this is best solution, cuz if thermal sight is gonna be eyes irritating and garbage then no one would want that
i think its a good thing becuase it means that regular vision has an advantage at least for earlier thermals and there is a more noticeable impact in later generation thermals
1 Like
yeah but i already have 480px480p vision irl i dont want to see 200x200 vision ingame so
1 Like
glasses or contacts
This feels like something that could be applied to sim and sim only.
1 Like
Using 2 other video games as an example of what is “realistic” is kind ??
its near impossible to find any images of old generation thermals in tanks sadly so its the best I could get. I did find the original doc for the M60s thermal but even then thats the A3 TTS not an earlier variant.
1 Like
do you know what TTS stands for?
its a thermal tech upgrade on the m60 but there’re earlier variants than the a3 iirc
none had real thermals though afaik. thats what set it apart from earlier M60’s
ah righto. im not a huge m60 fenatic so I dont know much on them
IDK about you, but gen 1 IRL thermals looks far more crisp than what War Thunder’s giving me.
ID targets out to 2300? Gen 1 in-game can’t do that. It’ll show a bright dot at best.
Translating tank displays to digital LCDs requires a doubling of resolution for realism anyway.
1 Like
glasses
1 Like
While i in general agree with the proposal to update the thermals to be more true to real life there are some points you bring up that i have some questions about and am confused about.
I took the M60A3 TTS into a test drive and looked at the target that is ~1200m away while zoomed in and got this:
At 1400m and zoomed out i can barely even detect it.
I would not personally be able to tell if that is an Abrams, a Leopard or a T-serries tank at 1200m and certainly not at 2300m as you say. Or am i misunderstanding your use of the term “ID” ? Are you using it more as “detect” ?
Additionally if you compare that in-game image to what you claim it looks like i do not see that level of clarity. I might be completely misunderstanding what you are trying to say and i hope that you are able to clarify for me.
I would recommend having images of the IRL thermal and the in-game thermal side by side so that it would be easier to understand the differences and what you mean is currently wrong with the in-game counterparts. Currently all images in your post are from other games or IRL but no in-game images from war thunder to show the differences and incorrectness of it. This makes it hard to understand what it is you want changed and in what direction.
2 Likes
I honestly don’t know how this suggestion got allowed.
The images contradict the statements.
Like how does this in-game image look anywhere as good as the quoted Raytheon image.
Yeah detect would be a better word rather than using ID. When it comes to finding side by side images however I had scoured for ages and couldn’t come up with anything.
I will say though that this suggestion had been prior denied as I was meant to make changes to it so why it now got accepted I don’t know. I was editing it slowly over time to improve upon it but again. I simply cannot find early images of thermals other than those depicted in games that have specifically used museums and ex-crewman for images, videos, prior knowledge on the systems
I did a quick video using photoshop and Nvidia freestyle to better show off what I mean using gen 1, 2, and 3.
video comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35wenAFz2RA
I think it shows my issue with it all and its just simply there not being visible pixels as if you were staring at a the screen itself which without those I feel that the resolutions are better than they actually are when in reality they are correct.
So it would be better for them to add in a post effect of some sort to show the pixels which would make the thermals in game just look better overall.
examples of what each would look like if they had pixels
1 Like
better example to show that I was wrong but this is still not perfect because this is looking head on at the enemy instead of side on. definitely can see the pixel difference but with a side on view can still most likely ID it as a T series just not the exact one.
My screenshot was not side-on of that Tiger 1, it was rear aspect to the Tiger 1.
See, you couldn’t even identify the tank let alone which direction it was facing in-game.
The only reason I know it’s a Tiger 1 is because I had to travel 1.3km in that custom match away from it to get the range needed.
Either way, real-life thermal solutions use different displays which offer higher fidelity than LCD panels per pixel.
Partly because such displays have blending.
So in-game simulation of thermal solutions need to have double resolution to allow for 4 LCD pixels per “pixel” of thermals.
Ideally, it would be 3x so there is 9 LCD pixels per “pixel” of thermals to better simulate the displays in tanks.
As for finding images of generation 1 thermals, they still produce them. Not on tanks, but they are still produced for industry purposes due to their affordability over more advanced solutions.
Especially since gen 3 requires active cooling.
one thing that you seem to have glossed over is the fact that IRL many of these TVD systems were not screens but rather TVD incoprtated into a sight. something like how a gunner would look into a periscope and see the thermal version of what he would be seeing in his (seperate) day sight scope
and this is why the sight resolutions are so low irl