Jump to content

Night Vision?


IcedVenom

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, VpR81 said:

From wich period is the Mi-24 we're getting in DCS? 2005? No, afaik the Hind we're getting is from the 80's and there were no NVGs for the Hind. Also, the countries (except for Serbia) mentioned in your link are NATO members and are getting NVGs due to the NATO modernization program for new members (all payed by NATO fundings) and the NVG friendly cockpits are mostly installed by an israeli company named Elbit Systems. A lot of the modernisation work is contracted to ukrainian companies as well. Without that program, they'd propably be still flying without NVGs and these Hinds have nothing more in common with russian made hinds except for the airframe and engines. Their avionics are NATO standard now. And by that article, serbia is still waiting for the Mi-35 to be delivered - nothing beeing in use yet. In short terms, this is in no way related to this topic/the Mi-24 we're getting for DCS.

 

 

Article is not valid. We(Serbia) got initial batch of 4 Mi-35Ms. And they have NVG and FLIR. Mi-35M is not comparable avionics vise with old Mi-24. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

When i think Hind i see Soviet mechanized assaut. With all its glory but also some limitations.

Analog Hind with some modern computer on a pilot's head would ruin my inpression. Very questionable it would be realistic at all. For sure not in Soviet times when Hind was feared and relevant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2021 at 11:52 AM, Desert Fox said:

 

Would you mind sharing the source for that? Later iterations for sure, but for the MTV2 im not aware of. Always glad to add stuff to the library.

 

Apart from that, i didn't mean to derail this to an UH-1H/Mi-8MTV2 discussion. In regards of the Mi-24P it's simply irrelevant and a non-argument ("B must receive because A got it too", comparing bananas and cucumbers, that's just silly).

 

I´ve been looking for where I read it, but cannot find it. I´m pretty sure that I read about it on http://vimpel-v.com, but not 100% sure. While looking through my other sources, some of the websites have either been taken down or have had their content deleted due to the new Russian law regarding military information sharing. 

 

In any case, I know it was written on a reliable website, and I know that it was before the Yom Kippur war, that it had been tried. The mi8´s that received those didn´t have any mentioned modifications, other than the pilot outfitted with NVGs. That was the essence of the article. (It was in relation to Soviet Union providing Egypt with NVGs during Yom Kippur War itself, their ground troops.)

 

On 6/3/2021 at 9:34 AM, Flаnker said:

Mi-24 cockpit adapted for night vision goggles

195430011_2310701609062187_3868074240445555219_n.jpg

195373118_175450184418414_2317855142474650865_n.jpg

 

 

Very good picture of the gunner´s panel. Indeed it uses green backlight as opposed to e.g. Ka 50 with it´s blue. Ka 52 also uses green.


Edited by zerO_crash

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Czechnology said:

I'd imagine it isn't a huge stretch for the pilots to wear night vision goggles. Night vision integrated into the systems is an obvious no, but goggles for the pilot I'd think is reasonable

 

There is absolutely nothing stopping a pilot from throwing on some infantry type nvg's in any aircraft ever made save for their finances or what they are issued. How useful such NVG's would be is another matter. This does fall into the category of doctrine vs possibility. Officially the Mi-8's bomb selection is limited to a few Soviet designed bombs, in reality the Syrian airforce has been rolling 55 gallon oil drums (and other random stuff) filled with explosives out the cargo doors for a while. Similarly I'm sure more than a few pilots around the world with legacy aircraft are breaking out ye old handheld GPS (or phone) for navigational assistance. I'm not opposed to including such crew workarounds in aircraft but also see why they generally aren't.

System specs: i5-10600k (4.9 GHz), RX 6950XT, 32GB DDR4 3200, NVMe SSD, Reverb G2, WinWing Super Libra/Taurus, CH Pro Pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Czechnology said:

I'd imagine it isn't a huge stretch for the pilots to wear night vision goggles. Night vision integrated into the systems is an obvious no, but goggles for the pilot I'd think is reasonable

 

Except this "idea" was tried in the late70's and 80's and ended up with a bunch of dead aircrews. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Except this "idea" was tried in the late70's and 80's and ended up with a bunch of dead aircrews. 

 

I don't doubt it, NVG's aren't magical devices that let you see in total darkness. Early models in particular often required IR illuminators with very limited range. Then there is the issue of being able to see instruments and depth perception. Most NVG's until very recently were monoculars.

  • Thanks 1

System specs: i5-10600k (4.9 GHz), RX 6950XT, 32GB DDR4 3200, NVMe SSD, Reverb G2, WinWing Super Libra/Taurus, CH Pro Pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BeastyBaiter said:

 

I don't doubt it, NVG's aren't magical devices that let you see in total darkness. Early models in particular often required IR illuminators with very limited range. Then there is the issue of being able to see instruments and depth perception. Most NVG's until very recently were monoculars.

