Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

MAJ_Fubar

BRDM-2 Night Vision [FIXED]

Is anyone else having trouble getting the night vision on the BRDM-2's TNK-1 to work.  It turns "on" in night scenarios (the reticle changes and illuminates), but there's no green NV effect and targets aren't visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I thought it just illuminated the graticule etc. didn't think it was NV / IR being modelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I am experiencing the same problem.

 

IR Sight Off:

 

SS_13_46_28.thumb.jpg.be284b011f36f3c75658e11bd5c59521.jpg

 

IR Sight On:

 

SS_13_46_34.thumb.jpg.68141186bd2ac389f9812b2ee8dd924d.jpg

 

Here is the scenario I built to test:

 

BRDM Test.sce

 

Note: this is for the Commander's sight. The Gunner's sight does NOT have night vision. 

Edited by Mirzayev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

I thought it just illuminated the graticule etc. didn't think it was NV / IR being modelled.

I was under the impression that both the TC's TPKU-2B and TNK-1 (IR capable) were being modeled, but I guess I was wrong.  Oh well, need to clean something up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

3 hours ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

I was under the impression that both the TC's TPKU-2B and TNK-1 (IR capable) were being modeled, but I guess I was wrong.  Oh well, need to clean something up...

 

The TKN-1 is IR capable; it is the same sight used on the T-55.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it even says IR on when you try to activate, it must have been broke when the BRMD-2 was updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with SB Pro is that even if it's fixed - NV sight will still not be effectively used in any combat scenario because an IR illumination projector is not modeled. And sadly this issue is there not only for BRDM2. This is kinda a bummer seeing as how SB Pro does so well with thermal modelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kraze said:

The problem with SB Pro is that even if it's fixed - NV sight will still not be effectively used in any combat scenario because an IR illumination projector is not modeled. And sadly this issue is there not only for BRDM2. This is kinda a bummer seeing as how SB Pro does so well with thermal modelling

NVG are quiete effective. SB models using starlight f. e. 

Depending on the time setting of your secenario, switchung on an active IR light would suicidal anyway. 

 

Nevertheless... IR lights would be nice to have from a historical p. o. v. 

But this would require a lighting model with multiple dynamic light sources. IMO much work for little benefit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would probably be very difficult to represent something like an active illuminator- profoundly re-tooling the computer behavioral routines at minimum and likely breaking other behavior in the process.

 

it's one thing for the computer to spot point targets, it's another when a target can project evidence of itself across the map, then all the computer units which can detect a beam whether out in the open or projected from behind cover become distracted looking for the source. i can easily see the results of a nasty exploits that would arise, position a low value unit out of the way some place, swing an active illuminator around to get the attention and distract all the computer units, which become fixed on it and perhaps start wasting ammo. this would be a problem whether intentional exploit or not; then this has to work within with the computer's target selection priorities (is a beam from a brdm-2 platoon worth investigating more than a beam sourced from a single t-72, and so on).

 

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

however to the extent that human beings in real life can operate from context and make inferences from prior knowledge, which behavioral routines in commercial software cannot really emulate.

 

the alternative would be to let computer units ignore the beams as if they weren't there- which would be a major conceit to feature creep over realism just so that human players can use them.

 

i don't deny it would be both useful and great to have from the standpoint they would look cool, but in practice it seems squirrely to do things even within a ballpark of realism- for example, the computer would need to inevitably 'cheat' in order to sort out a friendly search light from those of an enemy, and so on (which it already does with thermal signatures, this would be another example to add), there would be several scenarios i can imagine where the computer would need to either have an unfair advantage or a disadvantage (again, such as ignoring beams altogether) fudged in.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, it can (and has been) done within computer simulations. That being said, I will not deny that it would require plenty of work, and would purely be a "labor of love," since Ssnake has stated that none of eSim's current customers have expressed an interest in modeling such a thing. 

 

However, if such a feature was added, there would be other aspects that could then be simulated: blackout drive lights (common on many military vehicles), IR beacons, and strobes, for example. 

 

I placed the request on the wish list, and it will remain a wish. If eSim creates it, great! If not, then I will still continue to play the best Armor Simulator on the market! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it may have been done in other simulations, but how well do those simulations model the behavior- i don't just mean does it look technically accurate when targets are illuminated, do the units react in ways that looks consistently believable.

 

just trying to imagine writing a script in plain every day language how a unit is supposed to react when it detects a search light that would more or less work in any practical situation seems difficult- again, which isn't to say it's not my wish list, but because i immediately start to think of why it would be difficult, then i can understand why it's not there already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd also need to code the AI to support indirect illumination shooting etc.

 

This is a technique where vehicle X in position A illuminates a target Y in position B, so a friendly call sign Z in position C engages Y without illuminating it themselves.

 

That's before you open the door to flares, illum rounds (Mortar, 84mm, etc.), etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

6 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

You'd also need to code the AI to support indirect illumination shooting etc.

 

This is a technique where vehicle X in position A illuminates a target Y in position B, so a friendly call sign Z in position C engages Y without illuminating it themselves.

