PDA

View Full Version : What padlock distance would you set if it was configurable?



XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 07:46 PM
What padlock distance would you set if it was configurable?


I would be interested to know what the general consensus would be, ie. 5km, 3km, 1.5 km 900metres etc. Some explanation would be useful for understanding you decisions would be good.

I've not got a set distance in mind. but around 300-500 metres would be good for me.

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 07:46 PM
What padlock distance would you set if it was configurable?


I would be interested to know what the general consensus would be, ie. 5km, 3km, 1.5 km 900metres etc. Some explanation would be useful for understanding you decisions would be good.

I've not got a set distance in mind. but around 300-500 metres would be good for me.

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 08:39 PM
0m

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 08:54 PM
40 km

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 10:26 PM
LOL. I should have second guessed the first two responses. but congratulations for being the first two /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 10:28 PM
Noooooooooooooooooo padlock

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 10:48 PM
And Jaws gets the prize for being the first Prat to join the thread /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ark ark ark!

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 10:54 PM
1000m.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 11:42 PM
Yep, 1000 meters should be good, so the "trackIR" hosts wouldn't have no more the "radar" excuse to not allow padlock on their servers.

But only as an option for online games. Offline, for comfort, it's sometimes agreeable to have a longer range just for looking the other aircrafts fly.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 11:53 PM
1000-1500m

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 01:15 AM
So the question is around the range of lock on versus the question of using padlock or not (trackIR guys vs padlock guys, which is a different realism and technology advantage arguement).

Before we know the "right" range, we have the talley problem. How big an e/a is on the average computer monitor set to the average resolution in part determines what is viewable - padlock or not. Like, would that e/a still be visible on the monitor even if it was viewable in RealLife? Then if we include AI pilots to the picture, do the AI pilot have the same limitations? AI pilots dont have to use real eyes and slew their view manually.

If I were to throw in my 2 cents as to what range to have PL set to, Id make it for the average distance that a RL pilot could talley. Ive read that General Chuck Yeager could talley e/a's at about 10 miles. Same for Col. Erich Hartmann (note the fighter pilot's axom: "he who sees first has 1/2 the victory already"). 1000m is only a fraction of the distance a pilot would have to gain SA with to have time to avoid or attack. So such a low value would render it only good for tracking a/c that have already been acquired via manual slewing means. Is that the goal?

I would like to see a statistical model be applied to the padlocking mechanism. That being, the further out the e/a is, the less likely the padlock mechanism will lock on. Then at certain threshold values, you get a higher probability of lock on. Something like this must already exist in how IL2 decides to drop off a lockon with going through clouds. Shouldnt be too hard to revamp for padlocking unobstructed at different ranges.

So as long as the padlock feature is optional, and the range presetable by the host; then you have a winner situation to handle most of the cases. One size does not fit all, all the time.

AV8R


Message Edited on 07/19/0312:27AM by AV8R

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 02:04 AM
Off.



<center>http://members.rogers.com/4xtreme/chbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 02:29 AM
The arc subtense for the eyes cones is 1 arcminute (49 to 73 seconds from a gradient of 4 to 6 microns for the cones). The average eye resolves 1 arcminute or 70 microns at 250mm. An extended image, versus a point, can be seen when smaller, ie a telephone wire against the sky can be seen around 0.5 arcminute. Resolving power decreases with distance from the fovea, rapidly.. to only 25% at 5 degrees off normal axis, to only 7% of foveal resolution at 10 degrees off normal axis. (source US MIL Handbook published lots of places..MIL HDBK-141)

Which is why in real life, people move the eye less when less than 5 degrees off where you want to see, and move the head to track at less than 30 degrees of eye movement.

Contrast makes things easier to "spot" versus distinguish, moving contrast objects easier yet, and some gifted eyes with tighter, higher resolution cones.. ie 20/10 vision for example...

Not sure where all of that comes out but you could you argue that it is possible to aquire this size target out to 4-5km.. maybe further.. vs "resolving it"..

In FB I can see them out to about 8-10 km in the sky as dots... (1600x 1200 x 32) with some gamma tweak..


http://webvision.med.utah.edu/KallSpatial.html


for more info..




" The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down ": General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262 - - -
" Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting ": Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in W.W.II.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 06:08 AM
I'd say the range that the human eye could in fact make it out, not the range that the simulation allows us to see. This isn't Mr. Magoo in WW2. It's a WW2 SIMULATION, which means if the only way to see a target that is within visual range of a REAL pilot is to padlock it to find it then either:
1-padlock needs to be set to a range a typical pilot could be expected on Average to see an enemy plane OR
2-the game needs to be changed so that you can see planes at that range.

<img src=http://www.simops.com/graphics/wildcard.gif>

IRON SKIES
As real as you want it to be.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 06:19 AM
I would love to be able to set my padlock to 1000m.

