Padlock wishlist

[SwingKid]

Hello all.

 

Similar to the "F-15C avionics wishlist" thread, I would like to read some users' opinions about Padlock views - missile padlock, close-combat padlock, terrain padlock and any others.

 

The angular limits of the computer monitor create a tremendous barrier to reproducing the view of the real pilot, and the main goal of the Padlock view design should be to help alleviate this restriction. While some elements of Padlock view will always be an unrealistic advantage, the restriction of the computer monitor is similarly always an unrealistic disadvantage. We should seek an optimal balance, rather than discarding Padlock altogether.

 

A recent discussion on the UbiSoft Lock On forum indicates that the current Padlock system does not make the virtual pilot's task easier, and as such, the Padlock view is often unused:

 

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=38610606&m=1171025922

 

This would suggest that virtual pilots, both with and without TrackIR, are accepting the restricted view of the monitor as is, for lack of anything better.

 

I have some ideas of my own, but before I start assembling an ordered wishlist, I would like to open the floor to the following question:

 

What would Padlock have to be like, so that you would actually use it?

 

The question is open for single player or multiplayer, for TrackIR users or non-TrackIR users. Anyone, who is looking at the Lock On world through a rectangular monitor. :wink:

 

Thanks for your interest!

 

-SK

[Kula66]

Before using Missile padlock, I don't think I ever dodged a missile ... without labels and padlocking, I don't understand how people can spot them! Since using missile padlock, I have managed to dodge a few! However, I consider <Ctrl><F5> a kind of external padlock ... and certainly a great way of visualising rapidly changing position. Some people say its unrealistic, but as you rightly pointed out, A2A via a 15" screen while sitting in your living room is un-realistic!

 

I have never used ordinary padlock in LockOn, especially after reading

It's All a Matter of Your Perspective http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_020a.html - a great article by the way. I used padlock in F4 and its great as long as the bandit is ahead, but I always lose it in a real dog-fight - all I see is the inside of my cockpit flying by!

 

I just wish <Ctrl><F5> showed better data on the status bar, i.e. your details ... knowing the enemies info is abit false!

 

Also, in LockOn, the IR warning tones don't change when in external mode ... when the 'winder goes from seek to lock, there is no tone change outside - is this bug fixed in 1.1? So you have to pop back inside, check tone and shoot!

 

I quite like the current LockOn options ... they give a good choice of features that people can pick from. Features are only unfair when the option is open to one side and not the other!

 

James[/b]

[SAM-Smasher]

I personally prefer to not use the padlock function, simply for the fact that it adds to the atmosphere of the situation, I find it quite a rush looking around for a launched missile or a fighter coming to the merge which I lost on my radar, it is a sense of urgency, which I find is lost if I use the padlock functions.

 

True ive been blown out of the sky alot doing this, but through sticking with getting blown out of the sky and constantly looking, ive taught myself to look for things on my own, which I never did with Falcon 4. This has now increased both the atmosphere and my Situational Awareness.

 

But to your question of what I would like to see in a padlock, my answer would be a padlock that does not track straight to a target that is not even visible yet, or out of the field of view, the moment you press the key. The ideal padlock would be one where you have to move the view, so that it is roughly centred around where the target\missile is, and only then can you padlock it, simulating that you the pilot must have seen it first in order to padlock it.

 

Excuse me if I waffled, but I found it hard to put it into other words :roll:

[SwingKid]

But to your question of what I would like to see in a padlock, my answer would be a padlock that does not track straight to a target that is not even visible yet, or out of the field of view, the moment you press the key. The ideal padlock would be one where you have to move the view, so that it is roughly centred around where the target\missile is, and only then can you padlock it, simulating that you the pilot must have seen it first in order to padlock it.

 

This is how the current padlock works, but if I understood correctly, you don't use it?

 

-SK

[SAM-Smasher]

This is how the current padlock works, but if I understood correctly, you don't use it?

 

Hmmm thats odd because when I tested it out when I bought LOMAC, I could padlock targets I was currently un-aware of and could not actually see, was this changed in the patch? I had not tried it since I patched up the sim however :?

 

If this is the case I will remove the comment from my post :wink:

[SwingKid]

Hmmm thats odd because when I tested it out when I bought LOMAC, I could padlock targets I was currently un-aware of and could not actually see, was this changed in the patch? I had not tried it since I patched up the sim however :?

 

If this is the case I will remove the comment from my post :wink:

 

Good question, I have been testing v1.1 so long I don't remember what happened in other versions.