 

That's before you open the door to flares, illum rounds (Mortar, 84mm, etc.), etc.

We don't really have a lightsource model in SB in the first place?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know the computer industry terms of art for lighting, there is ambient lighting and shading influenced by the sun- not from say sources of light like burning flames or gun flash. my bet is one day those kinds of nice things will come around when there are resources and time to do it.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SABOW does IR illumination and AI tied to it rather well - so it can be done - and there are benefits in that SB Pro PE is a simulation that includes those Cold War era vehicles as playable - but this important thing is missing making those vehicles much less effective than they should be.

IR illumination is also not a magical giveaway of a position, especially when used in its era's scenario when NV was pretty bad compared to modern stuff - and especially against a less developed enemy (Asia and Africa - where those tanks and APCs, especially of a Soviet make, were mostly used) they can give a nice advantage. And a fun gameplay - again SABOW is a proof of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've seen videos of it down in steel armor blaze of war- yes i know it has been done. my question is do the computer units detect the beams and react to them or do they just ignore them, in other words, yes, the player can illuminate targets, but is there a detection penalty? if they can detect them, do other units get overwhelmed when there are a dozen searchlights swinging around? imagine the size of some scenarios steel beasts is capable with dozens of vehicles on each side, and please try and understand the point i'm making when i ask these questions, imagine say 30 beams swinging around the map and scripting computer behavior  to deal with that.

 

again, it's not to say it's not on my wishlist, it certainly is, i'm not arguing against more content; i'm only suggesting to do it right would likely be a quite difficult- and would entail profoundly affecting and re-writing the behavior routines for computer units to do it, you can already appreciate this when observing path finding behavior of computer units, now throw this even more complex behavior in for good measure, if you see what i mean therefore.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

imagine the size of some scenarios steel beasts is capable with dozens of vehicles on each side, and please try and understand the point i'm making when i ask these questions, imagine say 30 beams swinging around the map and scripting computer behavior  to deal with that.

 

Steel Beasts already models a similar issue when computer units detect the presence of smoke or dust clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and then  add yet another factor- ir beams which can be detected considerable distance away projected from the target. add several of them. the point i'm making is that in addition to the dust clouds and all the other line of sight behavior, now add something which can be detected even outside of visual range for considerable distances. what i'm saying is that it would seem logical to me major revision of the code implied to get it going- i wouldn't expect this to come so soon.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- { bmp

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- { t-72 in defilade

 

 

]0[

 

here is a tank above, here are two beams perpendicular to its line of sight at an arbitrary distance above- a bmp source, and a t-72 source; the bmp is relatively out in the open, the t-72 is turret down in a depression, no line of sight to the vehicle itself. imagine the 7-27 inclined enough that the the ir beams are detected. the computer tank crew below can see both beams, which target does the computer crew prioritize? imagine several more vehicles in several more permutations of the above scenario. it can see the beams,  it can 'know' (and by that i mean the computer must necessarily cheat in that like the thermal signatures, it knows what class of vehicle is projecting the ir beam) what is behind them, but because evidence of the targets is nearly 'everywhere' instead of relatively localized, this would mean major rework of the detection and response behavior to deal with that. information about where targets are becomes a lot more complex by several orders.

 

again, my point is that i believe that esim would have to really break things to change things for this new regime. not that i don't want it, on the contrary, one of the things on my own wish list would be to see this through, but this doesn't seem easy at all- especially for the thorough standards that esim demands of itself generally.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI reaction to beams should not be anything overly complex. It can be as simple as AI detecting a beam in its LOS - is there a known friendly at the source of it? If yes - ignore or rather don't use it in AI LOS processing AT ALL. If the source of a beam is unknown - mark it as possibly an enemy (unless an enemy is detected at the source of it). And in case of the game determining that the "unknown/enemy" source is within AI LOS - they can look in that direction to investigate and will determine if they can engage - similarly how they do it now within visible light conditions.

 

And yes, AI crew does react in SABOW - which is why it's advisable to use IR light only when deemed safe enough or won't put you at a disadvantage. And in a case of SABOW when it comes to AI using IR illumination - it's a lot more complicated since, unlike Steel Beasts, SABOW's AI is entirely dynamic. In Steel Beasts AI completely depends on waypoint scripting - and adding a simple On/Off switch for IR light to waypoint properties will be another simple thing to do.

 

This is doable and should be done in a game like Steel Beasts - of course the question is whether developers deem it needed enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know what dynamic ai is, but whatever it is, again to the point that the behavioral routines in steel beasts would have to be fundamentally changed to get you there- this is why i keep saying, as much as we would like it, i don't think it's just a feature that's added in a patch. the code would have to be fundamentally reevaluated and re-built for steel beasts to have something like that it didn't have before insofar as the way units behave and interact. so again, it's not that you shouldn't want it, i'm saying it wouldn't be easy to shoehorn it in an existing engine which wasn't originally tailored for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking this discussion should probably move to another thread. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now