Padlock wishlist

[wsoul2k]

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

 

The lift-line will help in the situation awareness because of the constant MOVE of your head traking the padlocked target, it will not help to detect targets but after the target is padloked will help a lot :D

it is very easy became disoriented without it or without cockpit REFLECTIONS ON

[wsoul2k]

hey SwingKid i will try help with my opinion but i dont know if i can make it clear in english..but lets try :?

 

Fisiological POINTS

 

Here in brazil your perferical vision should be at least 140º to get a driver license i made some google :) search and found some medical texts and it say a man with healthful vision will detect anything at this angle of vision

 

Actually exists some test to determine this minumum angle vision with some aceptable variations 130º

 

If a person with less 130º it cant have his driver licence and should find a doctor.

key words google (CAMPIMETRIA, GOLDMAN, ISOPTERA)

 

Functionality

 

1-We need a LOOK foward option in padlock

2-Smoot movement will help in not became disoriented

3-Memory - I think this need be reworked because the way it is modeled is almost imposible to break a padlock.

if you are in a knife figth and have someone padlocked... the padlock vision will continue traking the target even if it is below you and made an unespected movement/turn.

Try make a fast batle mission and continue flying foward dont make any curve the actual padlock always know WHERE to look even if the target is below you and even at distance greater of 4.5 km this is really ubalanced even a trackIR user will have difficult in FIND again the target

 

of course we need some kind of memory of the POSSIBLE trajectory of the target but not to much

[SwingKid]

Here in brazil your perferical vision should be at least 140& to get a driver license i made some google :) search and found some medical texts and it say a man with healthful vision will detect anything at this angle of vision

 

Actually exists some test to determine this minumum angle vision with some aceptable variations 130&

 

Yes, this is what I'm concerned about.

 

The use of TrackIR is nice but all it does is let you pan the same artificial 40x40 degree "window" around more quickly than without TrackIR. In real life, you don't have to turn your head to detect the flash of a missile launch or an afterburner in your peripheral vision - it happens automatically. If the Padlock acquisition limits were widened to equal the pilot's true 130-140 degree field of vision, then it would be useful for both TrackIR and non-TrackIR users, and TrackIR would become more of a luxury instead of a combat advantage.

 

It would have to be planned thoughtfully so as not to introduce unrealistic advantages, but I must say I'm REALLY surprised by the number of people who would like to keep it the way it is. Consider:

 

(59.5 degrees) (32.2 degrees) (20.1 degrees) (20.1 degrees)

 

Do any of the above Sukhois look like they are in a position to be making an undetected "hidden attack" on the F-15? NONE of them can be padlocked, at ANY zoom level, without first panning the view, whether the Flanker is visible on the screen from the Eagle cockpit view or not. Would it not be safe for us to assume that the F-15 pilot in the above situations would be able to detect these Flankers, without forcing him to manually steer his head around the sky to "find" them? No one would be given a pilot's license with such a narrow field of vision. Is the victory really worth anything, to have successfully "sneaked up" on such a hopelessly blind opponent in combat?

 

-SK

[Drakkhen]

I just wanted to say I don't use padlock and restrict my [F5] use to steady situations.

 

Why steady situations? Because I guess that's the moment I would use to look around from a cockpit. In the game, the screen resolution makes spots finding harder (sometime it's only a blinking pixel visible 20% of the time) so, it's a good way to find enemies... to bad it also shows the ones below/behind.

When engaged, I use the forward-up view (with the hud at the bottom of the screen) for in the real world, a pilot won't break with the head turned 80 degrees except if he wants to also break his neck with Gs. If I loose my target, two solutions: I try to guess where it will reappear according to its last relative attitude and speed, otherwise, I go back to slight turn/steady and use F5 again.

In this precise case, if F5 didn't lock below/behind, I should alternate thight turns, steady flights, attitude changes to scan the maximum possible space. Would be more realistic I guess. Anyway, in the game, even if you don't lock below/behind threats, the FOV will allow you to see more than you would.

 

The forward-up view allows good scissors maneuvers even out of the plane (barrelled ones) while not having to care to changing view since you got your own nose sight in the bottom of the screen. Playing with FOV raising the view can show a lot, the target being in gunrange of course...

 

IMaHO, it'll be hard to find the perfect padlock system. IL2 padlock is great regarding the loss of visual contact but neither for "finding" nor for own attitude awareness. Falcon3.0 had a better finding while weak on the two other points.

