Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soldiers301
Quote:
|
Please provide evidence to support your claim, so that I may be enlightened
|
Lol just start to provide us proof that what I said is not true, and then you would be enlightened.
I explained why it was true, just read. And I`m not the only one here to say that it`s true. |
I'm not arguing the point, I'm asking for verificaiton because it's completely contrary to what I've been taught and learned in 15 years of dealing with military textiles. You know, MANUFACTURING miltary-grade equipment using military materials.
How can I prove that it's not true? The key differentiation between civilian patterns of digital materials (i.e. Parklands or Frontenac) and issue-grade (DND licensed) materials is the application of the IR defeating coating that is applied to the material as it's dye-run. The treatment is said to reduce IR signatures by up to 40%.
Regarding the pixelation of the pattern; A pixel is a pixel, a measurement of size. Blowing something up to half a centimeter by half a centimeter doesn't make it a pixel in the eyes of an IR scope, which measures HEAT and has nothing to do with pixelation or patterns. IR works by measuring differences in HEAT between the environment and man-made objects and providing a visual representation of the heat pattern.
Pixelation is only a factor when dealing with digital surveillance equipment that cannot auto-focus due to the fractal pattern in use. Therefore, digital camouflage of ANY type provides some obfuscation against surveillance systems, but AS FAR AS I KNOW the pattern in and of itself has absolutely no bearing on effectiveness against IR.
"Desert Night" patterned material is different - it uses a criss-cross shape which confuses earlier night vision systems, but again, has nothing to do with pixelation or IR.