PDA

View Full Version : can we have Padlock patched please Oleg?



XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 01:50 PM
People are using Padlock as an exploit. You may be well aware that you can hit the Padlock key and it will find an enemy a/c near to you hidden by terrain (the radar exploit).

Can we have Padlock patched so that it only activates if enemy a/c is visible in your gunsight.
This will then stop pilots from using what is a good implementation of head movement as an exploit.


This thread in GD has a lot of points raised over Padlock.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zbjno

Message Edited on 08/10/0302:07PM by Scragbat

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 01:50 PM
People are using Padlock as an exploit. You may be well aware that you can hit the Padlock key and it will find an enemy a/c near to you hidden by terrain (the radar exploit).

Can we have Padlock patched so that it only activates if enemy a/c is visible in your gunsight.
This will then stop pilots from using what is a good implementation of head movement as an exploit.


This thread in GD has a lot of points raised over Padlock.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zbjno

Message Edited on 08/10/0302:07PM by Scragbat

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 03:03 PM
I'll add to the list:

2. Remove View Forward toggle while padlocked.
3. Allow for hosts to set the padlock distance

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 03:35 PM
"- People are using Padlock as an exploit. You may be
- well aware that you can hit the Padlock key and it
- will find an enemy a/c near to you hidden by terrain
- (the radar exploit).
- Can we have Padlock patched so that it only
- activates if enemy a/c is visible in your gunsight.
- This will then stop pilots from using what is a good
- implementation of head movement as an exploit. "


In my experience, I never locked a plane that wasn't displayed on screen. Sometimes it was a plane that was low, barely visible but, anyway, it was on screen.

The problem for "detection" of unseen planes is that the computer has no way to know whether you actuelly saw the plane it displays or not. Therefore, if the plane is displayed, the computer has to consider that it's "lockable". One thing, however, it would be good if the lock could be done by starting with the "closest to center".

Also, I'd suggest a modification: head stops moving if the plane dissapears from sight. Like behind a frame. If it appears on screen again, the view locks back automatically on the plane. If it isn't displayed (dissapeared behind the nose and went away), the loss of lock is immediate (your head doesn't follow the changes of path of the "invisible plane" )

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 07:05 PM
i think it needs better head movement to follow the planes to

thats the main reason i dont use it, its not good at following planes that go overhead and cross sides

i think something like the padlocking in falcon 4 would work good

----------------------------------------
I didn't get these scars from people liking me too much.

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:19 PM
actually, for that I find it pretty good. Just increase the speed in conf.ini and your head will be more natural (no premanent left-right swinging)

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 10:20 PM
This whole thread is wrongheaded IMO. Padlock could be improved but not the way you guys think it should be.

Don't whine about how Padlock allows you to pick out planes you're looking straight at but can't see anyways. Point out that planes that are within 1.5 km and are still not visible is a problem that needs fixed. You SHOULD be seeing those planes that padlock is locking onto. It's not padlocks fault the resolution is so poor.

Don't blame the view forward while in padlock mode key. That simulates the seat of the pants for the padlock flier. Instead point out that view forward while in padlock mode should break padlock after 2 seconds like flying into clouds does (or would do if view forward were fixed to break the way it should do).

People who don't like padlock seem to always want to screw it up worse for those of us who do. Maybe their motivation is to drive everyone into a no padlock playing field. I would hope Oleg doesn't listen to those with private agendas and instead listens to those who would like to see REAL improvement in padlock.

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

IRON SKIES
As real as you want it to be.

Message Edited on 08/10/0302:22PM by Pentallion

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 11:19 PM
Agreed.

Padlock skyscanners are one of the most annoyng thing in the game.

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 11:39 PM
I keep reading how people can padlock on a plane they cannot see. I have never had this happen. At 1024 X 780 32 bit I can see a plane before the tags are visible, much less before I can padlock on it.

Now, if it has a good camo job, and it has a dark background and the sun is behind it at such an angle, it might be different.

What is annoying to me is people turning the Sct3 (I think that is it) off so the sun doesn't blind them and turning clouds off on their computer. Now, that is giving themselves an unfair advantage. I would like to see those things as a host option.
WYS
AB_Onedoc

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 11:45 PM
My gripe is that padlock will pick out an NME that you are NOT looking at and can't see. Exploiters are just hitting it to find what they can't see. If an NME a/c is hidden by terrain and way off centre to your gunsight PL will still aquire the target, that's bad.