The points are:

- Finding new target to track

- Visual contact loss

(IL2 does great allowing to keep tracking a [two seconds out of sight] prey)

- Allowing a good own attitude awareness

Finding something that covers these three points wouldn't be perfect but a great padlock system.

A fourth point would be a quick way to check missile threats when RWR shouts, since in padlock, we hear it but don't have the possibility to "turn eyes" in half a second to check the box. :?

 

Edit: When I say "to bad it also shows the ones below/behind", I think about russian planes IR tactics in multiplayer, where the enemies can find where the threat comes from while the whole point of using IR only on modern russian planes is to bracket the target and stick to its back undetected.

[GGTharos]

I don't think we need to cut down padlock distance - at 6nm you see your bogie. In fact depending on your flight *altitude* 6nm sometimes isn't -enough- when you can see someone diagonally and low, but that isn't a problem.

 

As for pilots not 'turning their head 80 degrees', that argument has been made before, only to be disproven by in-flight videos of pilots craning their necks all over the place to check six or whatever other angle while in 6-g or more turns.

 

While at it, the camera's being held relatively steady by the back-seat guy, too.

[Galaad]

First, sorry for my very bad english

 

I totally agree with Swingkid

 

With the paddlock, we must see a target, in the same way that a pilot in real life, in term of distances, view angle, external conditions (day, night, rain…), type of target (fighter, bomber, ground target,....).

 

In addition, it does not matter the combat mode (air, navigation, ground)we must be able to paddlock at any type of enemy (air or ground according to its choice and situation), not as it is implement today.

[Kula66]

So how about a variable distance padlock based on target size, distance, aspect, weather, light, position to you etc .... A big target, 12oclock, side on, in good weather you would padlock at 10miles and small fighter, 5 oclock, at night in cloud 200m.

 

The thing with being able to padlock through mountains I use alot ... and should really go!

 

James

[SwingKid]

So how about a variable distance padlock based on target size, distance, aspect, weather, light, position to you etc .... A big target, 12oclock, side on, in good weather you would padlock at 10miles and small fighter, 5 oclock, at night in cloud 200m.

 

Yes, I like these ideas and have been thinking about them a lot. I think there are many other ways that we can propose to have realistic restrictions on the padlock view, without unnecessarily increasing the user interface workload for the pilot.

 

The thing with being able to padlock through mountains I use alot ... and should really go!

 

It's a good idea. The existing terrain masking logic calculates the line of sight between an aircraft and a radar to see if there is an obstacle in the way. I guess this could be adapted for visual line of sight as well. If I understand correctly, the "obstacle detection" is necessarily somewhat "approximate," since it's CPU-intensive, so I guess it should be tested to see if there is a good tradeoff between accuracy and FPS when used with optical padlock. We might find ourselves unable to padlock some visible targets, or able to padlock some hidden ones, if they are close to the mountain edges.

 

For all:

 

Can anyone provide some links to previous threads on other forums, where the Padlock has been debated in the past? I don't want to make people repeat themselves, but would like to read and evaluate all the arguments that have been made before starting any "wishlist".

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

How about just ... taking away the ability to padlock through mountains and leaving it as is?

 

There's zero reason to complicate it beyond this.

If you're conterned about night padlock, just turn off padlock for night missions (And while at it, enforce that everyone's monitors don't have brighteness and ocnntrast turned way up so they can see you bright as day anyway)

[Pvt_Mandella]

Hello,

 

A very interesting thread. I would like to add a few comments, but I'm only a casual flight simmer, so forgive me if some of my remarks are a bit naive :P

 

1) Letting go of padlock. My main problem with the padlock in IL-2 and LOMAC , especially on ground targets, is that as you make your pass you get a vertigo-inducing snap-round of viewpoint that is most unnatural. Sure you disable the padlock manually just as you make your approach, but this seems unecessary. The system should let it go.

 

2) Direction vs. FOV. Sometimes, I think when I have a padlocked enemy who is drifting from my central vision, it would be preferable to have my view zoom out to keep him in sight rather than stay at the same zoom but track around (and lose awareness of where I'm flying). But I know that zooming in and out can have a penalty cost for fps.