 

The comment can stay, but one of the motivations for this discussion - I once ran a test where a friendly heavy bomber was filling the right half of my visible windshield at a very close distance, but because the bomber was more than 20 or so degrees from the center of the screen (i.e. outside the HUD), I couldn't padlock it. I thought "this is ridiculous, what good is this padlock if I must pan the view to look at a target I can already easily see? Is this padlock here to help me or am I here to baby it?" Whatever version I was testing then, padlock was even more restrictive than you describe - simply "seeing the target on the montior" was not enough, it had to be centered in the monitor - you havd to "prove to the computer" you actually spotted what you wanted to padlock, not just that it was visible. I think this is a bit much to ask in maneuvering combat.

 

-SK

[Cromewell]

I put this in the other thread because I hadn't read this one yet..but I might as well put it here

I would like to have it so that you can't padlock a plane in visual range that you can't actually see because they are behind a mountain. I understand this is probably hard to implement but it would be nice

[SwingKid]

Note: important exception to the rule - missile padlock is currently "all-seeing".

 

-SK

[SAM-Smasher]

I think this is a bit much to ask in maneuvering combat.

 

I totally agree with you on that point :wink: maneuvering combat really isnt the place to be looking at the target to padlock, but targets far out that ARE visible to eyeball I believe should require a proper look to padlock it, so on that note could the padlock function be put into two stages based on how far out the target is.

 

- So 2nm and under classed as manuevering combat so padlock can be obtained from any angle.

 

- Any further out requires actually looking at the target.

 

But I can imagine this would be quite complex to code in? :?

 

The comment can stay

 

Thanks, just checking I didnt want to sound like an idiot in this thread :)

[GGTharos]

Actually padlocking someone in maneuvering combat is okay as is - this way you can't jsut hit the padlock key and hope you'll get the Sue who you think slipped on your six while you weren't looking. There's no reason to completely take away anotehr aircraft's ability to sneak, after all.

 

The current padlock works jsut fine, except that it doesn't check LoS, so it can padlock through mountains, and I think that's the -only- serious problem with it.

 

Otherwise, it's pretty good - it'll only padlock at under 6nm, which is 10nm within wvr for lock-on already and if you haven't seen the plane by now, you prolly won't see it getting on your tail (I've caught reds settling in on my tail more than once simply y looking around - managed to evade and win most of those times, but that's when I'm not being lazy and stuck in tunnel vision)

[Mako]

Re: Padlock wishlist

 

Hello all.

 

 

What would Padlock have to be like, so that you would actually use it?

 

 

Since I do use padlock it may be presumputious of me to comment but I will anyway.

 

I think there are several reasons padlock is not used by many.

 

1) TrackIR seems to make it unnecessary. It provides a means of smoothly moving your POV without using a finger which would be better used for other things. I don't think any changes to the padlock system will make it better than TrackIR (note, I don't have TrackIR so this could be total nonsense)

 

2) Lack of understanding, competance. Padlock takes some getting used to . Just trying it for a couple of minutes (particularly in CAC) will usually be enough to convice someone that it is unrealistic and disorienting. The fact that padlock can be disabled in multiplay (and very often is) provides little incentive to take the time to learn how to use it. Not sure there's anyway around this learning curve problem

 

3) The perception that padlock acts as visual radar. This has improved a great deal from earlier versions (that and the ability to cycle through targets, thank you). I think the current implementation is pretty good. This is something that is a necessary part of padlock and unfortunately will always be the main bone of contention. I look at it in terms of the "feature" restoring a certain amount of the visual acuity which is removed our video screens.

 

Oh, I don't like the way a padlocked aircraft is suddenly snapped to center FOV, as smooth movement would be nice.

 

Slightly OT, I would also like to see the ability to move the SCHLEM targeting circle within the FOV (like the target designator on the HUD). This was possible in the Flanker series and is a nice feature.

[SwingKid]

- this way you can't jsut hit the padlock key and hope you'll get the Sue who you think slipped on your six while you weren't looking. There's no reason to completely take away anotehr aircraft's ability to sneak, after all.

 

How would a Sue sneak up WVR on an F-15C pilot who thought it slipped on his six, in real life? Does "sneaking up" actually happen against a pilot with a high-visibility canopy, 20/20 and peripheral vision, and the training to maintain a vigilant lookout, or we just invented this tactic for the game? Where did this concept originate?

 

-SK

[Kula66]

I thought historically most pilots (I won't guess a percentage) get shot down by someone they don't see ... does that still apply now?

