Improved IR Image (TGP IR)

[uri_ba]

I know it's not the same thing. but still

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ttcyIJPm4

 

in addition,

latest skirmishes in the ME has given us some additional views on FLIR at work.

I think those are UAVs cams mostly. but FLIR looks the same anyway.

 

if you look carefully, you can even see a cigarette bud thrown to the side at one point

 

first clips of footage looks like day TADS of an Apache, but the rest seems to be LIGHTNING I or LANTIRN

 

FLIR through a cloud

 

 

I think that youtube is filled with those. giving us all the FLIR imagery we need :)

Edited March 23, 2011 by uri_ba

[sorcer3r]

+1

 

I don't think we need a revamp of the IR display just some tweaking on the textures will work for me and could make a great difference.

 

Yep, would be great. After Black Shark i was really lookin forward to the warthogs FLIR. But sometimes it looks that there is lava over the ground or that trees ar burning ;) but surely its better than the BS cam.

 

til now maybe the only issue iam a bit dissapointed about. but imho a very important one.

nevertheless a great sim. :thumbup:

Edited March 24, 2011 by sorcer3r

[BTTW-DratsaB]

Agreed. +1 for future improvements to the TGP FLIR.

 

Welcome to the forum sorcer3r :sorcerer:

[sorcer3r]

There is now an estimate of when we can expect a improved IR-image (e.g. patch .0.9 or compatibility patch)?

 

 

Welcome to the forum sorcer3r :sorcerer:

 

thx :)

[Wags]

No, far beyond the scope of a patch. Hopefully for a later DCS project.

[sorcer3r]

Ok ;( but thx for the info.

[Frostiken]

No, far beyond the scope of a patch. Hopefully for a later DCS project.

 

:cry:

 

Don't worry sorcer3r, they'll fix them up for DCS: F-15E

 

 

:D

[fael097]

I thought we were getting a flir fix on 1.1.0.8?

 

srsly, It has been discussed manytimes, but tanks should look bright like the sun in flir. and yet we have lava textures, and sometimes tanks that look camouflated in the infrared camera. this is impossible.

 

I mean, google for FLIR images, or just look new battlefield 3 flir imagery at 4:48

 

Im jealous.

Edited June 7, 2011 by fael097

[Frostiken]

I think you guys are overestimating just how bright they should appear.

 

FLIR isn't just for seeing 'bright hot things'. High quality FLIR like those of a SniperXR can paint a pretty clear general image of everything, and at very close ranges, you can make out so much detail it just looks like a perfectly clear black and white image.

 

If I get a chance I'll give you guys some example of SniperXR FLIR imagery (on the ground only though). You may be surprised at how 'hot' certain things look.

[sorcer3r]

 

If I get a chance I'll give you guys some example of SniperXR FLIR imagery (on the ground only though).

 

that would be great :thumbup:

[Isegrim]

Correct.

There's a special video I've prepared for such occasions :P

 

 

 

 

Just asking here... Is it that IR image in Warthog should show different levels of IR spectrum on hot parts of vehicles?

 

BTW, here's s thermo imagery done in a primitive graphics engine of Steel Beasts Pro Pe.

 

 

Here's how it would look like in B/W:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bucic thats Heatsight and is not the same like FLIR it work at less distances and doesnt work through Clouds or Fog.

:smilewink: Just for info :D But it should look similar to the last picture.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Isegrim

[Ranger79]

Before it escalates, here is a real life TGP Litening II images. As you can see not that much different from what you have in the sim.

:huh:

 

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6568/hhn.mp4

 

Wow, the HUD and MFCD look identical to the real life version, amazing work ED. Thought I was watching game footage at first.

[Milene]

For the love of the HOG improve the FLIR

 

like the title says please work on this cause this is the only factor that irritates me right now. Even soil spots look like vehicles... :(

 

Proper FLIR

 

[GGTharos]

No, yours is FLIR from a game, and that makes the comparison irrelevant.