I suspect people just keep hitting it to scan the terrain, BAD BAD BAD!

What's so bad about it needing to be in your gunsight first before PL will aquire it? I think this would be an improvement. It's not hard to get it there if you can fly that bird.

I'm not talking dead on the crosshair, but a reasonable radius to it. Not way off like it is now with sixth sense.
Somebody tell me why this would not be an improvement??

XyZspineZyX
08-10-2003, 11:55 PM
Actually, I just thought why that would not be a good idea myself. This would limit you to only being able to aquire padlock with a forward only view. Would that be too limiting?

OK OK!

What about padlock only being aquired in relation to the centre of where your pilot is looking? A certain radius??
If NME a/c falls into this radius when the pilot shifts his gaze BINGO! target aquired. This would work with my original idea about the gunsight but also where your pilot is looking.

This is a difficult one. The team should really come up with some sort of idea to get rid of Padlocks sixth sense radar.

I think they will probably leave it as it is.


Tough one...



Message Edited on 08/10/0311:58PM by Scragbat

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:08 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- I'll add to the list:
-
- 2. Remove View Forward toggle while padlocked.
- 3. Allow for hosts to set the padlock distance
-


I wouldn't go that far Recon, just make it lose lock if held too long. (2-3 seconds max.?) Glancing away momentarily is a feasible and realistic feature. Maintaining lock no matter how long you look away is not.

Mind I'm saying this and I rarely use padlock any more; maybe once per flight, and then it's usually for ground targets when they disappear right in front of your gunsight. Nonetheless, I don't want to see padlock crippled. It's a good and sometimes necessary tool - fix it but don't cripple it if possible.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 01:23 AM
Scragbat wrote:
- Actually, I just thought why that would not be a
- good idea myself. This would limit you to only
- being able to aquire padlock with a forward only
- view. Would that be too limiting?
-
- OK OK!
-
- What about padlock only being aquired in relation to
- the centre of where your pilot is looking? A
- certain radius??
- If NME a/c falls into this radius when the pilot
- shifts his gaze BINGO! target aquired. This would
- work with my original idea about the gunsight but
- also where your pilot is looking.

How about just a bit more than the jump you get when you hat pan? Otherwise you end up with areas not lockable.

- This is a difficult one. The team should really
- come up with some sort of idea to get rid of
- Padlocks sixth sense radar.

Online hosts can limit the range of PL. Players should know how far that is. I'm in favor of 1km or less and we have that option now except in offline where the AI is all seeing anyway.

- I think they will probably leave it as it is.

Good Call for FB! Additions to the code are surely out.

- Tough one...

Maybe next sim?

I'm kind of wondering how you feel about TrackIR players versus those who don't have it? I don't and only use PL when I have a target and need to fixate for a short while.
I break PL regularly anyway just to scan around for danger. What is your take on the dangers of target fixation when locked for too long coupled with the time and effort to relock compared to a natural movement. TIR players have the ability to follow target-s and scan quickly as well. If you have TIR then you should know PL for the hassles and dangers as well as the 'radar' that's only good on servers with long range lock allowed.

PL is like having a wheechair when you can't walk and then having someone able to run faulting you for being able to sit and rest, at least if they have the TIR or the old standard super-HOTAS and loads of training (in which case they probably can't deal with PL so really need to see it die).

Funny, I didn't think it was possible to lock onto a target that wasn't on the screen, but I agree that even that's too wide.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 01:59 AM
"Glancing away momentarily is a feasible and realistic feature. Maintaining lock no matter how long you look away is not.
"

Then drop the padlock, look right for example, look back left and reacquire. That is simple enough.

It get's abused.


I'm for padlock, but I'm for making it better. The incorrect swinging on view, the snap forward when lost.



Wildcard, I agree that visibility is a huge issue (I believe it's THE issue). Not sure what hidden agenda you see?



