Improved IR Image (TGP IR)

[SimFreak]

With all of this IR chatter, not a single person mentioned thermal cross-over.... Because it matter and makes a rather big difference.

[RichardG]

Peyoteros, I just saw your 3 images, and they are screwed up. Look at the second one (BHOT). The mans boots, hat, and rifle are showing to be the hottest, when his face, hands and arms should be. The first image has the same problem but reversed.

 

In Arma2 Arrowhead, they had to make new "heat" textures for every object in the game for their new thermal sights, and it looks damn good. I think they used some kind of shortcut to code it in A10.

 

Leokong, in your image, the trees are as hot as the men and vehicle on the road. Now I know

ff I'm ever dying of hypothermia in the woods, all I have to do is go "hug a tree"

[Peyoteros]

And that is what I managed to squeeze out with a little tunning up.

[Peyoteros]

Those were basic FLIR images, default so to speak. There is no problem to tune it while sparking up the plane. It's not perfect, but close enough. There are lots of things in Arma2 OA, which looks good, A10 cockpit thou isn't one of them.

 

Peyoteros, I just saw your 3 images, and they are screwed up. Look at the second one (BHOT). The mans boots, hat, and rifle are showing to be the hottest, when his face, hands and arms should be. The first image has the same problem but reversed.

 

In Arma2 Arrowhead, they had to make new "heat" textures for every object in the game for their new thermal sights, and it looks damn good. I think they used some kind of shortcut to code it in A10.

 

Leokong, in your image, the trees are as hot as the men and vehicle on the road. Now I know

ff I'm ever dying of hypothermia in the woods, all I have to do is go "hug a tree"

Edited March 13, 2011 by Peyoteros

[RodBorza]

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

 

Good video. Sometimes there I thought I was looking the sim TGP video. It only made me see how much the sim is very well modelled. For me, with current technology, it is acceptable.

 

That's only a 500lb (GBU-12/38). :D A 2000lb bomb is much, much bigger.

 

If it's the best weapon for the target, then that's what you use. Proportionality doesn't come into the equation.

 

Well, the explosions really are big. Interesting to see how the FLIR image is washed out by the explosions. I wonder what 2000 pounder is like...

 

About the man being hit by a bomb. Somebody said that depending on what you are carrying and the threat level, it's better to let a bomb go than risk a strafing run.

In the SimHQ there's a nice article of A-10's operations over Kosovo, and in one passage the pilot says that he engaged an ammo truck with a Maverick. What seems to be a waste, in real life avoided that the pilot getting too close to AAA's in the area. Very good reading.

 

The article can be seen here:

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_050a.html

:joystick:

Edited March 13, 2011 by RodBorza

[bumfire]

And that is what I managed to squeeze out with a little tunning up.

 

Wallhack :lol:

[Pyroflash]

While we are on this subject, I have a weird error where my TGP's FLIR modes work fine in multiplayer, but as soon as I hop into singleplayer, a lot of my options are not usable such as gain and contrast levels, and in addition the FLIR does not work at all. It is just a black and white replica of what is shown on the CCD. I can even pick up clouds? Hot clouds at that(Or at least they would be, but since they are white, and white=hot, and my FLIR is just black and white... oh forget it)...

Edited March 14, 2011 by Pyroflash

[aaron886]

...what? :huh:

[GGTharos]

Clean re-install.

 

While we are on this subject, I have a weird error where my TGP's FLIR modes work fine in multiplayer, but as soon as I hop into singleplayer, a lot of my options are not usable such as gain and contrast levels, and in addition the FLIR does not work at all. It is just a black and white replica of what is shown on the CCD. I can even pick up clouds? Hot clouds at that(Or at least they would be, but since they are white, and white=hot, and my FLIR is just black and white... oh forget it)...

[Bushmanni]

During daylight the heat from the sun is reflected from ground and it makes the IR picture look pretty much like a photograph with some minor differences as some objects reflect/absorb IR much differently than visible light. Only very hot or cold objects stand out as something different than photo like. When the sun has set and things cooled down it starts to look more like a "IR picture".

