Jump to content

Night Vision?


Recommended Posts

image.png
I hope they'll do it as well. It'd be the only heli without them

Source: https://stormbirds.blog/2021/01/09/new-dcs-mi-24p-information-translated-from-russian-interview/

  • Like 1

Modules:

F-14, F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C, M-2000C, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B N/A, MiG-29, Su-33, MiG-21 Bis, F-5E, P-51D, Ka-50, Mi-8, Sa 342, UH-1H, Combined Arms

 

Maps and others:

Persian Gulf, Syria, Normandy, WWII Assets, NS 430 + Mi-8 NS 430

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NVG's in general weren't a cold war thing for aircraft. I do remember reading about some hinds where the trialed some NVG's in afghanistan on hinds and mi8's but they were basically gen0 garbage that needed strong IR illumination to work, and given the image quality (or lack therof) I really don't think they should have a place in DCS. I'm sure there is some modern or upgraded variant that uses decent ones these days, but for almost any cold war module in DCS they probably shouldn't be a thing.

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 8

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

6 minutes ago, falcon_120 said:

Even if you get NVG, you'd be restricted to rockets and guns as no IR pod exist in the hind to guide the antitank weapons right? (i'm actually asking 🙂 )

 

 

Tbh I doubt you could actually use the hud glass with NVG's unless it was specially modified, it would be way too bright, even with the crappy gen0 gogs. And for the ATGM again, no go unless its used with the regular day sight. Plus shooting the rockets or the gun at a guess would just cause the gogs to fail or minimally cause the BSP to kick in (which I don't think they had, I can check sometime). 

 

IRL the whole cockpit lighting has to be modified to be compatible with NVG's and then the NVG's have special bandpass filters to block even that light. And most of that work was done in the US in the 90's to work out the best ways to do it. Prior to that NVG use was pretty ad-hoc and terrible, mainly used for helos with things like modified PVS-5's in the west.  And the PVS-5 is a 100x better than the PNV's used on the hind from that era, and its still trash. 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 5
  • 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

2 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Even if you get NVG, you'd be restricted to rockets and guns as no IR pod exist in the hind to guide the antitank weapons right? (i'm actually asking 🙂 )

 

 

The question of ATGM-guidance is not really a problem during night. The system is capable of guiding the missile by keeping it in the middle of the reticle and that at daylight. That is far easier at night, considering optically, the missile´s thrust is more visible during night, compared to day. Therefore that is not a problem. What poses a problem however is being able to see targets at night through the scope, and guesstimating range for knowing whether you are within the parameters or not. NVG will not help you much here because: a) good luck fitting a NVG onto that sight and b) when the ATGM leaves the rail, your NVG magnifying missile thrust at night will leave you permanently blind, at the very least damage your sight significantly.

 

As for brightness in the cockpit, Harlikwin is mostly right. To correct one thing; HUD could be used with NVG, even old gen, if you lower the HUD-brightness to a bare minimum. Same goes for cockpit lightning. The problem typically posed, is that the brightness doesn´t go down far enough, before you are at minimum adjustment. Also, for night operation, you prefer green/red/blue light, rather than white light. That is because it´s easier on the eyes (blue is also used because we don´t naturally see blue very well, thus it appears weak in strength for us who predominately prefer red/green colors/lights). As such, it could be possible on HIND, but not perfect however (without significant cockpit mods). And since our version of the HIND P is from before those times, it really is not realistic, something that goes against the courtesy of DCS. If you wish to do night operations, feel free to use night flares, that´s the Soviet-style night-combat done on a big scale. It´s a western tactic as well during those times, as NVG was in it´s infancy, and very far from adequate, esp. for moonless nights.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

The question of ATGM-guidance is not really a problem during night. The system is capable of guiding the missile by keeping it in the middle of the reticle and that at daylight. That is far easier at night, considering optically, the missile´s thrust is more visible during night, compared to day. Therefore that is not a problem. What poses a problem however is being able to see targets at night through the scope, and guesstimating range for knowing whether you are within the parameters or not. NVG will not help you much here because: a) good luck fitting a NVG onto that sight and b) when the ATGM leaves the rail, your NVG magnifying missile thrust at night will leave you permanently blind, at the very least damage your sight significantly.

