The other problem with using WRA to control emissions is that unless you've memorized the relevant specs for each weapon you're using, you have to repeatedly refer to the database to determine which weapons to disable. WRA doesn't tell you which weapons require the firing unit to energize sensors for, so I have to double check which standard missiles, for example, require illumination and that adds a significant amount of time to the process. This would be less of an issue if WRA had some little symbol or something that indicates weapons that require active guidance.
I have memorized the relevant specs for many of the weapons I use most commonly, but if there is even a hint of self-doubt them I'm going to make sure. I'm opening the DB again. I'm not disabling the weapons just for fun, misconfiguration could cause damage to or loss of the unit- so you bet I'm frequently spending time consulting the DB.
I want my SM-6 in play because there is an E-2 nearby to guide it while the ship stays silent, but if I neglect to disable any one of the many SM1/2 variants, Sea Darts, Crotales, etc... well... RIP. This is where a silent (or whatever you want to call it) EMCON state makes sense IMHO.
Yup, and that's from the human-player-gui perspective, now try scripting that, can't even do it exactly because you can't query weapon details to know which would be the ones you need to change, so now you need a static list to check against, again kind of doable but you just introduced at lot more unneccessary complexity. Used to just be able to flip emcon to passive and be assured the unit wouldn't fire if emissions were needed to do so, simple and ~3 lines of code. Not so much now, and just like you I noticed this the most with wanting silent ddg's with sm-6 being driven by e-2d's, or 120d being driven by same. I'm reasonably sure there are other situations where this comes up, and will increasingly as munitions being driven by other units radars continues to advance and affect more units.
This isn't complicated from my viewpoint. Active means keep everything on-period, Passive used to mean keep everything off-period, it doesn't anymore. This was easy to understand and account for, but now passive doesn't really mean passive, even if you take manual control. Which in and of itself is fine, though I think changing that default was not the best call (because you just changed a long running assumption authors made in their scenes and code), rather adding something additional to allow overriding might have been a better approach, but I'm not going to belabor it.
The "you can accomplish what you want via WRA" is accurate, you technically can, but I also agree it's not just inconvenient for the player and authors it's an odd\convoluted place to address an EMCON issue. Yes the game is complex piece of software, and 'passive' used to be a nice over-ride from keeping certain complex things from happening when you didn't want them to happen, but now it does not. Having the ability to restore the prior behavior is needed imho, without unnecessarily adjusting WRA for each potentially effected weapon on each unit, and then having to reverse that potentially shortly there after in certain situations. Reading through this thread I really don't understand the hostility toward asking for a more direct way to restore prior, and often enough, desired behavior. Is something like this such a big deal to enable passive being truly passive again?
We could argue all day about if it should be restored as the default, or if the above example is the right place for the option, or any number of things like the wording (I don't care what you call it), but I will argue all day it needs to exist as an easy enabled option no matter how re-implemented. I see this is logged for investigation now. Thanks you, I appreciate the developers taking an second look to consider this.
< Message edited by KnightHawk75 -- 11/6/2020 8:06:47 PM >