Has the TIS Brightness adjustments been implemented for the Abrams? If not the current TIS is very bright and not hard to make out.

[Assassin 7]

Has the TIS Brightness adjustments been implemented for the Abrams? If not the current TIS is very bright and not hard to make out. Is there a way to turn down the brightness?

[Volcano]

This is a feature and it is not specific to the M1s.

 

The TIS image had a black sky before, and this made everything easier to see, but it was not realistic and in general the entire image was bland, dull and washed out. We all got used to it, though, sure.

 

The TIS image has now been improved to be more realistic in depth, making them overall brighter in general a bit but mainly its because the sky is no longer black (the sky has temperature in the view, like the water now).  There should be something in the release notes about this.

 

(It could be that some vehicles have the old TIS view though, we are doing them one at a time, so you might still see the dull washed out view on some vehicles, but otherwise this is something we are trying to improve.)

 

 

[Assassin 7]

[Assassin 7]

10 minutes ago, Volcano said:

This is a feature and it is not specific to the M1s.

 

The TIS image had a black sky before, and this made everything easier to see, but it was not realistic and in general the entire image was bland, dull and washed out. We all got used to it, though, sure.

 

The TIS image has now been improved to be more realistic in depth, making them overall brighter in general a bit but mainly its because the sky is no longer black (the sky has temperature in the view, like the water now).  There should be something in the release notes about this.

 

(It could be that some vehicles have the old TIS view though, we are doing them one at a time, so you might still see the dull washed out view on some vehicles, but otherwise this is something we are trying to improve.)

 

 

The FLIR can see the clouds formations or if its an overcast then it would display an image as such but on a clear day the sky would be black as on the video above.

[Volcano]

As I said, the sky has a temperature - so depending on the conditions in real life, it may appear differently. This is not much different than how an active vehicle appears hotter, versus inactive vehicle appearing cooler (or basically ambient terrain temperature), which we do not model either. So, its a balance between making things look "good" and "realistic" in most situations (like a generic representation of a dynamic world, until we can do something actually dynamic).

 

But having it solid pitch-black was wrong. Not going to get in a debate about it, the military is behind most of these kinds of changes to make the thermal sight look "better",  but we will certainly see if we can improve the behavior. 

[Assassin 7]

Thanks

[Volcano]

4 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

The FLIR can see the clouds formations or if its an overcast then it would display an image as such but on a clear day the sky would be black as on the video above.

Well, that is one of the improvements. You can now see clouds in thermal view, and the sun as a heat source (IIRC).  The terrain should look more realistic too, and in most cases you aren't looking out across a totally flat ground/sky picture.

 

But of course - looking at targets on the "flat map" with the sky and ground only at 50/50 in the image, things will not look great at the moment, but luckily scenarios aren't played on the flat map.

[Assassin 7]

Here is on a Ft. Benning map and  changes in the Weather. 

[Volcano]

I am not sure I explained it correctly...

 

I am saying that the temperature is NOT dynamic right now. Its a sort of generic situation where the sky is hot. So, like vehicles that do not get brighter or darker with their activity, we have a sort of generic one size fits all temperature for everything. The military essentially complained about this with the sky being too dark/cold, so given that we are representing things in a non-dynamic way right now, we probably made the sky too hot (too far the other way).  The solution would be something in between to get it "OK" in both hot and cold situations, until we can do something that is actually dynamic.

 

So, in other words, I am not disagreeing with you here; we will look into it. But I am trying to make it clear that its about making it look "better", and less washed out, while at the same time giving some temperature to the sky too rather than pitch black, in an attempt to find a middle ground between too hot and too cold.  It will take a few tweaks to get there, I am sure, but that is the nature of big changes like this. Hopefully that makes more sense.

[Volcano]

So just to clarify and explain situation - the video provided here was on a cold day (20-30F), SB's sky is currently the opposite extreme, so we will try to get it in between. It shouldn't be too hard to address.   👍

[Higgs]

Not here to beat a dead horse but the T-72B3 thermal is awful like that. I am aware that russian military equipment has proven to be less advanced than expected but this is essenially useless isn't it?