 

As for brightness in the cockpit, Harlikwin is mostly right. To correct one thing; HUD could be used with NVG, even old gen, if you lower the HUD-brightness to a bare minimum. Same goes for cockpit lightning. The problem typically posed, is that the brightness doesn´t go down far enough, before you are at minimum adjustment. Also, for night operation, you prefer green/red/blue light, rather than white light. That is because it´s easier on the eyes (blue is also used because we don´t naturally see blue very well, thus it appears weak in strength for us who predominately prefer red/green colors/lights). As such, it could be possible on HIND, but not perfect however (without significant cockpit mods). And since our version of the HIND P is from before those times, it really is not realistic, something that goes against the courtesy of DCS. If you wish to do night operations, feel free to use night flares, that´s the Soviet-style night-combat done on a big scale. It´s a western tactic as well during those times, as NVG was in it´s infancy, and very far from adequate, esp. for moonless nights.

 

Actually the colors chosen have nothing to do with them being "easier" on human eyes. Its entirely due to the fact that that gen3 photocathodes have a significant fall off in performance under 600nm so they aren't "blinded" by it. And even then there specific bandpass filters installed in them to further block the light for flight applications. It was a worse problem in various ways for Gen1/2 PC's.  

 

I'd buy for a dollar the fact that a PNV5-57E doesn't really have enough gain to be too badly effected by the standard lighting when set to minimum, but you aren't seeing anything the pit with them anyway since they are fixed focus for infinity, IDK how that would really work with the aiming glass, maybe both are at infinity. But the geomertic distortion inherent in them coupled with abysmal system gain (which is why they needed IR searchlights and a nice bright moonlight to work) makes them a no-go for any weapons use IMO, and really marginal for even basic night flying. 

 

Its all moot anyway, you might as well just put on some green tinted glasses and play DCS on the screen for all the "fidelity" the DCS NV system is, and I don't see any sort of "upgrade" coming anytime soon.

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 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 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Actually the colors chosen have nothing to do with them being "easier" on human eyes. Its entirely due to the fact that that gen3 photocathodes have a significant fall off in performance under 600nm so they aren't "blinded" by it. And even then there specific bandpass filters installed in them to further block the light for flight applications. It was a worse problem in various ways for Gen1/2 PC's.  

 

I'd buy for a dollar the fact that a PNV5-57E doesn't really have enough gain to be too badly effected by the standard lighting when set to minimum, but you aren't seeing anything the pit with them anyway since they are fixed focus for infinity, IDK how that would really work with the aiming glass, maybe both are at infinity. But the geomertic distortion inherent in them coupled with abysmal system gain (which is why they needed IR searchlights and a nice bright moonlight to work) makes them a no-go for any weapons use IMO, and really marginal for even basic night flying. 

 

Its all moot anyway, you might as well just put on some green tinted glasses and play DCS on the screen for all the "fidelity" the DCS NV system is, and I don't see any sort of "upgrade" coming anytime soon.

 

 


Colors are easier on the eyes when not looking through NVG at them. As for using NVG, well certain colors contain more energy than others, meaning that they appear brighter through NVG, I guess that has to matter. I am thinking early generation NVG's, yes, not gen. 2 with Microchannel Plate, or even more modern gen. 3. PNV-57E is a good example for gen. 1 goggles.

