Invisible EWR

[c3f59]

It would be cool to have an invisible EWR in the same sense that we have an invisible FARP. On newer maps we have a lot of those beautifully modelled Radar sites that have no function. An invisible EWR would serve to make those map objects active EWR sites by placing it on top in the mission editor.

[Tank50us]

10 hours ago, c3f59 said:

It would be cool to have an invisible EWR in the same sense that we have an invisible FARP. On newer maps we have a lot of those beautifully modelled Radar sites that have no function. An invisible EWR would serve to make those map objects active EWR sites by placing it on top in the mission editor.

Bonus points if we can have it 'play' certain radars so that it appears on RWR as the desired emitter.

[twistking]

a very crude solution to a real problem. i think ED should find a more elegant solution than forcing players to place "invisible" RWR over non-functional map objects:
there should be no combat-relevant non-functional map-objects to begin with...

Edited Saturday at 12:50 PM by twistking

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, twistking said:

a very crude solution to an a real problem. i think ED should find a more elegant solution than forcing players to place "invisible" RWR over non-functional map objects:
there should be no combat-relevant non-functional map-objects to begin with...

Definitely agreed.

Personally, I'd much rather EWR sites be in a state suitable for placing functional units on - even if that means radomes aren't present (leaving a flat surface, be it a tower/pedestal whatever). Radomes can always be present as a static object that can then be placed over the top (something that's already possible as-is - see the spoiler of this post for a rather crude example).

Static templates can then be used to quickly load an EWR network, allowing it to be reused in missions.

I really do not see the point of adding decorative EWR sites, when they are and should have a relevant gameplay element and should tangibly affect air combat. It means their suitable for eye-candy and nothing else (and deleting them via the scenery object remove zone usually causes collateral damage and, in cases where EWR's are mounted on towers, result in having a degraded LOS and/or radar horizon). Doing it the way I've set out would allow them to be a tangible gameplay element while providing eye-candy.

Radars that are also present as non-functional map objects should also absolutely be made into functional ground units. Especially those that have model files like any other ground unit (in that they are in the right format, are appropriately animated and have a destroyed model), that have been in the game for over 12 years at this point, and are incredible prolific, staple Cold War GCI/EW radars *hint hint* P-37 and PRV-11.

[c3f59]

2 hours ago, twistking said:

a very crude solution to a real problem. i think ED should find a more elegant solution than forcing players to place "invisible" RWR over non-functional map objects:
there should be no combat-relevant non-functional map-objects to begin with...

Having all Radars on the map be functional by default wouldn't be good for mission creation. We need to be able to choose where EWR sites are for our missions. And that's presuming it would even be possible to have all modeled radar sites be active at the same time without completely tanking performance.

I guess a compromise could be to treat RADAR sites on the map similar to warehouses. You could then assign them to a specific faction and have a gui panel similar to what warehouses have, that would let you configure the site as needed. All of that should also be scriptable, of course.

[c3f59]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I really do not see the point of adding decorative EWR sites

I think the point is that they look great and add variety. I like the new maps looking more beautiful than 20 year old Caucasus. I like it for helicopter missions especially. But we're in agreement as to the principle. Having non-functional eye candy is stupid. We've come up with three ways to do better now, so why not have functional eye candy?

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, c3f59 said:

I think the point is that they look great and add variety. I like the new maps looking more beautiful than 20 year old Caucasus. I like it for helicopter missions especially. But we're in agreement as to the principle. Having non-functional eye candy is stupid. We've come up with three ways to do better now, so why not have functional eye candy?

I mean... they could be weather radars too.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, c3f59 said:

Having all Radars on the map be functional by default wouldn't be good for mission creation. We need to be able to choose where EWR sites are for our missions. And that's presuming it would even be possible to have all modeled radar sites be active at the same time without completely tanking performance.

I guess a compromise could be to treat RADAR sites on the map similar to warehouses. You could then assign them to a specific faction and have a gui panel similar to what warehouses have, that would let you configure the site as needed. All of that should also be scriptable, of course.

I was about to suggest something like this. You could select the side and then leave it empty, or select an air defense battery from your current list of available units. Then the AI would populate the site using a battery template.      

 

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

I mean... they could be weather radars too.

I figure if the scripting got implemented that could be one of the options 

2 hours ago, c3f59 said:

I think the point is that they look great and add variety. I like the new maps looking more beautiful than 20 year old Caucasus. I like it for helicopter missions especially. But we're in agreement as to the principle. Having non-functional eye candy is stupid. We've come up with three ways to do better now, so why not have functional eye candy?

An improved Caucus map would be the best place to work on the scripting idea