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 08:27 AM
Realistically, if you can see the approaching aircraft far away (as little grey dots) then you should be able to track them from that moment. Now, if they're that far away, padlock really isn't necessary, since you don't need to move your head any to keep them in sight. I've noticed that if I'm chasing someone, got him padlocked, and he stays behind a canopy post or other vision blocker for about 3 seconds, I lose padlock on him. Even tho he hasn't gone any farther away from me.


SSgt Tim Schuster
8MXS Inspection Section
Kunsan AB, Korea

-Defend the Dock!
-Accept Follow-on Shifts!
-Take the Fight Upstairs!

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 12:40 PM
Icon visability @ 1.7 km

Padlock capability @ 1.3 or so maybe 1.5

this would be an awsome option imo

I use custom icons alot for serving there very good


=I've noticed that if I'm chasing someone, got him =padlocked, and he stays behind a canopy post or other =vision blocker for about 3 seconds, I lose padlock on him. =Even tho he hasn't gone any farther away from me.



THIS ISSUE SHOULD be Fixed the simple fact is that if I was sitting in a cockpit & had view of a bandit & he briefley went behind the frame of the cockpit, I could adjust my head a small amount & maintain my visual on the ac.

I find it very annoying when using Padlock that this loss of Lock happens & it is not reality. I dont have track IR & probly never will, so some form of padlock is nice to have especialy if we could set the distance too 1.5k or less
I fly with out padlock for the most part because it screws aiming with gunz altho padlocking ground targets is a good thing imo thoes tanks are awfully small when your going 800kmh in an FWA9 & u need to set the bomb right on top of the tank for it too blow theres no time for last second adjustments I think 2.5 to 3k would be good for ground Lock





<Center><div style="width:700;colorhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gifurple;font-size:14pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=black,strength=11)"><Center>
I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold
I am alive forevermore.
I am the Alpha and the Omega
the Begining and the End.</div> <center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</FONT>

Message Edited on 07/19/0306:12AM by Locust_161st

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 12:58 PM
Thanks for keeping it on topic subject based on subject only. That way it won't drag on as a padlock argument, which is not what I want. But instead just give a general consensus of numbers and ideas.

From the technical view that was posted, it would make sense that any object from a large distance away should have a differrent padlock approach.Because the time involved is great and there is plenty of time to aquire it.

It's a common fact that you can see targets (black dots) at long distance ranges on 'Far Out' view. But note that looking at the same target from 'Normal View' at the same far range ie. the dot can't be seen. Hence most preference for Flying with the far out view (not to mention the benefit of the wider periferal vision)


One suggestion (which would be optional of course) would be point mouse and click on target the range then becomes a non issue, This would be fine for ranges from 10km-0m. Obviously not ideal but there is plenty of time when not in a dogfight to action this movement, It would be the same as using your mouse to look around except you have a semitransparent customizable diameter circle eg. 1cm that you place over your target and is always in the centre of your field of vision and click (Atlhought other ideas could be implemented, A virtual arm and finger pointing with coresponding, fingerprint smudge on the glass http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif or just a mouse pointer, whatever! )

Would be usable in bomber formations ie for selecting indiviual targets, or selecting the correct leader in your flight that you should be following. The benefit would be, no accusations of the padlock being a Radar. Non whatsover, how could someone accuse you for not spotting it (if you could see it)

The disdvantage would be as it is now, if you have to use a mouse. The semi transparent circle could be toggled ON or OFF and percent of translucency customizable on the clients PC. Also it would turn off automatically once the target has been adquired.

Altough not ideal it would take no more effort than turning padlock on or off, switching to static forward view, mouse looking or panning with hatswitchs.

Altough convenient and sometimes confusing at the moment in it's current cycle through targets approach, It would much prefer more control over this myself. This topic would then become a past issue. Could it be done, a 2 dimensional pointer circle registering over a target 3d object in FB world. Yes, I don't know what difficulties would arise from it. It could also be a benefit more acurate first time for ground target padlocking within areas with multiple targets.








Message Edited on 07/19/0302:09PM by Pye

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 02:15 PM
Pye wrote:
- What padlock distance would you set if it was
- configurable?



I`d change the way padlock works.I`d set it so the padlock would only place a triangle around the locked target,but PL wouln`t control pilot`s head.