 

This is proper FLIR (look at 3:15. Can you spot the animals easily before they move? Knowing where they are after you've seen them move is cheating):

 

XyZl69mns2I&feature=player_detailpage#t=152s

Edited July 13, 2011 by GGTharos

[BBQ]

what a waste of steaks

[LostOblivion]

what a waste of steaks

What do you mean? They turned into steaks in 0.5 seconds! :)

 

On topic: What I would like to see is improvements when it comes to explosions in the engine. We need more particles.

[Milene]

No, yours is FLIR from a game, and that makes the comparison irrelevant.

 

This is proper FLIR (look at 3:15. Can you spot the animals easily before they move? Knowing where they are after you've seen them move is cheating):

 

XyZl69mns2I&feature=player_detailpage#t=152s

 

Watched it and still its clearer then the flir ingame.

[sam777777]

No, BiPod is right, I have several thermodynamic courses somewhere deep back in the brain, only weak memories now, but IIRC the definition of heat is not what most people think it is. But like he says, the description you guys were using is good enough for practical purposes. But he is not wrong like you said he was.

 

How about this:

Heat is the amount of particle movement (subatomic) in a material and can be perceived by either sensing the heightened energy (you feel heat) or by picking up the EMR coming off the material (IR waves created by the moving particles). Is that about right? (just guessing here, never done thermodynamics etc)

 

I think a very good indicator of what it would be like is to imagine touching the objects. We are in georgia here, a reasonably cold country. Imagine touching:

-The ground vs A soldiers body/face.

-A tree (trunk/leaves doesn't matter) vs the side of a (metal tank) or even the exhaust areas (ouch!)

etc

 

 

I think you will agree that there will be a large difference in temperature, that will be picked up by the IR sensor so if you can feel the difference you WILL see the difference. (that is what the IR sensor is there for anyway).

 

Also... why is it always slightly out of focus, just seems weird...

 

just my input :thumbup:

[Eddie]

Watched it and still its clearer then the flir ingame.

 

And so it should be, the video is footage from a Sniper XR pod which is just a bit more advanced than the LITENING II modelled in the sim.

 

However, yes there is some work needed on IR modelling but it won't happen overnight. It'll get there eventually, but will require the team to develop a whole new IR simulation model. What we have now is a texture set for IR rather than a true simulation of IR.

[Frostiken]

Wait, what are we even arguing about?

 

1) Hotter things show up brighter on FLIR than things that are colder.

2) For things that are the same temperature, differences in thermal radiant coefficients means they project a different IR signature and thus, will be easily distinguishable by a FLIR sensor and contrast with each other in black and white.

 

If you look at an aircraft at night (up close) with FLIR, especially if it's been running, you can make out the gaps in the panels, you cannot really read the tail number (the paint used for the number doesn't contrast enough with the aircraft paint). However, you can actually see the rigid structure of the aircraft. Due to the warmer interior conducting metal, where the aircraft skin is riveted on will appear brighter, giving it a sort of checkerboard appearance. Instead of appearing flat, you can see the ribs underneath. The engine retains a lot of heat and the intakes themselves will glow much brighter than the rest of the aircraft hours and hours after shutdown.

 

 

PS: GGTharos, I saw the animals right away. Sure, they appear to be as "warm" as the wall behind them, but they contrast nicely with the GROUND, which is the problem in DCS.

 

Also, Milene, if you're talking about image quality, that's a SniperXR which is way better than a Litening pod...

 

Honestly, if we just tweaked the ground textures to be much more gray appearing, it would be at least a token effort until we get a more realistic modeling in a future module...

 

Also, sorry for no pod pictures, hasn't come up recently :/

Edited July 14, 2011 by Frostiken

[slug88]

What we have now is a texture set for IR rather than a true simulation of IR.

 

But if that were the case, then this could be easily addressed by some modding, could it not? I thought the whole problem is that we don't even have a unique texture set, but rather a filter that gets applied over the regular textures.

[sobek]

^^^^

True, AFAIK.

 

What we have now is a texture set for IR rather than a true simulation of IR.

