Night Vision It’s coming...

[Glassaholic]

FWIW, I totally agree with that ! The tig has ERATAC mounts, maybe those are good !!??

I guess ZEE ROW It only takes one counter-example to prove the negatif case. It requires exactly an infinite number to prove (absolutely) the positive case.

ERATAC are “good” mounts, they use STANAG which is a relatively new NATO requirement (2009?) that offers superior lockup and RTZ performance over standard picatinny. I put good in quotes above because we have to define what “good” is, it can mean different things to different people. What is good for me may not be acceptable to another and may be overkill to yet another.

Evolution 9, for true RTZ the answer is don’t remove your scope/device, but for something like a clipon you have to remove and re-attach, it is the nature of the beast. With that said, I would have more faith in a STANAG QD system than any other.

One other thought, even with a fixed mount, you drop that on a rock/concrete, whack it against a tree, etc? Do you have complete faith your system did not shift and now your POA and POI do not match?

Yes, real world scenarios often introduce situations that go beyond tolerance levels of the manufacturer, but for any of us who’ve been in the military we know we have to adjust and adapt with the equipment given.

 

[Evolution 9]

for true RTZ the answer is don’t remove your scope/device, but for something like a clipon you have to remove and re-attach, it is the nature of the beast.

No, for several military clip-ons in current service that’s not the nature of the beast. Their colimation is achieved by a prism which maintains a consistent POA regardless of reasonable amounts of misalignment error from the mount, debris, etc. In the case of an imperfectly collimated prism, the shift is at least consistent.

One other thought, even with a fixed mount, you drop that on a rock/concrete, whack it against a tree, etc? Do you have complete faith your system did not shift and now your POA and POI do not match?

Sure, that’s definitely possible, but we don’t add extra failure points unnecessarily, or at least without admitting them and being aware of them.

Yes, real world scenarios often introduce situations that go beyond tolerance levels of the manufacturer, but for any of us who’ve been in the military we know we have to adjust and adapt with the equipment given.

In the military, yes, but this isn’t “the equipment given” for anyone here.

The reason I care:

1. For some of us, this type of equipment is for real life and death situations. Reliability/trustworthiness is absolutely paramount. That doesn’t necessarily mean we couldn’t be happy with a unit that relies on the RTZ ability of the mount. What it DOES mean, is we want to be fully informed of that potential issue before we buy or use the device. That allows us to adjust our SOPs, expectations, and even our tactics if necessary.

2. Unless you’re filthy rich, spending 10k plus based on careful internet research, only to be disappointed because of false information is a pretty big bummer. I’ve been there. For a while, people thought you could dial your standard DOPE while the Tig was on 2x 4x etc. and still make the hit. Hopefully nobody bought based on that expectation because it turned out to not be correct.

Is the Tig bad ass? Yes, I think so. Is it an EXCELLENT option for lots of users? Yes, I think so.

Just don’t confuse people with the idea that it’s something it isn’t. It’s an excellent clip-on that is as consistent as its RTZ mount plus any debris related variables. It’s almost undoubtedly the best of the “zero the screen” clip-ons.

It’s NOT collimated in the sense of all our current military clip-ons, which (within reason) don’t care if there’s some grit, mechanical error, etc.

For coyotes and hogs it makes little difference. If lives are on the line, it makes a big enough difference that our military (and most others) choose only prism collimated clip-ons.

I’ll probably end up with a Tig in the stable, but let’s not mislead guys who are dropping 10k about what they are getting.

 

[robozebra]

2. Unless you’re filthy rich, spending 10k plus based on careful internet research, only to be disappointed because of false information is a pretty big bummer. I’ve been there. For a while, people thought you could dial your standard DOPE while the Tig was on 2x 4x etc. and still make the hit. Hopefully nobody bought based on that expectation because it turned out to not be correct.