 

Absolutely, and I mean that cockpit lightining doesn't matter for the sake of looking at the gauges, since as you pointed out, NVGs have focus set for infinity, thus making instruments unreadable. What cockpit lightining matters for is the flash that could enter the goggles when looking outside, from below. If your cockpit is bright, that light will distort the NVG image due to sheer brightness entering the goggles. Also, if the cockpit is much brighter than the picture that you see in the goggles, then it will be uncomfortable to take snap-views at the gauge-cluster as your eyes will need a moment to re-adjust. That's where the proper color and light setting comes into play

 

As far as I've seen, many modules do have pretty good NVG. Check Ka50 or Mi8 for example. The lower quality picture is there, distortion from cockpit light if set improperly, everything inside the cockpit is blurred out regardless, etc... It could be better, but it really isn't bad. I am definately impressed, esp. while using VR. I would however love actual different NVG's that would be of different eras and generations. That would be fantastic 😎

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While i agree that realism of the NVG's in the Hind is questionable, i don't think the addition of the NVG would be a bad choice game design wise.
If you take a look at the Mi-8 (or any helicopter, really), it comes with NVG's, despite being an older design (in the Hip's case).
The very same points could be made against NVG's on the Hip, and they are valid points, however, there is an alternative.
You could just not use them if you want a more realistic setup.

I do think that giving players the option to have them would be good.
Having the ability to disable NVG's from the ME would also be a great addition.
Just my 2 cents.

  • Like 4

Modules:

F-14, F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C, M-2000C, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B N/A, MiG-29, Su-33, MiG-21 Bis, F-5E, P-51D, Ka-50, Mi-8, Sa 342, UH-1H, Combined Arms

 

Maps and others:

Persian Gulf, Syria, Normandy, WWII Assets, NS 430 + Mi-8 NS 430

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, BonerCat said:

While i agree that realism of the NVG's in the Hind is questionable, i don't think the addition of the NVG would be a bad choice game design wise.

 

Well then we should also get the latest Hornet helmet wich can use NVGs and JHMCS at the same time, Harpoons for the F-16 (implemented on Taiwans F-16s), full 9g capability on the hornet (Swiss hornets do have 9g airframes and no G-Limiter) as well as the IRIS-T IR-missile with over-the-shoulder capability for the Hornet (Switzerland, Finland and Spain evaluated them for their Hornets - the IRIS-T has installation compatibility with the AIM-9) and so on. And all these things are closer to reality than NVGs on the Hind-P. I wonder when the FF MiG-29 from the early 80s gets released, if people are begging for NVGs too so they have a chance in MP against the DCS F-16 and F/A-18 at night. Nah, it should be like it is in the real thing. 


Edited by VpR81
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you could make a case for each of the items you've listed, and you do make a good point against NVG's on the Mi-24.

And yes, it is a slippery slope, i agree with that.
I don't want to start a heated argument, so i'll cut it here.

 

Sufficed to say our opinions differ.
 

Modules:

F-14, F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C, M-2000C, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B N/A, MiG-29, Su-33, MiG-21 Bis, F-5E, P-51D, Ka-50, Mi-8, Sa 342, UH-1H, Combined Arms

 

Maps and others:

Persian Gulf, Syria, Normandy, WWII Assets, NS 430 + Mi-8 NS 430

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BonerCat said:

While i agree that realism of the NVG's in the Hind is questionable, i don't think the addition of the NVG would be a bad choice game design wise.
If you take a look at the Mi-8 (or any helicopter, really), it comes with NVG's, despite being an older design (in the Hip's case).
The very same points could be made against NVG's on the Hip, and they are valid points, however, there is an alternative.
You could just not use them if you want a more realistic setup.

I do think that giving players the option to have them would be good.
Having the ability to disable NVG's from the ME would also be a great addition.
Just my 2 cents.

 

So here is the thing with the "just don't use them" argument. It doesn't work for MP at all. I frankly wouldn't care one bit if the hind/hip/whoever had the "fine" DCS NVG's. AS LONG as there was a tic box in the ME or that could be set server side that disabled them. I'd also love to see this for HMCS, and MIDS radios and a few other "features" so we could simulate older versions of some planes.

