1600x1200, and no going back

[Guest]

Has anyone else made the mistake of looking at FS2004 at 1600x1200?Holy cow. Now, I'm in a bit of a pickle 'cause there is no way I am ever going back to 1024x768. The difference is pretty incredible.Funny thing is, I get solid fps in windowed mode as long as I don't use real weather. I don't need to run anti-aliasing or filtering because the landscape has so much detail at that resolution, and jaggies are not an issue. I just took off from LAX, at night, with the "building storms" theme, and stayed at my locked 18 fps.The runways are really breathtaking at 1600x1200.Quick tip that might be helpful to others: The "hide menu bar" function in window mode decreased my fps by quite a bit. Keeping the menu bar on screen helps maintain a steady FPS (not sure why ... surely that little strip isn't blocking very much).

[Guest]

Uhhmmm yeahhhhh... LOL... it's by far the only way to fly... hehe Thats for sure, I've been using 16x12x32 with 2002 sonce it came out and now with 2004 as well.... 1024 looks like freakin' lego compared to 16x12.. Glad to see you've seen the light... Enjoy

[Guest]

I used to exclusively use 1600x1200 with IL2 and IL2-FB but then I couldn't use any AA since I had a GeForce4 Ti4200 64Mb (too much of a hit to fps).Now that I have a GeForce4 Ti4600 128Mb (not the much lesser Ti4600SE) I've actually dropped down a notch in screen resolution to 1280X1024 but I can use Quincux (sp?) AA. This gives better in-cockpit images (less jaggies) and quite acceptable outside images.I've found it to be a good compromise but look forward to next year's hardware when I should be able to get 1600x1200 with good AA and AF.Bottle

[clayton4115 56]

are you guys talkin 17" monitors here?

[clayton4115 56]

help i cant see 1600 x 1200 on my flightsim set up, i am using a 17" on a Geforce4 Nvidia Ti4200 128meg card.

[Rakham 0]

I confirm what was said above and yes 17"in my case.RakhamPIV 2.53 Ghz 1536 DDR ATI Radeon 9700 Pro WinXP ProYoke & Pedals CH Products

[Vulcan 14]

It is normal not to be able to see 1600x1200 in FS, Clayton.What you have to do is set your desktop resolution to 1600x1200 first and then it should be available in FS. Alternatively you can edit the fs config file to show 1600x1200x32 in place of the current resolution.AFAIK however if you are running the desktop at less than 1600x1200 then FS will reflect that lower res even though you have edited the FS config file and you will need to reset to 1600x1200 each time you run FS.HTH

[Guest]

I'm talking 19" monitor. Worth every penny. I just wish I was rich enough to buy a 21" like I have at work.Bottle

[Guest metamarty]

Yep, I'm using 1600x1200, since it's the native resolution of my TFT monitor. I'm kindof forced into this. Using anything lower triggers the interpolation of pixels on the monitor and it's not as nice. I have some framerate issues with this though. I'm using a P4 3 Ghz with 1 GB RAM and a TI4400, but I have to put the cloud coverage slider back 50%, or the thing starts stuttering. Funny thing is that running fullscreen reduces FPS bij half, so I'm stuck in windowed mode. I'll try the tip about the menubar.

[badderjet 181]

Damn... My ole 17" does only get 1280x1024... I better get a bigger one, huh...? :-(

[Guest Blueshockeynut]

There is a company called MiComp that sells 21 inch monitors for dirt cheap, they are refurbished, you can either get a 21" for $160 USD or a 21" CRT flat for $195, not bad, they actually have a store here in Chicago in the north burbs and they have a website as well, if any one wants any info let me know.JB

[brucek 38]

I used 1600*1200 for a while with my new 8500 Pro and existing LCD monitor. Now I'm running the LCD from the DVI output of the video card, and res is limited to 1280*1024 in that mode (I could force it higher if I unchecked the "hide modes that this monitor cannot display" box.) What effect would that have, driving a monitor with a higher res than it was designed for?.I've tried going back to the VGA output, where 1600*1200 becomes available (even with the above check-box on). But the comparison between DVI and VGA is night and day, what those D->A and A-> D circuits do must really screw things up, all the sharp edges are gone (the really sharp ones).Good thread...Bruce.

[Guest metamarty]

Never put your resolution higher than the native LCD resolution. There are simply not enough pixels on your screen, so why should you have your videocard generate 1600 pixels only to have the LCD reduce them back to 1280 ? The DVI interface restricts your card to its maximum. The analog interface doesn't understand resolutions and simply maps the signal to the pixels. The best image is always achieved with DVI on native resolution. If you need to go lower, try a resolution that is exactle half of the native resolution (1600x1200 -> 800x600). Otherwise, the interpolation results in bad quality.

[brucek 38]

Thanks :)Bruce.

[Joseph29 225]

The highest resolution I can get is 1280x1024 True Color (32bit) Im hoping a new graohic card will help