Please explain why you can’t “dial your standard DOPE” and not hit. 300 yards is still 300 yards. If my DOPE suggest x and I dial x in my scope, the bullet flight isn’t affected by the optic. Are you somehow suggesting that you need more/less elevation adjustment if Tig is 2x?? Holdover maybe, but dialed elevation???

 

[Evolution 9]

Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. I have a video (in the other Tig thread I think) explaining why. It was later verified by Wigwamitus.

You CAN dial (or hold) if you multiple your dialing (or holding) to correlate in relation to how much digital magnification is on your Tig.

To be clear:

With the Tig, on 1x digital magnification, you can use your day DOPE.

When you digitally magnify with your Tig, you must account for that with how much you dial or hold. Wig has a more mathematical explanation (again, I think that was in the other Tig thread).

 

[Evolution 9]

Here’s the video again:

 

[wigwamitus]

... Wig has a more mathematical explanation ...

ha, not very mathematical ... a little ...

If you are collimated and dialed to 2x digital on the tig, then the click (and hold) values are halved. Which means you have to dial twice as much or hold twice as much.
Example: Your DOPE says dial 8 clicks and you're on 2x digital with the Tig, you have to dial 16 clicks.
Likewise, if you are on 4x digital on the Tig, and dope says 3.1 mils, you have to hold 12.4 mils.

Here's "the other thread" Evo9 is referrencing.

Night Vision - SOK's TigIR Z6+ Initial Review + Video

Ok, here’s my explanation... That actually makes sense to me. As I have mentioned, Jay has a cool trick for this, but it is his baby, so he should share it.

www.snipershide.com

 

[Evolution 9]

More mathematical that scribbles on a piece of drywall

 

[Glassaholic]

No, for several military clip-ons in current service that’s not the nature of the beast. Their colimation is achieved by a prism which maintains a consistent POA regardless of reasonable amounts of misalignment error from the mount, debris, etc. In the case of an imperfectly collimated prism, the shift is at least consistent.

The "nature of the beast" being they (QD mounts) are designed to be removed and re-attached, and whenever that happens there's bound to be something that could introduce error, that was my point, and that STANAG QD mounts tend to have better RTZ than other QD mounts with picatinny rails. Now, whether the Tig is collimated or not is not my argument (I am a complete newb when it comes to NV and Thermal which is why I read these threads - to learn), but I do understand your point that if the Tig is not collimated then it is relying purely on the QD mounts ability to RTZ.

Sure, that’s definitely possible, but we don’t add extra failure points unnecessarily, or at least without admitting them and being aware of them.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that... are they?

In the military, yes, but this isn’t “the equipment given” for anyone here.

The reason I care:

1. For some of us, this type of equipment is for real life and death situations. Reliability/trustworthiness is absolutely paramount. That doesn’t necessarily mean we couldn’t be happy with a unit that relies on the RTZ ability of the mount. What it DOES mean, is we want to be fully informed of that potential issue before we buy or use the device. That allows us to adjust our SOPs, expectations, and even our tactics if necessary.

Regardless of what a manufacturer claims shouldn't we, as the consumer, do our due diligence and verify and validate based on our intended purpose? What I mean is that if I were to make a purchase and my purpose was for a "life or death situation" then shouldn't I be performing all kinds of tests in various situations to know the limitations of the equipment regardless of what a manufacturer claims? And maybe this is your point and you're just trying to bring awareness to the community that this is the case.

Just don’t confuse people with the idea that it’s something it isn’t. It’s an excellent clip-on that is as consistent as its RTZ mount plus any debris related variables. It’s almost undoubtedly the best of the “zero the screen” clip-ons.

I came late to the party so apologize if this has already been addressed, but which (or whose) claims are you referring to. Has Andres claimed 100% RTZ with the Tig regardless of the situation? Has Andres claimed that the Tig is collimated and therefore "resistant" to POA shifts.

It’s NOT collimated in the sense of all our current military clip-ons, which (within reason) don’t care if there’s some grit, mechanical error, etc.

