Hi Mike,try changing the header in the display.cfg to 'RADEON 9800 PRO.0', instead of 'ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 2k/XP'.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Hi Gosta,"try changing the header in the display.cfg to 'RADEON 9800 PRO.0', instead of 'ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 2k/XP'."Okay...... but my understanding is that all the Display.cfg file does is to apply certain switches to driver components of selected cards where MS was aware of the presence of known issues these cards/drivers had with the sim.Your suggestion implies that because my current entry in the FS9.cfg file does not match the corresponding entry in the Display.cfg then my proposals, as detailed in my original post, would not work. In fact the evidence suggests the contrary to be the case. I have witnessed an improvement in the sim's performance DESPITE the current difference in the entries. Cheers! Your ball...LOL!Mike

Hi Mike,>Okay...... but my understanding is that all the Display.cfg file does is to apply certain switches to driver components of selected cards where MS was aware of the presence of known issues these cards/drivers had with the sim.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Hi Gosta,"Try running FS without a display.cfg, or a blank one and see, if there's any difference in performance."Good idea! Let me know how you get on ;)I'm off to bed.Mike

Hi Mike,I'll let you know tomorrow then...:).Good night,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Hi Gosta,zzzzz.....yawwwwn!Well, I'm up again, removed display.cfg, fired up the sim, went for a flight, exited and what do you know? No sign of Display.cfg having been replaced.I checked fs9.cfg and no changes there either - contents remain unchanged.No errors were reported and everything else seems hunky dory.So, it would appear that the file is irrelevant, unless of course your card is on the list and you wish to benefit(?) from the applied switches. In any event the sim runs quite happily without it.Are there really no others prepared to have a go and experiment? Allowing for the revisitors to this thread, according to the current number of viewers it does seem to have generated some genuine interest. Perhaps it's just idle curiosity or perhaps members of the Microsoft Development Team are using it as another source of their daily entertainment as they place bets as to how long it takes the community to make each discovery. Nothing would surprise me!Cheers,Mike

Hi Gosta,"try changing the header in the display.cfg to 'RADEON 9800 PRO.0', instead of 'ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 2k/XP'."As I recall this matter was discussed a week or two back. If you look again at the Display.cfg file you will note that the headers referencing the different cards are in fact commented out so they serve no useful purpose other than to remind the programmer what switches were applied to specific cards to make them compatible with the sim.In fact, the important entries are the ones that contain the graphic card's ID and, in the case of my Radeon 9800 Pro, these have been added by me as:00001002:00004E48As I explained, this info was obtained from Windows XP's System Information module.Now, assuming this data is present somewhere in Display.cfg AND Display.cfg is in fact present in the root folder, then the relevant switches will be applied (as Display.cfg is scanned during loading of the sim) to those driver components under the relevant ID for my card.Sooooo... logically, this fact suggests that the entry in FS9.cfg:(DISPLAY.Device.RADEON 9800 PRO.0).........merely confirms that at the time of my card's maiden outing it was detected correctly and the ".0" extension just indicates this to be the first or main output from the card, i.e the one we are currently interested in and the one for which correct driver interfaces have hopefully been established.Mike

Hi Mike,I also noticed no difference :). The question is, are the entries in the display.cfg actually called up during normal operation? I wish there was some setting that could be added to the file to confirm, whether it's being used or not - something like 'AddBigRedSquareToPicture=1' :).I was wondering, whether the title was actually commented out - I thought the command is two forward slashes, rather than a semicolon.Cheers,Gosta. http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg