Yes Chris that is surely o.k..The thing is the high end graphics cards (like GF3Ti or GF4Ti) almost take no frame rate hit when you run them on higher resolutions. I have a 19 inch monitor and since I bought a GF3 two years ago I basically run every game at a resolution higher than 1024x768 beacuse it simply looks far better. This only applies for games however. My desktop normally is still set to 1024x768.Alex

Hi y'all,after palying around for almost the whole afternoon, I would everybody having a GF4 urge to try AA4s. In the beginning of course you are afraid of the frame rate hit. However in article that was linked by Caveman it is made very clear that AA4s alraedy containy some kind of aniso (sorry for my bad technical description, if you want to have decent explanation follow Cave's link). So here is the result in MY opinion. As pointed out by Paul that is all pretty subjective. And I did no benchs or still compares.1. AA4s + AF 2 almost offer the same texture quality on the ground than AF4. In fact it was hard for me to see any difference.2. Frame rate with AA4s +AF2 is almost the same.3. Buildings, 3D Objects, autogen, clouds and the VC look a lot better than with AA4 only. Especially will you almost completely get rid of the shimmering autogen in the distance (LOD was at -0.3 when testing).4. Texture updates seem to be a lot faster with AA4s + AF2 than with AF4. Hardly could I ever see any blurred textures. However they might as well just fit in better.5. This might all change when Nvidia brings us drivers that have less performance issues with AF!To make a long story short: I will stick a while with:1600x1200x32, AA4s, AF2, LOD -0.3At least until tomorrow I will see something totally different :-).Cheers,Alex

My choice on this system ....P4 1.8gig, Intel D845BG motherboard, 512mb DDR ram,Windows XP (home),VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 Ti 4600 video (29.80 drivers)1600x1200x32, Quincunx AA, Anisotropy level 4, Mipmap LOD -0.3Fastwrites and sideband on, no overclocking of anythingExcellent overall picture quality, smooth performance.

I need to figure out why I do not have the 1600x1200 x32 available in settings. I have 1600x1200 x16 but no x32. The highest 32 bit resolution I can select is 1600x1024. I can select up tp 85Mhz 1600x1200x32 for desktop in display properties. I should have the hardware and drivers to be able to use this rez and it is available in other games so I don't understand why it is not selectable in MSFS2002.Any advice would be appreciated1.4Mhz P4 O/C to 1.6Asus P4T MB384MB RambusWin XP ProfessionalVisiontek G4 4600Ti30.30 Nvidia DriversVision Master Pro 450 19" monitorThanks,Steve Adams

Steve - It's one of those FS2002 "thingies". If you set your desktop resolution to 1600x1200x32 then you'll also be able to select it as a fullscreen option in FS2002.TripNorthwood 2.2a at 2.72Ghz Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC800Gainward GF4 64MB Ti4200 285/57029.42's DX8.1 WinXP ProInwin case / Enermax 431W PSU3DMark2001SE = 11868http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3981159

Hi Steve,it is a bug within FS2002. Set your desktop to 1600x1200x32 before you start FS2002. If you do this 1600x1200x32 will appear in the FS2002 display settings.Another way is to directly edit the fs2002.cfg. There is an entry for the resolution. Edit it by hand. FS2002 must not run otherwise it will overwrite your entry.Alex

Thank Alex!That was it!Steve

There is infact another (seventh) resolution which conforms to the 1.333 ratio :-640x480800x600960x720 <-----1024x7681152x8641280x9601600x1200...but not all drivers/apps/hardware supports it. I can use FS98,2000 and 2002 using 960x720 using my Voodoo 5.Chris Ehttp://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)