 

Actually, the first usable ones were binos. The PVS-5's designed for infantry use were trialed, and then rapidly people figured out that you needed to cut off the sides and bottom (since the side/face/glow was a no factor for air ops). But yeah, there was a ton of trial and alot of error at first to figure out what would actually work for Air Ops vs ground ops. Most helos in the 70's and 80's were required to fly with pink lights and only only under certain lunar illumination. Plus in addition to the loss of most of your FOV, and limited depth perception, the "image quality" of the earlier ones meant you had like 20/40 or 20/50 vision, imagine an old tube TV set resolution wise... Lots of problems with cockpit lighting/instruments, spatial disorientation. I forget the exact numbers for aircraft lost but it was relatively high. So this idea of just strapping on a NVG with no specific training or a modified cockpit was "tried" and it "failed". 

PVS-5.jpg.cbe70e78c88aad9b7d486b18f97b24

 

PVS-5MFP.jpg


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the gazelle had no night vision in RL either. As far as I know, Viggen had the option of using night vision devices in RL but was never used. The M2k-C never has this IR warning receiver in RL (or am I wrong?). No problem in DCS. Whether the Mi-24 gets NVG shouldn't be such a big game changer? Except that you have the opportunity to fly night missions. Should it be positive in view of future campaigns for the Mi-24. And if you don't want to buy the Mi-24 because it 'doesn't correspond to reality' ... well ... then that's the way it is. 

  • Like 3

**************************************

DCS World needs the Panavia Tornado! Really!

**************************************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Definitely not the variant we got in DCS (which dates back way over 20 years, quite a stretch)

 

Well, arguably it doesn't, the removal of Lipa is more of a modern thing, though I'm being a bit pedantic, apart from that (and Ataka integration sometime during the 90s) it's still basically the exact same helicopter, with the same non-NVG compatible cockpit from around the mid 80s.

  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont get the "realism" argument. I really dont.

 

The year in DCS is not 1970. Or 1980. 

 

 

With the German Eurofighter coming to DCS we are at least in 2006, most likely way further.

 

So you are now telling me, that it is unrealistic to be able to use NVG?

 

Just because that one particular airframe you are sitting in was made 50 years ago? I dont understand why someone would even consider this unrealistic. As long as the Hind is able to fly with or against 2000++ planes or systems, I dont see any issue with NVG.

 

Also "realism" guys, keep in mind, that just because YOU dont like something, that you can chose to use or not, does not mean no one else should have a choice.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Keks said:

I dont get the "realism" argument. I really dont.

 

The year in DCS is not 1970. Or 1980. 

 

 

With the German Eurofighter coming to DCS we are at least in 2006, most likely way further.

 

So you are now telling me, that it is unrealistic to be able to use NVG?

 

Just because that one particular airframe you are sitting in was made 50 years ago? I dont understand why someone would even consider this unrealistic. As long as the Hind is able to fly with or against 2000++ planes or systems, I dont see any issue with NVG.

 

Also "realism" guys, keep in mind, that just because YOU dont like something, that you can chose to use or not, does not mean no one else should have a choice.

 

You might try reading. The reason its not realistic is because IRL cockpits have to be made NVG compatible, otherwise you're hosed/blinded as a pilot. The Mi24 pit is not. Therefore unrealistic.

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with @Kekson this one. You don't like certain feature? Easy, don't use it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want realism, let's see how much realism do you want? You bork the landing, engine limit, pull to many G's. IRL that would put you on CO's "I am watching you" list. In DCS it has no consequence. How much realism you want if you get shot down/KIA? Are you going to stop flying in DCS? Yeah, didn't think so.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, admiki said:

I'm with @Kekson this one. You don't like certain feature? Easy, don't use it.

 

And what happens if you run into a bug that causes weird things to happen if you fly above a certain rated airspeed, and developers in response say "well, don't fly that fast" are you really going to be satisfied with that answer?

 

This isn't even far fetched, it's exactly what the F-14A was doing when it was initially released into the OB.

 

3 hours ago, admiki said:

If you want realism, let's see how much realism do you want? You bork the landing, engine limit, pull to many G's. IRL that would put you on CO's "I am watching you" list. In DCS it has no consequence. How much realism you want if you get shot down/KIA? Are you going to stop flying in DCS? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

What even is this argument? How do people seriously keep making this point over and over again.

