jumphigh

Playing DCS with a RX 570 4GB I set most graphics options to medium or low – textures as well. Without anti aliasing and on 2560x1440 the Huey cockpit was always blurry and mostly unreadable. A solution is to use a custom cockpit without mipmaps and with all textures only on full resolution like this one. I created a no-mipmap-version for the Gazelle myself based on the English gray dash with the help of Gimp. Of course without AA I get some artefacts but I don't mind some highlighted lines and most important the pit is readable regardless of zoom. Beside that I got a gain of up to 10fps with the use of the multithreading version of DCS on Georgia map.

We have to look at the new version: Polychop will use ED's Mistral in the future. Maybe you can test this Mistral with another platform and compare to Gazelle's current one?

No, it was quite clear. But it's your fault to think that a RC helicopter is different to "real" RW aircrafts in general flight functioning. Furthermore modern flight augmentation systems work like the solutions used in the RC hobby, e.g. auto hover. Maybe you can't compare a Huey or a Robinson to a EC 145 as well? Beside that: As a German I'm following the same rules of law as any other air space user. I'm forced to pay a special liability insurance, too. Since we build our own models some might know more about helicopter physics and technological details than "real" pilots who get their plane from a specialised technician out of the assembly hangar... Okay, I'm exaggerating. But the claim is, that real Gazelle pilots tested this version and decided it's good enough. So it seems that there isn't the one and only truth even among real RW pilots. That doesn't mean that there aren't evident bugs in our DCS module. But bugs are a different story.

No, it depends on the model! For RC helos with FBL you control roll rates with your stick. There's no need for trimming – centred stick means stay at the current attitude. It's the task of the flight controller to achieve that – even if it means that the swash plate isn't neutral at all. Another example is rudder and tail. As a RC pilot I'm using a tail gyro, there's no need for pedal left when hovering like with the Huey. I talked to Tiger pilots but unfortunately they didn't even know what I'm talking about. It seems some "real" pilots have a narrow horizon not wider than the length of their blade. But take our UH-60 free mod: There you do not need rudder for a stable hover, too. So it seems that there are even real Biggies with modern electronics that mimics the flight model of a RC helicopters more than that of a ancient Huey.

But what's the correct behaviour of a helicopter??? As a RC helicopter pilot I know the old way of mechanical stabilisation and the new way with electronic gyros. It's the same with modern "real" helicopters. They have electronic flight augmentation systems – even an old thing like the Gazelle. You can't compare their flight with much more older non-stabilised models like the Huey. Our Gazelle might be wrong for the real thing but not impossible for helicopters in general.

You're one year too late...

Turbine damage off means no random failure, not that the turbine is immortal. And rudder trimmer isn't an auto rudder, it simply holds a control throw to move your HW back to zero to lessen your fight against spring loaded pedals (or sticks). Have a look at the Huey, its trimming (of all inputs) is more crucial than that of the Gazelle. The Gazelle mostly flies almost centred on stick and pedals. Have you tried global game mode of DCS?

Is it just me and nobody else thinks that DCS' 3D projection is wrong? Have a look at the second picture above! I know that a AH-64 is a giant but I'm in doubt that you're sitting that high above the top of the mast of the Kiowa!? The Kiowa isn't a toy like on this image. Have a look at this view from a Huey cockpit, too. It's the same but inverted with the Huey: Embarking soldiers next to the UH-1 appear to tall. Nobody else has this occasional feeling of disproportion?

Do you use the controls indicator? Have a look on it! Maybe there was an auto-binding of another joystick axis to cyclic pitch control. My pedals have a differential break function (2 linear axes without centring) and that was bound to cyclic function. No fun! DCS grabs every new input device and makes ridiculous choices on axis binding. The Gazelle can be flown with cyclic centred mostly all the time. If an axis is more than a small amount out of centre there will be a constant roll on this function. Thus your nose might drop.

I'm using it in 2D too! I'm playing at 2560x1440 without any antialiasing modes. With mipmaps gauges become unreadable, the modded cockpit can be read better. I don't give a dime on jagged lines or unwanted highlights. Sorry, but your solution has it's own faults! Some areas are better, some are worse than stock/without mipmaps. Have a look at the labels e.g. "High" or "Beacon Marker". For me stock looks better because it's readable and not blurred due to mipmap downscaling. As I told you I prefer readability over prevention of every unwanted artefact. And again: I don't see disturbing artefacts on stock. Please tell me: With mipmaps added what's looking really better now? Maybe if you look at still images with a spyglass... but in the sim?

A mipmap is a downscaled texture. Different levels of scaling are used for different view distances because with the full scale texture many texels will collapse which might lead to undesired view effects. And without AA – like I'm doing – the mipmap levels trigger to early and you can't tread the gauges from normal seat position. So I decided to go without AA and with full scale cockpit textures only. There are some jagged edges but the gauges remain readable. But ED's standard cockpit has several levels of mipmaps!? So what's the point of this mod?

Correct. It's a lot easier, you don't have to fight Windows' user rights or ED's integrity checks.

Don't mess with the install folder, just use your profile! I have several cockpit mods installed that way and choose one of them inside special options. Mainly I use a no mipmap mod or vivid color (civilian) and with it I have the the red mark at 125 knt. I think these mods are based on (livery template) versions from years ago – but still working.