 

3) Automatically flicking between different views. So, because I find in-cockpit padlock rather unhelpful, I *do* use the out-of cockpit F5 views quite a lot. Maybe it's not the purists' way, and I have no problem with being able to selectively disable these views for MP play, but whatever. What I tend to do is just flick to F5 for a moment to get my bearings, then back to cockpit. I sometimes think that an "intelligent" padlock could maybe do these things automatically - say every 5-10s flick to the F5 view for one second, then zoom out for 1 second, or snap round for 1 second, presumably this is a bit more like the way pilots fly IRL, their head is on the go the whole time and also they are building up a mental picture of what's going on in 3D. So automatically flicking between these different modes would mimic a pilot taking a quick look over his right shoulder, then back to the controls, then visualising what he has to do in his mind's eye if you like, then executing it.

 

A limited version of the same idea would be to enable more definable snapviews for each cockpit. There could be one set of snapviews for checking your instruments (focus and zoom in) and another for checking the sky around you.

 

Then, with a programmable joystick, you could even do a macro that snapped you through all these different views, checking the sky around you.

 

Anyways, just a few thoughts, and the link to that SimHQ article is really nice, mirrors how I feel in many ways.

[Galaad]

Kulla66,

 

I think that I badly explained, or you badly understood.

For me a realistic paddlock must make it possible to the virtual pilot to have same "SA", as a real pilot.

Are you sure that a real pilot can see a " small fighter, 5 oclock, at night in cloud 200m" ??????

[Kula66]

Sorry, I was just making up numbers for an example ... if a plane is "small fighter, 5 oclock, at night in cloud 200m" is probably invisible ... then perhaps, yes you shouldn't be able to padlock it :?

 

James

[GGTharos]

Kulla66,

 

I think that I badly explained, or you badly understood.

For me a realistic paddlock must make it possible to the virtual pilot to have same "SA", as a real pilot.

Are you sure that a real pilot can see a " small fighter, 5 oclock, at night in cloud 200m" ??????

 

Well ya know, those HUD lasers are pretty bright. He prolly would. If the afterburner was on, he would. But the questionis, what's he doing flying through clouds at night anyway?

[SwingKid]

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.

 

Just wanted to say thanks - that is a great article. Very interesting that of all the view systems, a real military pilot recommends the "Dogfight" external view as the best able to reproduce the picture available to the real pilot... :shock:

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

How about just ... taking away the ability to padlock through mountains and leaving it as is?

 

There's zero reason to complicate it beyond this.

 

Zero reason?

 

 

Aircraft in such positions should not be padlockable? What reason is there to pan the view?

 

Virtual views or "scrollable views" allow the simulation pilot to slew his screen from the forward view to either side or up and down. The effect is as if the pilot has turned his head to look in new direction. Because of the limited information on his own nose position when his view has been slewed, the virtual view is best used as a search tool. It is difficult, if not impossible, to use the scrollable view while maneuvering. The resulting disorientation makes this view type ineffective as a maneuvering aid.

 

If these are the feelings of a military pilot, what hope does a novice have?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

SK, I can tolerate panning my view; if it changes to be a wider zone however then peopel who don't -like- padlock will whine even more about its existance, so frankly it's pretty good as it is right now save for the LoS.

 

I know you're trying to make it more realistic, but you can't; the problem is that a real pilot might not notice a plane, or might lose track, if you make a padlock wide, then all you have to do is go aorund and hit padlock till you padlock something even if you can't see it because it's say, below the nosecone. So, I'm happy with being able to padlock stuff within 20 deg off the center of view.

[Perry]

idea for padlock

 

hi,

 

as it was stated the padlock function is currently a pain to use (this is the reason why i stopped to use it, even if i dont have a TrackIR):

 

- takes a lot of buttons on the joystick (1 for lock, 1 for unlock, 1 for centering view) which could be use for other functions

- follow the locked plane (or missile) in every manouvers it makes, even if the tracked plane is beneath my plane, which is unrealistic

- 1 padlock for aircraft, 1 padlock for incoming missiles (!)

- draw a green cross on the target that i cant suppress (i dont like it)

 

**************************************************************************************

 

i would like a universal padlock feature (for aircraft, for incoming missiles, for ground targets) assigned to only one button and which would be active only when i press the button.

 

i would like it to function this way, if i encounter an object that is in my LoS and within visual range (i think WVR is like10 nm but im not sure) and that i want to lock,

 

1) first i need to assign the padlock function to this object by watching directly the target and pressing the padlock button once

 

2) if i release the padlock button, i would like my view to center itself smoothly (and not directly) on my cockpit and instruments to do a quick check of my characteristics of flight (where is my nose heading at, whats my speed, how much is my AoA, airbrake on/off ?)