"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 09:37 PM
So you don't like padlock but love green triangles! next patient! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 09:49 PM
Pye wrote:
- One suggestion (which would be optional of course)
- would be point mouse and click on target the range
- then becomes a non issue, This would be fine for
- ranges from 10km-0m. Obviously not ideal but there
- is plenty of time when not in a dogfight to action
- this movement, It would be the same as using your
- mouse to look around except you have a
- semitransparent customizable diameter circle eg. 1cm
- that you place over your target and is always in the
- centre of your field of vision and click

Now THAT is a great idea. I can't see why that couldn't work, and work well, although I don't know diddly about programming. Any proggers in the audience? I like the idea of a second "padlock" view, with a small translucent circle in the middle. Put the circle on the target, and padlock him. This wouldn't solve the padlock-haters view that you can still keep your eyes on target irregardless of camouflage or clouds, tho... but generally a really unique answer! WTG!


SSgt Tim Schuster
8MXS Inspection Section
Kunsan AB, Korea

-Defend the Dock!
-Accept Follow-on Shifts!
-Take the Fight Upstairs!

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2003, 11:41 PM
750m

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 12:46 AM
Pye wrote:
- So you don't like padlock but love green triangles!
- next patient! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


I don`t fly with PL.


"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 11:57 AM
I'm sorry, Maybe I didn't understand

Why do you want just a triangles if you don't use padlock

If you are serious then you must be talking about making a new kind of icon, Not having text icons, Thats not what this thread is about your best bet is to open a new thread and see what people think about your idea.

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2003, 11:37 PM
1.3 so you cant padlock thru clouds


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 01:33 AM
Pye wrote:
- I'm sorry, Maybe I didn't understand
-
- Why do you want just a triangles if you don't use
- padlock
-
- If you are serious then you must be talking about
- making a new kind of icon, Not having text icons,
- Thats not what this thread is about your best bet is
- to open a new thread and see what people think
- about your idea.



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:20 AM
Lock on at 300m, break lock at 800-1000m.

If you can't have two values such as above, I'd prefer no padlock.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 05:59 AM
I could've sworn it IS configurable..

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 08:26 AM
Lock should only work on targets close to center of view with a click. It would make 'PL search radar' unfeasable as if you can't see the target then you would be scanning and fixated doing the click, click, click required to search and be very slow covering an area... a sitting duck really. The lock area would need to be just over 1/2 the angle which the view moves per step when you pan or snap view with the hat to allow coverage of the sky. 8 head moves and then clicks just to search level with your view, 8 more for upwards, more for straight up and more for down with no lock from behind or below the nose unless you are flying in Wonder Woman mode in which case, who cares? Range should be no further than chase distance and yes, longer for ground targets.

It would be great if the sim could do a rough assessment of camoflage levels from angle above or below, weather, time of day and distance. Then the PL and AI both would be affected. Some ground objects should be very hard to see from air. Those in fixed positions and not firing should not be lockable until they reveal themselves through action.

Range? 800 to 1000m if I could set it offline but then it's possible to play coops by yourself without connecting and set that and other details to suit. Still, you lose certain campaign capabilities that way.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 08:55 AM
To keep it simple: YES Padlock should be configurable with two settings -
1: Range to establish Padlock
2: Range to lose Padlock

This would allow a close in range to establish a Padlock that could then be maintained out to a long range as long as you maintain padlock. As in real life you can track a con at far greater distances once you have it spotted.

Perhaps, as suggested by another, the mouse could be used to establish a padlock between the min and max ranges.

Once you have these setting and icons configurable then the democracy of the Arena's will establish what settings people will prefer to fly. Anyone is then free to start an arena with no Padlock or any other combination.

If I had to vote it would be 1:300m and 2:3000m.

Casper

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 03:51 PM
At 300m the chances are things will be far too fast and busy to spend time establishing a lock and then trying to hold it, unless you're already saddled up. This does no good at all for any style of tactic except for the saddle up and ride till your E is burned off or the enemy is dead or gotten away type.

I'd go with twice that at least for minimum, a good gun and stable flight and you could be starting to fire at that range, especially if you are closing fast.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 05:01 PM
The padlock in my oppinion is something verry unrealistic. Even set at short distance (300m-1000m) it kills the element of surprise. It takes away those last corections that you have to do when sneek on someone. I understand that Planes are hard to see/track in ful real in FB, but having the plane do it for you is not an option.If you fly enough in full real, checking your six and tracking enemy becomes second nature. I think that if we have to make it easyer is better to have short icons then padlock.You'll still have to search for the enemy.

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2003, 10:41 PM
With respect Jaws, that is what we lovingly call the PADLOCK DEBATE /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and there are 1 million and 1 different opinions on it. This thread is trying to look at the ideal padlock distance which also encompasses new ways to improve it,

My suggestion for a manual way of padlocking by visually seeing on the monitor is an attempt at finding a solution to the example you mentioned. I'd like to hear you opinion on my idea because obviously I would be checking my six just as much as you would, Jaws.