I'm flying at 2560x1440 and installed a special cockpit mod to get rid of the mipmaps because otherwise you can't read the gauges when sitting back in normal seat position. Are you sure you really want a low res cockpit just to get rid of one or two jagged lines?

Just type "zoom" into the search box and you'll get all bindings with zoom functionality. That's easy! Myself I never had a problem with the auto pilot modes of the Gazelle. If you want to control a 3-pos-switch with just 2 keys you can't choose a binding for only 2 functions out of 3, can you?

Hobby modders can do better than ED.

Looks like "vivid colors civilian". Maybe I'm wrong and it can be set server side (or mission wise in general) with a livery and is overriding your special settings? Beside the VSI it doesn't look very different compared to standard pit?

You have to switch to that cockpit inside of special options menu. I use the mod "gray dash", but I don't know if it is provided by Polychop or Devrim (from above).

I don't think so! I don't play online but I'm in doubt that a server mission can replace your cockpit textures. It's not like a mission-dependent livery! You have to do it yourself: Copy the cockpit mod in your profile folder, switch to in special options. It's the same with the English cockpits of SU-25T or SA-342 Gazelle.

As far as I know cockpit does not change with livery, you have to set it inside of special options. There are special cockpit mods beside of liveries which have to be installed inside of "Liveries\Cockpit_UH-1H" in your DCS profile. For example I have the cockpit versions vivid colors vivid colors civilian Rabb-UH-1H-NoMipMaps All 3 available as user download, the second could be your choice.

There is something wrong with the 3D projection of DCS. I thought it all the time, now everybody can see it in the screenshot of @ddc196. Huey is hovering in 1 foot, pilot's head is higher than the rotor disc of a Kiowa!? Also when droping troops out of the huey: In my opinion they are too tall when standing next to the chopper.

Ja doch, etwas schon. Bei der Huey fordern regelmäßig Leute eine bezahlte Neuauflage mit Grafikupdates, deren Standard u.a. du setzt. Aber viele Nutzer beschweren sich auch bei jedem neuen, gut aussehenden Modell über unterirdische Framerates – selbst mit Grafikkarten, die ein Vielfaches an Leistung meiner RX 570 haben. Wenn ich aber die Wahl zwischen guter Fliegbarkeit – bei Hubschraubern steuert es sich erst ab 50 FPS wirklich "glatt" – und einer Modellierung jedes Niets an der Außenhaut, die ich im Flug aus dem Cockpit niemals sehe, habe, dann weiß ich, was ich nehme. Den vollbeweglichen Kopf sehe ich als Pilot nicht. Sicherlich kann man den Aufwand treiben, so dass jemand im Multiplayer mittels Optik eines Combined-Arms-Fahrzeug dem vor ihm stehenden Heli bei der Flugvorbereitung zusehen kann und daraus ein Cinematic schneidet. Aber als Pilot wäre es mir weit wichtiger, dass das LOD funktioniert und nicht jedes versteckte Polygon des extrem guten "Standmodells" mit gerendert werden muss. Aber das LOD von DCS funktioniert nicht! Ich schraube den Scenry Detail Factor bis ganz nach unten, die Umgebung sieht teilweise wie Gunship 2000 aus, aber ich bekomme kein einziges FPS mehr?! Deshalb frage ich mich, wie sich das super Modell denn verhalten wird, wenn es in einer Mission in der DCS-Engine laufen muss und nicht nur im Viewer des CAD-Programms? Erlaubt es die Engine, dass du auch noch ein Lower-Detail-Model erstellst, was "gut genug" aussieht, dafür aber auch für schwächere HW verkraftbar ist? Falls das nicht geht und sich auch die GraKa-Preise nicht wieder in vernünftige Regionen bewegen, werde ich wohl in Zukunft als Käufer neuer Module generell ausfallen. Für eine Handvoll Flugstunden im Monat werde ich jedenfalls keine 1000€-Grafik kaufen.

Progress news show a good locking mock up, nothing more. I'm asking if it's over the top, since polygon rivets don't make a better pilot out of you. Nobody knows how hot render graphics performs in DCS. Judging from other new modules like the Apache I have low expectations. Now it's your turn!

Maybe. Of course a spinning rotor head will be replaced by a special animation but there are users in the Huey forum who want polygon rivets on a UH-1 overhaul. I'm asking if you fly better if such details are made of high res polygons instead of bump maps? Flight model, weapons and system functionality are crucial, not a good looking mock up of a BO 105 PAH. I don't see me buying any new module because of my old RX 570. I got 55+ frames on the old 2.5.6, now I'm glad if I can reach 45 fps with 2.7.9. But as a low flying heli pilot terrain isn't looking that better than before. If you need a RTX 3090 to get more than single digit fps with the Apache there is something wrong with DCS. If there's LOD management it isn't very effective. Sorry to say but I do not see a bright future for DCS. At least not for me.

First of all it looks great. But to be honest for what it is worth? Especially the details on the rotor head may cause a FPS drop while nobody can see it when inside the cockpit or from outside when the head is spinning. I want to fly the bird, not watching it as a show case model. It's the same with the Apache. Great details but nobody can see it when using it like intended: Sim flying from inside the cockpit. For me it seems to be the wrong direction of DCS, helicopter models are going over the top but the low level scenery doesn't improve much. Towns and buildings remain sparse and empty and the poly count stays low.