chameleon armor effects

[MountainMan]

What does chameleon armor look like to an observer if he was directly looking at the armor as it moves vs. standing still? Is it fuzzy, but still a humanoid shape,a blur, exactly what? Does the effect on the armor have any effect on items worn or carried by the owner,ie, haversack or weapon. Finally, if looking at an object or person on the other side of a person wearing chameleon armor, does the unarmored person look distorted/partially obscurred? Thanks for your imput!

 

[far-trader]

All strictly imo of course...

At close range (indeterminate dependent on conditions) one will notice a shimmer effect and blurring of the projected scene. At reasonable distances the effect will be nearly perfect excepting certain background changes, such as fast moving objects seen to pass behind the chameleon which will appear to vanish briefly. The same holds true for the motion of the subject. Chameleon armour is best employed by motionless or slow moving subjects with fairly constant backgrounds. One thing often overlooked, by novice users, is the shadow cast by the wearer which can be a dead giveaway.

The armour naturally only works for what is covered. Externally carried equipment will stand out, often even more noticeably than before as it also blocks the background reception cameras. Most personal chameleon armour includes oversized pockets and flaps to cover tactical gear, even including retractable sleeves for long weapons.

The distance and size difference between an object and the chameleon armour itself will determine the effect of the projection on viewers, as well as the distance and angle of the viewer. Again the effect is very dependent on circumstances and will not be convincing in all situations. Your specific question for a person close behind another would be one where the chameleon armour would fail for a number of reasons. The person would probably appear blurred and the chameleon armour would show distinct echoing and blurring as well. It would be pretty obvious that such was being employed. To anyone who was aware of the technology. Someone not aware of the technology might suspect vision problems, or if extremely superstitious attribute it to spirits or magic.

 

[DFW]

far-trader, one thought about shadows. Example: the guy in the suit is standing between the sun on horizon and the observer. How much light does the suit output?

 

[far-trader]

far-trader, one thought about shadows. Example: the guy in the suit is standing between the sun on horizon and the observer. How much light does the suit output?

Good question, not nearly enough imo, it's a low power application to my mind. More suited to mimicry of muted hues than bright light. Of course depending on viewing distance and size of the chameleon target it won't matter, the viewer is going to be blinded by the sun itself as regards the target.

This raises another point though. How do people see it reproducing the background?

To my mind it can only hope to have any success if it mimics close by terrain. Such as the flora within a few meters, or the colour of the ground cover. If it tried to mimic anything much further away (for example hills in the distant background, or the sun in your question) you end up with parallax issues, where your mimicry is only going to fool a very narrow field of vision, and probably not very well.

As much as anything I treat it like a high tech ghillie suit, one that can be customized on the fly for any environment, light, and terrain. No better or worse than the TL 0+ model in its camouflage ability and very dependent on the user's skill and awareness. It is much more comfortable as a bonus. Certainly its not the magic invisibility suit some tend to treat it as. And not something that will give an untrained user full benefit. Again of course entirely imo.

 

[Tasha]

There was a prototype suit that used LEDs and cameras to create the invisibility effect. The person in the suit almost looked invisible, you could kind of see the folds in the material. I imagine that mapping a microdot camera to a set of microdot LED/LCD pixels would make a pretty good cloak. Using something like this you would see the edges of the material that you see at a certain bad angle.

Of course, there is also the newly reported light bending materials that make an object truly invisible.

Take a look on the internet, there's pictures and science articles on this subject.

 

[far-trader]

There was a prototype suit that used LEDs and cameras to create the invisibility effect...

Take a look on the internet, there's pictures and science articles on this subject.

I've seen them

The only proven work for the light bending ones (which are a big step beyond the chameleon suit we're talking about here) is in micro scales last I saw, and I'm not at all convinced macro scaling is feasible. In reality, for the moment at least, they are talking about bending light around micron scale objects, things you need a microscope to see in the first place. Or about bending wavelengths other than visible light, which has its own uses, but again isn't going to do what some want of sci-fi invisibility.

The suit I saw that comes closest to the Traveller chameleon tech is very limited in reproducing background images to blend into, far more so than I give the Traveller version credit for. At least the one I recall (Japanese work iirc) from a year or so back. We might just have a workable such suit in the near future, with the limitations I've noted above (there's really no getting around them).

All with the caveat that nothing is impossible of course, but much is impractical

But hey, if you want cloaks of invisibility in your Traveller game, that's fine with me (if I'm not playing, because it stretches my belief a little too far) because it is your game

 

[DFW]

And not something that will give an untrained user full benefit. Again of course entirely imo.

That's key. "A man's got to know the limitations of his equipment"

 

[rust]

As nice as a true "invisibility suit" would be, the current technology would
not be very difficult to defeat on the battlefield.
A laser rangefinder that scans the area would spot the "invisible" soldier
because he would be closer than the background displayed by his chame-
leon suit, and a pair of separated visual sensors would spot him because
his suit cannot display two slightly different images of the background at
the same time.
The suit would of course still be useful for a number of specific situations,
but it would be far from the "magic item" some researchers promise to
secure their funding.

 

[locarno24]

The same is true for most camoflage or stealth systems - they can make it harder to see you, or reduce the range, or whatever, but ultimately they can't make you 'invisible' - at least, no more so than good operational doctrine and clever positioning/piloting/etc.

Most of the time, the best way to hide is either to avoid having anyone looking in the first place, or else to let someone see you and completely misinterpret what they see. Both of which, of course, become increasingly possible the more warfare mingles with the general population and the amount of firepower that can be carried by a short fire time in a more-or-less civilian vehicle increases as time goes on.