Night Vision?

[zerO_crash]

4 minutes ago, IcedVenom said:

You waste way too much time here. Don't you have a job or something?

Harlikwin is giving good arguments based om how NVG works. Don't you have anything better to do other than being rude and detaching from a perfectly backed-up point of view?

 

I'd rather see someome here with IRL experience with this equipment, explain everything around it, including why it won't work on our Hind, than your rude remarks. Especially given that he has IRL experience with it and you have not.

[Harlikwin]

13 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

Harlikwin is giving good arguments based om how NVG works. Don't you have anything better to do other than being rude and detaching from a perfectly backed-up point of view?

 

I'd rather see someome here with IRL experience with this equipment, explain everything around it, including why it won't work on our Hind, than your rude remarks. Especially given that he has IRL experience with it and you have not.

 

If you are interested, here is an 05 dated pub for civil use that covers the basics. Keep in mind a ton of development went on in the 80's and 90's to the point it was considered "safe" enough to use for civil use, and this doc mainly consideres well developed and tested gen3 NVG's. Not old school Gen2 that the US used in the 80's or the Gen0 stuff the soviets tried to use in AFG with the hind... The previously linked stuff assumes these sorts of cockpit mods have been done to use with the russian gen3 gogs in the 2000's. And I'd imagine the cockpit looks quite a bit different with them. 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36432/Night_vision_goggles.pdf

 

Notably: 

 

 

 

Also of note:

 

Though obviously military operations don't typically use pink lights anymore outside training. 

 

There a ton of docs on DTIC that are/were available for a long time detailing the history but I won't post em here for fear of 1.16 even though they were/are publicly available. 

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Enduro14]

I hope ED does a better job of the NVG modeling in SIM.  What appears to be coming with the new thermal engine tells me they could definitely do a better nvg presentation.  I pray DCS stays a Sim and is not going down the Gamey Stupidity of other platforms.  Allot of SME's including myself can bring allot of Valid input on such systems and uses.  Please do not open the floodgates of dumbing down Modules with systems that where not apart or used with them.  Mission Editor restrictions or not..... I would prefer to fly a module and have to use certain tactics to overcome some technological deficiencies said Airframe had and not have Gamey Aid systems added to alleviate said disadvantages.

 

  Keep DCS to its high realistic standard, that's my Dream of this Platform..  MAC needs to satisfy the more relaxed crowd.

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Enduro14 said:

I hope ED does a better job of the NVG modeling in SIM.  What appears to be coming with the new thermal engine tells me they could definitely do a better nvg presentation.  I pray DCS stays a Sim and is not going down the Gamey Stupidity of other platforms.  Allot of SME's including myself can bring allot of Valid input on such systems and uses.  Please do not open the floodgates of dumbing down Modules with systems that where not apart or used with them.  Mission Editor restrictions or not..... I would prefer to fly a module and have to use certain tactics to overcome some technological deficiencies said Airframe had and not have Gamey Aid systems added to alleviate said disadvantages.

 

  Keep DCS to its high realistic standard, that's my Dream of this Platform..  MAC needs to satisfy the more relaxed crowd.

 

I agree. I mean hinds were flown at night, using standard instruments and used illum rounds during the 70's and 80's. Those were the tactics of the day, even into the 90's...

 

 

[Enduro14]

3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I agree. I mean hinds were flown at night, using standard instruments and used illum rounds during the 70's and 80's. Those were the tactics of the day, even into the 90's...

 

 

Yup I think some folks don't understand what all those gauges in the pit are actually used for.....  Anyways i said my piece.  Hope new stuff comes and cool we can restrict silliness in the mission editor.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Enduro14

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Enduro14 said:

Yup I think some folks don't understand what all those gauges in the pit are actually used for.....

 

I'll be honest, I don't know how to work the fuel gauge yet ;).... But I never fly long enough for it be a problem... 

 

[jubuttib]

15 hours ago, StevanJ said:

The side who brought facts..

Good job.

Just out of interest I went through your posts, and probably missed something (in which case I'd be very grateful if you could point the posts out for me!), but I only saw evidence for a one-off test of NVGs in a Russian exercise, and some Hungarian footage, done relatively recently. Was there any additional evidence?

 

Personally I'd put the limit of inclusion a bit higher than "it was tested a couple of times on this variant".

 

That said I do understand where you're coming from. On the controversial BS3 issue I'm of the opinion that "it's kinda OK". The specific reasons why I think that:

 

1. Like the A-10C II/2.0 update, it's not expected to be replacing the existing BS2 Ka-50, but adding another version. This makes it supremely easy to not include on a server, should you wish to not have it, much easier than going through adding a heli and configuring its settings to reflect the specific variant you're after. Under this clause, I'd be kinda fine with it if they ever released a Mi-24P Hind 2.0, which added all kinds of rare and experimental stuff, like a generic consumer GPS unit for navigation. The base Mi-24P I'd like to stay true to the common version of the variant, with not many exotic tweaks or late in life experimental additions.