For coyotes and hogs it makes little difference. If lives are on the line, it makes a big enough difference that our military (and most others) choose only prism collimated clip-ons.

I agree with you here, and maybe this was your point to begin with.

... but let’s not mislead guys who are dropping 10k about what they are getting.

I agree with you for sure, but I'm struggling to figure out who is "misleading" here? Are you just trying to bring awareness so that when someone drops $10k they know exactly what they are getting, that the Tig is solely based on the RTZ capability of the mount and to be aware this could be thrown off by various factors due to QD mounts, foreign debris, etc.?

 

[Evolution 9]

Glassaholic,

I could answer point by point, but for the most part you seem to get what I’m saying and why I’m saying it .

The Tig is awesome from all accounts, but it does have drawbacks. I have an LWTS-LR. It’s a fantastic thermal, but it has drawbacks too. All of them do. If we are as open and accurate as possible about all of these expensive devices, it will benefit everyone.

People should be as informed as possible before plunking down that kind of cash, and more so if their needs are more “real life”.

Yes, people should test their gear, but it’s quite reasonable to expect a fair amount of accurate information to be available BEFORE purchase so you know which thermal to purchase to begin with. It usually falls on Snipershide to provide this information.

My PVS30 will give me an accurate representation of what I’m aiming at every time, no matter what. The Tig can’t say that. That’s a difference. To some that’s a HUGE difference. And people just need to be informed so they can decide for themselves.

 

[WhereNow&How]

. I have an LWTS-LR. It’s a fantastic thermal, but it has drawbacks too.

Interested in the drawbacks you have found in the LWTS-LR. Don't own one but have eyed them for a while.

 

[Evolution 9]

Interested in the drawbacks you have found in the LWTS-LR. Don't own one but have eyed them for a while.

Amazing thermal.
Absolutely impressed.
True prism collimated clip on capabilities.
Also, Excellent stand alone capabilities.
Excellent reticles for almost every military type weapon (correct hold overs etc.)
Each reticle maintains its own zero... that means you can use the same thermal for several weapons and simply selecting the relevant reticle brings the zero to the relevant rifle (within the RTZ abilities of the Larue mount)
True dual role thermal!
Ruggedness off the charts!
Internal/automatic NUC (which can be shut off if desired).
Battery life/ battery configuration is very smart for serious users (9 hours on 4 AAs but can also be used with only two batteries).

Hands down, N-Vision Halo image (familiar to many) is better for half the price. That’s the biggest drawback by far. It’s hard to step down (even a small amount) from Halo image.

Im far from an expert on the LWTS-LR as I’ve only had it 3 days, but so far I’m absolutely impressed but missing the Halo Lr image.

 

[Glassaholic]

Amazing thermal.
Absolutely impressed.
True prism collimated clip on capabilities.
Also, Excellent stand alone capabilities.
Excellent reticles for almost every military type weapon (correct hold overs etc.)
Each reticle maintains its own zero... that means you can use the same thermal for several weapons and simply selecting the relevant reticle brings the zero to the relevant rifle (within the RTZ abilities of the Larue mount)
True dual role thermal!
Ruggedness off the charts!
Internal/automatic NUC (which can be shut off if desired).
Battery life/ battery configuration is very smart for serious users (9 hours on 4 AAs but can also be used with only two batteries).

Hands down, N-Vision Halo image (familiar to many) is better for half the price. That’s the biggest drawback by far. It’s hard to step down (even a small amount) from Halo image.

Im far from an expert on the LWTS-LR as I’ve only had it 3 days, but so far I’m absolutely impressed but missing the Halo Lr image.

Thank you for the detail. Do you think we’re at a point where every few years we see technological jumps causing previous generations to be somewhat outdated? Just a few years ago the 320 cores seemed to rule the day, now the 640 cores have all the attention. But the LWTS and Halo both use 640 cores, is the BAE core that much better or does N vision have a better processing engine?

