Am I the only one who dislikes the auto-switching to Target mode on the navball?

[Dunbaratu]

If you would rather have to manually switch modes every time you begin and end a target approach, why do you not manually check that you're in the right mode when you do the same now?

You're just not seeing the inherent difference here between having to keep track of what YOU did versus having to keep track of which of the things YOU did got overridden by something automatic.

It's like pressing the accelerator pedal when driving and having the car decide that what you really must have meant was the brake pedal, ignoring your input and applying the brake instead.

And to further the analogy, it's like doing that to FIRST TIME drivers without mentioning what's going on, and having the drivers go "but I thought that was the pedal did something else? You're telling me to press the gas pedal to stop?? Really?? I'm confused."

Tutorials that tell first time players how to dock and mention how you "burn prograde" and "burn retrograde" when near the target confused the hell out of me when nobody mentioned that the navball mode changed automatically - so I was thinking, quite correctly mind you, that this made no sense why this worked. Because it doesn't make sense, if you think the navball is showing your orbital prograde and retrograde markers, which of course you naturally WOULD if the change isn't made obvious or manually done.

Two ways to make the change obvious are:

1 - A very noticable warning (changing the title on the navball isn't it).

or better yet:

2 - Make learning how the navball works part of what a new player is supposed to learn, and make the player switch the mode. Then the player knows that it changed and is themselves responsible for that change, instead of making them second-guess what automatic things the game did without them knowing.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Steven Mading

[Sean Mirrsen]

If that decision was made to prevent me from plowing into the rear of the car in front of me, then I would welcome it.

I really have nothing against the automation, but probably because I see the logic behind it and see that it matches my own. The navball switches to target mode when you a) have a target and are close enough to the target to want to do target-relative maneuvers. It will stay in target mode as long as you have a target and are within range of it, and will return to orbit mode when either of those conditions are not met. As long as it functions in this intended way, the automated navball switching does exactly what I need it to. It's less of a brake/accelerator control, and more of an automatic transmission. You might want it to stay in second, but unless the designer saw fit to add the option, you're out of luck.

I say again, I wouldn't be opposed to an option being added to keep it manual. Just that I wouldn't use it. I'm fine with the automated system as-is.

[Dunbaratu]

It's less of a brake/accelerator control, and more of an automatic transmission. You might want it to stay in second, but unless the designer saw fit to add the option, you're out of luck.

A better analogy would be that I'm trying to put it in reverse and the car shifted it back into first without warning me. The target prograde direction can often be totally the opposite of the oribital prograde direction, with consequences just as disastrous as thinking your car is in reverse when it's not.

I say again, I wouldn't be opposed to an option being added to keep it manual. Just that I wouldn't use it. I'm fine with the automated system as-is.

I'd be okay with both options as well, but still be against the way it works now being the starting default that new players see. I'd rather see it as manual by default and automated being the setting you have to change to activate it. It's hinders learning the way it is now.

Part of why I dislike it is that I cant' change the game's idea of how close it thinks I'll be performing target maneuvers from. The game seems to believe that I'd perform target maneuvers from 30-40 km away. No. I'd rather correct that orbitally first and get a closer intercept before changing modes, but the game auto-changes modes while I'm still on map view trying to arrange that closer intercept and that's what really irks me. I can't see ANY circumstances in which someone would use target mode on the navball from the map view rather than from close view, but the game seems to think I want to.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Steven Mading

[Sean Mirrsen]

Eh, by the time I'm 50km from the target I'm usually already on an intersection course, or an orbit planned far enough ahead to intersect at a later point. The times when I need to do an orbital correction burn from within 50km to the target (instead of a direct approach) are so few and far between that I'd be far more inconvenienced by the lack of auto-switch. Skin-of-your-pants barely-outside-atmosphere orbital approaches are far from the norm, you usually have at least 10 to 20Km breathing room. But, hey, that's just me and my way of playing.

[Designer225]

Auto-camera mode is at Free mode when in deorbit trajectory or landed, and switches to Orbital mode when a stable orbit is achieved. Chase mode is never chosen for some reason, but Chase mode is similar to Orbiter Space Flight Simulator's Target-Relative camera mode.

[allmappedout]

I like it how it is at the moment. Generally, if you have a target set, you have an understanding that in the proximity of it, you will be relative to that body. Moreover, knowing what orbit you're in will help you understand whether what you're about to do is silly or not - if you're equatorial, burning at the retrograde marker only makes sense if you're facing 90/270 (depending on direction of the orbit), so it's not just a case of point and fire all the time.

