NVG wide field of view?

[Shadoware]

How to use NVG like this video instead of a monocle?

 

[jayst0r]

try vid description as he said in the video.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151646

[Dee-Jay]

Just for information for ppl who might think this is a good mod in terms of realism:

 

This is definitively not realistic and is not what we see through NVGs.

Tunnel effect does exist IRL (I am not talking about monocle but about classic twin tubes goggles).

Original implementation is correct is this one is the things that are well made in DCS.

 

Regards.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Cupra]

I do not know the real data of the HMCS system, but has it a NV version too? Would it be realistic to have NVG in combination with the HMCS ?

[Dee-Jay]

I do not know the real data of the HMCS system, but has it a NV version too? Would it be realistic to have NVG in combination with the HMCS ?

 

HMCS or NVGs. Not both. (NVGs is not FLIR)

[Shadoware]

Just for information for ppl who might think this is a good mod in terms of realism:

 

This is definitively not realistic and is not what we see through NVGs.

Tunnel effect does exist IRL (I am not talking about monocle but about classic twin tubes goggles).

Original implementation is correct is this one is the things that are well made in DCS.

 

Regards.

 

 

There are many NVG models and versions out there.

I dont think any pilot would use a so limited version today.

The monocular aspect can happen even when use a binocular NVG, but binocular NVG have a wider FOV anyway.

Even if some airforces still uses F-16C anyone could easily adopt a more updated NVG.

 

I think the only model that could create a visual like DCS would be a fully monocular like this:

https://opticsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/3879817571_e479ac6b47_b.jpg

 

A binocular model but with only one lens wouldn't allow to see outside of circle view:

https://www.optics4birding.com/media/images/products/151717-1.jpg

 

A binocular like the following would allow to see outside of the circle but would have a bigger FOV:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Jan/30/2000182798/-1/-1/0/120125-F-ZE476-252.JPG

Edited September 6, 2020 by Shadoware

[Eddie]

There are many NVG models and versions out there.

I dont think any pilot would use a so limited version today.

The monocular aspect can happen even when use a binocular NVG, but binocular NVG have a wider FOV anyway.

Even if some airforces still uses F-16C anyone could easily adopt a more updated NVG.

 

I think the only model that could create a visual like DCS would be a fully monocular like this:

https://opticsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/3879817571_e479ac6b47_b.jpg

 

A binocular model but with only one lens wouldn't allow to see outside of circle view:

https://www.optics4birding.com/media/images/products/151717-1.jpg

 

A binocular like the following would allow to see outside of the circle but would have a bigger FOV:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Jan/30/2000182798/-1/-1/0/120125-F-ZE476-252.JPG

 

If you don’t have access to a set of binocular NVGs, which I’m guessing your don’t, go and get a normal pair of binoculars and look through them. Now, let us know what “shape” your field of view is...

[Snake122]

If you don’t have access to a set of binocular NVGs, which I’m guessing your don’t, go and get a normal pair of binoculars and look through them. Now, let us know what “shape” your field of view is...

Yes, definitely. The current issue USAF NVGs, AN/AVS-9, are about 40° FOV. It's also accurate the "look under" is required since NVGs are focused to infinity and you can't read the cockpit instruments with them. https://nvincorporated.com/product/anavs-9-anvis-9/

 

There are some that 4 tube "panoramic" FOV that would go complete across a typical DCS screen setup with ~90° FOV (look under would still be required). But these don't seem to be catching on for aviation use, especially fighters with all the extra weight.

 

Also, as Dee-Jay says, with this circa of Viper that no NVG/HMS at the same time. JHMCSII/Scorpion are able supposed to able use NVGs at the same time and the famous F-35 helmet uses the FLIR cameras around the aircraft.

 

Fixed wing ops don't takeoff and land with NVGs too due to lack of depth perception. In general, while they are an important tool, they are far from the panacea that people think they are.

 

However, I'm interested in this mod since with the Pimax the overlapping black rings don't quite feel right in the middle intersecting parts.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Edited September 6, 2020 by Snake122

[Harlikwin]

There are many NVG models and versions out there.

 

Correct but 90% of the flying done today is still done with either an AVS-9 or AVS-6 style system. Plus most of the aircraft in DCS are from the early 2000's, where that number was more or less 100%.

 

I dont think any pilot would use a so limited version today.

 

You are wrong.

 

The monocular aspect can happen even when use a binocular NVG, but binocular NVG have a wider FOV anyway.

 

Also entirely incorrect. Something like a PVS-14 with a single tube has a FOV of 40 degrees, but 0 depth perception. Something like an ANVIS system has 2 tubes with a 40 degree FOV, that are OVERLAPPED, so you actually get binocular vision. So the actual FOV is still 40 degrees. There is a mountain of actual scientific literature on this.

 

Even if some airforces still uses F-16C anyone could easily adopt a more updated NVG.

 

True, you can "update" an NVG, but various reasons for the most part no one has, because ANVIS works. There were some USAF trials with quad gogs for certain airframes like the A-10 but they were found to be not workable due to the weight, and adjustment issues.

 

I think the only model that could create a visual like DCS would be a fully monocular like this:

https://opticsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/3879817571_e479ac6b47_b.jpg

 

A binocular model but with only one lens wouldn't allow to see outside of circle view:

https://www.optics4birding.com/media/images/products/151717-1.jpg

 

A binocular like the following would allow to see outside of the circle but would have a bigger FOV:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Jan/30/2000182798/-1/-1/0/120125-F-ZE476-252.JPG

 

The DCS flat screen looking through a TP tube is about as correct as they can get it, and the fact you can look under your gogs IRL is represented too. In VR its you're whole FOV which sucks, but there must be some actual engine limitation for doing that.