 

3) if i press the padlock button once again, i would like my view to center itself smoothly on my (previously locked) target so that i can follow its manouvers (with restrictive limits, i dont like the current all seeing padlock feature)...

 

and so on : pressing the button i see my target, releasing the button i go back to normal view.

 

4) being able to disable the padlock feature on my current target (= reset settings) by moving the coolie hat (im not sure of the name, its the little button on top of my joystick which allow me to move the head of my pilot) so that i can assign another object to the padlock

 

 

if the padlock functiun could work this way, my dream would become reality ! and i would use it A LOT ! :wink:

 

 

ps : sorry for my bad english, and sorry if some of those ideas where already written, i hadnt the time to read all the posts

[Galaad]

Andy bush said :

It is difficult, if not impossible, to use the scrollable view while maneuvering. The resulting disorientation makes this view type ineffective as a maneuvering aid

 

Today with Trackir, its different.

[wsoul2k]

Re: idea for padlock

 

- takes a lot of buttons on the joystick (1 for lock, 1 for unlock, 1 for centering view) which could be use for other functions

- 1 padlock for aircraft, 1 padlock for incoming missiles (!)

 

Agree is a lot of buttons :?

 

- draw a green cross on the target that i cant suppress (i dont like it)

 

disagree i like it.

Help a lot because we dont have pixel acuracy to indentify the targets at greater distances, and in a knife figth help in identify WHO you are traking

 

i would like a universal padlock feature (for aircraft, for incoming missiles, for ground targets) assigned to only one button and which would be active only when i press the button.

 

i would like it to function this way, if i encounter an object that is in my LoS and within visual range (i think WVR is like10 nm but im not sure) and that i want to lock,

 

Agree

 

1) first i need to assign the padlock function to this object by watching directly the target and pressing the padlock button once

 

Disagree.... I think in the same way SwingKid...take a look in his pictures...why in in any of his pictures i HAVE TO MOVE my head to padlock the target....??

 

They are in my FOV and should be padlocked in a single press button.

 

2) if i release the padlock button, i would like my view to center itself smoothly (and not directly) on my cockpit and instruments to do a quick check of my characteristics of flight (where is my nose heading at, whats my speed, how much is my AoA, airbrake on/off ?)

 

I like it more in a inverted way :idea: ...AFTER have the target padlocked if i press the padlock button again my view will look smoothly foward...and when i release it will get back to the padlocked target...because the time you will pass in padlock mode is greater...so is more easy press and hold to do a kick look foward and relese to get it back to padlock :wink:

 

and do a fast 2 clicks to switch targets :idea:

 

4) being able to disable the padlock feature on my current target (= reset settings) by moving the coolie hat (im not sure of the name, its the little button on top of my joystick which allow me to move the head of my pilot) so that i can assign another object to the padlock

 

Agree ..any touch in the hat should disable the padlock view :lol:

[SwingKid]

Today with Trackir, its different.

 

It's a good point, but we should ensure that the sim with TrackIR becomes better, not that the sim without TrackIR becomes worse.

 

if it changes to be a wider zone however then peopel who don't -like- padlock will whine even more about its existance, so frankly it's pretty good as it is right now save for the LoS.

 

That's a good approach, to consider other peoples' opinion and foresee problems. Certainly, nobody wants to spend time and energy only to end with something worse, that people will use even less.

 

I think it's an interesting discussion. To start a thread about F-15 avionics - that's easy. Everybody wants the same thing - more! - and it becomes a popular sticky thread.

 

It seems that to discuss the padlock is more of a challenge... It almost resembles such discussions as "what flyable aircraft should be added next?" Everybody has their own vision.

 

I think an important thing to recognize is that even if we disagree, we should at least recognize that whatever is the other person's opinion about padlock, there must be a reason for it. It is more likely that the needs of different players simply cannot be accomodated by a single padlock system, then that a group of people are wrong, simply because they have a different opinion.

 

I started this topic thinking everyone would agree that the primary function of padlock is to alleviate the view limits of the computer monitor when detecting targets. But clearly there are people who feel padlock has nothing to do with detection, and that rather it is only for tracking targets. It's a valid opinion and even if it wasn't my own, I'm glad to learn about it - I couldn't have imagined it without this discussion.