 

BUT thats not the case currently. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • 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

6 hours ago, zerO_crash said:


Colors are easier on the eyes when not looking through NVG at them. As for using NVG, well certain colors contain more energy than others, meaning that they appear brighter through NVG, I guess that has to matter. I am thinking early generation NVG's, yes, not gen. 2 with Microchannel Plate, or even more modern gen. 3. PNV-57E is a good example for gen. 1 goggles.

 

Absolutely, and I mean that cockpit lightining doesn't matter for the sake of looking at the gauges, since as you pointed out, NVGs have focus set for infinity, thus making instruments unreadable. What cockpit lightining matters for is the flash that could enter the goggles when looking outside, from below. If your cockpit is bright, that light will distort the NVG image due to sheer brightness entering the goggles. Also, if the cockpit is much brighter than the picture that you see in the goggles, then it will be uncomfortable to take snap-views at the gauge-cluster as your eyes will need a moment to re-adjust. That's where the proper color and light setting comes into play

 

As far as I've seen, many modules do have pretty good NVG. Check Ka50 or Mi8 for example. The lower quality picture is there, distortion from cockpit light if set improperly, everything inside the cockpit is blurred out regardless, etc... It could be better, but it really isn't bad. I am definately impressed, esp. while using VR. I would however love actual different NVG's that would be of different eras and generations. That would be fantastic 😎

 

I mean you're right in the sense that the human eye is more sensitive to greens than any other color (also why many early NVG output phosphors were green). And while shorter wavelengths are more energetic its irrelevant if they aren't amplified by the photocathode.

 

Radiant-sensitivity-curves-of-Gen-2-tube

 

For example a photon at 400nm is gonna way more "energy" than one at 800nm. But its entirely irrelevant since the gen 3 PC chemistry won't actually convert it to an electron. So thats the ACTUAL reason why most of the cockpit lighting in modern jets is that funky blue-green color. And that funky blue color is nearly monochromatic, so it can  then be filtered out by bandpass filters in the oculars so the NVG doesn't get blinded. Prior to NVG's you had "red" lights in almost all cockpits say right around 700nm...  Yeah that didn't play well with any NVG...

 

As for the Ka50 and Mi8 gogs, yes they seem to be modeled a bit differently than the other ones, but are still quite badly done IMO.

 

Here is a pro-tip, no aviation goggles that I know of have a gain adjust. Thats a 100% DCSism, so you can't just turn the brightness up or down. It  is what it is and  if you are looking into a cockpit with any level of light visible to the human eye that isn't properly setup (blue/green filtered and your gogs have bandpass filters) you are gonna have a real bad time since your gogs are gonna overload. 

 

 

  • 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

‘Late’ P versions of Hind were NVG capable - “The most recent Mi-24V and P variants have a digital PNK-24 avionics suite and multifunction LCD cockpit displays, and Geofizika ONV1 night-vision goggles, along with NVG-compatible cockpit lighting.They are fitted with the Urals Optical and Mechanical Plant GOES-342 TV/FLIR sighting system and a laser rangefinder.”

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hind/


I’m sure that pre digi hinds were going to be NVG compatible?.


@Harlikwin, NVG gain control is an actual thing. The ones I used briefly on Tornado had an auto gain feature (depending on ambient light strength) as well as manual adjustment. They were however dependant on at least some outside light being present (moonlight, urban lighting, starlight).


Edited by G.J.S
  • Like 1

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, G.J.S said:

‘Late’ P versions of Hind were NVG capable - “The most recent Mi-24V and P variants have a digital PNK-24 avionics suite and multifunction LCD cockpit displays, and Geofizika ONV1 night-vision goggles, along with NVG-compatible cockpit lighting.They are fitted with the Urals Optical and Mechanical Plant GOES-342 TV/FLIR sighting system and a laser rangefinder.”

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hind/


I’m sure that pre digi hinds were going to be NVG compatible?.


@Harlikwin, NVG gain control is an actual thing. The ones I used briefly on Tornado had an auto gain feature (depending on ambient light strength) as well as manual adjustment. They were however dependant on at least some outside light being present (moonlight, urban lighting, starlight).