 

There are ton of things wrong with the DCS NVG model, and the FLIR model is even worse. But it is what it is. And the TP tube "effect" is one of the things they get right.

[Dee-Jay]

I think the only model that could create a visual like DCS would be a fully monocular like this:

https://opticsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/3879817571_e479ac6b47_b.jpg

 

A binocular model but with only one lens wouldn't allow to see outside of circle view:

https://www.optics4birding.com/media/images/products/151717-1.jpg

 

A binocular like the following would allow to see outside of the circle but would have a bigger FOV:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Jan/30/2000182798/-1/-1/0/120125-F-ZE476-252.JPG

 

I am flying with a binocular NVG and it "perfectly" looks like in DCS (with the "circle").

 

 

EDIT:

... additionally, as said above, flying with a "full NGV" view prevents to read MFDs and instrument which we are reading by looking under. So a "full NVG" IRL would be somehow unusable if not all information are not available on HUD (which is also may be sometimes hard to read).

Edited September 6, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[TheLazyGator]

Wide NVG would be nice

[Snake122]

Wide NVG would be nice

But for whatever reason, I think mostly weight and possibly cost, the panoramic NVGs like the GPNVG-18 are not used issued currently to fighters as far as I can tell. In DCS you would still need a look under for focus inside, but it would go about edge to edge horizontal of a standard monitor/VR headset. If using wide/triple monitor or Pimax large FOV, it would not fill the screen side to side.

 

This presentation has a great breakdown of NVG limitations and FOV representation around slide 14 (and you can see DCS does a good job nodeling this): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/library/online_libraries/aerospace_medicine/sd/media/berkley.pdf

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Edited September 6, 2020 by Snake122

[Harlikwin]

The main reasons panos aren't used are weight issues, ejection seperation issues, and the fact you cant look under/side of them. Plus aside from like a10 pilots they dont provide any advantages over existing systems.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Snake122]

The main reasons panos aren't used are weight issues, ejection seperation issues, and the fact you cant look under/side of them. Plus aside feom like a10 pilots they dont provide any advantages over existing systems.

Thanks, those all make sense. Any more weight on your head under G was all I could remember, but the ejection seperation and look under/around factor is a great point, and interestingly IIRC one issue even SF have them without look under/around it's easier to trip over/run into stuff. They still aren't perfect. I often wonder how well the WW2 night fighter pilots that were dedicated to their night visual adaption could see in combat. I know though that NVGs are still the better modern solution for modern Aircraft.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

[Harlikwin]

Thanks, those all make sense. Any more weight on your head under G was all I could remember, but the ejection seperation and look under/around factor is a great point, and interestingly IIRC one issue even SF have them without look under/around it's easier to trip over/run into stuff. They still aren't perfect. I often wonder how well the WW2 night fighter pilots that were dedicated to their night visual adaption could see in combat. I know though that NVGs are still the better modern solution for modern Aircraft.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

 

Air uses and land uses for NVG are entirely different use cases. For ground use amusingly enough its literally the same set of issues, though there, the use case for the extra FOV in CQB combat exists. But outside of that the primary downside of extra weight, and eyestrain issues (due to the way diopers are set on them) tends to keep their use limited. For fast jet use, there is almost no situation you "need" a bit of extra FOV that really offsets the downsides. As others have mentioned the "future" solution for most of these systems will be integrated sensors feeding a helmet display like what you have in the F35. Till then, devices like ANVIS are tried and true. I suppose for helo pilots pano's could have advantages as well with less downsides but I'm not aware of anyone using them maybe the SOAR guys.

[Rainmaker]

But for whatever reason, I think mostly weight and possibly cost, the panoramic NVGs like the GPNVG-18 are not used issued currently to fighters as far as I can tell. In DCS you would still need a look under for focus inside, but it would go about edge to edge horizontal of a standard monitor/VR headset. If using wide/triple monitor or Pimax large FOV, it would not fill the screen side to side.

 

This presentation has a great breakdown of NVG limitations and FOV representation around slide 14 (and you can see DCS does a good job nodeling this): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/library/online_libraries/aerospace_medicine/sd/media/berkley.pdf

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

 

The 4-tube gogs were cleared years ago for use.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a430243.pdf

 

Our guys in the operational units had them back in the 05-07 timeframe and it was basically a user preference kind of thing although they were limited in numbers so I dunno how the ops folks chose to rack and stack who could use them and who had to take a number. General consensus from the guys I asked about it was that they were better, but there were also folks walking into debrief with busted bridges on their nose where they tended to come down under G. Not the most ideal thing to have happen during low-levels through the mountains, etc.

Apparently the retention system was not as good with dealing with the additional weight. They were also quite a bit larger, both in the event you wanted to stow them up or somewhere in the cockpit. Saw a decent number of back seaters wear them, front seaters mainly stuck to the 2-barrel versions. Not sure whether or not the AFE folks still even have them for issue or not if the crew guys wanted them or if they simply just got turned in and dropped all together.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Rainmaker

[Harlikwin]

Intersting link. Ive mainly read various test eval prior to this pointing out various problems mainly from the A10 and viper communities. But it makes sense that eagle guys would use them too. It also ignores the various support issues these gogs had.