 

It's right there on the front page, clear as day:

 

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

 

That's where realism starts and where it ends, in the depiction of the assets themselves, more or less in a vacuum.

 

So the building blocks should be realistic as possible to their RL counterparts (which can be extrapolated to the modules, the assets and the maps), what scenarios you build out of them and how you use them is totally up to you.

 

You want to make a fictional scenario set on the post 2010s Marianas map, where I-16s backed up by Patriots are facing JF-17s, in a mission set before the Wright Flyer? Go right ahead.

 

But that I-16 should be accurate to its RL counterpart, and that JF-17 and Patriot should be too, as well as the Marianas map, at least where possible to do so.

 

That's how much realism I want, and I think that's the perfect balance between realism and sandbox, and it's completely in line with the stated goals right there for everyone to see on the main DCS website.

 

Secondly, let's say that x is unrealistic, why does that justify y being unrealistic too? 


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Here goes the iF yOu dONt liKe iT DonT UsE It trolling again, that got old long ago kid. Discussed so often already and you guys still don't get it. Ignore list is getting longer and longer 😄

I don't know where you got that idea, but I am not trolling. You don't like it? So what? Why is that my concern. I fly only helicopters, I am not interested in airplanes of any kind. How would you react if I go and ask for ED to drop everything that is not rotary? I'm sure you wouldn't say: Yeah, that guy doesn't like the airplanes as much as I do, let's drop them.

And I have already said it, you guys are already ignoring quite a lot with the way you use those airplanes, but somehow that is  just fine because you don't mind it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, admiki said:

And I have already said it, you guys are already ignoring quite a lot with the way you use those airplanes, but somehow that is  just fine because you don't mind it.

 

No, it's right there in the core principles of DCS! It's right there in it's product description, that's why it's "just fine".

 

Where realism is concerned is in the depiction of the building blocks themselves, so modules, assets and maps should be as accurate to their real life counterparts as possible, how you use them is up to you. This isn't difficult, it's the core principle of DCS, and it's right there in it's own product description.

 

You seem to think that this is a contradiction, because you think that realism is all or nothing, when it isn't.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

 

It's a simmer thing, gamers don't understand.

 

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

No, it's right there in the core principles of DCS! It's right there in it's product description.


Hmm just looked up the word 'Simulation' and 'Game', A game 'an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun. Whereas 'a simulation represents the evolution of a model over time.'
Just how much time should i wait until we see this 'activity that i engage in for fun' evolve over time?

If peeps want nightvision, let them ask.. whats the harm?
I want the Yak to be finished, The Dora's engine to last more than 5 minutes on a server, and Storm of War to allow the Mosquito into the server upon launch..

We are all allowed to dream..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we have documentation supporting the use of Night Vision Goggles in the Mi24P

 

Quote

Russian Central Military recently tested Mi-24P Hind rotorcraft in helicopter-killer role during night tactical flight exercises in Ural's Kurgan region.

"Six 'enemy' helicopters carried out reconnaissance of the area of the troops deployment in order to detect and destroy command posts and fire weapons. The crews of Mi-24P attack helicopters, that were on duty, flew over the terrain using night vision goggles and discovered the hidden movement of the air group of the simulated enemy. The pilots of Mi-24P helicopters performed dynamic maneuvering at extremely low altitudes, about 60 meters, worked out the techniques of night air combat: slides, carousels, horizontal scissors, and destroyed the air group," Russian defense ministry said in a statement August 15.

The exercise was peculiar due to the use of night vision goggles by Mi-24P crews which allowed them to navigate the terrain, conduct aerial reconnaissance and air combat, without turning on the onboard lighting equipment.

Last year the Russian Helicopters holding company announced that the modernized version of Mi-35P (Mi-35P is the export version of Mi-24P) had been offered to the African countries. According to the company, the helicopter has received new engines, the new sighting and navigation system, and more weapons. Weapons system onboard the helicopter were reportedly optimized.


Here is a corresponding video
 

 

Given @Northstar98 Quote

 

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.


And @Desert Fox need for a simulation.. It must be added..

Everyone now wins..


Edited by StevanJ
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 3:31 PM, StevanJ said:

 


Hmm just looked up the word 'Simulation' and 'Game', A game 'an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun. Whereas 'a simulation represents the evolution of a model over time.'
Just how much time should i wait until we see this 'activity that i engage in for fun' evolve over time?

If peeps want nightvision, let them ask.. whats the harm?
I want the Yak to be finished, The Dora's engine to last more than 5 minutes on a server, and Storm of War to allow the Mosquito into the server upon launch..

We are all allowed to dream..