Plus, it does tell you when it's changed, it's just not a huge honking great sign post. Also, looking at your speed should give you a huge clue too - if you're travelling at 2km/s, you're probably in orbit mode. If you're travelling at 20m/s, you're in target mode!

I can't see ANY circumstances in which someone would use target mode on the navball from the map view rather than from close view, but the game seems to think I want to.

Also, if you're on the map view, the maneuver node still works as an orbital mode, so if you're setting up a close approach, use the tools available to you and aim at the target marker instead.

Edited August 19, 2013 by allmappedout

[Dunbaratu]

Eh, by the time I'm 50km from the target I'm usually already on an intersection course, or an orbit planned far enough ahead to intersect at a later point. The times when I need to do an orbital correction burn from within 50km to the target (instead of a direct approach) are so few and far between that I'd be far more inconvenienced by the lack of auto-switch. Skin-of-your-pants barely-outside-atmosphere orbital approaches are far from the norm, you usually have at least 10 to 20Km breathing room. But, hey, that's just me and my way of playing.

I can usually get orbital interceptions of < 1km, except on Jool where <10 km is the best I can hope for because of the large scale.

And this has nothing to do with being barely outside atmosphere. I never mentioned altitude so I have no idea why you brought that up. I aim for interceptions of < 1km up at 100km and 200km orbits. I almost never manage to get my gravity turns on launch optimized enough to try for low orbits of 80km or so, preferring more breathing space than that.

Docking maneuvers from 50km away are VERY inefficient.

[Dunbaratu]

I like it how it is at the moment. Generally, if you have a target set, you have an understanding that in the proximity of it, you will be relative to that body.

You have to set the target LONG before you get near it because setting the target is how you get the data for closest interceptions, and inclination deviations.

Plus, it does tell you when it's changed, it's just not a huge honking great sign post. Also, looking at your speed should give you a huge clue too - if you're travelling at 2km/s, you're probably in orbit mode. If you're travelling at 20m/s, you're in target mode!

True, but again, this is an undocumented feature that feels like a betrayal to the new player who wasn't warned that the game with change it without being asked to. Yes there are workarounds but they ARE workarounds to a problem that is artificially created. It's like your car shifting into reverse without telling you because it noticed you were in a parking lot. Yes, you can notice that the gearshift lever has moved, but that still doesn't make it reasonable for the car to do that without your input first.

Also, if you're on the map view, the maneuver node still works as an orbital mode, so if you're setting up a close approach, use the tools available to you and aim at the target marker instead.

So the solution to the problem is to take extra time doing a thing that would have been unnecessary without the problem. Not everyone needs maneuver nodes to do orbital interceptions, and they can be a hassle rather than a help when they're not needed.

[allmappedout]

(snip)

So the solution to the problem is to take extra time doing a thing that would have been unnecessary without the problem. Not everyone needs maneuver nodes to do orbital interceptions, and they can be a hassle rather than a help when they're not needed.

I think the crux of the matter is this; apart from when you're docking with something, why would you set something as a target? If you're setting it as a target, odds are you want to get close to it. And when you get close to it, you want to know things relative to that body. When you undock, you're not automatically targetting anything, so it stays in orbit mode. The fact is that it only switches to that mode when you select a target, and almost always at a time when it's pretty relevant. It would be more hassle to have to switch it every time because it switches to a more appropriate mode when it is most likely to be used.

Any other time you can think of is an exception to this rule. I guess the analogy that you used is that...if you're in a parking lot....what are you most likely to be doing? Parking..

Also, the whole new player thing? Once bitten, twice shy. You don't make the same mistake multiple times. Yes, it's not as clear as it could be, but disabling the feature just because a person may once make one mistake is overkill.

Edited August 19, 2013 by allmappedout

[leax256]

solution for all those who hate the auto cam switch, set it to orbital because auto switches it by it's self.

[Frederf]

There are quite a few reasons to set a target other than rendezvous. Targetting the Mun in Kerbin orbit tells you your absolute inclination. Getting coplanar with a space station before beginning a landing descent. Adjusting orbit to achieve a closer rendezvous (still want orbital info). Getting a position vector on a landing site only. Putting satellites in a constellation.

