In real life you'd do a taxiway run up into the headwind (they're are usually places to pull over to do it). 2000RPM, mags check, carb heat check, engine instruments, amp meter, gyro suction, etc.  

 

On the runway it's different depending on the situation. If you are on a long runway, a roll to full power is fine. 

 

But in your 3W5 video because of runway length, the proper procedure is 2 notches of flaps and full brakes while you power up. Once you see you have a good engine you release at full power and start the roll. That's a short field takeoff. 

 

Where I fly is a shorter field so we do this. But when we do pattern work at Maryland airfield (jet length runway) we just roll onto the runway and run it up as we are going.

 

Another thing most simmers probably don't realize is that flaps are optional on takeoff depending on runway length for most small GA planes. If you've got the length, no flaps is better and the plane will be much smoother on climb out. 2 notches of flaps is going to bounce the plane around a lot more on initial climb out. 

 

The Cessna 172R is not approved for takeoff with 20 degree flaps (2 notches).

Maybe someone should start a thread about startup, taxi and take-off procedures for the real C172 :biggrin:

In the original video from 3W5 (real world one) the aircraft wasn't a C-172 ... however I did try simulated world in the Bonanza A35 (which I think is close to what was used) and it's performance was VERY close to exactly what happened in the real world video (of course I don't know fuel/passenger loads).

Another Update:

 

After a discussion with Beau I'm re-testing the cloud AA benefits ... the performance increase I saw could be entirely due to the change from SGSS to SS and nothing to do with the clouds.  So I'm regression testing 2.1 + HotFix to see if the same weather/flight scenario produces the same type of performance gain going from SGSS to SS as it did in 2.2 Beta 2.

 

LM did do work on Cloud AA in terms of attempt to disable, but under DX11 the sample flag could be ignored and NI settings will muddy the waters even more.  There is an alternate approach to make sure AA doesn't happen to clouds, but that will introduce breaking changes and will obviously require considerably more testing so they'll push that out to another release after 2.2.

 

So just a heads up, it's still valid that there is a significant performance boost from SS over SGSS but it may have nothing to do with clouds.

 

Cheers, Rob.

If you set texture resolution to 7 cm you get more detailed roads. I think that is the only difference from using 1 m resolution. I have never noticed any performance issues setting resolution to 7 cm and the roads look much nicer.

 

Yes, roads certainly start to look mushy at 1 meter and above.

 

gb.

The Cessna 172R is not approved for takeoff with 20 degree flaps (2 notches).

Sorry, 10 degrees on a 172 according to the POH

 

I fly Cherokees and its 20 degrees.

 

Other then that though, a braked runup to full is proper in both aircraft on a short field.

So I'm regression testing 2.1 + HotFix to see if the same weather/flight scenario produces the same type of performance gain going from SGSS to SS

 

For those tests are you using the setting you posted most recently?

I would like to try test that too.

 

I don't suppose I could persuade you to upload your .nip :biggrin:

Maybe someone should start a thread about startup, taxi and take-off procedures for the real C172 :biggrin:

You could of course watch the superb videos from FS Flight Lessons

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc_1v1RATnpXdNUbNDz32sg/videos

 

 

Angle of the sun seems induce this

 

I've also noticed forcing AF through NI seems to have a very odd affect on the water, especially where the sun shines of the surface, so I only set AF via the P3D GUI... It also seems that P3D somethimes loses my AF setting, noticing the distance has become muddy, so I have to change my AF setting, return to the flight and then set it back to my usual 16x and return to the flight again; not sure what is going on here.

 

Love your last vid.. such a great time of day to fly B)

Rob I hope you will start a new post or something after the new update from LM comes out and you have fully completed your tests. This one is getting a little long. Would love to see your NI settings in full after you are satisfied.

Thanks for your help.

Howard

 

 

For those tests are you using the setting you posted most recently?

 

Can't do exactly the same settings because 2.2 has new features not in 2.1 and the extreme AutoGen settings in 2.1 would lead too quickly to hitting VAS limit - so had to dial them back.

 

To make a long night/morning of testings short, SGSS is hard on 2.2 and 2.1 and I experienced similar gains with SS in 2.1 as I did in 2.2.  2.2.  I had an overall gain of 2-3 fps in 2.2 but I can't conclude this is related to cloud AA processing ... it maybe due to other optimizations.

 

I would liked to have done extreme settings tests in 2.1 ... but it just wasn't possible ... of course it is now possible in 2.2

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Rob I hope you will start a new post or something after the new update from LM comes out and you have fully completed your tests. This one is getting a little long. Would love to see your NI settings in full after you are satisfied.

 

Will do Howard, but I'm gonna guess you'll seem many many many new 2.2 threads about settings as soon as it's released ... which I'm pretty sure is going to be very soon.  

 

 

I've also noticed forcing AF through NI seems to have a very odd affect on the water,

 

I haven't noticed this, but I shall try it out.

 

 

Yes, roads certainly start to look mushy at 1 meter and above.

 

I'll do some more testing with 1m vs. 7cm around SF/BayArea (specifically Oakland airport departure) ... with Orbx NCA and Vector 1.1, I noticed some massive VAS usage differences between 1m and 7cm that I've not experienced in any other area.  I was kinda surprised, in PNW 1m vs. 7cm doesn't seem to make much difference, but in NCA it does ... need to do more testing here.

I'll do some more testing with 1m vs. 7cm around SF/BayArea (specifically Oakland airport departure) ... with Orbx NCA and Vector 1.1, I noticed some massive VAS usage differences between 1m and 7cm that I've not experienced in any other area.  I was kinda surprised, in PNW 1m vs. 7cm doesn't seem to make much difference, but in NCA it does ... need to do more testing here.

 

This may relate to my old complaint about PNW: The roads are terrible!

Rob,

 

In regards to the water, a different rendering algorithm kicks in the lower you get to the water surface. It doesn't matter which water textures you're using, you'll experience the same effect.

I've noticed very distinct jumps in the water quality depending on altitude, and it looks much better when close.. it is a visual weak point in the sim for me, with FSX DX9 water looking way-way better to my mind. I hope LM are able to improve this aspect, as it seems to me its lagging behind the visuals in the rest of the sim. The only time it looks really good is when you're just above the surface (or on it) and you get the 3D effect, that varies with wind speed.

 

 

In regards to the water, a different rendering algorithm kicks in the lower you get to the water surface. It doesn't matter which water textures you're using, you'll experience the same effect.

 

Thanks Tim, that's what I'm experiencing ... I'm guessing it's for performance reasons.  Hopefully on-going development of P3D will improve water presentation in relation to light reflection at various altitudes.

 

 

the only time it looks really good is when you're just above the surface (or on it) and you get the 3D effect, that varies with wind speed.

 

Or when clouds are moving over the water it looks better ... adjusts some of the sheen.

 

Cheers, Rob.