----------------------------ZZ- just tried an experiment once again with my triple monitor/triple views setup. (for the 27th? time!) Take off, fly around and observe the fps range of numbers. Then start exactly same again but this time everything killed on the outer mons- both views and all popups are extinguished. Again observe FPS range. Flight path same for both tests. Results:Triple mons/triple synched views & all popups open: 18-28 fpsSingle mon/single view & 2D main panel only: 30-55 fpsI can detect no difference in quality or smoothness of motion between either configuration. I'm not convinced of the 60 fps- other than it provides lots of cushion to cope with super complex scenery! And that's a good thing! But a single 45

I have no experience at all with triple monitor setups and can't comment on the specifics of those. But like I said, 24fps in FS9 is fine ftmp as long as you are getting nice smooth stutter-free performance. It's not like you're having to take careful aim at a target or try and maneuver around an F1 car 3 feet away at 200mph. In FS9 I like 60fps. In many other games its more of a necessity.

-------------------ZZ- I have a theory as to why my triple views config behaves so smoothly on an ancient, 6 yr old 'puter.Since there is only one CPU- only one of the three views can be updating at any moment. As a result, the other two views (or 66% of the whole) are static- in effect they have an infinite frame rate.Since all three views are synchronized to appear as one, then the eye/brain is fooled by the "no motion" of 2/3 and doesn't see or ignores the updating occuring in the 1/3. I think that's why 15-30 fps triple views seems just as smooth as 30-60 fps single view.["Synchronizing" is the adjustment of (outer) view angles to precisely offset the width of the monitor bezels that separate the views. When it's done accurately, the three views become one insofar as the pilot's brain is concerned. It is simple to do it to 1/100 of a degree and the result is as I've described.]Alex Reid