Project Reality Forums

I really like the addition of the new thermals!

What do you guys think of the new thermals? Which ones do you like to use more, BHOT or WHOT? I heard some guys say that they think BHOT is useless compared to WHOT, but i think BHOT looks better than WHOT.

But i also noticed it is harder to spot infantry and vehicles on BHOT, it could use some more contrast imo.
I think thermals in PR in general would benefit from more color grading and contrast. If you compare them to footage of real thermal sights and tank simulators, it is way harder to spot targets with PR thermals.

What do you think?

BHOT and WHOT are better than... GHOT and RHOT or whatever the **** we were using before.
I personally like WHOT, white stands out more to me than black, however I heard a lot of people(more so than WHOT) who prefer BHOT and say it's better.

PR thermals are not good enough, too pixelated/blurry and targets do not light up well enough. That and it's ridiculously hard to spot FOB assets (TOW/AA) that would be much easier to spot IRL. Dug ground/sandbags would certainly show better especially right after being constructed.

Also the zoom for example on the apache seems much larger than ingame, in RL videos they are able to get a very close up view on enemies at 300-600 meters, to the point where a man sized target is filling up the whole crosshair.

I agree that thermals in PR don't highlight targets well enough and make it hard for the driver to spot and avoid obstacles because of not enough contrast.

Maybe a system like the one in this simulator would be nicer: https://youtu.be/vHaljs00xGI?t=2m50s

Different parts of the vehicles glow stronger that others, makes it easier to identify targets.
I am aware that the refractor engine might not allow to do this though.

I really like the new thermals (apache! ) but its really hard to spot enemys with the red/light red thermal sights on desert maps with e.g. bradlay IFV.
A better contrast would be appreciated

viirusiiseli wrote:PR thermals are not good enough, too pixelated/blurry and targets do not light up well enough. That and it's ridiculously hard to spot FOB assets (TOW/AA) that would be much easier to spot IRL. Dug ground/sandbags would certainly show better especially right after being constructed.

Also the zoom for example on the apache seems much larger than ingame, in RL videos they are able to get a very close up view on enemies at 300-600 meters, to the point where a man sized target is filling up the whole crosshair.

while you are very right, if the thermals and magnification were as effective as you state, it would break the game.
asset 'whoring' would become an even larger problem as any asset with thermal takes the role of recon & firepower, jobs like infantry would have an even shorter lifespan.

yes you can argue that infantry should flank, or that spotters should spread out - but this is all unnessescary changes to gameplay.

while PR is realistic we also want it to be enjoyable enough, not have a 20 second lifespan everytime we leave a compound because an apache 3 kliks away can see our birthmark on our arm.

If you want milsim real life thermals, have older vehicles thermals work only half of the time and give it a 1 second delay between what is happening on screen and what is happening in game.

Also vehicle FOV should be complete shit.

Acecombatzer0 wrote:If you want milsim real life thermals, have older vehicles thermals work only half of the time and give it a 1 second delay between what is happening on screen and what is happening in game.

Also vehicle FOV should be complete shit.

I can get behind all of that.

QuickLoad wrote:while you are very right, if the thermals and magnification were as effective as you state, it would break the game.
asset 'whoring' would become an even larger problem as any asset with thermal takes the role of recon & firepower, jobs like infantry would have an even shorter lifespan.

yes you can argue that infantry should flank, or that spotters should spread out - but this is all unnessescary changes to gameplay.

while PR is realistic we also want it to be enjoyable enough, not have a 20 second lifespan everytime we leave a compound because an apache 3 kliks away can see our birthmark on our arm.

It wouldn't break the game, don't be theatrical. All it would do is ease target acquisition in forested areas and possibly some of the foggier maps.

Would actually be nice. Since every other property of air/armor is being nerfed under the disguise of realism atm

make assets great again

The trained eye can already reliably spot almost every target with the thermal optics, although i might take a bit longer to do so compared to real thermals. Increasing the contrast and color grading wouldn't make much of a difference in that regard, only speed up target aquisition a bit.

The real reason i would like to see clearer thermals is to reduce eye strain, the washed out thermals right now really strain the eyes too much.

The other reason is so the driver can see objets that are not highlighted as targets, so stuff like trees, rocks, branches and bushes better against the background. With the thermals we have right now there is poor definition around the edges and those objects almost blend together with the background.

This often leads to the driver crashing into those objects when driving with thermals on which is annoying and not that authentic tbh.

DogACTUAL wrote:With the thermals we have right now there is poor definition around the edges and those objects almost blend together with the background.

That's because current thermals are full of unnecessary post-processing so it's grainy and blurry. Sad!

viirusiiseli wrote:Since every other property of air/armor is being nerfed under the disguise of realism atm

Care to explain?

Remember when we didn't have any thermals at all?

Murphy wrote:Remember when we didn't have any thermals at all?

Remember when we only had nightvision on Mashtuur city?

I think large rocks have higher temperature from the surrounding terrain on a sunny day and should stand out in the thermal imager, not as bright as the vehicles ofcourse or flames.

Stay on topic.

Come back after a while away from playing.

Like the new thermal settings, switching between the two can be quite useful as dependent on environment depends what can stick out more.

Quick question though, how come the commander view thermals for the CR2 driver were taken away?

The army website suggests that the commander has a thermal optic.

army.mod.uk wrote:Challenger 2's thermal observation and gunnery displays a magnified image for the commander and gunner. The commander has a gyro-stabilised fully panoramic sight with laser range finder and thermal imager.

Challenger 2 main battle tank - British Army Website

AnimalMother. wrote:Quick question though, how come the commander view thermals for the CR2 driver were taken away?

The army website suggests that the commander has a thermal optic.



Challenger 2 main battle tank - British Army Website

It came with some upgrade or so that we do not model in game. Not sure anymore, gotta ask our Panzer guys.

Everything i found suggested the panoramic sight doesn't have thermals, hence why the current LEP program from BAE has a thermal sight for the commander as part of their upgrades.

The british army website is a bit vague, the commander does have thermals, but they come from the TOGS sight as it says, there isn't another one inside the commanders sight.

'[R-DEV wrote:camo;2158826']Everything i found suggested the panoramic sight doesn't have thermals, hence why the current LEP program from BAE has a thermal sight for the commander as part of their upgrades.

The british army website is a bit vague, the commander does have thermals, but they come from the TOGS sight as it says, there isn't another one inside the commanders sight.

Can TOGS be modeled, it's pretty cool in SB? Thermal camera view linked to the turret would be neat.