Following Dan Downs' prompt today to ensure that Advanced Animation is checked to ensure that flaps are correctly shown, I decided to run a set of tests to determine how much global texture resolution, filtering and anti-aliasing settings would affect the display frames per second produced by my graphics card (see below). This so that I could have the values set to their optimum values. To my surprise, the frame rates only varied from a maximum of 9.7 to 10.8 fps.My full screen resolution remained at 1280x1024x32, lens flare at off, light bloom at off, advanced animations at on, the aircraft at rest, view at VC, and no scenery add-ons installed. I could find no graphics display settings to vary pertaining to this test.My conclusions are:1. Image quality with filtering off was not good, and its use therefore discounted.2. Anti-aliasing off gave very marginal FPS improvements regardless of the global texture resolution and filtering settings.3. Filtering settings made no difference to FPS regardless of the global texture resolution and anti-aliasing settings.4. Global texture resolution settings made no difference to FPS regardless of filtering and anti-alias settings.It will be interesting to see whether relative FPS rates, using global texture resolution, filtering and anti-alias variations will hold true when airport scenery and aircraft movement are added at a later date.My outstanding question is, should I expect the same relative FPS values with the addition of sceneries?Cheers, Richard

All of this is due to FSX being CPU limited. AA, AF, and texture resolution support are all things handled basically directly on the video card, which is why you can change them with no real performance hit.

Thanks Ryan. I shall have to look further into what my video card provides as options, and their effects.Cheers, Richard