 

[jstokes1]

Took the Tig out night to test with a 3x magnifier. Out of all of the optic combos that I've tried the Tig infront of, I have go say that an EOTech/3x magnifier combo seems to offer the best image, FOV, and PID capability. Here's some images (the first house is roughly at 300 yards and the second image is up close within 60 yards, rabbit is about 70ish yards..didn't have many animals out tonight). Both are on the color Pallet (BCR and CR are the same, BCR has a little more contrast and sharpness.)

 

[jstokes1]

Thank you for the detail. Do you think we’re at a point where every few years we see technological jumps causing previous generations to be somewhat outdated? Just a few years ago the 320 cores seemed to rule the day, now the 640 cores have all the attention. But the LWTS and Halo both use 640 cores, is the BAE core that much better or does N vision have a better processing engine?

It's a combination of firmware, core/sensor constitution, objective lens type/coating/geometry, and another big factor is the type of display the unit is using.

Also, typically, dedicated TWS's tend to produce a better image than clip on units, as the type of image you get from a clip on compared to a dedicated TWS is also dictated by several other factors(object size/native magnification and back end eye piece demagnification, and one of the biggest factors again is display type/resolution). The LWTS LR in clip on mode is sporting a display resolution of only 320x240 since the display is at 640x480 in dedicated mode (the screen image shrinks to allow for the use of a day time optic by a factor of 0.5x, therefore decreasing pixel density from 640×480 to 320x240 even though it's still a 640x480 core resolution), which leads to a more pixelated image.

 

[Evolution 9]

Thank you for the detail. Do you think we’re at a point where every few years we see technological jumps causing previous generations to be somewhat outdated? Just a few years ago the 320 cores seemed to rule the day, now the 640 cores have all the attention. But the LWTS and Halo both use 640 cores, is the BAE core that much better or does N vision have a better processing engine?

Im nobody, and in no position to know what’s on the horizon better than any other user. I’ll make just two observations:

1. Due to the easy video capture capabilities of many commercial thermals, and the popularity of YouTube, interest (money) in thermals has skyrocketed in the last 5 years, and will continue to skyrocket.

2. There are more scientists and engineers alive today than have lived in all of human history combined, and thanks to the internet, they can all easily share knowledge.

We can assume both of these will be good for the future of thermal weapon sights.

 

[Glassaholic]

It's a combination of firmware, core/sensor constitution, objective lens type/coating/geometry, and another big factor is the type of display the unit is using.

Also, typically, dedicated TWS's tend to produce a better image than clip on units, as the type of image you get from a clip on compared to a dedicated TWS is also dictated by several other factors(object size/native magnification and back end eye piece demagnification, and one of the biggest factors again is display type/resolution). The LWTS LR in clip on mode is sporting a display resolution of only 320x240 since the display is at 640x480 in dedicated mode (the screen image shrinks to allow for the use of a day time optic by a factor of 0.5x, therefore decreasing pixel density from 640×480 to 320x240 even though it's still a 640x480 core resolution), which leads to a more pixelated image.

Thank you js1. After living in the daytime scope world for many years I’m just starting to venture out into NV and thermal and it’s been an education.

 

[Choid]

I thought the LWTS LR was a fantastic stand alone scope. Much better that the Halo. I thought it was an atrocious clip on from the point of view of image quality. Usable, but only if you had a different device for PID.

 

[Evolution 9]

Overall, I completely agree that the LWTS-LR is a far superior stand alone sight to the Halo-Lr. That takes a lot of things into account, ruggedness, reticles, etc.

On just pure image alone, I prefer the Halo-Lr

 

[Choid]

Overall, I completely agree that the LWTS-LR is a far superior stand alone sight to the Halo-Lr. That takes a lot of things into account, ruggedness, reticles, etc.