I must agree that the silent and automatic change on a primary flight instrument is a poor design. It doesn't look different or make a beep or tell you in any way. What happens is the markers change angles and the speed readout changes numerical value with exactly no way to tell that a change has occurred except the values displayed which isn't reliable. All that you need to recognize that there is a genuine problem is the number of cases where a user has unwittingly used the navball values unaware that the context has changed. That's all the proof you need.

[razark]

It doesn't look different or make a beep or tell you in any way. What happens is the markers change angles and the speed readout changes numerical value with exactly no way to tell that a change has occurred except the values displayed which isn't reliable.

No way to tell, except that it says "Target" instead of "Orbit"? And if automatic switching is such an issue, how come no one is complaining that it switches from "Surface" to "Orbit" on the way up and "Orbit" to "Surface" on the way back down? It's simply a matter of learning to use the instruments you have, and if you're looking at the velocity, you're already looking at "Target" or "Orbit".

[BurntPhoenix]

to stop everybody bickering at each other about their literacy in flying digital spacecraft, friendships in their prime falling into disrepair, and world war 3 from breaking out, why don't we just put a small padlock button next to the velocity indicator? you don't have to go all the way into settings if you don't like turncoat velocity data, and if you like auto switching, you could just ignore it totally and scoff at the unworthy masses. And nobody gets hurt.

[allmappedout]

There are quite a few reasons to set a target other than rendezvous. Targetting the Mun in Kerbin orbit tells you your absolute inclination. Getting coplanar with a space station before beginning a landing descent. Adjusting orbit to achieve a closer rendezvous (still want orbital info). Getting a position vector on a landing site only. Putting satellites in a constellation.

So what you're really saying, in all of these situations (except the last where, by constellation presumably you are meaning a set of satellites very close to each other (and thus would want to kill rVel??), rather than phased about an orbit which would mean that you wouldn't get close enough to engage the auto-target switch), is that you want a readout of some information that you can't get any other way except for using a tool for a purpose other than the one it was created for?

In which case, I'm all for that! Mech-jeb style readouts would be really useful. But the targeting part of the maneuveur node and rendevous system is meant for docking, and for that it works really very well.

to stop everybody bickering at each other about their literacy in flying digital spacecraft, friendships in their prime falling into disrepair, and world war 3 from breaking out, why don't we just put a small padlock button next to the velocity indicator? you don't have to go all the way into settings if you don't like turncoat velocity data, and if you like auto switching, you could just ignore it totally and scoff at the unworthy masses. And nobody gets hurt.

That sounds like fighting talk... hehe

Edited August 20, 2013 by allmappedout

[Dunbaratu]

to stop everybody bickering at each other about their literacy in flying digital spacecraft, friendships in their prime falling into disrepair, and world war 3 from breaking out, why don't we just put a small padlock button next to the velocity indicator? you don't have to go all the way into settings if you don't like turncoat velocity data, and if you like auto switching, you could just ignore it totally and scoff at the unworthy masses. And nobody gets hurt.

The padlock is an excellent UI fix to the problem. "change automatically" versus "do what I told you to dammit".

[Dunbaratu]

I think the crux of the matter is this; apart from when you're docking with something, why would you set something as a target? If you're setting it as a target, odds are you want to get close to it.

Yes, WANT TO get close to it. You're arguing as if selecting a target is only done after you already are close to it, which is false. It shows inclination differences, and shows the next intercept - all of which are designed to be used from a distance to help GET close.

Any other time you can think of is an exception to this rule. I guess the analogy that you used is that...if you're in a parking lot....what are you most likely to be doing? Parking..

But to make the analogy correct you need to talk about what happens when you're not in the parking lot YET but the car switches to parking mode anyway because you declared your intent to head that way soon.

Also, the whole new player thing? Once bitten, twice shy. You don't make the same mistake multiple times. Yes, it's not as clear as it could be, but disabling the feature just because a person may once make one mistake is overkill.

I think what annoys me most about this misfeature is the way you phrased that right there. You're pretending *I* made the mistake when you know perfectly well *I* didn't do the mistaken choice of switching the modes. I didn't make the mistake. The computer did. It overrode my inputs with what it thought I wanted, and it thought wrongly. The way I'm trying to fly it, being within a few tens of Km is nowhere near enough to want to switch to docking maneuvers. And it's not enough to tell the computer just once to switch it back to orbital mode. I have to keep doing it again and again because it keeps switching it back again on me if I'm not constantly watching for it to override my choices.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Steven Mading
mismatched quote tags

[Dunbaratu]

No way to tell, except that it says "Target" instead of "Orbit"? And if automatic switching is such an issue, how come no one is complaining that it switches from "Surface" to "Orbit" on the way up and "Orbit" to "Surface" on the way back down? It's simply a matter of learning to use the instruments you have, and if you're looking at the velocity, you're already looking at "Target" or "Orbit".