 

 

I have no doubt that some modern version of the hind had a NV compatible pit. The real question is whether ours does or not.

 

I'm familiar with gain control on NVG's mainly used for ground use. There are reasons they aren't used for Air Use, I'm not aware of a single avaiation goggle with a manual gain control, care to share the model type or a pic? AFAIK the RAF used ANVIS, which has no manual gain control.

 

ALL NVGs since the dawn of time have had "auto gain control" That's in fact what screws you when trying to use them in a cockpit setting if its too bright, any vaguely bright point source in the FOV will cause them to "turn" down, and you're blind... 

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 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

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

So here is the thing with the "just don't use them" argument. It doesn't work for MP at all.

I don't think it works for SP either. I hadn't thought about the Mi-8's NGV's being fantasy until this thread. Many of us don't. We don't have experience with NODs. We perhaps think you can just plug them into a power source, clamp them to your helmet and are good to fly. Not realizing the lighting issues, the timeline issues for given aircraft. Or other details like storage or canopy clearance. We think that ED performed the research, and give us an accurate depiction of the aircraft. If a weapon can be used on a pylon, it can be used on a pylon, if the equipment is available, it must have been available. Often times we come across the truth in forum posts (and other sources) like this one.

 

The problem is that in SP we are often mission and campaign designers. If I'm under the false impression that the aircraft had NVG, I'm probably going to design a mission around using them. Or the person who made the campaign didn't realize the "gameplay feature" and has attempted to create a realistic mission in a campaign which uses them. He probably didn't know. Okay, if he realizes it and makes the mission anyways, or I realize it and play the mission anyways.

 

Some of this stuff is okay, and is a nice bit of fantasy to support the operations of similar variants without having to create an entirely new module. I.e. I can enable NGV and pretend I'm flying a newer version of the Mi-8.

 

But it's also possible that these "gameplay features" can break missions for designers and players. If the designer makes the mission requiring the use of the tool, then it may become impossible to complete without it. Likewise, if the designer builds a mission around the real aircraft equipment, the player may wonder why it's so trivially easy when they enable a "gameplay concession." For the Mi-8 example, think of how you would build a night mission without NVG's vs with them. Or you take weapons the designer did not consider building the task for. Or they expect you to use weapons you didn't take because you don't think they're realistic.

 

I just wish there will be some thought and consideration on these points, and how these decisions reflect the accuracy of the module, vs the gameplay benefits. And our ability to lean it be realizing the impacts limitations have on the tactics. Everything in aircraft is a tradeoff. Let us make it and realize the consequences.


Edited by randomTOTEN
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

I don't think it works for SP either. I hadn't thought about the Mi-8's NGV's being fantasy until this thread. Many of us don't. We don't have experience with NODs. We perhaps think you can just plug them into a power source, clamp them to your helmet and are good to fly. Not realizing the lighting issues, the timeline issues for given aircraft. Or other details like storage or canopy clearance. We think that ED performed the research, and give us an accurate depiction of the aircraft. If a weapon can be used on a pylon, it can be used on a pylon, if the equipment is available, it must have been available. Often times we come across the truth in forum posts (and other sources) like this one.

 

The problem is that in SP we are often mission and campaign designers. If I'm under the false impression that the aircraft had NVG, I'm probably going to design a mission around using them. Or the person who made the campaign didn't realize the "gameplay feature" and has attempted to create a realistic mission in a campaign which uses them. He probably didn't know. Okay, if he realizes it and makes the mission anyways, or I realize it and play the mission anyways.

 

Some of this stuff is okay, and is a nice bit of fantasy to support the operations of similar variants without having to create an entirely new module. I.e. I can enable NGV and pretend I'm flying a newer version of the Mi-8.

 

But it's also possible that these "gameplay features" can break missions for designers and players. If the designer makes the mission requiring the use of the tool, then it may become impossible to complete without it. Likewise, if the designer builds a mission around the real aircraft equipment, the player may wonder why it's so trivially easy when they enable a "gameplay concession." For the Mi-8 example, think of how you would build a night mission without NVG's vs with them. Or you take weapons the designer did not consider building the task for. Or they expect you to use weapons you didn't take because you don't think they're realistic.

