birdstrike Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Has there already been given any thought as to how camo-tactics and concealment will be implied in the game? Like using camo nets or building shadows for improved concealment (e.g. against air raids)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(fgm) falco Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Actually yes. Since CM/SF is set in the future the BFC think-tank is considering including the futuristic camouflage technology now being developed by the US Army. One such development is the new invisibility combat suit which is believed to utilize revolutionary new nano and chemical technology. It is apparently able to adapt to any colours of any environment and renders the wearer totally invisile to the naked eye...even under water!! Accordingly BFC are putting together a new scenario for Shock Force called 'The Invisible Men'. This entails a Streake...sorry, Stryker force entering the Syrian capital and wiping out the entire government without a single person witnessing it!! Personally I cant wait to play it...blowing the brains out of all those Arab sub-humans - who could fail not to love it!! AND no civilian causalties! - falco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Falco, if you are never going to make a post that is even remotely serious or on topic I'll have to ask you to excuse yourself from the Forum. Making joke posts is fine if you also contribute serious ones. We have enough clowning around here without having dedicated clowns. Yes, emplaced units should be able to have an additional attribute to simulate being camouflaged. Building shadows and more subtle stuff like that... dunno... we'll just have to see. Those things are not so easily defined and/or simulated. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSgt Viljuri Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Will pixilated camouflages (CADPAT, MARPAT, ARPAT and FINNISH M/05) give an edge to the rest of the world's ordinary camouflages? Like to Sweden's ordinary M/90? Just asking... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 will turret-down concealment be possible? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Don't hold your breath for the much vaunted invisible camoflage anybody. Two problems with active systems. Ambient light and Detail, both determined by the position of the Observer(s). When you look at a white plane, up close you see the detail , but far away it's a black dot. Threr is however a point at which the weak reflected light from the aircraft is roughly the same as the background and at this point you are hard to see. Thats why grey works so well on aircraft in europe, because on an average day at medium altitude a grey plane blends well with the background. In WW2 they put high power lights on sub hunting aircraft to hide them in daylight, sounds daft but it worked a treat and got us many a U-Boat. However the problem is theat it all depends as much on the distance to the spotter as the colour of the plane, at 5,000ft and 3 miles you may be hard to spot, but someone directly below you are lighter than the sky and to someone 10 miles away you are still a black dot. Its the same with detail. Lets say you have a 30 ft pine tree 30 yards behind you. To someone say, 10 yards away, your tank might block the tree so to fool them you project a tree on your tank that looks the size the one behind you, would look to them. However to the guy with the Javelin 200 yards further back you stick out like a sore thumb, because he can see most of 30ft Pine behind you and to him what you've projected looks like a 3ft ornamental shrub..... Active camo on the leading edge of a stealth UCAV set to match the background ambience as you approach an known target , the light emission level being constantly altered depending on target range, I think is pretty possible and indeed likely within 10 to 15 years. Predator style stealth suits, might quite literally be impossible. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(fgm) falco Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Re: Battlefront.com Fair enough, but does that mean I have to excuse myself every time I want to go to the bathroom too...??? - falco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Yes, emplaced units should be able to have an additional attribute to simulate being camouflaged. Building shadows and more subtle stuff like that... dunno... we'll just have to see. Those things are not so easily defined and/or simulated. Steve 'kay, Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Originally posted by (fgm) falco: Re: Battlefront.com Fair enough, but does that mean I have to excuse myself every time I want to go to the bathroom too...??? As long as you spare us the details of what you intend to do, there should be no point in doing so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(fgm) falco Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Phew..! Just as well really. Must admit wasnt looking forward to e-mailing this forum asking to be excused every time I had a nature call. Ye Gods!!...does that mean if I DO give you full details of what I plan to do in the toilet I DO have to be excused by the BFC moderators...!! - falco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: When you look at a white plane, up close you see the detail , but far away it's a black dot. Threr is however a point at which the weak reflected light from the aircraft is roughly the same as the background and at this point you are hard to see. Thats why grey works so well on aircraft in europe, because on an average day at medium altitude a grey plane blends well with the background.I had an interesting demonstration of that once about 30 years ago. I was watching through my telescope as a pair of F-106s flew over at what I would estimate as about 30,000ft. At first, they were darker than the background sky and I could make them out plainly. Later on, they were lighter and again I had no trouble seeing them. But at a certain point, they exactly matched the luminosity of the sky and they disappeared from view. The only way I could track them at that point was via their contrails. In WW2 they put high power lights on sub hunting aircraft to hide them in daylight, sounds daft but it worked a treat and got us many a U-Boat.Do you have a citation for that? That statement has popped up on the internet a few times in recent years, but I've never seen it in a source I would trust. The lights were actually put on the aircraft for use at night and I doubt they would be successful in the way you describe, having observed aircraft with their landing lights on in daylight many times. Even if you might not see the airframe, the light itself is quite attention-getting. However the problem is theat [sic] it all depends as much on the distance to the spotter as the colour of the plane...Actually, it depends almost entirely on the matchup/discrepency of luminosity and color between background and object. Shape of the object is also important. Mostly, the intent of camouflage is not to make the object invisible, but to postpone as long as possible the eye/brain's ability to identify what it is looking at. To that end, most camouflage tries to break up the apparent outline of the camouflaged object. