, not mention the diurnal cycle. Want your thermal to crap out at various times of the day? I do, but DCS thermals don't. Want your trees cold during the day and hot at night (depending on conditions?) I do, but DCS doesn't do that. Want your water to not be "hot" (This is probably the one that pisses me off the most), I don't because it never really shows hot.

 

TLDR?

 

Thermal isn't magic predator vision.

[LastRifleRound]

play with gain and level will let your life easier

 

This.

 

I think the problem is the A10 image is always perfect. Deka actually modeled imperfections. I'm always playing with gain and contrast and often end up with a better picture than the a10.

[Terrorban]

For me, fine tuning the image is part of the fun. Since they have added the function, it really is handy. I didn't really have problem using the TPOD in JF-17 but if it is present in the real jet, I would also prefer an option to store the sensor settings when we switch beteen them.

[Eldur]

One solid fact about the ED sensor imagery is that as soon as you start playing around with the screen functions (BRT, CNT, GN), the image gets worse. It's always at the best setting, those buttons and knobs are utterly useless. I've yet to see a situation where tuning the image brings any advantage. Seems to be different here, but I haven't tried that yet.

[Deano87]

Adjusting the gain in the JF-17 improves matters a lot.

[Fri13]

TLDR?

 

Thermal isn't magic predator vision.

 

That i dislike in DCS, that the TIS is like a all seeing eye of Sauron. Regardless anything, vehicles are easy to spot. All is easy to see, no blurring of vision, no false imagery where you have difficulties to find what you want.

 

And when ED added the texture for ground that made vehicles more difficult to spot, people cried aloud for it.

 

I so would like to see a proper military training for ground units to try to conceal from the TIS and make it more difficult anyways to use those targeting systems on ground units.

 

Maybe one day.... One day....

[cdromer]

LOL, I have a few decades of experience with thermal imaging systems. And honestly while the overall DCS "thermal" modeling is laughable in a great many ways, actually having some difficulty spotting stuff is not one of them.

TLDR?

 

Thermal isn't magic predator vision.

 

Have you tried the JF-17 and seen the comparison posted above?

[Lymark]

Have you tried the JF-17 and seen the comparison posted above?

 

I'm no thermal tech expert, but I just tested the TGP after reading this post.

 

I think the issue with that picture is that, as mentioned by others, A-10C's level/gain is already tuned to a perfect settings, whereas JF-17's is not. Default 'Level' at -4 is totally overexposed. Everything seems to be quite distinguishable after giving 'level' a positive value. By no means It's perfect, but I won't have problem finding targets.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Lymark

[Harlikwin]

Have you tried the JF-17 and seen the comparison posted above?

 

Yeah, I find that if you don't futz with the various settings the images aren't as good as the Litening pod, which seems to be set to "best" by default.

 

It has literally nothing to do with my post.