Regarding a separate break padlock distance if there were one (by the way it's Good Idea) and for this question alon, Why should it be the same as the Padlock distance! configurble of course. I would set it at more 3 times my ideal padlock distance at around 3km-3.5km any more than that padlock experience is not felt anyway. ( when I say Ideal, I mean 'ideal' without having tried it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Message Edited on 07/21/0311:51PM by Pye

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 02:19 AM
Tried to keep on topic by stating that Yes Padlock needs to be configurable as any discussion on the distances unavoidabley becomes a debate on Padlock.

As it stands just giving a single distance is not much better than turning Padlock on or off.

If the distance is short enough to make RL SA and bounces possible then Padlock is essentially useless as it will continually break lock as the con extends. If it is far enough that Padlock can be maintained during an engagement then it's far enough out to be used to automate scanning for cons which is totally unrealistic.

Hence my suggestion for two ranges:
1 - Range to establish lock.
2 - Range to break lock.

I also really like the idea of using the mouse to establish a lock at intermediate ranges. Other ideas for the future would be time delays and scaling for visibility effects.

In RL it takes time and attention to scan the sector of sky your looking at. No way should it be quick glance in any direction and press F4 as it is now.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 07:12 PM
Cutting the area that lock can be established to a small circle (because of the hat-pan jumps and even with the mouse, pinpointing a plane exactly while flying maneuvers, or using the mouse while maneuvering to emulate natural head and eye turning is just ridiculous) would make scanning by clicking just about impossible since the plane you are in is moving so you'll miss as much or more than you cover and the time it would take... you would be shot down first.

If the hat pan jumps are 45 degrees then how about a 50 degree cone? The sky is 360 around and 360 up and down, that cone is a small part and takes time to move after all. Natural head turning would be much faster, so a minus to counter the 'radar' plus. OTOH, everyone online could be *forced* to sopend the $ for TrackIR just to not be at a total disadvantage. Everyone offline would need to as well because of the all-seeing AI.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 07:57 PM
- The first assumption is that Padlocking should be used.
- The second is that the manual (or TrackIR assisted) view slewing is acceptable for talley on E/As outside the immediate dogfighter's bubble. I personally like PL for talley beyond just the immediate threat radius. Personal preference because dogfighting shouldnt be about who is best at finger view control or at a disadvantage because of hardware like TrackIR.
- The third assumption is that the PL lock and unlock ranges are or should be made user (host) configurable.

Working from these assumptions, the issue of PL range in this thread assumes that PL is only used for E/As within the pilot's threat radius. As I read it, the issue rephrased is: at what range is the E/A a threat which needs to be PL'ed?

The range should be tied to the guns max range plus some wiggle room (ie the threat radius).

So if we, on average, set our convergence values between 200 and 500; then we have the guns range part of the equation.

Being that E/As that we are engaging move in and out of the max gun range as part of the dogfight, Id vote for the lockon value to be less than or equal to the unlock value.

The specific value being 2x the guns range makes sense. So a value around 500-1000 seems reasonable given one accepts all the assumptions aforementioned.

AV8R

BM357_Raven
07-22-2003, 08:12 PM
Not that I use padlock, but I think that making it as customizable as possible is a good thing.. If I had to vote in a game full of padlockers, I'd think 3 km's is respectable on both ends...

http://bm357.com/bm357_raven_with_guns%20copy.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:58 PM
Padlock range should be tied to the experience of the player. Let him earn his padlock by rewarding him with a bigger range everytime he RTB's after a succesfull kill sortie. The greater his experience, the bigger the padlock range, out to a max. of say 40 km. And ofcourse the bigger the skill, the more magical the padlock should behave as well, never losing lock, instantly ID-ing, switching to the nearest threat at the button press.

You see, trademark of the aces was that they could spot and ID aircraft at extreme ranges. So they could move into advantageous position well before the merge.

If you wanna simulate 80 year old shortsighted cataractic dweebs, then put a fixed limit to padlockrange at 100 m or so. However if you wanna simulate young trained pilots with excellent eyesight, tie the padlock range to the pilots' skill factor.

At the start of the game, or when the pilot dies, the padlock could be reset to 100 m. or so.

People will never be able to call it a padlock cheat anymore coz the player with max. padlock range will have earned his magical padlock./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:28 AM
This is good Casper

Hence my suggestion for two ranges:
1 - Range to establish lock.
2 - Range to break lock.


1.3/1.5 establish

1.5/1.8 it breaks

altho i doubt this is going to ever configurable it sure would be nice

Altho the more I fly in non padlock scenerio with limited/custom icons the more I prefer it

makes shaking a bandit in a non turning but high rollrate ac alot more realistic & fun

<Center><div style="width:700;colorhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gifurple;font-size:14pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=black,strength=11)"><Center>
I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold
I am alive forevermore.
I am the Alpha and the Omega
the Begining and the End.</div> <center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</FONT>