NVG based on IR instead of low light amplification, Current implementation is too noisy to be usefull

[DmitriKozlowsky]

NVG based on IR instead of low light amplification, Or at least bring up the quality.  Noise washes out pixels of targets. Looking at clouds with NVG has no depth perception . In near pitch dark, ground has no gradation, no depth cue, just solid green noisy amber-green.

Not to point names and name fingers , but the IR and starlight sensor sim in ARMA 3 seems most realistic and usefull. I am not a Arma 3 player.

 

[Tank50us]

Actually, real world NVDs vary greatly in image quality. Here's some from the 1991 Gulf War (one of the first times night vision entered the mainstream)

 

 

 

Sure, that last one of the Apaches looks pretty clear, but I think it's safe to say that that is about as clear as it really gets. In truth, the NVGs used by pilots aren't really supposed to be used for a whole flight, and having actually used NVGs, I can say that their best use is outside the cockpit, not inside it. IE, not using them to try and read instruments, but using them to see what's going on outside the cockpit. In the cockpit, it's best to use the Mk1 Eyeball and the red lighting of the instruments.

 

Here's some more night vision pics:

 

 

 

 

null

[Tippis]

38 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

NVG based on IR instead of low light amplification, Or at least bring up the quality.

The immediate question becomes, do any of the parties and planes represented actually use that?

[Northstar98]

I'm just going to tag @Harlikwin

 

AFAIK at least some NVGs are sensitive to IR, but I've only used one NOD once, years ago, and I've forgotten what generation, model or whatever it was supposed to be. But suffice to say the image looked quite similar to what @Tank50us posted above, they're really not super duper.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

So those pics are kinda trash, someone holding up a camera to the back of an NVG for a few of them by the look of it, so usually they won't be quite that blurry.

 

That being said, intensifier tubes have a long history, and resolution/MTF improved steadily from the 80's on through today, as did low light performance.

 

Something like a Gen2 PVS-5 or AVS-5 modified for is gonna have a resolution of about 28lp/mm and SNR of about 12. Basically they will be useful if there is moon out, and the performance under starlight only is gonna be not great. The first Gen3 anvis were an improvment at 36lp/mm and SNR of 15. And by the mid 90's you had resolutions of about 51lp/mm and SNR's near 20.  By the early 2000's 64lp and 25SNR was pretty standard, and really once you hit 51 or 64 most people can't tell the difference in image quality. These days res is up like 72 and SNR's are in the 30's for high end units, but plenty of older tubes are still being made.

 

The main difference between Gen2 and Gen3 is gonna be the specral range they work in, so the images are a bit different in a few details. Gen2 basically amplifies visible light, while Gen3 starts in the mid visible spectrum and goes into the near IR which is part of why it does better cuz you get a bunch of near IR skyglow which helps illuminate the scene. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DmitriKozlowsky]

If we had that kind of image out of DCS NVG, I'd be OK. But the one right now, the image definition combined with noise make DCS NVG a kind of a no-go.