 

We have the option to enable or disable both padlock view and external views, and recently there was a request to make the F5 view separately selectable. We can also zoom in and out the monitor viewing angle as a parameter, so it a "padlock limit angle" option may be possible as well.

 

Actually any number of padlock features could be implemented as options so as not to force them onto players who like things as they are. But we should first find as many things that we can agree on as possible, so as not to clutter the menus with too many confusing features.

 

Let's start with this:

 

I propose the "Esc" key to be considered as the default padlock key.

 

The Esc key is conveniently situated near the function keys which are used for other views, it is separate from all other controls as the pilot's eyes are separate from everything his hands must do, and it's often the easiest and fastest key on the entire keyboard to find, being alone and in the extreme corner - we have a good chance to hit the Esc key in the heat of maneuvering combat without even looking at the keyboard, unlike the current keypad "Del" key squeezed in between two larger keys, or the even worse Alt-Keypad Del for missile padlock, which practically requires two hands to press. With padlock assigned to the Esc key, the user might not even need to assign it to a HOTAS button.

 

What do you all think? It's something we can agree on? Or I have forgotten some reason why Keypad Del is a better choice?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I don't mind keypad del - if you like 'esc' better, you can remap it, but then I can also remap esc to del if I prefer it so ... *shrug*

 

As for what should be done to the padlock, at this point I believe the minimalist aporach would be best because of the programming complexity involved in this.

 

FOr example, suppose you considered your view 'expanded' the clsoer an aircraft was ... the computer has to then calculate distances for all aircraft and lock onto the closest one. But what if you've got a wingie flying nearby and you're trying to focus in on the guy 5nm in front of you?

 

Of consider a similar situation but at the merge - the bogie's in front but a little farther, on the opposite side of your plane from the wingnut. Your padlock locks onto the wingnut ... great, jsut great, right? ;)

 

So I think right now the best thing to do is to jsut give it the ability to calculate LoS, that's all. Remember, you don't want the equipment 'guessing' what yuo're wanting to do here, you want it to work reliably, so the simpler, the better.

 

Perosnally outside padlock range I've picked up and visually attacked targets by surprising them by taking unconventional courses to target, allowing me to get around to a target's back - spotting the neemy 10nm away, witht heir backs turned to us - I still remember when we did this on the 44th server, flying with 44th_Eagle, I took us on a round-about course, and at some point he saud, 'Hey, what's that to the right?' I look,a nd whaddya know! A pair of Sues. CIS-BAH-BOOM.

 

No padlock required. Once you get into a fight, you want to track a target; it's so much simpler with padlock. I don't think padlock should be used for detecting - it really murders the fun of the game, believe you me. I may get annoyed when I am shot down because I didn't notice someone sneak onto my flank, but I'm annoyed tenfold by anything that gives a capability similar to the F5 key.

[SwingKid]

As for what should be done to the padlock, at this point I believe the minimalist aporach would be best because of the programming complexity involved in this.

...

So I think right now the best thing to do is to jsut give it the ability to calculate LoS, that's all.

 

You do realize that you could implement every single other padlock idea we have mentioned in this thread all together, and it wouldn't approach the programming complexity of LoS calculation?

 

-SK

[Kula66]

Today with Trackir' date=' its different.[/quote'] Yes, TIR is very good and with a Helment Sight in the Rus a/c it is deadly ... but it still doesn't give you peripheral vision ... but perhaps that is something you just can't do on a single 15"monitor!!! You need at least 3 arranged around your head!!! TIR really just allows ou to move your FOV quickly/easily ...

 

As for the padlock key, I would agree with GGT ... the Del key is fine ... you can remap it if you like to any key or for most people a button on you stick.

 

James

[Galaad]

Kula66 wrote

Yes, TIR is very good and with a Helment Sight in the Rus a/c it is deadly ... but it still doesn't give you peripheral vision ... but perhaps that is something you just can't do on a single 15"monitor!!!

 

Yes, you are right, its the reason that the implementation of a more realistic padlock is necessary to compensate this restriction

 

Kula66 wrote

You need at least 3 arranged around your head!!!

 

Or that http://www.simw.com/simware_images/pictures/large/bugeye1_1.jpg :)

[Pvt_Mandella]

I don't think padlock should be used for detecting - it really murders the fun of the game, believe you me. I may get annoyed when I am shot down because I didn't notice someone sneak onto my flank, but I'm annoyed tenfold by anything that gives a capability similar to the F5 key.

How about if F5 could only be used on a target you have already detected and padlocked?