[BiPod]

Actually it is. Heat = IR. :thumbup:

 

Regardless, not sure what some of you expect. Modeling an accurate FLIR system would be pretty difficult. I think they are just using a separate texture set.

 

IRL it depends on the system and level of technology. When I used the thermal site on the TOW system, it was at times very difficult to spot a vehicle in the trees. Trees can hold a lot of heat.

 

Good enough for practical purposes perhaps, but not really true.

 

Heat is not the same as temperature which is not the same as IR radiation. They are all separate but linked phenomenom.

 

The IR signature of an object will depend on its temperature (not its heat content), thickness, material, surface condition (rough vs polished) and even viewing angle in some circumstances.

 

Different materials will emit different amounts of IR radiation at the same temperature. Polished metal may emit half the radiation as rough metal (surface area thing perhaps?). Bricks and wood will generally emit more than polished metal at the same temperature.

 

...but yeah, in a general scene most things would have pretty similar emmisivity, and I agree it's probably not worth the effort to model perfectly.

 

Splitting hairs,

BiPod.

Edited March 14, 2011 by BiPod
Forgot to include the quote.

[RichardG]

The primary sensor on this aircraft is an IR detector. Finding targets is done primarily through this sensor, even in daylight. So its not worth the effort to model correctly?? As is, its unrealistically difficult to make out hot target against the improperly modeled background terrain.

 

Almost everything you said about IR radiation is incorrect, unless your referring to ambient temperature, and not the objects themselves.

Edited March 14, 2011 by RichardG

[Eddie]

So its not worth the effort to model correctly?? .

 

Would you have preferred it if A-10C had never been released? Because in order to to model it "correctly", ED would have had to write a whole new game engine from scratch, which would have taken far too long and been too big of a task.

 

Back in the real world, no it isn't perfect, ED know it isn't perfect. It is one of the many things that will improve as more modules are produced, but like everything else it's going to take time. But considering how it's done, as I've already said, it's pretty damn close to how the LITENING looks. And certainly a lot closer than ANY flight sim has managed to date.

 

And the above ignores the fact that you don't seem to be hearing what others have said about IIR not being the gods eye view you appear to think it is. And no "an IR detector" is not the primary sensor the targeting pod is (be it LITENING II as in the sim, or SNIPER). There is a reason all modern targeting pods have CCD cameras as well as the IR cameras. Don't make the mistake of over simplifying things.

[Sticky]

The primary sensor on this aircraft is an IR detector. Finding targets is done primarily through this sensor, even in daylight. So its not worth the effort to model correctly?? As is, its unrealistically difficult to make out hot target against the improperly modeled background terrain.

 

Almost everything you said about IR radiation is incorrect, unless your referring to ambient temperature, and not the objects themselves.

 

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.

[Stretch]

Actually it is. Heat = IR. :thumbup:

 

Someone needs to retake physics!

 

Heat is thermodynamic energy. On a molecular level, it's the collective Brownian (random) motion of particles. All these particles bumping into each other, moving randomly, is heat. It doesn't generate heat, it IS heat.

 

Compare this to kinetic energy, when all the particles are moving the same direction (as in the case of a moving car). As quotes Wikipedia, "Thermal energy is the collective mean kinetic energy of the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter."

 

Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation whose frequency is just below that of visible light. The infrared radiation that we detect is a lot like the visible light that we see: Most of it comes from the Sun, bounces off the objects we see, then enters our eye. Some of it, however, is generated by the objects we see via some physical process (e.g., a light bulb or a glowing-hot stove).

 

Where heat and IR are related is the conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. These energetic molecules, bouncing off each other randomly, consist of charged particles. As these charged particles bump back and forth they convert some of their thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. Basically, these objects slowly cool down by radiating their heat in the form of infrared light.

 

The frequency of the emitted radiation depends on the temperature of the object. At room temperature, the frequency is in the infrared range. As the object heats up, this frequency shifts upward, eventually into the visible-light range. This is why your stove starts to glow red as it heats up. It's actually always been glowing, even at room temperature; it was just glowing in a wavelength you couldn't see.

 

So, in conclusion, IR is not heat. *SOME* IR is caused by thermal energy being converted into electromagnetic energy, but that is not the ONLY source of IR radiation.

