Ever since I got my new computer I got FSAA forced on 8x. Now today I experimented a little with FSX and FSAA. I found that FSAA at 2x clearly shows jaggies. But to tell you the truth I can hardly see differences between FSAA at 4x and higher...What FSAA setting is everyone using (everyone meaning everyone who plays at 1680x1050)? 1680x1050 is a high resolution (imho): you still need FSAA to get smooth images, but is it true that anything higher than 4x is a waste of resources...? Or are there specific objects I have to look at to see a difference?And does anyone know a site with more info about this? I frequently read reviews from hardware and they test with various resolutions and FSAA-settings, but did anyone ever test of certain FSAA settings are still usefull at certain resolutions...?

Hi; I use 2x and trilinear, and get good results.

It depends on a lot of things. If you are like me with a great gfx card (8800 GTS), but mediocre CPU (A64 2.2) then you are completely CPU bound and there is zero cost to adding higher AA levels. If its free, why not do it? But assuming adding higher AA is costing you FPS, then going higher than 4x AA may not be worth it since you will certainly get diminishing returns quality-wise the higher you go.Also, there are many different implementations of AA, so one card set to 4 AA may actually do a better job of AA than another card that is set to 8 AA. Even on the same card this is true: on the 8800 16x mode will run faster than 8Q mode (and 8Q arguably looks better too).But there is certainly not a universal answer to this question. It just depends on your system and your tastes. Experiment until you find the best compromise between perf & quality on your machine.

Probably not. I've experimented with FSAA at great length on different monitors and at different resolutions and rarely found anything over 4x worth doing. The performance hit is very considerable at 6x or 8x as compared with 4x (which is also quite a performance hit).The res can be very important. If you had 1920x1200, for e.g., it would be a waste to do FSAA over 2x. Some folks find 1920x1200 so good that they don't bother with FSAA. Some even find 1600x1200 good enough for no FSAA although I personally don't.On my system at present, I have 3840x1024 (triple LCDs) and use FSAA 4x. I tried 6x and found it was only discernible in fly-by view. It also ate more frames. Since I use fly-by view now and then only, I felt it was a waste to go from 4x to 6x. JS