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Originally posted by (fgm) falco: Ye Gods!!...does that mean if I DO give you full details of what I plan to do in the toilet I DO have to be excused by the BFC moderators...!!No, it means that you will be visited by a pair of burly men with five o'clock shadows wearing poorly fitted suits who will be very insistent on your accompanying them to an undisclosed destination. It's not recommended that you leave anything cooking on your stove. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Historical Essay with source references Nonetheless, the British conveyed the results of their tests to the Americans, who developed a more efficient version of the technique. This system used a series of lamps installed on the nose and on the front of the wings of the aircraft. The light from these lamps was directed forward, in the direction of a possible observer on the plane's approach path. When the intensity of these lamps was properly adjusted, their light considerably reduced the visibility of the frontal profile of the plane on which the equipment was mounted. Designated by the code name ?Yehudi? as well as by the spelling variation ?Yahoody,? this aerial diffused lighting system was used between 1943 and 1945 on long-range B-24 Liberator bombers, on TBF Avenger-type torpedo bombers and on an American Navy experimental remote-controlled glide bomb. Even though the results of the American tests were positive, ?Yehudi? never progressed beyond the experimental stage. It appears that the installation of centimetric radars on board aircraft, which took place around the same time, was judged preferable to visual camouflage. In conjunction with a powerful searchlight called the Leigh Light, radar-equiped aircraft could successfully hunt U-boats at night, when the latter surfaced to recharge their batteries under the cover of darkness. As for daylight attacks, it was recognized that the visibility of the aircraft was not necessarily a disadvantage in the fight against submarines. By making a U-boat dive, the aircraft succeeded, by their presence alone, in reducing the submarine's speed and operational radius, which considerably lessened the threat they represented.. [ October 31, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Mostly, the intent of camouflage is not to make the object invisible, but to postpone as long as possible the eye/brain's ability to identify what it is looking at. To that end, most camouflage tries to break up the apparent outline of the camouflaged object.Correct. And unfortunately, that which breaks up the shape most effectively when the object is stationary also tends to have the opposite effect when the object is in motion. Motion draws the attention of the eye and contrast increases motion detection. This is why there was not a huge rush to camouflage soldiers post WWII. Most combat troops around the world wore monotone colored uniforms until the 1980s. The Austrians are the only large scale, modern force to use monotone colored uniforms. In fact, they rejected a move to camouflage in 2001 (or there abouts) and introduced a new uniform in montone. Oddly enough, they were one of the first nations to adopt a camouflage uniform (dropped in the 1970s). Same for vehicles. The famous WWII German "Ambush" pattern was not duplicated by other nations even though it was HIGHLY effective when the vehicle was in an ambush stance. But when it is on the move it is more noticable than a monotone vehicle. In fact, most vehicles since WWII have remained monotone. The British' Berlin Birgade had an interesting and bold camouflage pattern, but again... extremely effective when stationary and exactly the opposite when in motion. As an aside... when you watch the movie Predator you will notice that the alien's high tech camo suit is most noticable when the creature is moving. One of the most realistic things about that movie Steve [ October 31, 2005, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(fgm) falco Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 My God, are you telling me Predator is not a true story....?! - falco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by Wicky: Historical Essay with source references Aha! Thanks for clearing that up, Wicky. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Michael, Your right to mention shape, watching a flight of F-16 fly over my house (They fly over the Black Isle occationally on their way to the bombing Rrange at cape wraith, Saw an SU-22 a few months back , think it was Romanian) and of the three that i saw one stood out from the others as it had a centre line tank that cast a black shadow on part of it's underside. Even though It was quite a clear day it was a bit hazy so the grey worked quite well, but that shadow made it hard to miss and once you spotted it the other two were much easier to find. I suppose the visual advantage of things like the F-22 and F-35, will be the internal bay preventing that kind of thing, although the opposite might be true when you start putting Hellfires on UAV's. It might be better to use a UAV stealthily to call in other assets that to expose it by arming it. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wicky: Historical Essay with source references Aha! Thanks for clearing that up, Wicky. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Car drivers take note that motorcyclists can also unintentionally use this camouflage when riding around with their headlights on in the right daylight conditions. Bikers think they are very visible with their lights on with grave consequences. I learnt this factoid many moons ago as a biker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: An FV432 was placed on the skyline on the side of a hill against a bright sky...I heard about this a few years ago. Again though, one of the many problems with this promising idea is that as it exists, it only works when viewed from certain angles against certain backgrounds. Fine if you know the enemy will only be viewing it from those angles and against those backgrounds. Otherwise, might as well not bother. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Even though It was quite a clear day it was a bit hazy so the grey worked quite well...I live near an NAS that is a training base for a squadron of EA-6Es. Quite often I will hear one in flight, but unless it is quite low, I usually won't spot it, even though I am an experienced plane spotter. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Michael, Gee why didn't I guess that you'd be a plane spotter, well you had to do something when you were away from the key board. Could be worse I suppose, it could be trains. Still Look who's talking, I am in to politics, how sads that. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Could be worse I suppose, it could be trains.Believe me, if we had a functioning RR in this town, I'd be watching trains too...at least if they were steamers. As it is, I watch a lot of ships and boats go by, though I claim no great expertise in identifying them. Same with birds. I enjoy watching them, and can identify most of the ones I see, but I am not a dyed-in-the-down dedicated birder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Michael, This passion for watching things doesn't extent to womens changing rooms does it...... Peter., 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: This passion for watching things doesn't extent to womens changing rooms does it......"I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that..." Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.