Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by rumcajs03, Nov 13, 2015.
lol, why this thread make me laugh? btw +1 on this idea
Not really. You end up seeing without the natural source of light.
If you are referring to what looks like a camera view on the Primary flight display, it is not. That is synthetic vision. A soft wear product that garmin offers for its G1000 glass cockpit systems. It is not a camera image, it is a 3D topographic image that is gps based so that the pilot can see what the virtual terrain is approximately like near their position. And it is not cheap, a G1000 system that it is displays on is around $50,000 USD that's fifty thousand for those of you that use . Instead of , to designate big numbers rather than as a decimal point. And that is for a small general aviation plane, bigger planes cost a lot more. And the synthetic vision is about another $4,000 Option on top of that. So I would say it is not cheap! Not sure where you got the idea it wasn't cheap....? And I wouldn't try to land while looking that display, it won't be smooth. It is useful to help you with situation awareness but not to actually land with. You need to look outside for that. Landing at night is very differs than landing during the day. Your sense of depth or height above the runway and terrain is very different at night. So much so that the FAA makes you maintain night currency in order to have passengers in your plane at night, which in reality is a rather minimal requirement. But your fisrst landing at night if you haven't done one in a while is usually a hard one because visually it is very different than in the day.
True, i didnt find good video with clasic camera+display and i tought this looks almost the same too show how it looks, but you can buy cheap camera+display for landing, for example system FLIR for planes. It did cost around $40,000 before 10 years, now camera cost around $1500-3000 + LCD Screen with Sun Shield $450.00 = $1950-3450, so its relatively cheap. ( Ofcourse you can buy beter display or camera so price will go up, but its up to you. Normal price is around $4500-5000 for it )
EDIT: or firms orginaly doing it for planes are garmin, dynona.
I didnt find good video from cockpit and almost all had low quality, but this is it:
Unless they make the spotlights more powerful, you're incorrect. Running around with your suit lights is one thing, and I can agree with that, but spotlights are incredibly weak and useless for night flying. They're barely sufficient for night driving.
So youd rather have a nightvision, which is a light thats not in a visible spectrum, cast by a spotlight and then picked up by cameras and face the same range problem rather than making spotlights stronger?
What? I have a feeling you don't understand night vision, or what I wrote. I'm saying that spot lights for vehicles are so incredibly weak and their range is not realistic to any degree, so your original claim that "Youve got flashlights... Its a different solution to a problem, which is already solved" is not correct when it comes to vehicles. I did concede it's a fair statement for our suit lights.
NV would be a great option for cockpits, and should come with all the limitations that would arise from using them (e.g. blinded by sudden light). I would also take a buff to spotlights. All I'm saying is that night flying is dangerous and it sucks and there is not current solution to it. We've got RL tech NOW that solves it, and I'd like for us to have something in game as well.
In addition to the vehicle spotlights being a bit rubbish, who on earth would do an attack run with spotlights on? I mean really, if you want to be sneaky don't go around lighting up a whole vally with a giant spotlight.
I would be for implementing this as a varient of the camera block. It would be more expensive, possibly use detector components or something, and would let you see in the dark. A thermal one would be nice as well, but I would think this to be more difficult. Night vision would just brighten everything and put on an overlay. A green overlay.
I had a look around for the different types of night vision.
In low light you can use image intensifiers, which brighten an image so you can see it. They need some light to work though, so in a cave they would see nothing. I think this is what we want, assuming it would work at night on a planet thanks to the stars.
You can use thermal imaging to see in no light at all by detecting the infra-red emmited from objects. This would be amazing, but might be complicated to implement.
Most night vision CCTV cameras I found used near infra red lights to Illuminate the thing being looked at. For example, a television remote control emits light invisible to human eyes but you can see it if you look at it through a mobile phone camera. Obviosly in CCTV cameras the lights are more powerful, and possibly a different frequncy too. As planets1de said these have range limited by the range of the lights. In addition they show up as clear as a spotlight to another camera. I don't think we would want these for Space Engineers. Its used a lot in real life because it is very cheap compared to other systems.
Or at night, when you need spotlights.
While I ultimatly agree with the suggestion as spotlight range is insufficent, I don't understand why people are having so much problems with the visibility. While waiting for this feature to get implemented (if it ever does), here is a simple vanilla fix for you guys having troubles seeing at night:
That's what you do (supposed to do anyway) IRL when driving in poor visibilty conditions to allow a longer reaction time to unexpected obstacles. If you have no time to dodge the obstacle that just popped up, it means you were simply going too fast. I understand that most people won't feel like moving at 30-40 km/h, but as of now, it is the only vanilla solution to this problem. If you don't feel like slowing down, then enjoy your repeated crashing.
TL;DR : I agree with the suggestion, but I don't feel night visibility is as big of an issue as people makes it look here.
Night is the best time to attack. Visibility is low. If you can increase visibility for the attack that's be good!
Daylight doesn't provide good cover. If the enemy had night vision cameras installed they could see you coming, and turrets would shred an attacker anyway. So I don't think it'd even be unbalanced in favour of the attackers especially with turrets still working as usual.
Also rule of cool.
You could also setup gps waypoints during the day along your route and then just fly them at night. Kinda like real IFR gps flying... Wouldn't work for exploring but is great for flying to and from your mining sites and bases. Then you dont need to see at night. And it would be really easy and quick with the use of mmaster's gps recording script and/ or ship.
It seems to me that, the type of visual information you can pick up differs a lot from these two viewing modes.
Should this be implemented is be interesting to see the decoy block give off false readings to night vision instruments...
it seems to me that it doesnt - you see in the dark. 1 is shades of green, the other is in visible spectrum.
it clearly isnt, since you cant see anything. Fly by day and shoot from up high. Nightvision spotlights have range too.
So could you please tell me why the military have engineered night vision?
cause they dont play war on 1900x1080 screen with voxel-based structures
I'm missing your point ???
I believe what he means is that he is scared that any new feature added to the game will make the game run worse on his computer at that resolution.
OH, I SEE!
BTW it's 1920 x 1080
or you could go fuck yourself.
thats right, you should apologise.
could you please shut up before you make an an even greater fool of yourself? it would be highly appreciated.
also, how would this feature hurt performance? it's not much more than a filter.
NOW it makes sense! Well, i suppose if this is your computer ....
Then yeah, i'd be against any suggestion that would cause the toast to burn too ...
This is what we're talking about, right?
Ellipsis has 3 periods.
And this is clearly the machine tailored to your needs
Yes, they do, but it is still followed by a period if it ends a sentence.
Separate names with a comma.