Thanks ED Devs for your work

[icemaker]

Seems that finally Dev had time to work on TGP's

[EasyEB]

Can’t wait for this!

[schurem]

Is gun' be gud! aww yiss!

[Ballinger French]

Has the TGP been updated with the latest patch or is this a pending feature of a future patch?  

[Foka]

It's not a TGP update, but whole FLIR system overhaul, and not, it's not out yet, not even announced the date.

[Caldera]

Hey All,

Please understand that I am not un-thanking the developers.  But, the TGP still has the same issues that it has had since "the clouds" evolved.  At least for me,the TGP image is not so good at times.  I am also very much looking forward to the FLIR update.  Considering FLIR, have a look at the pictures below.

It is worse over airports and / or very high viewing angles.  At times, FLIR is non existent.

Non airports and flatter viewing angles seem better.  Narrow seems worse than wide.

It does generally very well on destroyed vehicles and / or bomb craters (these are shelling craters), and oddly buildings / structures.  Even gun projectile strikes can really stand out (HE rounds?).

Merry Christmas to all,

Caldera

[Yurgon]

8 hours ago, Caldera said:

But, the TGP still has the same issues that it has had since "the clouds" evolved.

I've never operated a FLIR in real life, so I have no clue whether or not it is realistic. But I find that the MFCD brightness and contrast settings now have a massive impact on target visibility. With one setting, targets might not show up at all, and just one or two notches up or down and the targets light up like a Christmas tree. Until the new FLIR rendering makes it into the game, this might help as a workaround.

If memory serves, dialing the brightness down a lot sets a good basis, and then the contrast setting offers fine-tuning.

Let me know if this helps you. For me in a campaign I flew recently, this was literally night and day.

[Caldera]

Yurgon,

Thanks, for the work around.  I have actually tried what you suggest quite a few times.

• It does work for BHOT or WHOT, but effectively limits use to one selection or the another once the adjustments are made.  Then CCD is completely excluded.
• I am annoyed to have to constantly due that.
• For what I read, the Devs are indeed working on a solution and I can patiently wait (for what choice do I have?). 

I have not ever operated a TGP either, just in flight simulators and mostly only in DCS. 

With that said, I have used some pretty high dollar IR cameras (25K+).  While this is not exactly apples to box cars the principle is the same.  Any small variation in temperature can be detected amazingly easy and the non-IR image can easily be superimposed upon the IR image as an option.  However, the focal range and magnification of these two devices is something well to consider and reason enough to disregard my above comments as you wish.

This is what the sales people at Thorthrup - Grumman advertise.    No price is listed on the website, but I was a nice boy all year!

Merry Christmas,

Caldera

Edited December 25, 2021 by Caldera

[Yurgon]

6 hours ago, Caldera said:

• It does work for BHOT or WHOT, but effectively limits use to one selection or the another once the adjustments are made.  Then CCD is completely excluded.

Oh yeah, I found the same caveats. And not just that. It seems that cloud cover has a massive impact as well; objects under cloud cover seem to have a vastly different IR signature compared to targets not under cloud cover. Without any real world data, I have no actual frame of reference. But it seems a bit weird that a crystal clear image turns to shadow-on-shadow-dark just because of cloud cover or sunlight exposure.

Let's see what the new IR renderer will bring to DCS.

[Ready]

Can't wait. It sometimes is a hit and sometimes is a miss. I sometimes can't get anything clear. BHOT or WHOT, no matter how I much I adjust settings.  

 

[ASAP]

On 12/25/2021 at 6:01 PM, Yurgon said:

Oh yeah, I found the same caveats. And not just that. It seems that cloud cover has a massive impact as well; objects under cloud cover seem to have a vastly different IR signature compared to targets not under cloud cover. Without any real world data, I have no actual frame of reference. But it seems a bit weird that a crystal clear image turns to shadow-on-shadow-dark just because of cloud cover or sunlight exposure.

Let's see what the new IR renderer will bring to DCS.

I assume you are talking about when there's an overcast cloud layer above you?  It would make a difference since the scene is not reflecting as much of the sunlight and the sun hasn't heated the surface up as much you'd get a bit less contrast but not as bad as DCS makes it out to be. In real life it would of course depend on how long the clouds have been there, if its been overcast all day and the sun never hit the target it wouldn't be radiating as much energy as if the cloud deck just rolled in. If its something like a tank though with really hot turbine engine it should still be lit up like a christmas tree.

If you are looking down through clouds at a target you'll just see the top of a cloud. FLIR can't see through them at all. I've noticed in DCS that clouds have passed between me and the target and the TGP can still see a clear scene but the target just disappears. That is totally unrealistic.

 

[Yurgon]

1 hour ago, ASAP said:

you'd get a bit less contrast but not as bad as DCS makes it out to be

That's the point I was trying to make.