 

I just wish there will be some thought and consideration on these points, and how these decisions reflect the accuracy of the module, vs the gameplay benefits. And our ability to lean it be realizing the impacts limitations have on the tactics. Everything in aircraft is a tradeoff. Let us make it and realize the consequences.

 

 

So for mission designers...

 

For US fast jets, generally speaking no NVG's prior to 1990, limited availability through the 90's, and most US AC would have them from the 2000's on. 

For US helos, There were lots of trials with Gen2 NVG's in the 80's where alot of the problems for fast jets got sorted out, but in general there were tons of restrictions on "when" you could fly, I.E. you needed lunar illumination and "pink" lights. They moved to Gen3 ANVIS in the early 90's as well. 

 

Generally speaking the US was 5-10 years ahead of everyone else when fielding NVG's and night flying in general. Some "special squadrons" (night stalkers etc) did use them earlier. 

Russians... Well, no money prolly till like 2k plus they were generally a few years behind developing their own tubes.

 

ETA: PS whoever is confused can post here or PM me for details.

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 3

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

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I have no doubt that some modern version of the hind had a NV compatible pit. The real question is whether ours does or not.

 

I'm familiar with gain control on NVG's mainly used for ground use. There are reasons they aren't used for Air Use, I'm not aware of a single avaiation goggle with a manual gain control, care to share the model type or a pic? AFAIK the RAF used ANVIS, which has no manual gain control.

 

ALL NVGs since the dawn of time have had "auto gain control" That's in fact what screws you when trying to use them in a cockpit setting if its too bright, any vaguely bright point source will cause them to "turn" down, and you're blind... 

 

 


I seem to remember ANVIS 6 or 7(?), it was a Gen 3 type NV.
I don’t have personal pictures of such a thing, and a quick google - well, pretty much ALL the pics look like the bl**dy things! 

Occasionally feel it in the neck still, wasn’t just the goggles, the counterweights added to the ‘joy’ too. :laugh:

  • Like 1

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2021 at 2:02 PM, VpR81 said:

If its not a thing in the real Hind, it shouldnt be in DCS as well. just my 2 cents.

 

This. No more frankensteining and fictional stuff please. Can put that in MAC but please keep DCS clean of that.

  • Like 6

image.png

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions) | Persistent KB shortcuts | Proper coalitions system |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G.J.S said:


I seem to remember ANVIS 6 or 7(?), it was a Gen 3 type NV.
I don’t have personal pictures of such a thing, and a quick google - well, pretty much ALL the pics look like the bl**dy things! 

Occasionally feel it in the neck still, wasn’t just the goggles, the counterweights added to the ‘joy’ too. :laugh:

 

AVS-6 was the standard ANVIS system used by the US in the 90's and frankly is the most common aviation NVG still used today by most of the world that it can be exported to. No manual gain control on those. As for "gen3" its a funny "generation", since the name hasn't really changed in 40 years, but the overall technology has made huge strides every 5 years or so. And yeah, I'm sure pulling any sort of "G" with these strapped to you isn't a whole lotta fun. But take heart, if you had ever ejected they were designed to rip off  your face and end up slamming into your  nutsack at high speed. Because engineers, well engineers hate pilots ;P.  

 

These below are a typical V1 set (typical early to mid 90's), with a (much) later model slimline battery pack (like V3) with them. AVS-9 looks almost identical except for the front oculars are different (yay go navy)... The AVS-7 was a HUD interface adapter that clipped onto the AVS-6. PVS-7's  were single tube units for ground use (with several different models/manufacturers) Can I ask when you flew  Tornados with NVGs? 

 

 

27821517_16110.jpg

 


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

  • BIGNEWY locked and unlocked this topic
  • BIGNEWY locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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