 

2. Specifically to the BS3, they wanted to make it properly, but were basically prohibited from doing that by the government. Lots of work that had already done would be wasted, which is never fun, and even the fantasy addons they are planning feature realistic capabilities of the helicopter variant they wanted to make, even if they're not realistic implementations. The version they wanted to make was to have Iglas, MWS, RWR and potentially IR jamming of some kind (don't quote me on the last one), they're adding Iglas and MWS which are realistic capabilities, but doing them in a not fully realistic way due to being prohibited from doing it properly. Under this clause, if for example NVGs on the Mi-24P was a commonly utilized thing, but the government prohibited them from doing a specific simulation of the real life NVG goggles, I'd be more likely to accept it if they did a more generic NVG implementation.

 

This is all different from e.g. the HARMgate for the F-16C, where the issue was that the US specifically chose to take out the necessary wiring for HARMs on two of the pylons, but it was a configuration that was extensively tested, validated, included in manuals, and used by other customer countries. Just not the US.

 

In a similar vein to that, the GPU-5 pod (basically a 4-barrel GAU-8 in pod form) was only ever used in action by the US for one day during the 1st Gulf War (so before our Block 50), after which it was heaved out of the system, but apparently Thai F-5Es use them. So, not a fitting addition to the F-16C we have, but an addition for the F-5E, assuming that in real life it didn't require much in the way of rewiring (the system purportedly fits into standard mounts and the F-16Cs during GW didn't even have it hooked up to the sights, so seems pretty easy to plonk on there and have it work)? Yes please.

 

I'd love to see many other alternative weapons used by the air forces of countries other than the US and Russia, if they are fitted on the same variant of the plane without also needing massive changes to the systems onboard. I like the idea of simulating foreign customer models overall. But often those use significantly different systems overall, making them different variants themselves, so it wouldn't really be appropriate to do that.

5 hours ago, StevanJ said:

I mean from mid 90's the Mi24p usually flew with an Mi24v..

You could probably approximate this in DCS by assigning AI wingmen using the AI only Mi-24? Looking at it in-game it doesn't specify the model, but the things at the ends of the wings look very much like what's seen on the Macedonian Mi-24V and the Polish Mi-24W (which supposedly is just their designation for the V), so is probably at least a close approximation? Fly the P yourself (you'd be the leader anyway, so that fits), and have the AI back you up.

 

Would of course be fantastic to get the V variant too, even if it has a wimpy gun.

Edited September 20, 2021 by jubuttib

[Harlikwin]

15 minutes ago, jubuttib said:

Just out of interest I went through your posts, and probably missed something (in which case I'd be very grateful if you could point the posts out for me!), but I only saw evidence for a one-off test of NVGs in an exercise done relatively recently. Was there any additional evidence?

 

Personally I'd put the limit of inclusion a bit higher than "it was tested a couple of times on this variant".

 

Problem is that "Variant" likely had NV compatible modified pit, nothing like the 80's era pit we have. So its not really relevant. I mean if ED wants to make NV compatible pit, that would be great but thats a whole other can of worms. TBH the Mi8 has the same problem.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Harlikwin

[BIGNEWY]

please treat each other with respect, I suspect this thread is nearly done. 

 

thanks

[HC_Official]

22 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 I suspect this thread is nearly done. 

 

 

 

I guess this will be answered if people stop replying to this thread, just locking it is not the way to handle it

 

As regards the NVG, if people want to use it they can, if they dont want to use it they dont have to

 

I tried flying the hind at night using the NVG ..... and its pretty hard to do

[StevanJ]

17 hours ago, jubuttib said:

Just out of interest I went through your posts, and probably missed something (in which case I'd be very grateful if you could point the posts out for me!), but I only saw evidence for a one-off test of NVGs in a Russian exercise, and some Hungarian footage, done relatively recently. Was there any additional evidence?

 

Personally I'd put the limit of inclusion a bit higher than "it was tested a couple of times on this variant".

 

That said I do understand where you're coming from. On the controversial BS3 issue I'm of the opinion that "it's kinda OK". The specific reasons why I think that:

 

1. Like the A-10C II/2.0 update, it's not expected to be replacing the existing BS2 Ka-50, but adding another version. This makes it supremely easy to not include on a server, should you wish to not have it, much easier than going through adding a heli and configuring its settings to reflect the specific variant you're after. Under this clause, I'd be kinda fine with it if they ever released a Mi-24P Hind 2.0, which added all kinds of rare and experimental stuff, like a generic consumer GPS unit for navigation. The base Mi-24P I'd like to stay true to the common version of the variant, with not many exotic tweaks or late in life experimental additions.