 

How would a 'true simulation of IR' look like? It would render the same geometry with different light spectrum and different surface parameters associated with that light spectrum, then frequency shift the result into the visible spectrum. That's a lot of signal processing for a result that could be obtained much easier with a separate texture set. The result of which can be very realistic, as some games recently have demonstrated. The problem is, creating these texture sets is not a fast fix, it's something on the magnitude of what sets two module generations of the DCS engine apart.

[Eddie]

I thought the whole problem is that we don't even have a unique texture set, but rather a filter that gets applied over the regular textures.

 

Correct, wrong wording on my part, it's what happens when you're posting at 0445 in the morning.

 

A true simulation of IR would look like, well, an IR image. It'd be no small task and a long way off if we ever see it, but it'd be nice.

 

I'd be happy with a half decent IR system with heat zones on all units making hot areas (engines etc) look hotter than cold areas even if they are fixed, and having a full set of textures dedicated to IR. At the moment, while a reasonable facsimile in some situations the IR model is unquestionably lacking.

 

As with everything it'll take time.

[Madman777]

I've just learned to live with it. I've had some success adjusting the gain levels...etc.

 

I mostly use only BHOT, as I find that mode is easier to spot targets. Also find it much easier the closer you are to the target in WHOT or BHOT.

 

My two cents :-)

[Speed]

Correct, wrong wording on my part, it's what happens when you're posting at 0445 in the morning.

 

A true simulation of IR would look like, well, an IR image. It'd be no small task and a long way off if we ever see it, but it'd be nice.

 

I'd be happy with a half decent IR system with heat zones on all units making hot areas (engines etc) look hotter than cold areas even if they are fixed, and having a full set of textures dedicated to IR. At the moment, while a reasonable facsimile in some situations the IR model is unquestionably lacking.

 

As with everything it'll take time.

 

Wouldn't be a true IR sim unless those hot areas of the vehicle got hotter when they were driving, the gun barrels of tanks got hot after firing, etc. It's a lot of work to do a really good IR sim.

 

I do have a question though... I'm wondering if we have a bit of an IR sim built in already. It could just be my imagination, but when I'm flying at high altitudes, attacking enemy vehicles with Mavericks on the winter tiles, my Mavericks seem to be able to lock up a good 1.5-2.0 miles further out than they do when I'm flying at low altitude during summer temperatures. I've gotten locks with Mavericks from 9.4 nm away during winter.

 

Anyone know what the reflectivity is of snow in MWIR (3-5 microns)? A prime example of IR not being all about heat is if snow is very reflective, then quite possibly, it could be brighter on a thermal imager than a tank sitting in the middle of it (especially with its engine off) during the day. The sun outputs A LOT of IR. Plank's law only holds for non-reflecting bodies :)

 

Edit:

Yea... you just can't forget the effects of the reflectance of solar radiation, and of solar heating, on IR imagery, and I think most people in this thread have.

 

Doing a quick calculation... at mid day, the Sun is going to be dumping like 14 W/m^2 on the earth's surface in the MWIR window, and an object at 40 degrees C is going to be outputting like 7.4 W/m^2 in MWIR. So if that 40 degrees C object is against a MWIR reflective surface, it's going to kill your contrast quite a bit... which would match what I've seen through thermal imagers. Clouds look very white and bright, for example, because they reflect a huge portion of the MWIR, so that their apparent temperature on your thermal imager is not their actual temperature, but the temperature of something that's like 45 degrees C! I remember seeing a thermal imaging system trying to track an aircraft and locking on a bright spot in a cumulus cloud instead.

 

Also remember that in addition to reflecting solar radiation, the ground/surroundings also are still emitting on their own... and if it's mid day, they could be pretty hot.

 

So I think a lot of the reason that we're seeing a mis-match between what people expect these IR imagers should output in game and the comparatively low contrast we are seeing in game and on some IR imagery is because that real-life low contrast stuff was likely taken during daylight hours (or even during a hot night), and the images where people are showing up as bright spots against a dark background was taken at night, and probably a fairly cool night too.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Speed