investigating Radar burn through ECM target range changed to 10NM?

[Nike_Blue]

Radar burn through ECM target range changed to 10NM?I tested in SP with STT.

ECM BURN THROUGH.trk

TWS auto track burn through changed to 5nm.

ECM BURN THROUGH_TWS.trk

[BIGNEWY]

thank you for the report and the tracks, we have checked with the team and it is correct as is. 

Burn through calculations were redone based on available data. 

thank you 

[Red_Camarada]

10 hours ago, Nike_Blue said:

Radar burn through ECM target range changed to 10NM?I tested in SP with STT.

ECM BURN THROUGH.trk 335.58 kB · 3 downloads

TWS auto track burn through changed to 5nm.

ECM BURN THROUGH_TWS.trk 425.01 kB · 2 downloads

this is ocurring in other planes like F16? did you tried against SAMs if then are more prone to ECM interference?

[Xhonas]

14 minutes ago, Red_Camarada said:

this is ocurring in other planes like F16? did you tried against SAMs if then are more prone to ECM interference?

Just tested it using an AI Su27 with an option set to "ecm always on" aaand its not affecting other aircraft. The F16 burns through the jammer around 29nm and all FC3 jets still the standard 21nm. So.. the Hornet got the worst of it. The question is, is this a change that is being implemented partially and the F18 was the first one to receive it, or is this a change that will only be implemented in the F/A-18 because thats the only jet they could find this type of info...

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Burn through calculations were redone based on available data. 

Did you redo the calculations only for the F/A-18 or for all DCS jets? and by the way, i just tested this against different types of jammer and they burn through at the exact same range. I find it hard to believe that the Su27s cross eyed jammer is as powerful as the F4s ALQ-131... @BIGNEWY

Edited October 23 by Xhonas

[BIGNEWY]

We have asked the team to take a closer look. Once I know some more I will let you all know. 

thank you 

[Cepheus76]

18 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

thank you for the report and the tracks, we have checked with the team and it is correct as is. 

Burn through calculations were redone based on available data. 

thank you 

I do not wish to be cantenkerous, but I really do wonder why something like this was never mentioned in any patch notes with a line like "Fixed: Radar burns through jamming at too great distances, burn-through distance tweaked to more realistic values" 

[inZane]

I have a really hard time believing that the US Navy/Marines thought that a 10nm EW burnthrough would be acceptible when the AN/APG-73 was developed and installed. Since all this data collected is from "public" sources, I would like to see some receipts from ED.

 

[Callsign JoNay]

If this change is correct as is, the Hornet is basically dead in the water in any PVP engagements. I know it's a study sim, and game balance is not the objective, but it will be outclassed by almost everything. I guess we'll have to rely on those MSI shots. Just don't think too hard about how the E-2/E-3 is getting burn through from 150+ miles.

[rob10]

On 10/23/2025 at 6:52 AM, BIGNEWY said:

thank you for the report and the tracks, we have checked with the team and it is correct as is. 

Burn through calculations were redone based on available data. 

I'll also echo the comment that if this is indeed "correct as is" and was deliberately changed to current values, not mentioning the change in the changelog was a massive and unacceptable oversight by ED.  Communication is not something ED excels at and needs to work on.  I'm hopeful it wasn't included since it wasn't meant to be that massive of change made on it.

 

[key_stroked]

On 10/23/2025 at 3:52 AM, BIGNEWY said:

thank you for the report and the tracks, we have checked with the team and it is correct as is. 

Burn through calculations were redone based on available data. 

thank you 

F-16 burn through is unchanged at 35nm.
F-18 burn through is now 13 nm.

In what universe is this "correct as is"? Did the team not consider this will create a significant imbalance in PVP servers?

[Viral-51st-Vfw]

F-16 burn through is unchanged at 35nm.
F-18 burn through is now 13 nm.

In what universe is this "correct as is"? Did the team not consider this will create a significant imbalance in PVP servers?

Nit picking on phrasing a little though I agree on the underlying issue.

"Balance" isn't a consideration.

The counter to that though is
Dcs world (simulated) electromagnetic "physics" shouldn't be module dependant.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

[Blackfyre]

15 hours ago, Viral-51st-Vfw said:

"Balance" isn't a consideration.

Well, it should be. Modules don't exist in vacuum, they influence each other in the World. And making one module artificially stronger or weaker than others breaks that world and makes crafting online missions/servers way harder than it needs to be. Such vital systems as a radar should be simulated equally for every fighter in game.

P.S. I can't fly my favorite module (F-18) for two months now because she has a broken radar in one way or another and this simply would kill it for PvP environment altogether, unless all modules would obey the same set of rules.

[Czar]

16 hours ago, Viral-51st-Vfw said:

Dcs world (simulated) electromagnetic "physics" shouldn't be module dependant.

100% agree with this.

Same goes for the visors stuff being implemented module per module.

Making these changes, which are massive in values difference, one module at a time causes a lot of problems.
13nm vs 30+nm is wild...

I'm glad I'm not a multiplayer only customer but the option to be able to do it properly on a module I bought should always be there.

[rob10]

1 hour ago, Blackfyre said:

Well, it should be. Modules don't exist in vacuum, they influence each other in the World. And making one module artificially stronger or weaker than others breaks that world and makes crafting online missions/servers way harder than it needs to be. Such vital systems as a radar should be simulated equally for every fighter in game.