Oh come on. You know perfectly well that "surface" and "orbit" marks are typically only a few degrees off from each other, while "target" and "orbit" can be as much as 180 degrees off. You want to know the reason for the difference in how annoying it is - that's the reason.

[shand]

I think it may be time to simmer down... the caps lock is starting to creep in.

on topic: I agree a padlock would be nice. so yes, do that please devs.

but you are blowing this all out of proportion. This isn't like the car changing gear when you enter a car park. this is like your speedo changing from "ground speed" to "speed relative to speed limit" or perhaps more realistically, the GPS zooming in your map as you slow down. there is the possibility you don't want the zoom level to change, but most do it by default.

if you are lining up on the pro or retrograde marker your eyes are solely focused on the navball. now assuming you are sitting a vaguely sensible distance away from the screen this means the whole area of the navball region makes up approximately 15 degrees of view. that means EVERYTHING in that region is in your fovea, IE: the bit your eye is designed to look at. the speed readout and the mode selection are all there, as is the navball (with heading scale) and markers. So, any change will be obvious as it happens - exactly as obvious as SOI changes - and the "small" mode selection screen is actually massive. when you change camera angle the size of the warning is relatively small compared to the field of view that changes.

the point im trying to make here is, if you are making a manuevre based purely on the navball (which is fair enough) you are looking at the bit where it tells you. You dont expect a big sign saying "RCS IS TURNED ON" because there is an sign right there if you want to check.

And a final note: yes the tutorials suck - i dont even know if they are still included in the game - because they are finishing the game. at this stage in development new players are meant to rely heavily on trial and error as well as the wiki. in the long run, and i mean long run, the in game tutorials will be developed to a stage where wiki/forum will be for enthusiasts rather then "how do i move the seat closer to the screen" level of learning.

SO to summarise: Yes a good suggestion. a small GUI change will make things easier and functionally better with little to no impact on styling or gameplay.

BUT: the information is right there, where you are looking, with a clear indictation, and the tutorials will improve.

Now, take a deep breath and count to 35 before replying.

[allmappedout]

Yes, WANT TO get close to it. You're arguing as if selecting a target is only done after you already are close to it, which is false. It shows inclination differences, and shows the next intercept - all of which are designed to be used from a distance to help GET close.

You make it sound like as soon as you select a target it switches to target mode. That's false. It stays in Orbit. The only time it moves to target mode is when you're within a few (maybe 100 or so) km of closest approach. That may sound like a lot, but it's a fairly small distance really. You're completely correct in that it's used to get close, but it doesn't switch upon selection, it switches at what I consider a perfectly reasonable time; when you ARE closing on the target, and when you are close to the target.

Back to the analogy, it's like auto switching for reverse after you've found your space and you're lined up, instead of when you enter the carpark, or like Google autocomplete; it doesn't always get it right but it's trying to help you by anticipating what you're trying to do. Noone complains that when you type "Face" into Google that you get 'facebook' as a suggestion, as opposed to 'face off' (the film). You may not want facebook, but odds are that you do (as most people who type that (ie: use that function) want it).

shand is right in the points they make; if you're watching the navball, you should be aware of the switch. There's no button to press, but the simple fact is you need to be aware of how you're pointing your spacecraft. You shouldn't just blindly follow markers without a bit of understanding as to what they're telling you.

To be very very fair to the game as well, although the tutorial is bad, it does cover the orbit/surface/target switching feature in detail, IIRC.

Edited August 21, 2013 by allmappedout

[leax256]

Yes, WANT TO get close to it. You're arguing as if selecting a target is only done after you already are close to it, which is false. It shows inclination differences, and shows the next intercept - all of which are designed to be used from a distance to help GET close.

But to make the analogy correct you need to talk about what happens when you're not in the parking lot YET but the car switches to parking mode anyway because you declared your intent to head that way soon.