 

Because a simulation is a piece of software that is meant to represent something real, not fulfill dreams or add imaginary items/systems at the behest of the "crowd". This is sadly a big issue when something becomes popular to the point where people with completely different ideas come in and want theirs first, without understanding the origins of the product. Back in the day, when there were barely people on the forums, and 95% of the people participating here now didn´t know that DCS existed, we at least had realism. Now, stuff get´s added because it brings $$$ and the western crowd pays as long as they get the newest, best, fastest and the most one-man-army-like. DCS has evolved in many good ways, without a doubt, but there are drawbacks as well. There was for example much more IRL army/air force/navy personell here before, and they would always chime in with good input and insight on design, practices and ideology behind certain aspects of these modules and warfare. Sadly, being met with growing stupidity, arrogance and ridiculous statements here, most of all, arm-chair commandoes, more and more have moved into closed enclaves and clans. It just gets tiring to talk with mindless who have no aspect of realism, and cover themselves behind the slogan of "game" or whatever idiotic reasons they have. So to answer you simple, no, you shouldn´t simulate things as far as going to the hospital because you got shot down in DCS and are simulating an ejection with a broken leg upon landing in the virtual world. We are however for simulating aircraft, systems and the whole eco-system as closely to reality as possible, because those are the roots of DCS and why us old dogs initially joined. Besides, don´t you have a lot more games out there (ACE Combat to name one) to pollute with your nonsense? You already got F-22 and F-35 there, why bother stirring things up here? It sure cannot be for cockpit and switches, because you already want non-existing systems in certain modules, so why even bother clicking and going to these lengths with studying manuals in the first place?


Edited by zerO_crash
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s always a battle between the PK online air quake crowd and those that like the restrictions that are true to the real world.  I use to think it’s all sim and this and that, granted I’ve been here since Blackshark beta and never imagined Dcs world would come and have all these awesome modules to fly.  It’s interesting, I will say I like realism I did a career in military and that’s how I am programmed, one thing I’ll say is the harm f16 thing I was totally fine with it being restricted as no proof at time showed 4/6 was usable for Harm.  Well proof came and now will be recertified for 4/6 harm.  Hey  fine by me and ED has done a smart thing added the option to restrict load outs.  Possibilities are endless with that feature especially online wise. 
  I think what we all run into is, ED is doing this specific airframe from this specific time frame, thus certain capabilities that it has now doesn’t mean it did back then.  So the real question is ok is ED going to stick to the Strict year or timeline of said airframe or for instance our hind in real world currently can do Nvg…..  and add it as an example.  Same could be said for F18 and F16 and on and on.  
  I won’t lie I am a bit confused as to what the exact SOP is currently with DCS modules development and what to add and not add as far as it can do this it can carry this and so on.  I imagine it can be optional which for the Hind nvg is optional so you can currently restrict it in the mission editor.


Edited by Enduro14

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

 

Because a simulation is a piece of software that is meant to represent something real, not fulfill dreams or add imaginary items/systems at the behest of the "crowd". This is sadly a big issue when something becomes popular to the point where people with completely different ideas come in and want theirs first, without understanding the origins of the product. Back in the day, when there were barely people on the forums, and 95% of the people participating here now didn´t know that DCS existed, we at least had realism. Now, stuff get´s added because it brings $$$ and the western crowd pays as long as they get the newest, best, fastest and the most one-man-army-like. DCS has evolved in many good ways, without a doubt, but there are drawbacks as well. There was for example much more IRL army/air force/navy personell here before, and they would always chime in with good input and insight on design, practices and ideology behind certain aspects of these modules and warfare. Sadly, being met with growing stupidity, arrogance and ridiculous statements here, most of all arm-chair commandoes, more and more have moved into closed enclaves and clans. It just gets tiring to talk with mindless who have no aspect of realism, and cover themselves behind the slogan of "game" or whatever idiotic reasons they have. So to answer you simple, no, you shouldn´t simulate things as far as going to the hospital because you got shot down in DCS and are simulating an ejection with a broken leg upon landing in the virtual world. We are however for simulating aircraft, systems and the whole eco-system as closely to reality as possible, because those are the roots of DCS and why us old dogs initially joined. Besides, don´t you have a lot more games out there (ACE Combat to name one) to pollute with your nonsense? You already got F-22 and F-35 there, why bother stirring things up here? It sure cannot be for cockpit and switches, because you already want non-existing systems in certain modules, so why even bother clicking and going to these lengths with studying manuals in the first place?

 


How else are DCS supposed to bring the money in?

Manuals? Who uses manuals?
I just watch grim reapers videos, no point wasting my time reading manuals..

So, youre quite a bit off topic here, are you for or against the NVG?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...