I just bought a Samsung 930B flat panel, and while it seems to work well (no ghosting, dead pixels, etc), it just seems small and I perceive a lack of resolution in FS2004 going to 1280x1024. How do folks who have them like using a native 1600x1200 panel? Any issues outside of FS? I'm concerned that standard non-FS tasks will be hard to do with the fine resolution (small fonts, etc). What about response time? The fastest 20.1" that I can see (for less than $700 has a 16ms response. Is that sufficient? What's your experience? Thanks and happy new year.

I am running a Dell 2001FP 20.1" Flat panel at 1600X1200 with no problems. I find it fine and havent had issues in or out of FS. Made some adjustments for Icon size on the desktop but that was it.Chris

In your Dell 1600 X 1200, when outside of flightsim, what resolution are you using? I keep reading about them working best when in the native resolution. Would a 20 inch monitor work OK with say 1024 by 768 resolution outside of flightsim? Am very interested in this thread as I had exactly the same questions as the original post.

I'm running a Viewsonic at 1600x1200. It took a little wile for me to not notice the pixels, but I'm used it now. Love it to bits.Viewsonic now make a 8ms 20.3" LCD http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopd...series/vp2130b/

I run 1600X1200 res all the time,Desktop and FS.Some monitors do run better at the native res but mine seems to run fine in all the accepted modes as per the specs.It runs at 16ms and that seems fine to me........John has a nice one running at 8ms but at 16 FS is very good on my system.http://accessories.dell.com/sna/ProductDet...&l=en&cs=CADHS1You shouldnt have any problems running 1024X768 but I do think running at the native res is better.Chris

Mine runs at 16ms :) I have the older model. Had no issues with ghosting at all.

OK, so I didn't like the Sammy 930B much. The 1280x1024 5:4 distortion was horrible, and I took it back to Circuit City and plopped down another $200 for the 20.1" 4:3 aspect Samsung 204T. Man what a difference! 1600x1200 rocks and having the 2D cockpits and gauges display without that warped, squished look is worth every penny. One more question for you guys. Do you use less FSAA with the higher resolution? I've read that at 16x12 you don't need to use AA and if you do, 2x or 4x is it, given the overhead. Thoughts? Thanks.Neil

I dont use FSAA.My AA and AF are set from the Video drivers. Am running an ATI 850XTPE at the moment.Not sure what card you have but set your AA/AF from the driver control panel and have it off in FSChris

>I dont use FSAA.>My AA and AF are set from the Video drivers.>> Am running an ATI 850XTPE at the moment.>Not sure what card you have but set your AA/AF from the driver>control panel and have it off in FS>>ChrisYeah, I never run FSAA (full screen antialiasing) in FS9. Always from the ATI control panel (using Cat 5.13). I used to use 6x FSAA and 16x AF, but I'm thinking about reducing it to 4x FSAA and 8x AF. My main question is am I wasting cycles running FSAA at all with 1600x1200 resolution?

That totally depends on how sensitive you are to jagged lines, however fine they may be..2XAA is enough to fix it for me, but "beauty is in the eye of the beholder!"

I quite sensitive.. so I run 6x FSAA