I think what annoys me most about this misfeature is the way you phrased that right there. You're pretending *I* made the mistake when you know perfectly well *I* didn't do the mistaken choice of switching the modes. I didn't make the mistake. The computer did. It overrode my inputs with what it thought I wanted, and it thought wrongly. The way I'm trying to fly it, being within a few tens of Km is nowhere near enough to want to switch to docking maneuvers. And it's not enough to tell the computer just once to switch it back to orbital mode. I have to keep doing it again and again because it keeps switching it back again on me if I'm not constantly watching for it to override my choices.

I'm still asking why you had a target selected while you were deorbiting? also, the velosity value changes by alot.

[Psycix]

Oh come on. You know perfectly well that "surface" and "orbit" marks are typically only a few degrees off from each other, while "target" and "orbit" can be as much as 180 degrees off. You want to know the reason for the difference in how annoying it is - that's the reason.

Having your velocity go down from 2200 to 156 and having your markers flip up to 180 degrees is quite noticeable isn't it?

People should check their instruments before burning recklessly, especially if they just targeted something.

I don't understand how this can be a problem.

[Dunbaratu]

Burning recklessly, especially if they just targeted something.

I don't understand how this can be a problem.

It is unreasonable to expect players to anticipate that the computer will override their choices.

[Dunbaratu]

I'm still asking why you had a target selected while you were deorbiting? also, the velosity value changes by alot.

The velocity value doesn't cause your burn to be in the incorrect direction. Target mode vs Orbit mode does.

[Dunbaratu]

You make it sound like as soon as you select a target it switches to target mode. That's false. It stays in Orbit. The only time it moves to target mode is when you're within a few (maybe 100 or so) km of closest approach. That may sound like a lot, but it's a fairly small distance really.

That is simply not true. If you're 100 km away you're really wasting a lot of fuel if you're trying to perform docking maneuvers from there instead of trying to get closer using orbital techniques.

Shouldn't the fact that I'm on the map view be a good enough clue to the game that I'm not trying to dock yet? This isn't as good of a solution as letting me have actual full control but it's at least more sane than what it does now which is based purely on distance. If you like to go into close-up view and start docking from 100 km away, fine you can do that, but if I stay on the map screen that's a pretty good indication I'm still operating orbitally.

Back to the analogy, it's like auto switching for reverse after you've found your space and you're lined up, instead of when you enter the carpark

False. Remember your own admission that it's from 100 km away. That's not as close as you're portraying it to be.

shand is right in the points they make; if you're watching the navball, you should be aware of the switch. There's no button to press, but the simple fact is you need to be aware of how you're pointing your spacecraft. You shouldn't just blindly follow markers without a bit of understanding as to what they're telling you.

I really can't understand how so many people see no problem with the game overriding the decisions the player made.

To be very very fair to the game as well, although the tutorial is bad, it does cover the orbit/surface/target switching feature in detail, IIRC.

No. It doesn't. I played through it when I first started. It does not cover it.

[Dunbaratu]

I think it may be time to simmer down... the caps lock is starting to creep in.

on topic: I agree a padlock would be nice. so yes, do that please devs.

What's pissing me off is the constant claim that it's player incompetence when the error was not made by the player. If the game had allowed the player's decisions to stand instead of overriding them, there wouldn't be a problem.

but you are blowing this all out of proportion. This isn't like the car changing gear when you enter a car park. this is like your speedo changing from "ground speed" to "speed relative to speed limit" or perhaps more realistically, the GPS zooming in your map as you slow down. there is the possibility you don't want the zoom level to change, but most do it by default.

Analogy fail. None of those cause it to reverse the direction.

if you are lining up on the pro or retrograde marker your eyes are solely focused on the navball. now assuming you are sitting a vaguely sensible distance away from the screen this means the whole area of the navball region makes up approximately 15 degrees of view. that means EVERYTHING in that region is in your fovea, IE: the bit your eye is designed to look at. the speed readout and the mode selection are all there, as is the navball (with heading scale) and markers. So, any change will be obvious as it happens - exactly as obvious as SOI changes - and the "small" mode selection screen is actually massive. when you change camera angle the size of the warning is relatively small compared to the field of view that changes.

Only if I am willing to sit at my computer and wait for 15 minutes to slowly approach. If time warp is being used, as it always will be when orbiting around to get closer, then you have to watch the map to watch when to drop out of time warp, not the navball at the bottom. And the automatic switch occurs during the time warp, while eyes have to be up on the map to avoid zooming past the point you wanted, not down on the navball.