--------------------------------------------------------------------------I have a P4 3.4 running an ATI 1950 Pro 256 meg card.Soundblaster and the rest of the dance, :)I'm of course not running my system always at 10x10 inches! I have done so to see what 95 plus FPS can do for the sim. Others are negating its value. For myself...it has proven to be an invaluable insight to much higher performance. I am curious though that some have not seen a major leap in FPS when having gone to a 10x10 window. Interesting. Each system is that....a unique system.

And I'm curious though that you can get so much better performence than me. My 7950GT 512M DDR3 AGP should be at least as strong as yours. Is a P4 3.4 much better than a AMD 64 4000+?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To do so for myself, I originally went out of FULL WINDOW mode, and using the ALT-ENTER combo, went into WINDOW mode. I then reduced that window upon my Desktop to 5x5 inches...Also to answer Todd, I am running at 1920x1200. The results are simply stunning. I never changed out the maximum rez setting for my card, at any time during this experiment. :)Mitch

You did not change your desktop resolution but by running Flight Sim in a 5x5 window you changed the number of pixels that the GPU was proccessing which as I said before is basically the same as lowering your resolution. I have a 1680x1050 monitor. When I shrink a window to 5x5 inches I end up with a resolution of roughly 500x450. On a 1920x1050 monitor a 5x5 window would have more pixels than my monitor but you still have LOWERED your resolution. You did say you started with a full window (I think you meant full screen since you said you hit ALT-ENTER to get to window mode) so when you made your window smaller you indeed changed your resolution setting for Flight Sim.Try going into FS9 or FSX and change the full screen mode resolution to 800x600 and run the sim full screen and tell me what your frame rate is then.BTW how in the world are you getting 25 to 30 FPS in Flight Sim at 1920x1050 with your hardware? Something doesn't jive and also you're getting better performance in a small window because you are taxing your hardware when you run Flight Sim at the full resolution for your monitor.

I am curious though that some have not seen a major leap in FPS when having gone to a 10x10 window. Interesting. Each system is that....a unique system.

So now you admit that it may not be myth for some? :( Todd

"-------- But rather opposite I would like a bigger screen than my current 19" at 1280*1024 so I could have a bigger window (in fullscreen). ---------"

Jfri-The answer is multi monitors! Here's the other side of the coin. I'm running FS9 on a 5+ yr old 'puter with 3 monitors & displaying triple synchronized views for a 145

Jfri-The answer is multi monitors! Here's the other side of the coin. I'm running FS9 on a 5+ yr old 'puter with 3 monitors & displaying triple synchronized views for a 145

Bob,Frustrating isn't it?Leon

For me one thing that is as unreal as it gets is that the gauges and instrument are so small compared to real life. A bigger monitor would help here and that would cost much money. Also isn't it unreal having these panels on the left and right monitors that are supposed to depict looking right and left in the plane? I would rather use one big monitor instead of three smaller.

---------jfri- the three monitors are approx EACH same size as yours - so gauges are also same size as you see. (Screenshots really miniaturize everything!) Yes, a larger monitor would increase panel/gauge size- but you can only display multiple views on multiple monitors. (ViewLeftFwd,ViewFwd,ViewRightFwd)In the real world, normal human vision has a FOV of about 180

30 FPS does NOT give you the full real-world experience in either FS9 or FSX. This is a myth.

I don

Bob,Frustrating isn't it?Leon

Naw...it's like observing a pack of dogs watching TV. They know not what they are seeing. No difference between "Wife Swap" and "Einstein's Greatest Discoveries" from their perspective. It's all Alpo... From my perspectve, it's still cheap entertainment. :( Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

And I'm curious though that you can get so much better performence than me. My 7950GT 512M DDR3 AGP should be at least as strong as yours. Is a P4 3.4 much better than a AMD 64 4000+?

-------------------------------------------------------I really can't tell you if my P4 is 'better' than your system. I do know...though....that it is a strong performer and that's why I haven't felt the need to move on, until I see what FS11 will need.

I don

BTW how in the world are you getting 25 to 30 FPS in Flight Sim at 1920x1050 with your hardware?---------------------------------------------------------------------------Todd, I've been getting that quite easily. In fact, at unlimited, I can hover in the low 40's. In FSX, I easily can get 24-30 fps. I'm not actually impressed by this.Within FSX, in really heavy cloud, or in multi-layers, I can go down to 13 to 18 for brief periods.The above FPS has given me no real urge to upgrade past my Dell XPS Generation 3 P4 3.4 GHz, until I see what FS11 will need, and what kind of performance the folks around here would get with the latest and greatest that they have.Lastly, I'm in fact running at 1920x1200 on a 30 inch wide-screen. (not 1050) in full window mode. I easily pop the above specified FPS. The ATI 1950 Pro 256 has proved to be one hell of a card. No complaints!

Within FSX, in really heavy cloud, or in multi-layers, I can go down to 13 to 18 for brief periods.