I appreciated the effort to make the game/simulation realistic but I think this didn't work out as planned. Thermals that don't offer brightness and contrast adjustment aren't very good right now. On the other side with the Leopard 2 it feels like cheating. The CITV can be adjusted to show the entire world, but still make enemy vehicles glow like a christmas tree.

Here a comparison between the T-72B3 TIS and the Leopard 2A5 CITV.
On one I can see all the of the tress and the terrain AND all targets glow.
On the other I can barely see the target, let alone make out what the world looks like.

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Higgs

[Ssnake]

Some changes will be made with the next patch. Some of the videos I saw of the T-72B3 thermal imager were, however, rather atrocious. Maybe some are better, suggesting a high variance in factory output, or that the devices are fragile, or tjose videos simply were an exceptional case and don't represent the majority of cases.

We would certainly be willing to reconsider in the light of new evidence, as always.

[Higgs]

23 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Some changes will be made with the next patch. Some of the videos I saw of the T-72B3 thermal imager were, however, rather atrocious. Maybe some are better, suggesting a high variance in factory output, or that the devices are fragile, or tjose videos simply were an exceptional case and don't represent the majority of cases.

We would certainly be willing to reconsider in the light of new evidence, as always.

Good to hear that. I don’t doubt that the T-72B3 doesn’t use the best thermal sight but I must assume it’s better than this. 
 

And this is certainly true for the M1A2 which has a rather unrealistically bad CITV and TIS right now. 
 

But again, I appreciate the effort you guys make. 

[Mirzayev]

18 hours ago, Volcano said:

So just to clarify and explain situation - the video provided here was on a cold day (20-30F), SB's sky is currently the opposite extreme, so we will try to get it in between. It shouldn't be too hard to address.   👍

 

I hope not. 

 

Until then, I'll just chalk up black hot as useless. 

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Mirzayev

[Volcano]

35 minutes ago, Mirzayev said:

 

I hope not. 

 

Until then, I'll just chalk up white hot as useless. 

 

I think you meant black hot mode (at least that is what is showing in your image). That said, you can certainly see a black target against an all white background. And again, pictures of the flat map isn't exactly the same as playing an actual scenario on a non-flat map in the mean time (whether it is useless is subjective).  But what is far more important is the inability to focus the image on some vehicles, and that has been fixed just now.

 

But either way, I know what you mean. Not to worry though, it is being addressed. With big changes comes wrinkles to iron out, and the feedback is vital for that. Thanks to everyone for that. 👍

[Mirzayev]

20 minutes ago, Volcano said:

  And again, pictures of the flat map isn't exactly the same as playing an actual scenario on a non-flat map in the mean time (whether it is useless is subjective). 

 

This was taken from the tank range. The view is of the forest in the background.

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Mirzayev

[Volcano]

47 minutes ago, Mirzayev said:

 

This was taken from the tank range. The view is of the forest in the background.

 

 

OK fair enough. The picture is kind of small to see anything, but I see the forest on the right after zooming in (barely). 

 

My point was that in an actual scenario, with targets in the image, they can be identified and engaged (when I said "you can certainly see a black target against a white background"). But certainly looking at a relatively flat featureless image with no targets is not good.  

 

 

 

 

[Volcano]

This has now been fixed/improved for the patch.

The intent is to have it vary *slightly* in brightness based on temperature settings in the scenario (not but a huge amount but enough to perhaps notice a difference in the horizon "fogging" region - rather than just being the same all the time), but yes, overall we were far too bright with what we had before. This seems to have been caused by a slight misunderstanding at the time improvements were (recently) implemented.

 

Thanks!

[Assassin 7]

1 minute ago, Volcano said:

This has now been fixed/improved for the patch.

The intent is to have it vary *slightly* in brightness based on temperature settings in the scenario (not but a huge amount but enough to perhaps notice a difference in the horizon "fogging" region - rather than just being the same all the time), but yes, overall we were far too bright with what we had before. This seems to have been caused by a slight misunderstanding at the time improvements were (recently) implemented.

 

Thanks!

Thank you and the Esims Team for correcting this. Appreciate it 👍