Concealment?

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Of course if we ever do get it to work, we then face the problem of Friendly Fire, you know.

In your "chameleon suit" you line up an unsuspecting target and open up, only to find half way through the first clip, that "Chuck" is standing in between you.

Peter.

I think by the time we have the chameleon suits, the "smart bullets" will know to avoid Chuck.

Unless you haven't downloaded the proper security updates to Windows for Weapons and a virus has caused all of your smart ammo to avoid your enemies and hit your friends.

And assuming Chuck isn't wearing an camoflage suit that's incompatible with Windows, like Apple's iHide.

[flamingknives]

Of course, the blue screen of death would take on a very literal meaning.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, I expect "no shoot" hardware/software to be in the field long before a chameleon suit. The stuff is already around, just not perfected enough for field use.

Steve

[Tarquelne]

Again, there is this problem of geometry that Peter brings up. Until that is solved, nothing is going to work very well, if at all.

I don't think the geometry problem is that bad in many situations. Not if you've got, for example, a small mob of networked micro-UAVs monitoring the terrain, most likely LOSs and feeding that info to your camo suit, a suit with an effective number of screens expressed as something like a polygon count. The computers will also supply you with a path least likely to result in your being seen. It's not a "Predator" suit, but it'd be pretty good.

Too bad the enemy's sniffers have picked up on some of the signature molecules from your organics and a round from an automated mortar is already on the way...

OTOH, I don't think chameleon "Make me look similar to whatever's right behind me." camo is all that distant. Impractical versions, at least.

[ November 07, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Peter Cairns]

Tarquelne

It doesn't matter how many UAV's feed it in, if two images from 45 deg apart are different and both projected on to the chest screen of the same guy, he will stand out like a flashing Christmas tree in the dark.

Besides if you have a cloud of Micro-Uav's with that capacity, why waste time with the guy in the suit, when you can just have them relay the targets to stand off weapons.

That's like having a squadron of F-18E's to had targeting data to a coastguard corvette with a 40mm.

Anyway any future "Predator" suit would have to work right across and beyond the visual spectrum, as well as having little or no EM signature....

Peter.

[Tarquelne]

It doesn't matter how many UAV's feed it in, if two images from 45 deg apart are different and both projected on to the chest screen of the same guy, he will stand out like a flashing Christmas tree in the dark.

Nope. It's got "fins" and "wings" that allow the wearer to decieve up to three viewers up to 20 degrees apart. It's in the specs.

Seriously though - the "geometry problem" is a major one, and requires something really spiffy to completely eliminate, but you could still get something pretty usefull short of that.

Depends on the angle you're viewing him from. It's not an invisibility suit, but it'd still be pretty good.

Besides if you have a cloud of Micro-Uav's with that capacity, why waste time with the guy in the suit, when you can just have them relay the targets to stand off weapons.

Because you can't find them. They're wearing super camo suits.

Actually, by the time we have really good invisibility suit tech I'm not sure there'll be any place on the battlefield for someone (as opposed to something to wear it.)

That's like having a squadron of F-18E's to had targeting data to a coastguard corvette with a 40mm.

Right. But disposable F-18's only a few mm across may not have 40mm guns, and that might be exactly what you want.

C'mon. If we've got a guy with a super-camo suit skuling about lets go ahead and assume we want him there rather than the equivilent of a squadron of F-18s.

Maybe you want him to ID someone. Maybe you want some really picky target selection. Maybe the bad guys will shoot down the F-18 equivilent, or counter-battery fire of some sort would hammer your stand off weapons.

Anyway any future "Predator" suit would have to work right across and beyond the visual spectrum, as well as having little or no EM signature....

Probably. But not if you're fighting sufficiently low-tech (or utterly unprepared) opponents.

(And keep in mind that what I was describing wasn't a "Predator" suit - just something I thought would be useful.)

[ November 08, 2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[GSX]

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.

Mig 21 Lancer I believe. Romanian is right though.

[cassh]

As well as good old scrim netting the British Army use heavy-duty plastic tarpaulin when laagering wagons.