 

2. Specifically to the BS3, they wanted to make it properly, but were basically prohibited from doing that by the government. Lots of work that had already done would be wasted, which is never fun, and even the fantasy addons they are planning feature realistic capabilities of the helicopter variant they wanted to make, even if they're not realistic implementations. The version they wanted to make was to have Iglas, MWS, RWR and potentially IR jamming of some kind (don't quote me on the last one), they're adding Iglas and MWS which are realistic capabilities, but doing them in a not fully realistic way due to being prohibited from doing it properly. Under this clause, if for example NVGs on the Mi-24P was a commonly utilized thing, but the government prohibited them from doing a specific simulation of the real life NVG goggles, I'd be more likely to accept it if they did a more generic NVG implementation.

 

This is all different from e.g. the HARMgate for the F-16C, where the issue was that the US specifically chose to take out the necessary wiring for HARMs on two of the pylons, but it was a configuration that was extensively tested, validated, included in manuals, and used by other customer countries. Just not the US.

 

In a similar vein to that, the GPU-5 pod (basically a 4-barrel GAU-8 in pod form) was only ever used in action by the US for one day during the 1st Gulf War (so before our Block 50), after which it was heaved out of the system, but apparently Thai F-5Es use them. So, not a fitting addition to the F-16C we have, but an addition for the F-5E, assuming that in real life it didn't require much in the way of rewiring (the system purportedly fits into standard mounts and the F-16Cs during GW didn't even have it hooked up to the sights, so seems pretty easy to plonk on there and have it work)? Yes please.

 

I'd love to see many other alternative weapons used by the air forces of countries other than the US and Russia, if they are fitted on the same variant of the plane without also needing massive changes to the systems onboard. I like the idea of simulating foreign customer models overall. But often those use significantly different systems overall, making them different variants themselves, so it wouldn't really be appropriate to do that.

You could probably approximate this in DCS by assigning AI wingmen using the AI only Mi-24? Looking at it in-game it doesn't specify the model, but the things at the ends of the wings look very much like what's seen on the Macedonian Mi-24V and the Polish Mi-24W (which supposedly is just their designation for the V), so is probably at least a close approximation? Fly the P yourself (you'd be the leader anyway, so that fits), and have the AI back you up.

 

Would of course be fantastic to get the V variant too, even if it has a wimpy gun.

 

We got the NVG for the win..  None of this really matters anymore..

[StevanJ]

4 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

The guy that doesn't even fly the Hind He won the interwebs :slowclap: bro. That NVG is in the game was clear five pages ago already... but hey, grats man! You made it!

 

Luckily ED finally made it so we can forbid it on servers, so have fun elsewhere but for sure not on mine. We also have payload restrictions now and i hope for more ways to restrict gamer features via ME. You can play your crazy kids games on your servers. We can do our serious stuff on ours.

 

Yeah, Thanks dude. Its appreciated. Its good to know youve got a little empathy in you.
If you ever need a server donation just send me a PM.

[Quadg]

To be honest. NVG don't magically turn a day fighter into a night fighter.

 

In fact to make a aircraft a proper night fighter you set it up so you avoid needing NVG.

 

See the harrier night attack. Compared to the original day only harrier. With forward looking IR tied into the weapons systems and displayed on the MFD or HUD.

You can do whole night missions and never need to turn on your NVG.

In more modern jets you use the targeting pod which does exactly the same thing.

 

NVG are a convenience. That have killed people.

See that crash off japan where the F/A-18 flew into the fuelling aircraft using NVG.

 

The NVG implementation in the game is so bad that I actually avoid using them as much as possible.

They are not "fun".

 

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all, 

 

regarding night vision for the HIND its something the team will likely make optional and able to restrict it also, then the decision is in the mission designers hands. 

 

When we have more information to share we will.

 

thank you

 

 

 

 

[Stratos]

Restrict it If you want, but please don't eliminate it, Im having fun with the NVG.

[IcedVenom]

On 9/21/2021 at 9:33 AM, Quadg said:

To be honest. NVG don't magically turn a day fighter into a night fighter.

 

In fact to make a aircraft a proper night fighter you set it up so you avoid needing NVG.

 

See the harrier night attack. Compared to the original day only harrier. With forward looking IR tied into the weapons systems and displayed on the MFD or HUD.

You can do whole night missions and never need to turn on your NVG.

In more modern jets you use the targeting pod which does exactly the same thing.

 

NVG are a convenience. That have killed people.

See that crash off japan where the F/A-18 flew into the fuelling aircraft using NVG.

 

The NVG implementation in the game is so bad that I actually avoid using them as much as possible.

They are not "fun".

 

Just so you guys know, I only wanted night vision not for combat, but for night flights and troop landings. Looking forward to news soon about BS3 now.