[GGTharos]

There is always room for improvement but to improve further would require a complete re-write of how the camera works and would need to create additional textures for all units.

 

It would have delayed the project for months.

 

 

The primary sensor on this aircraft is an IR detector. Finding targets is done primarily through this sensor, even in daylight. So its not worth the effort to model correctly?? As is, its unrealistically difficult to make out hot target against the improperly modeled background terrain.

 

Almost everything you said about IR radiation is incorrect, unless your referring to ambient temperature, and not the objects themselves.

[Sticky]

Heat is thermodynamic energy. On a molecular level, it's the collective Brownian (random) motion of particles. All these particles bumping into each other, moving randomly, is heat. It doesn't generate heat, it IS heat.

 

Heat is "The form of energy that flows between two samples of matter due to their difference in temperature. Usually denoted by the variable 'Q'."

 

Atleast this is what we were taught in thermodynamics.

[RichardG]

There is always room for improvement but to improve further would require a complete re-write of how the camera works and would need to create additional textures for all units.

 

I figured as much. Bohemian Interactive did a good job, but couldn't get all the textures done with their new Arma2 expansion either. So a lot of the new content will appear with thermal textures, and some of the older units look a tad off. I think they have a generic grey (or white) matte color for all the terrain (which would seem to save a lot of work), and only made heat textures for actual units, weapons and explosions.

[Stretch]

Heat is "The form of energy that flows between two samples of matter due to their difference in temperature. Usually denoted by the variable 'Q'."

 

Atleast this is what we were taught in thermodynamics.

 

That is true, but it's not describing what heat IS, it's describing what heat DOES. Heat does flow between two objects of two different temperatures, this is true, and indeed it is the only form of energy that behaves in that way, but it doesn't explain fundamentally what heat is.

[Sticky]

That is true, but it's not describing what heat IS, it's describing what heat DOES. Heat does flow between two objects of two different temperatures, this is true, and indeed it is the only form of energy that behaves in that way, but it doesn't explain fundamentally what heat is.

 

No, it might seem strange, but you have it wrong. Thats why I wrote that most people have the definition of heat wrong. What I wrote is what heat IS according to the definition of heat. What you were describing in your post is something else, what you are describing as heat is not heat, its part of the internal energy.

 

Heat isnt the molecular dancing, heat is transfer of energy. Im pretty sure, do we have a chemist here that can clear this out?

[Zenra]

"IR" is an acronym for "Infrared Radiation". Radiative heat transfer is one of the three classic forms of heat transfer, which are Conductive, Radiative, and Convective (although the latter is really a combination of Conductive heat transfer and mass transfer rather than a truly unique heat thransfer mechanism).

 

IR detectors, then, sense Radiative heat transfer, which is proportional (by the Boltzmann constant) to the difference of the fourth power of temperature of source and detector, which is why IR detection equipment, like the TGP and IR seekers in AA missiles, need to cool before use. The greater the temperature differential the greater the detectability, and the greater the temperature difference between an object of interest and the background the more it stands out to the detector.

 

So, what is being detected isn't necessarily how much "heat" something has, but how much radiative energy in the IR portion of the light spectrum objects emit compared with their surroundings.

[Sticky]

To be clear: Im talkin about the scientifical definition of heat, im fully aware that if you asked 100 persons on the street "What is heat?" maybe 99 or even 100 would probably answer the molecular dancing/motion. You may even have been taught that in school. So that makes it correct in a way, since we ourselves also have some say of what words mean to us. I was talking about the scientific definition.

[zakobi]

"IR" is an acronym for "Infrared Radiation"/QUOTE]

 

IR simply means Infra Red, in the exact same sense that UV is Ultra Violet...

[winz]

Heat is thermodynamic energy. On a molecular level, it's the collective Brownian (random) motion of particles. All these particles bumping into each other, moving randomly, is heat. It doesn't generate heat, it IS heat.

Then what about exothermic chemical reactions? They produce heat by breaking/creating of chemical bounds. Not by particles bumping into each other.

You might confuse heat with internal energy.

Edited March 15, 2011 by winz

[Sticky]

Yeah his description of heat sounds more like part of the internal energy to me.