To counter the rumours, misconceptions, out-dated and wrong info that’s been flying around, Digital Concealment Systems (DCS) have been releasing further information and up-to-date photos of their Advanced TActical Concealment System (A-TACS®) camo pattern. If you haven’t seen all of this over at Soldier Systems Daily already, then allow me to summarise below.First, it appears that the photos I posted here a few weeks back were of an out-dated, preliminary version of the pattern – and DCS say they were unaware that these photos were still being used.DCS has also confirmed that; “A-TACS® uses a far greater range of inter-mingled natural colors than was previously possible. A-TACS is designed as a universal pattern for a wide range of operational environments. The current pattern uses a tan base and is tuned for use in arid environments – additional supporting color and design variants will follow. “In my opinion, in addition to the “splothchy” style pixels, which creates the illusion of colours blending in to each other, the pattern is also omni-directional – that is, it has no identifiable vertical or horizontal orientation. This feature adds significantly to the camouflaging ability of the pattern – an identifiable orientation of shapes is one of the key ways that our brains interpret and identify what our eyes are seeing. If the brain can’t focus on or identify a recognisable shape, then the object will simply blend in to the background “noise” of the environment.The pattern is allegedly being looked at by the US Army as a contender for the future camouflage selection programme. And in the meantime, DCS are still planning for the full, official launch of A-TACS at the 2010 SHOT Show. Partner companies already on board to offer products featuring the A-TACS pattern are:
- Remington
- Bushmaster
- DPMS Panther Arms
- Danner
- EOTAC
- Tactical Assault Gear
- Blue Force Gear
- Emerson Knives
- keep an eye on www.a-tacs.com for further updates and information
Finally, the gallery of photos released so far shows how effective the arid version of the pattern can be in such an environment – particularly when the pattern is applied to all the user’s gear and accessories, and especially to his/her rifle! Note: DCS would like to point out that these are actual photos, they have not been photoshopped or simulated. Copyright on all photos is Digital Concealment Systems. Special thanks to SoldierSystemsDaily
Have to say that I rather like it. I’d still like to know how they will print it.
Ever seen a Tiger?No, camouflage doesn’t need to be omnidirectional. And often it shouldn’t be omnidirectional, either. The strips of the Tiger break the long body shape of the animal, and, besides, work well for him when stalking in tall grass.Another thing that the Tiger has that works well with his body is reverse shading. I.e, the belly is whitish to counter the shadow, helping to hide the 3D shape of the predator.Reverse shading would be very costly for something like uniforms made of printed fabric. However, directional camouflage results in only in a modest increase in the cost of manufacture (as pattern direction has to be taken into account in assembly). Directional printed camouflage is successfully employed to break the longish human outline in a large number of camo patterns, notably also in Cadpat, which has been one of the best performers in Nato contests.What comes to the photo-shoped look of some of the atacs pics… Unnatural looks may result from carefully staging the settings to minimize shape-revealing shadows. Without comparison to the competition, in a wide range of backdrops relevant for the planned AO, these marketing shots have no more than anecdotal value.This is not to say that ATACS wouldn’t be another good camo pattern. It probably is. But, the marketing hype is distasteful. I wonder whether some bloggers, like Soldier Systems Daily, are actually paid for marketing this stuff, or whether it’s just lack of judgment to publish each and every new pic of ATACS that is ‘revealed’ by some marketing department.
No matter how good it is, it will still be overlooked in favour of something cheaper, nastier or a pattern that’s “in-the-club”.
I don’t know what to believe from these guys any more. Not only are there claims highly dubious and unscientific, but consider this:First a teaser advert with zero meaningful content appears, then a load of photos are released simultaneously all over the internet, in an apparently coordinated campaign, but several days later the company denies they represent the current product and are said to be surprised that they are being used – I mean, COME ON! What are we, 6 year olds?Most damning, according to an enlightening on Lightfighter forums, the head of one of the companies involved in the clothing manufacture side categorically assured us that no image manipulation of any kind was employed, but 9 days later he was rumbled by someone who ID’d the background as being shopped from a photo taken in Iraq. No apology was forthcoming. I hate to say it, but personally, I wouldn’t trust these people. They seem to have an integrity deficit.
Image with the soldier standing facing us: Very odd blur going on around the knee pads. The knee pads are in crisp focus but the fasteners aren’t. Curious.
Yeah, check that! And, the straps on the holster rig, although not added in after the fact, have clearly been ‘enhanced’ at some stage after the photo was taken. Also, that image and the soldier sitting in the rubble are of the same guy in the same uniform and kit (only the ballistic eyewear has been swapped out). Now look at the gloves. The area around the knuckle protection just doesn’t look right in either, nor does it look the same. Either he changed his Wiley X’s for the same make, but different camo pattern (note especially how the fingertips are patterned in one image and plain in the other), or they are shopped. I’ve made my decision, now make yours…
In the picture where the guy is facing the camera, the house in the background is brightly illuminated from the sun up high, and has fairly hard shadows.Yet the piece of rubble the guy is standing on doesnt have any of these kind of shadows, and the guy himself casts no shadow at all.Also the colour of the straps for the elbow protectors and knee protectors seems to change from picture to picture (in some its OD green, in others its tan).Also like i said before, it might be great camo for iraq, but youll still stick out like a sore thumb in the green zones of afghanistan.Hey Dom, might i suggest opening a stand at the SHOT show right across from the ATACS people so you can show them whos boss?
Everybody beating up on Fernando from EOTAC over on Lightfighter is a bit off the mark. After all, his company only supplied the clothing to DCS – if DCS then chose to take some artistic license with one or two of their promo shots, then its for them to take the heat. And rightly so, as the urban background in their first 2 pictures has obviously been photoshopped in.Actually, the more I see of ATACS the more I kind of like it – even though it does remind me of the old WWII German Sumpfmuster (the ORIGINAL multi-terrain camo) and the camo smocks from “Return of the Jedi”. So, its not that amazing or new or different – despite what DCS claim in their marketing hype – but its not that bad. I definitely like the way the DA Smock, etc. from EOTAC is looking though.
I do have to agree with the fact that is is a pretty good looking pattern, especially in some of the distance shots, the guy appears to blend in pretty well. Problem is we cant tell if it’s the pattern or the photoshop doing the magic.I remember reading somewhere that they were also thinking about doing different colour variations, so i would certainly be interested in seeing the woodland scheme, or a nice urban one.I do see one major potential drawback: price. This looks like a very expensive pattern to make and i have a feeling that pieces of A-TACS gear are going to be costlier than equivalent items with a different pattern, and that will surely put some people off.Also, they didnt follow the number 1 rule for selling a camo pattern: proof (in quantity). If you are trying to sell a camo pattern (ESPECIALLY a universal one) then people are going to be sceptical. The only way you can adress this is by having a massive catalogue of photographic evidence for different terrain, lighting conditions, and distances so that people can see for themselves in what kind of terrain it works best.
I agree that its not a bad looking pattern – but does it warrant all the hype? I think not. The bottom line is that this pattern isn’t at as revolutionary or unique as they’re claiming. CADPAT, MultiCam and PenCott are all far more revolutionary and unique – especially PenCott, which blends the best of digital and analogue design elements to creatre something which is uniquely “organic” and “natural” looking whilst being totally man-made. In my opinion, PenCott is the next best thing to an invisibility cloak – ATACS I’m afraid is a bit like the emporer’s new clothes…