If you want a game with balance, try something other than DCS.  DCS aims for as close to IRL behaviour as possible.  That means you're never going to have "balance" and there is no way to try to achieve it without deliberately improving or nerfing things away from IRL (yes, I get it, not everything is perfectly true to RL currently, but they aim for as close as possible).

I'm really hopeful that either this change was a mistake or other modules are update quickly to match it because it seems weird that F-16 and F-18 would be that different.

Edited October 26 by rob10

[Viral-51st-Vfw]

We're not far off on what you're asking vs what I'm asking, and rob10 and czar are stating.

You're looking for equality between module a vs module b. Vs how czar rob and are are saying. We're saying the radar should behave "the same" based on dcs world "physics", and modules just pass their parameters to dcs world and we should expect a result back.  In a hypothetical if module a and module b pass the same parameters I would expect dcs world to give the same result back.  That doesn't seem to be how they implemented it. Like czar is stating it seems like they are implementing changes per module....

Eg they shouldn't compare fa-18 vs mig-29 and say "we need to nerf x so the aircraft become equal" in hoping they keep the mind set of "radar electromagnetic properties should behave xyz, and module a pass x and y as 10, 11. And module b as 43 and 6...or what have you. 

 

If that hypothetical was/could be true then yeah whatever burn thru calcs they did should just cascade everywhere. 

 

I have no real evidence of how they do it though, just observation

Edited October 26 by Viral-51st-Vfw

[Blackfyre]

21 minutes ago, rob10 said:

If you want a game with balance, try something other than DCS.  DCS aims for as close to IRL behaviour as possible.  That means you're never going to have "balance" and there is no way to try to achieve it without deliberately improving or nerfing things away from IRL (yes, I get it, not everything is perfectly true to RL currently, but they aim for as close as possible).

I'm really hopeful that either this change was a mistake or other modules are update quickly to match it because it seems weird that F-16 and F-18 would be that different.

Balance here is adherence by all modules to the same standards and common sense. You shouldn't give a very "realistic" radar to one aircraft and imagined and gamey capable to other. In DCS they should be both as realistic as possible, or neither. This is the balance I'm talking about. I don't believe that Hornet's radar is way way worse than F-16's, JF-17's, Mig-29's(!) and all others.

[Viral-51st-Vfw]

44 minutes ago, Blackfyre said:

Balance here is adherence by all modules to the same standards and common sense. You shouldn't give a very "realistic" radar to one aircraft and imagined and gamey capable to other. In DCS they should be both as realistic as possible, or neither. This is the balance I'm talking about. I don't believe that Hornet's radar is way way worse than F-16's, JF-17's, Mig-29's(!) and all others.

Sounds like we're all on the same page. 

We're all looking for "same simulation of radar electromagnetic behavior"

[Nike_Blue]

First: ED not tell us changes in changelogs.And always lie to us like "Radar fixed" in previous patch logs.In fact,only fixed a part,not tested just published.

 

Second: Like comments above,DCS should a standard platform,ECM environment should be the same as all modules.RealLife all modules like ED said.Not like this is one has real life,and that one is simple and fake.Do you think this is joke?  

[inZane]

There are so many changes that happen that are never mentioned in the changelogs. Take this one for example. Where in the change logs did it say that any radar modifications were done? This was all the changes that happened to the F-18 in the Oct 23rd patch:
 

DCS: F/A-18C Hornet by Eagle Dynamics 

• Added first-person view Visor effect.
• Fixed: JDAM/JSOW: QTY reset if another weapon is selected.
• Fixed: VR. Helmet is not drawn correctly when the "Force IPD Distance" parameter is changed.
• Fixed: RWR Friendly "NO ID" option not working in SA page.

This is a constant problem with all patch releases. They perform changes (intended or not) and do not list them in the changelogs. 

[BIGNEWY]

folks I should have some news to share soon, so please dont derail the thread

thank you 

[Pavlin_33]

Having a universal burn-through distance at 10nm would actually make a lot more sense, 'cause the current value doesn't do squat. This 21nm is a random value anyway, inherited from LOMAC.

[BIGNEWY]

Ive passed on the feedback to the team and the testers have been doing some tests, its clear it needs some work and it shouldn't be rushed, it needs some more research. We wont have any changes I am aware for the next patch but hopefully I can have some news for the one after. 

thank you 

[Blackfyre]

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Ive passed on the feedback to the team and the testers have been doing some tests, its clear it needs some work and it shouldn't be rushed, it needs some more research. We wont have any changes I am aware for the next patch but hopefully I can have some news for the one after. 

thank you 

I hope this research will be made for ALL full fidelity aircraft and/or jammers in such way that ALL modules would be affected equally. I get that for different aircraft there is different amount of information, but such essential system like a radar should be modelled on a same base for everyone. Otherwise, you could kill PvP multiplayer altogether.

[Spartan111sqn]

Please make it as much full fidelity as possible, not for any kind of game balance.

 

Thanks 

Edited 13 hours ago by Spartan111sqn

[rob10]

5 hours ago, Blackfyre said:

I hope this research will be made for ALL full fidelity aircraft and/or jammers in such way that ALL modules would be affected equally. I get that for different aircraft there is different amount of information, but such essential system like a radar should be modelled on a same base for everyone. Otherwise, you could kill PvP multiplayer altogether.

It's not completely clear what you're asking for, but if it's that ALL aircraft have exactly the same capabilities then I'll strongly disagree with your request.  Your last comment suggests this is what you're looking for.

If you're asking that all aircraft are modelled to the same level of fidelity for their IRL performance/capability then I agree.