 

James

[GGTharos]

- this way you can't jsut hit the padlock key and hope you'll get the Sue who you think slipped on your six while you weren't looking. There's no reason to completely take away anotehr aircraft's ability to sneak, after all.

 

How would a Sue sneak up WVR on an F-15C pilot who thought it slipped on his six, in real life? Does "sneaking up" actually happen against a pilot with a high-visibility canopy, 20/20 and peripheral vision, and the training to maintain a vigilant lookout, or we just invented this tactic for the game? Where did this concept originate?

 

-SK

 

But you may have other things going on - he might be below you,f or example, so you can't see him. He maybe have broken radar contact and got around you somehow, and you're still looking for him. You get the idea.

 

I heard about a GF incident where a Mirage notched an F-15 and the F-15 dove, trying to find it desperately with autoguns. No visual, but definitely within range for autoguns.

[SwingKid]

I thought historically most pilots (I won't guess a percentage) get shot down by someone they don't see ... does that still apply now?

 

It's a good question. It was certainly true in the days of Vietnam, with low-visibility canopies, no RWR, radars lacking LD/SD ability, "welded wing" formations, no AWACS and a stronger reliance on heat-seekers, and before TopGun air-to-air combat training... IIRC the percentage was around 90%. It would appear that many of the new developments in air combat for the past 30 years however have been aimed precisely at enhancing situational awareness.

 

Does somebody know a pilot to ask?

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

I heard about a GF incident where a Mirage notched an F-15 and the F-15 dove, trying to find it desperately with autoguns. No visual, but definitely within range for autoguns.

 

Fair enough, this is something I think we can work with.

 

As long as we are moving in the direction of reproducing reality, rather than just restricting that which is not real, then I think that gives us latitude to change things. I think there are ways to impose restrictions on padlock without forcing the non-TrackIR user to use his hands to turn his head.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Honestly I think it's perfectly fine as it is right now, all that needs be done is to remove the no-LoS padlocking (ie. through mountains)

[SwingKid]

Honestly I think it's perfectly fine as it is right now,

 

Do you use it?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I use it, and I use teh hat switch too. I've had the unpleasant suprrise of running into a server with padlock off which threw me into enough confusion and react five seconds too lat. Literally. The absence of this isn't so bad if G-effects are off, because you can zoom out a bit and see the plane you're turning with typically, but it causes problems since the hat needs to be moved often and there are various radar modes and such attached to pinkie-hat which might cause probelms and confusion in a turn and burn while you're trying to operate other pinkie-switched systems and the hat at the same time.

 

It's also an FPS hog if you have to zoom out.

[SwingKid]

Interesting... I find the feeling of using my hands to "turn" my head with the keyboard extremely unweildy. Even if I map the head-steering to a joystick hat, then I also need to map buttons to padlock, unpadlock, and re-center the view, and that quickly consumes a joystick for controls that a real pilot doesn't need.

 

The main concern for me is that as I have experienced, the current padlock seems to offer NO help to the problem of the unrealistically narrow monitor view.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Oh it does, in a dogfight, especially if you have a good lift-line canopy ;)

[Jetfire]

It would be nice if we could have separate server options for plane padlock and missile padlock - plane padlock is very nice (maybe plane padlock range should be halved, when planes are clearly visible). Missile padlock, on the other hand, gives away a missiles position way too easily. Besides, when you're trying to avoid missiles, you usually beam them or put them on your six, so you don't have to move your views constantly, you just have to look in a certain direction for awhile for vapor or smoke from the missile. Missiles aren't supposed to be so easily seen and padlock makes it just too easy.

 

It would also be nice if the padlock buttons were set like in 1.01 - 1 push to padlock, another push to un-padlock. Another button could be used for padlock cycle.

 

So,

- plane padlock and missile padlock on / off in the options

- plane padlock range set to 5 or 7 kms?

- padlock button is a toggle, 1 press padlocks nearest plane to the center of your view, another press stops padlocking and leaves view where it is. A second button could be used for padlock cycle

[emenance]

i have rarley got to use it and dont know yet its full mimits at this time a 10 km limit is news to me. As for making it view or something out of a computer screen limits i would think would be too unfair to do. It is a computer game after all not a 5000 dollar game with a projector screen on your living room wall. imho

[SwingKid]

Missiles aren't supposed to be so easily seen...

 

Do you have a source for this? Yugoslav pilots reportedly saw the smokeless AIM-120s launched at them in 1999.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

Oh it does, in a dogfight, especially if you have a good lift-line canopy ;)

 

I didn't understand - How does a lift-line canopy help to detect targets outside the monitor field of view?

 

-SK