Any plans to include white phosphor NVG tubes, or other types & styles??

[HVA_HeadBusta]

Just wondering if you're planning on including different variations of NVG tech like white phosphor tubes, ColorTAC, or Armasight.

Also curious if different sets of goggles will be available like the GPNVG-18, AN/PVS-21, and AN/PSQ-36.

[[ACPL] Jon]

Haven't checked the new NVG effect yet, but have they fixed the absurd monocular vision on double-ocular AN/PVS-15 gogs?

[Sentient_Toaster]

NV is still weirdly circular.

[Scopey]

Although we're replacing the NVG overlay with something slightly more accurate, the FOV for PVS-15s is 40 degrees vertical and 45 degrees horizontal—meaning that, realistically, you won't see much more than the current overlay shows. Specs and overlay were advised by someone who's had plenty of experience with the real thing, so as far as FOV and general appearance, that's pretty much it.

The issue, I believe, is that when you apply the proper FOV allowed by the device, you get a lot of black around the sides, whereas in reality this same FOV is up on your eyes, giving the impression of more vision. Perhaps the solution further down the road will be a hybrid of screen overlay + FOV reduction, so that same limited FOV will appear closer to the screen, taking up more of the horizontal space. Would have its own problems for sure (e.g. cut down some vertical FOV and possibly make you feel "zoomed in"), but it's an idea.

[[ACPL] Jon]

NO NO NO NO, NO.

NO.

No "blah blah FOV". Srsly guys, you're better than that. Pls rent real NVGogs, wear them for at least few minutes and then try to push the myth of "green circle". I'm was about to post about it, with pictures, but were postponing that 'till later because of other stuff.

But I'll guess I'll do that soon. I'll post you how it SHOULD look like.

FOV doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that, besides grainy resolution.

[Scopey]

Look forward to it.

[[ACPL] Jon]

Actually that was the comment notif I stumbled upon right before having to leave, so I've read that in a rather fast manner and lets face it, only the first paragraph, so sorry if I sounded a bit too... Jon. Later on You do propose a proper solution regarding how it works in the real thing aka "whereas in reality this same FOV is up on your eyes, giving the impression of more vision." - so like I said, pretty much a lower res, "stretched" image that's all over your eyes - you don't see through a tube. I'd really insist on NOT going the way of "green circles" highly limiting visibility, because that's neither realistic nor good game design - NVG's are already punishing enough (limited sights selection) and having to spend more time in them shouldn't be even more painful.

The idea You proposed would be ideal, for now I think the grain and focus losing with overlay having just sort of "vignette" gogs effect in the corners would work ideally.

Yet still one of my biggest gripes with last view was that it was a monocular view for PVS-15...

[BTH]

You do realize that the purpose of dual tube night vision is depth perception and not to make your field of view wider? Both tubes are parallel and both eyes see almost the same image, which is a green, narrow perfect circle (or greenish-blueish white if they are WP). Overlap the image of both tubes and you get the very slightly oval shape that you see in-game in Ground Branch

[WhiteKnight77]

BTH is military, maybe former. As to who Scopey pointed out, a former Green Beret who also taught at JFKSWFCS and who John still works with on military based computerized training modules (specialized video games and is how he makes some money to put into GB) would most certainly give John a look through said NVGs to see what is actually seen through them. Back when I was in, they only had single tube versions and the squadron I was in didn't train with them.

[[ACPL] Jon]

Ok, so due to the obvious fact there's really no way to show the "view" of the gunner using NVG I thought the easiest way to show what I mean would be examples from other games - and as for the "limited visibility", I never thought I'd use this game as an example, but - GR: Wildlands.

They actually got that right, at least from my memories with 2-ocular Gen2 gogs.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1570227342
What I mean is only the "borders" of the screen, the "sort of" vignette effect - that's not the "artificial", "gamey" vignette offered by the games options, but part of the overlay of the NVG. That's the most accurate representation of how limited the image was, the rest - like "noise" effect - you guys got IMO right for Gen3 gogs, except maybe lack of eye-hurtful bloom on light rays \ sources. The rest is a bit harder to simulate unless you make it [like You suggested] behave like an actual optic \ "feed" providing image of different "FOV" - I'd describe it more like a slight change of perspective, as in PoV messing up your sense of "terrain" scale, of distance - with some experience you start getting used to it, but still... - I'm pretty sure if John had PVS-15 or anything akin to it on his head, he'll know what I'm talking about.

Thing is, I'm wondering if that won't make people heads go sick, like VR gogs or some games that used narrow fov, heavily-zoomed-in view meant for consoles (like in older Brothers in Arms games). I myself were a bit weirded out by how it works in reality.

That'd be IMO 3 most important aspects of proper NVG simulation:
- the limits of the view itself (aka: what your eyes are limited to)
- the limits of NVG technology, the quality of image (noise, focus losing, bloom on light rays)
- the distance perception \ simulation, as in the FOV \ perspective change

[[ACPL] Jon]

Oh and lemme add that binoculars \ rangefinder should work in a similiar manner, when it comes to view limitation. No solid black borders taking away 3/5 of the screen.