Thermal Binoculars (Hand-held thermal imagers) Mechanic

Thermal Binoculars

Thermal Binoculars

[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

If yes, then:

For which vehicles?
  • Only thermal-less vehicles
  • Only thermal-having vehicles
  • For all vehicles (where applicable)
0 voters
Should this be limited to certain classes?
  • Yes, only vehicles w/scouting (Lights & SPAA)
  • No, all classes (where applicable)
0 voters

The following poll is optional. If you don’t want any of these restrictions, don’t vote.

Possible restrictions, if you feel thermal binoculars would be OP otherwise (Multiple choice)
  • One generation less than integrated thermals
  • Limited battery life
  • Requires live commander
0 voters
How should resolution be determined?
  • Generation Presets
  • Real Specifications
0 voters

Greetings! Today I am suggesting a new feature that complements the standard binoculars: hand-held thermal imagers.

The idea is straight forward: eligible vehicles would retain regular binocular functionality, with the option to toggle the thermal imaging mode.

I made this pitch primarily with thermal-less scout vehicles/light tanks in mind, but can be expanded to cover more classes and eras depending on reception.

Initial Criteria:
-Scout vehicle/ light tank
-Rank V or greater
-BR 7.0 or greater
-Operator nation used handheld thermal imagers in the vehicle’s service-period.

Regarding requirements, they should be quite lenient, as minor equipment like binoculars is rarely recorded. It’s something many forces use, but is never written about. The specifics should be hand-waved for gameplay’s sake, or no vehicle would get this feature. If you can prove an imager was in service with the respective nation at the right time, it’s fair game IMO.

Capability:

With the initial scope of the suggestion, we are limited to 1970 to early 1980s technology. We’re talking generation 1 thermal imaging in a portable format, so less capable than the early thermals we have in-game. The binoculars would have less resolution and range. Despite this, the ability to spot heat sources through light vegetation and smoke, day or night, would still be useful.

Equipment - examples:

AN/PAS-7, the first practical hand-held thermal imager (USA, 1974)

ANPAS 7 image
Anpas specs

anpas
How it would look in-game, if real specifications are used (154x48)

Various in-game renditions - if you are interested

Tank seen through real AN/PAS-7
real anpas 4

In-game recreation - resolution (156x48)
anpas only res

Resolution + 1.7x contrast
anpas res contrast

Resolution + 1.7x contrast + CRT lines + hue
anpas res contrast scanline hue

Thorn EMI “DFOV/HHTI”, first mature British handheld thermal (GB, 1982)


Thorn EMI image

Resolution (Specs vs Gen?)

Currently War Thunder does not model the specific imagers, but rather has a set of generation presets that decide the resolution.

Thermal generations

The question is, should hand-held thermal imagers have their real specifications, or should they also use the generation presets? For me this is a balance between realism and consistency with the rest of the game.

If generations are to be used, then IMO the very early imagers would be deserving of new presets “Gen 0” with a resolution of 300x150, and “Gen -1” 190x75. Assuming the restriction that thermals are one less gen than the integrated one, it would look like this:

Integrated thermal = gen 2, then binocular = gen 1

Integrated thermal = gen 1, then binocular = gen 0

No integrated thermal, then binocular = gen -1

“Gen 0” (300x150)

“Gen -1” (190x75)

Vehicles - examples:

USA:
-XM800T
-M551

GB:
-Fox
-VFM5

These are just a few examples of thermal-less vehicles from the two nations I have sufficient documentation for. After the addition of the mechanic this mechanic would be given to vehicles via bug report, with the required sources.

Afterword:

The addition of thermal binoculars would benefit a number of light vehicles that otherwise lack thermal capability, thus improving their efficiency in their intended role: reconnaissance.

It would also not be overpowered, as this suggestion is mainly concerned with the earliest thermal technology, which was limited in resolution and range. In other words: an interesting side-grade to regular binoculars. You trade clarity for easier target acquisition.

Note: This suggestion is not in violation of the “sub 10.0 night vision embargo”, as thermals are equally useful during the day.

What do you think of this idea? Would you like to see thermal binoculars on vehicles that already have integrated thermal sights, or in more modern vehicles?

Cheers!

6 Likes

-1.

First: WT had this feature back in 2019 with the “CITV + Thermal” for the binocular since it did not have “Commander optic” for the commander back then and it was a pain for top tier.

Second: Binocular is also a soft-tool to determine what is a good and unexperienced player, the speed and the zoom index is too overpowered and exceed every aspect that the CITV contribute.

Imagine you have a thermal on an optic with x6 zoom and it’s speed is only limited by your mouse unlike CITV which you have a static stats for it and make the sight more unique.

Third: More confuse and whining, we don’t know if the binocular is a “standard issue” for the commaner, then it will start another crisis, every nation with top tier can claim that their tank crew have similar device and back slash each other.

3 Likes

I wouldn’t mind this, however I’m not sure exactly how it should be implemented.

Definitely should be added to modern-ish recon vehicles, as well as modern MBTs such as but not limited to Type-74G, M1A1 Abrams, Leopard 2A4, and even T-72B 1989.

This gen 1 thermal option for commanders that would get knocked out with the commander would be great.
It should probably be a monocular as well.

2 Likes

No thanks, scout vehicles already have enough tools to do their job.