On just pure image alone, I prefer the Halo-Lr

I thought the magnification was better on the LWTS-LR, but honestly I don't have either any longer to compare.

 

[Evolution 9]

You may be right about image under magnification. For some reason I’ve only been thinking about image at base magnification, but I think your probably right about magnified image quality.

 

[Choid]

FWIW, I am much more on the side of software being a huge differentiator in these units. I've made the argument many times that with perfect software interpolation, a 3x2 sensor could be as good as any. Of course that example doesn't exist in reality, but the point is that the quality on the screen has as much to do with predicting what is between the sensor pixels as anything else.

 

[SkyScrapin]

Just don’t confuse people with the idea that it’s something it isn’t. It’s an excellent clip-on that is as consistent as its RTZ mount plus any debris related variables. It’s almost undoubtedly the best of the “zero the screen” clip-ons.

It’s NOT collimated in the sense of all our current military clip-ons, which (within reason) don’t care if there’s some grit, mechanical error, etc.

For coyotes and hogs it makes little difference. If lives are on the line, it makes a big enough difference that our military (and most others) choose only prism collimated clip-ons.

I’ll probably end up with a Tig in the stable, but let’s not mislead guys who are dropping 10k about what they are getting.

To be ultra clear to everyone reading, this is exactly why we started a review thread, for everyone to learn through our experience and challenge what we think versus what we know. We will always welcome feedback and experience good, bad or ugly. We simply ask that you validate it on your own accord, or ask us to. Wig has a Tig in hand as we speak and has shown that he aint afraid of some testing!

While I agree on most of these points above, since we're being ultra clear, these units are fielded with foreign military units. There's not doubt about that. I do not, however, know what their decision making criteria or budgets were. There's always a reason they select something versus another and I'm simply not educated on the logic. I think we'd all prefer to have a UTCxii or INOD over a Tig if we're fighting on a two way range, but for most non-military people, that isn't feasible, and we understand why.

As an aside, even a Prism Collimated optic has variance, though the benefit of having a prism is the variance or deviations of zero should be tiny; it's not always the case, as it can be a perfect collimation, but it's a strong reason. Another is to eliminate the need for collimation across multiple platforms, something that's important for a dude that has several different system in their kit, and given mission requirements, may dictate one versus another. Prism collimation, while increasing cross platform flexibility, and because this is a tremendous benefit, it also drives up cost.

As Wig always says... life is full of trade offs

 

[jstokes1]

Got to spend some time behind the tig last last with an EOTech/3x G33 combo. The last couple of days have been PERFECT thermal conditions (warm, sunny, humidity less than 20%), and I got some great photos.


So far in my testing (mostly image testing, Wig does the shooting part ), I have found that the tig looks best (best clarity/PID distance) with a 3x magnifier...by far. Anyway, here's the goods. For reference, that deer picture was at around 700-800 yards.

 

[cantankerous]

Well, I got home, but my back pasture (shooting range) is 3 foot deep in grass so I won't have a chance to shoot groups until I can brush hog it off.

In the meantime I might email Dr. Andres to ask if it has a collimating prism, and as been suggested previously digital sharpness adjustment.

I have absolutely no doubt it has some form of prism, it's easy to see.
Hold the tig by hand front of your scope and watch what the image does in relation to your reticle when you slowly move the tig around.
I'll admit I'm just not sure that this is a "Risley"/" colimating" prism, though I don't know what the practical difference would be.

Yes, at first it would seem strange to put the prism on without sending the clip on to a collimating table to align the prism, but if you think about it, zeroing the screen would achieve the same thing, and would probably allow for the use of a less effective (less expensive) prism.

I have only used my clip on sights on a fairly limited number of scopes, but I seem to get a slightly clearer picture through scopes with a wider field of view.

Has anyone else noticed this? Or is image clarity tied more to fewer lenses as Horta said?

I find myself wishing for a day scope with ~3-18 magnification, and a ballistic computer/display like the Revic smart scope.