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 03:07 AM
Not you in particular Recon, but some people already screwed padlock once when IL-2 first came out remember? And lo and behold it turned out that all those bad ideas turned out to come from the anti-padlock beta testers! So yes, I think people who are against padlock in the first place shouldn't be making suggestions on how to improve it when such suggestions merely cripple it.

View forward needs a 2 second limit.
Visibility needs fixed so that planes right in your face at 1 to 3 km are easily visible, in fact, I believe the range that most fighter pilots say a plane is not only visible but you can ID it is 3km. Just the other day I was on a dogfight server where only friendly icons were on and I saw buddies getting shot at that were only 1.16km away yet the attacker was STILL almost invisible even though he was firing away. Once the bullets stopped, he might has well have turned on cloaking device.
This is the number one reason why I say padlock is MORE REAL than no padlock because if you lock onto a plane that is only 1.16km away that you were looking straight at and you can't see it until padlock lights it up then you damn well WOULD have seen it in real life!

I agree that padlock should be limited to a narrow field of view. It shouldn't lock onto things outside a 3 inch radius from the center of your monitor.



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

IRON SKIES
As real as you want it to be.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 06:55 AM
Agree with Wildcard on this one. Too many people have hidden agendas re: padlock. Some want it to be an all-seeing eye to dispense with the need to actually scan the horizon and others want it crippled beyond use.

Having trackIR I don't have any vested interest in padlock per se but would like the few "cheats" it sports now disabled. A 2 second time limit on the glance forward is enough for me because removing the function completely would cripple the padlockers' ability to gain some positional info re: nose position that a normal pilot would have.

Similarly, struts blocking padlock is crazy. Unless the bandit is right behind the strut at 10m out and his plane profile is somehow still obstructed completely by the strut there is no way that a normal 2-eyed pilot would lose track.


Ideally, we'd all get trackIR with the game and no one would need padlock. Until that happens I believe it to be a necessary evil. I'm just hoping that it can be made less evil and still remain usable with a few fixes.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:23 AM
Don't blame me for radarsearching with padlock.
Blame the visuals in IL2/FB. If they were clear and crisp at distance we wouldn't have to radarscan at all but we would be able to pick em out immediately.

Besides radarsearching is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it just simulates the pilots (average) eyesight. Good eyesight would mean being able to pick out and ID targets at say 20 km. and excellent at 40km. If you want to reduce the padlock range to say 3 km or less, it just means your virtual pilot is not in the right place flying aircraft, because he has very bad eyesight.

The purpose of padlock is to naturally have it follow the object of interest never losing it from sight. Lose sight, lose the fight. That is what the real pilots mean when they talk about padlock. I mean, what is the purpose of padlock if you spend most of your time trying to reacquire the bandit fumbling with the hatswitch/mouse? Isn't that the thing we want to avoid when we use computerpadlock? I mean if you like fumbling with the hatswitch you might as well play without padlock alltogether, which is ok too, but not if you want to use padlock.

And the most silly idea is to have padlock only kick in in forward view. That would be the ultimate ruin of padlock. If i were to use padlock i would want it to track objects in any direction that i was looking at the time. Padlock is not just for shooting the guy down you have locked. It is also for effective defensive maneuvering. Or do you guys never "padlock" a bandit behind you? LOL. You can only start to counter effectively what you can see (or padlock). Again, lose sight, lose the fight.

That's why a good padlock would be a padlock that can at least padlock the dots and never loses lock unless you explicitly want it to. With trackIR i can padlock the dots at 10km away, and i never lose track of a bandit in a knifefight, unless i want to. And you better believe that i track bandits who appear behind me, would be very stupid to only start tracking bandits that appear in forward view.
The most important purpose of padlock is to never lose sight. Lose sight lose the fight.

Scragbat wrote:
- People are using Padlock as an exploit. You may be
- well aware that you can hit the Padlock key and it
- will find an enemy a/c near to you hidden by terrain
- (the radar exploit).
-
- Can we have Padlock patched so that it only
- activates if enemy a/c is visible in your gunsight.
- This will then stop pilots from using what is a good
- implementation of head movement as an exploit.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 02:17 PM
Dnmy wrote:

- And the most silly idea is to have padlock only kick
- in in forward view. That would be the ultimate ruin
- of padlock. If i were to use padlock i would want it
- to track objects in any direction that i was looking
- at the time. Padlock is not just for shooting the
- guy down you have locked. It is also for effective
- defensive maneuvering. Or do you guys never
- "padlock" a bandit behind you? LOL. You can only
- start to counter effectively what you can see (or
- padlock). Again, lose sight, lose the fight.