What slider settings do you have then? I also get 20+ fps in FSX but then I have disabled all traffic settings and autogen and shadows.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi,Having 100 FPS, is showing that your system is not being taxed to the max....there is headroom 'behind the scenes' for all the thousands of calculations per second happening to make your virtual world; and if I read your reply, you did not achieve an FPS readout of 95 sustainable? That is why you did not see any difference. If you can get your viewpoint FPS to what I posted, you indeed will see a difference. It glares at you! :)To do so for myself, I originally went out of FULL WINDOW mode, and using the ALT-ENTER combo, went into WINDOW mode. I then reduced that window upon my Desktop to 5x5 inches. After that, I increased that window's size until I saw FPS starting to drop off. That was for my system, around a 10x10 inch window. I have left it there at that. I have since taken many flights, over varied topography....and simply could not be happier with how clear and sharp the textures are, as well of course as is the simply superb animation. Also to answer Todd, I am running at 1920x1200. The results are simply stunning. I never changed out the maximum rez setting for my card, at any time during this experiment. :)Mitch

Mitch,From windowed mode to go to say the 10"x10" screen .. is it done by dragging with the mouse to adjust the window size or are you using the monitors Vert/Horiz controls?And, do you leave the resolution the same .. 1920x1200?I have a 2 monitor setup but may go to one monitor (Viewsonic 21") to do a test.

Mitch,From windowed mode to go to say the 10"x10" screen .. is it done by dragging with the mouse to adjust the window size or are you using the monitors Vert/Horiz controls?And, do you leave the resolution the same .. 1920x1200?I have a 2 monitor setup but may go to one monitor (Viewsonic 21") to do a test.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vonmar, all I did, was to first go from FULL SCREEN MODE to a window via the Alt-ENTER keystroke. Then, I used the bottom right to drag the window (originally to 5x5 inches). I then expanded from 5x5 to 10x10 where I noticed that my FPS were just then dropping from a nominal 95 FPS.That's the mechanical of the event. I ackknowledge all the posts that said I shouldn't be seeing any true performance increase from let's say running FULL SCREEN at 30-40 FPS. Well...I'm not here to badger anyone into believing that with 95 FPS in a 10x10 window, the sim is a whole new beast. For myself, will I attest to that. Do I want to sim at 10x10 for the rest of my life? Uh no...lol. Of course I have gone back to Full Screen at 30-40 FPS, unlimited and at a pegged 24 FPS that I usually had run with. I'm just going to wait until I can get 60 constant (as one poster said might be the really true sweet spot as the screen refreshes at 60 Hz, for an LCD) and see what FX11 will need for hardware.I certainly intend though, to drop down to 95fps/10x10 when I want that superb animation environment. :)If you can get your 10x10 to 95 FPS---enjoy!Mitch

What slider settings do you have then? I also get 20+ fps in FSX but then I have disabled all traffic settings and autogen and shadows.

-----------------------------------------JFRI,Do a search for my posts in the HARDWARE FORUM, and then find the post where I posted my FSX config file. All that you are asking can be gleaned from that.Until you do that....I can tell you that I have Traffic at around 15 percent. No BOATS or FERRIES..set to zero. Most else is maxed out. I have been very pleased with my P4 3.4 GHz/ ATI 1950 Pro 256 meg setup. I have not felt pressured to have had a system beyond that---as it does FSX quite doable. I will most likely ramp up to the latest powerhouse system, when I see that by doing so...you can run FX11 at full power, with graphic room to spare!Cheers!Mitch

Mitch:I dunno if you're a 'real' pilot or not, but in the real world, small control inputs are REQUIRED in all phases of hand flight (and the autopilot is doing it dozens of times per second), including the skill of holding a glideslope / localizer. So, I'd soil my pants if this weekend I fired up the 172R and shot an approach to KPWK and small control inputs were throwing me all over the sky (I've already seen friends turn green in the turbulent skies of the windy city). LOLIn the real world, the dynamics of simply crossing from over a grassy field to over a hot asphault highway will be dynamically different on your controls there fore small control input are required, just like driving a car...you don't hold the steering wheel or the yoke completely still. So, that is to say, if you are in a situation where small control inputs are exaggerated as you say, those dynamics are horribly wrong.Case in point, with my rig, I easily can get up to +200 FPS (average is ~30 - 150 fps) @ 24" 1920x1200 with all ATI Catalyst settings on high and I see absolutely no difference in fluidity between 50 or 100 or 200 FPS...they look and feel and fly exactly the same but I keep my FPS unlocked anyway since FPS performance is not an issue. 30 FPS is not a holy grail for a lock, its a holy grail if you are UNLOCKED and never dip below this. If you are locked at 30 FPS but FS has got to start gutting the sim to attempt to keep 30 FPS then your experience will be vastly different than someone who can fly +30 FPS unlocked with the sim wide open performancewise. So all that to say that if the overhead is there to keep fluidity and functionality above 30 fps at all times having 5000 fps would make no difference what-so-ever. As long as your system doesn't need to start dumbing down FS to keep a fluid frame rate, the point is moot.Regards,Mike T.