Hi,I have a 30 inch screen, plugged into a GTX285 running at 2560x1600. Flying FSX in VC, framerates are OK and things look nice (30-40fps). However, if I switch to 2D, the framerate is horrible (around 7-10fps). If I shrink the panel size (say, so the whole panel sits in the bottom corner of my screen), the fps heads back towards the VC rates.Does anyone know if there is a workaround for this sort of problem (other than 'use the VC')?Cheers,Bryn.

Is anyone running 2560x1600 quite ok with no poor fps in 2d?Bryn.

Bryn, does this problem happen with all aircraft? I can only guess and suggest trying different FSAA/AF settings. What video card driver release are you using?

Bryn, does this problem happen with all aircraft? I can only guess and suggest trying different FSAA/AF settings. What video card driver release are you using?

Thanks for responding. It does happen with all the aircraft.I was using the most recent nVidia drivers (186), however this problem has existed for as long as I've used FSX. I thought it might be because a 2D panel ends up eating stacks of memory when you expand it to fill a 2560x1600 screen, but I am especially keen to know if other 2560x1600 users have a similar experience. If they do not, then I know it is something specific to my setup, and I can continue to try and find a fix.Conversely, FS9 loves the 2d panel over the VC at 2560x1600. Gees.Bryn.

It's your resolution. It's way high and the higher the physical pixel count the more impact on frame rates.Is 2560 the native resoultion of the monitor?

That 285 probably runs Crysis at 40 fps at that resolution. The VC is usually the problem over the 2D as far as fps is concerned. However a lower resolution should help. I run at 1920 x 1200 (my lcd 26" max res) and my 295 flies.I suggest reading through this thread http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041 and trying the nHancer settings.If all fails then you must lower your resolution.

I also have a 32 inch monitor with native 2560x1600 resolution. Ironically, the FPS is higher (much higher actually) in 2D than in 3D. HOWEVER, that is alot of pixels to drive. I find running 1920x1200 is a nice compromise for crisp image and FPS. My system is midrange (see specs in my signature...)Hope that helps.