It helps reduce thermal signature and break-up characteristic mechanical shapes. Works against thermal imaging to a degree, but would suspect sod all use against Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) as deployed on most US UAV and JSTARs.

Good fieldcraft, discipline and topographical understanding should mean experienced and veteran equivalent units in the CMx2 should be much harder to detect, whether stationary or moving.

On the point of uniform patterns - the nature of the soldiers uniform pattern is mainly irrelevant as long as it is natural and subdued - unless the soldier understands basic concepts such as the six s's - shape, shine, shadow, silhouette, sound and [sudden] movement - no uniform camouflage can possibly help.

I'd wager an old-sweat infantryman could operate in the field wearing civilian streetwear and still remain less detected and visible than a young recruit in all the Gucci camo-kit.

In the game concealment will by its nature have to be abstracted and tied into unit quality as it was in CMx1 - not to do so would mean tying the fieldcraft skill of a unit to whatever knowledge and experience the player has.

Now whilst I think it is nice to have control of the units I'm meant to be commanding, as a company commander I don't expect to know or have more experience than my

sniper team when it comes to fieldcraft.

To put it bluntly; unless you are an expert in every arm of service and have a serious working knowledge of all forms of camouflage and concealment techniques for all arms/branches, chances are you, the player, will not accurately reflect the skill of some/many/all of the units you control in the game.

For instance an infantryman, lets say a recce platoon NCO, will have a better knowledge than most on all aspects of fieldcraft, but give them a troop of tanks to hide/manoeuvre or a flight of helicopters and landing zone to camouflage and chances are that he might do a good job, but you can bet your bottom dollar it's ****e compared to the guys who routinely cam up day-in-day out.

My point? Let Charles abstract concealment and have it related to unit quality, longevity in position, time since last move, speed of last move, expose to which units etc as I presume was the case in CMx1

[Peter Cairns]

GSX,

doubt it was a Mig 21 lancer, I know the late Mig 21's had a similar buldge behind the cockpit, but as far as I recall no Mig variant ever had a mid wing fence stake, so I am pretty sure it wasn't a Mig.

Peter.

[aka_tom_w]

bump

this is an old thread for Lt Bull

[BatAttack]

@Peter Cairns:

In the earlier post, sgtgoody (esq) said: "Fiber optic cables woven into a combat suit that transmit light from 180 degrees behind the wearer. To someone looking at the wearer he looks like what he is in front of."

You say this would not work, because: (a) people viewing from different angles would need to see a different pattern for the camouflage to work, and ( you cannot have two (or more) different images on the same surface.

in fact you can have different images on the same surface, based on the angle it is being viewed at. The simplest example is one of those 'hologram' stickers you sometimes see, they often have something like a skull on them. If viewed from front on, they show the front of the skull, if tilted and viewed from either side, they show a different image, the side of the skull. This is because the material surface is made of multi-faceted crystals - different facets are seen from different angles.

This is a fairly primitive effect; I'm sure with funding and research the military could come up with something better using similar principles - for example, using fibre optics.

a) This is exactly what sgtgoody is suggesting. Someone looking at the active camo suit would see what is behind it, from where they are standing.

If you are standing to the west of the active camo suit, you would see an image of what is to the east of it. If you are standing north of it, you would see an image of what is to the south of it.

This is because the fibreoptics cables would transmit light from one direction, and emit it again on the other side of the suit. Because the light coming from a fibreoptic cable can only be seen from a very narrow angle, clusters/bundles of fibre optic cable endings could be used to acheive an effect similar to that of a multifaceted surface.

This would be an extremely difficult engineering problem, and might never prove to be practical, but it is not impossible.

EDIT: Thanks for the greeting.

LOL - I read a whole bunch of threads yesterday so it all seems fresh in my mind. I never thought to check the time-stamps.

[ February 21, 2007, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: BatAttack ]

[aka_tom_w]

Hi BatAttack

welcome

just a reminder, this is a very old thread, I bumped it because another new member was asking something about how cover and concealment would work in the new game.

Previous to the bump the posts in the thread were from Nov 2005.

FWIW

-tom w

[Lt Bull]

Thanks tom

Still can find a definitive answer to my questions however. :/

[aka_tom_w]

I tried