new camo idea ****warning big pictures****
 

hey guys!

ive always though.. if CadPat is made up of little "digital" squares... and it works so well.... i was wondering why is it because:
-there are slight edges that blend into the trees/foliage better cuz trees/etc arent "round" they DO have "edges"
-the vivid colours
-the well spread of the green, light green, light brown, black

well ive put all these factors into consider and ive designed my own "camo pattern" known as SHDPAT -or- JADPAT (idiotic names yes...)

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9881/shdpat10lq.jpg

seeing as how there are MORE sharp "edges" and with vivid colours, plus the relitivly "even" spread of the colors... i beleive this pattern SHOULD work...

But i 1st have to make the triangles smaller, and more of them.. also more spread around...

please feel free to comment on my Distruptive Pattern idea =P

Looks pretty good to me.

Looks nice, But think the current Cadpat probaly work better. It's one of the most effective out there.

I'll take a good guess that the DND a pattern very similiar to your in consideration while in developement.

But that's just me opinion.

I'd need to actually seen it in the twigs b4 i could make a concrete decision. From that pic it looks outrageously hideous... but looks arent everything. Make it and put some outside somewhere. I wanna see if it works better! :)

I think cadpat works becuase it itself has no pattern so there's no shape for the eye to recognize.

I think it'd work better if you fuzzed the edges of the colours more like the CADPAT a bit... The contrast between the colours would be more gradual then, and it might blend better.

the reason why CADPAT is so effective, has not needed to be used yet.

CADPAT was designed for use against technically advanced enemies. The theory behind this is that all surveilance and observation equipment is digital, and sees in pixels. so if the systems can be confused by the pixel shaped pattern, it thinks that the soldiers are part of the background, because the shape is distorted by the pixels on the BDU.

The same is not true of your triangles.

Exacly,
As a proof of that, when I worked security a couple of years ago, a guy wearing cadpat came in my cameras field of view. At a distance, I had trouble seing him on the Black and Whites cameras. When he went in front of the color ones, It was better because of the colors but still, I could make is shape but not his texture. It was strange. I had to zoom on him to see better. So I guess in a tank, at 500+ meters with the IR camera, Soldiers must dissapear enough to confure the observers.

And it's been a real godsend againt the camel-mounted afghan armies and their high-tech detection equipment...

rofl - just got this image in my head now...

Wait a minute...
 

If CADPAT is designed to disrupt digital survielance, is it just as effective against the un-aided eye?

Reason I ask is that the eye is what we mostly play against.

Is there is more effective camo out there for "low-tech" comabat?

That's what all camo is for. Just pick the one suited for your field.
Cadpat is a very good all around camo. Look at games pictures are judge by yourself.

Well if your camo idea fails, you can always try to sell the idea to Doritos as their new packaging/marketing scheme.

"Doritos, now you can tacticaly eat, while you tacticaly wait. One shot, one Dorito."

I second Dirty Deed's idea... ;)

But regardless Shadows, your design looks like it could be more effective than cadpat to the naked eye... Of course unless you get some BDU's made and try it no one will ever know now will they......

if i can.. ill definatly do that *puts "create nex-gen camo" on the "do before i die" list*

but yeah... im actually gonna blur the edges more as someone mentioned then print both badpat AND my version and try them out in my backyard

wish me luck

CADPAT also works well against the naked eye, simply because of the colour scheme that is used.

I am not saying that your camo will not work as well, just that the pattern used in cadpat has been meticuliously(?sp?) planned, and is generated by a computer algorithm.

yours were randomly placed.

which will work better?

it depends on your point of view.

I believe that nature has it's own order to things, and as such, an ordered, or computer generated pattern would work the best for blending.

Others believe that because the environment is unpredictable, and ever changing, that a randomly distributed pattern would work best, when used against the chaotic nature of the earth.



Okay, too much rhetoric for one night, I'm goin to bed. Peace

Interesting info..

http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm

I thought I read somewhere (maybe in link posted above) that the next generation of digital Camo will be designed similiarly to fractal shapes. You will see pixelation of the original CADPAT/MARPAT styling from close up. As you step back the pixels will blend into the traditional camo shape, step back even further and you start seeing the camo shapes blend into larger pixelation and further back still it looks like larger camo shapes. This will allow the digital camo to be effective at close range, mid and far distances as well.

Regarding the first post and new design, I'd like to see a bigger splotch of the pattern but from initial view it looks like it is not effective as you step back a few feet. I can clearly see sharp edges that may not blend into real life well.

Keep hacking as it's a good attempt.

yea, good info. Nice find.

I don't know about good info... this WAS the website that claimed that EGAs were made up of the pixels in the MARPAT pattern (vs actual EGAs in reality), and also claimed that Cadpat pattern had maple leafs in them.