Your points about modern tanks are fair enough. I agree it would be problematic if the thermal binoculars had comparable resolution to CITV, but with none of the drawbacks.

Would any of these caveats change your mind?

-thermal binos are one generation lower than the integrated/CITV
-they are only functional when commander is alive
-they run on batteries and have a limited use time
-they can’t be used for fire control

Also am I right in thinking your concern is mainly rooted in modern tanks like MBTs?

In that case I might also have to add a second poll option, measuring interest by tier and vehicle class.

Yes, please, this would be such an improvement and quality of life change.
Or just merge the commander view with binoculars

F*** that

Whoah. Hold your horses :D

I am not strictly in favor nor opposed to these nerfs.

Think of it as simply measuring interest in this mechanic, and testing the waters, seeing what capabilities players would be OK with.

Not everyone will agree of course, that’s why we can discuss it here.

I will add more poll options when I get back on my PC

Easiest way to implement thermal binoculars:

If vehicle have thermals for commander = binocular is thermal. There, implemented, good quality of life change.

Then add thermals module to research for some light tanks if there is a need

Update: I have added more polling options!

If you want any other options added, please let me know.

last questions lacks “no restrictions” option

I can’t change it anymore, sorry.

I think if you’re not in favor of restrictions, just don’t vote on that part.

Abstaining means you don’t want any of them.

Then what about Type 87RCV which relies on the commander to have thermal binos? Etc…

What about it? Give it thermal bino?

I was thinking about this the other day and wondered if it existed. +1 from me, but only for the vehicles around during these binos existence. The generation should be realistic to whatever the binos had, but if the info in unavailable, the. -1 gen from the gunner thermal sight would be fair. Liv commander seems fair, but I would prefer not having it, and limited battery life seems dumb. Depending on how the battery life is irl, I would prefer to have it last the whole match.

I found more information on the AN/PAS-7, the first handheld thermal imager. It would be appropriate for US vehicles from 1974 to late 1980s.

DTIC AN/PAS-7

Anpas specs

DTIC:ADA005658 specifies a resolution of 156x48, at 15hz, 12 degrees FOV.

Here is my attempt to recreate this in War Thunder

View from a scope with 12 degrees FOV


Gen 1 thermal (500x300)

AN/PAS-7 (156x48)

AN/PAS-7 (156x48) with increased contrast

The real AN/PAS-7 (for comparison)

Which one is better? With or without the extra contrast?

Now for another question. Currently War Thunder does not model the resolution of each specific thermal imager - there are instead predetermined “generations” with a few resolution presets.

Thermal generations

Now the problem is, should the very earliest hand-held imagers have another generation below 1? Like generation 0? The next logical “step down” would be 300x150.
“Gen 0” (300x150)

I will add yet another poll for this question.

Edit: Added. Go vote :D

Having it just be an extremely degraded thermal vision looks pretty fair for an addition imo, with the later binos being more clear for the later and higher tier vehicles ofc.

I also want to add that I think this shoplifting come as a part of the NVD/TVD modification upgrade. Please don’t add a whole new mod lmao, I know you of all companies would do it gaijoobles…

Question is, how degraded should it be? Do you think the “Gen 0” preset is too clear?

“Gen 0” alternative (190x75)

Haha XD

I just want this mechanic in game tbh, if that comes at the cost of a new modification then so be it

2 Likes

Well for a game and company always trying to implement realism and historically accurate vehicles and weapons, I think it would be best to make them historically/realistically accurate, especially given how how up the binos are and how helpful they might be.

Alright, so what I’m about to say applies to handheld/portable thermal imagers (TIs) from the late 90s and onwards.

The way thermals are currently implemented in War Thunder (by thermal generation) is very flawed. In reality, thermal generation doesn’t inherently equate to performance. The whole reason that third generation FLIRs were developed was not because of any real high performance benefits but because it allowed for the production of low-cost, small package thermal imagers - making it perfect for handheld TIs to be produced on a large scale. Previously, 1st and 2nd generation TIs were much too bulky to provide a relatively decent level of performance whilst keeping the binoculars less than a few kilograms in weight - they were also expensive to produce.

Consequently, according to Germany’s AIM Infrarot-Module:

“existing portable thermal sights [as of 2006] for reconnaissance provide the required long range identification capability during night comparable to ranges of first generation systems in battle tanks” - 2006, AIM thermal imagers for reconnaissance and targeting applications.

Therefore, a lot of modern thermal binoculars should really only be modelled as first generation even if they are using 3rd generation technology.

That is not to say, however, that thermal binoculars haven’t improved since then. As an example, Safran’s JIM Compact binoculars are able to achieve a level of performance comparable to 3rd generation FLIRs used in modern main battle tanks:

But the situation could arise where there is quite a capability gap between nations, especially when it comes down to what is actually in service with each country. I think the Australians procured something similar to JIM Compact which would mean the M1A1 AIM would have 3rd generation binoculars in-game which is quite the advantage compared to what the Germans procured which (from what I recall) is some sort of HuntIR TI which only achieves less than a quarter of the performance of the JIM Compact (but this could be outdated info by now).

As for battery life, after a quick look around, most thermal binoculars seem to have at least 4 hours.

Personally I am against the idea of thermal binoculars, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be implemented. Unfortunately, I suspect that the devs would completely butcher its implementation and it will have zero basis in reality.

1 Like