I'd already corrected myslef in saying that it shouldn't be limited to just a forward view...

- Actually, I just thought why that would not be a good idea myself. This would limit you to only being able to aquire padlock with a forward only view....

- What about padlock only being aquired in relation to the centre of where your pilot is looking? A certain radius??
If NME a/c falls into this radius when the pilot shifts his gaze BINGO! target aquired. This would work with my original idea about the gunsight but also where your pilot is looking.

Like Pentallion said, something like a 3inch radius from the centre of your screen for PL to aquire. The centre of the screen being where your pilot is looking.
You dont have periphery vison of 360 degress. I think rabbits do (eyes on the side of their head), but were are not rabbits! PL would be awful if it locked on any a/c within 360 degrees of you looking forward!
The radius needs to be debated, think it may need to be more than 3inches.
PL range definately needs to be lessened, maybe just a much shorter range is the answer...

At the end of the day, I just worry about the scanning capabilities of PL and think that is why a lot of servers disable it, not necesarrily because they server has TrackIR. I think PL is ace and love using it.
I don't want it crippled, just improved and to be accepted as a simulation of a pilot tracking an aircraft.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. PL simulates something you would do in RL without thinking. Follows an aircraft you are tracking with your eyes. It's too awkward to be moving your view with your mouse while flying with your stick. Let the computer track it if it has been aquired by PL in a resonable way. Let it do the work of moving your head while you do the flying...

Message Edited on 08/11/0302:34PM by Scragbat

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 02:39 PM
u are all talking about the internal padlock right?
most times i can track a target just fine with the hat but use the external pad when some one is firing at me?
ok ok ill give u that its not very realistic to fly like that but it looks really cool (and dont worrie it hasnt kept me alive yethttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 03:36 PM
Sorry, and no offense, but that's just another silly idea.

Just as silly as clicking with your mousecursor on the target you wanna padlock. I mean, are we totally forgetting what padlock is supposed to mimick here? It is supposed to be a means to not lose sight throughout the fight. Tracking a target in a most natural, smooth and fluent way. It is supposed to relieve the virtual pilot of the unnatural "burden" to fumble with hatswitches to acquire and track targets. Because for the real pilot turning his head and eyes is as natural as can be.

Instead, what you suggest is straying more and more away from that principle. You apply padlock radii/cones and limit padlock ranges to ranges that don't make sense at all, and all you'll be doing is crippling the padlock. What if a guy is using snapviews and the target is clearly visible but just outside the padlock cone? Well, that's tough luck for him, but the bandit can't be padlocked then, even though it would be painfully visible on his screen. And what if he's in the padlock cone, clearly visible, but just outside of padlock range? Again tough luck. So, no, this 3 inch radius limited range padlock idea is just nonsense and another step in the wrong direction.

Everything "visible" on your screen within visible range, should be padlockable, even if you're not looking directly at it. You say the padlock radius should be 3 inches? well my screen is slightly less than 17 inches wide and it's still not wide enough if you consider that the sim-dwarf lacks peripheral vision. Simply accept that the padlock radar search is not a bad side-effect at all, it's good, it simulates that the pilot has spotted a target at a certain distance. You wanna throw away the baby with the bathwater.

With trackIR i can be looking straight ahead in forward view, but from the corner of my eyes i can still spot a dot/bandit in the upper left corner of the screen. And then it's whammo!, and i can instantly start tracking it. Padlock should behave similarly.

And the solution is a button to automatically target the nearest bogey (which means not yet ID-ed) in the current (total) field of view. Padlock should be simple. If you make it complicated, it becomes a contraption far removed from what it's supposed to be mimicking: A pilot looking around to track his target. Something he does automatically without thinking about it, without fumbling with hatswitches, mouses etc, padlock radii/cones, padlock ranges etc.

Scragbat wrote:

- Like Pentallion said, something like a 3inch radius
- from the centre of your screen for PL to aquire.
- The centre of the screen being where your pilot is
- looking.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif