I have always had a problem with FS 2004 In relation to poor frame rates when using add on aircraft, such as the Piper archer and the 747-200Through frustation I sat down and had a look at all my settings for the thousand timeI have always used the display setting of 1024x768x32, and have noticed ( as all of you out there would have ) that by lowering the display setting did Improve the frame rates but was never happy with the lookWell by chance I tried a higher setting of 1152x864x32 and bingo! you should see my frame rates ( my add on aircraft work so well now) all the sliders on max and smooth banking( I then corrected the screen size while In the sim, and there was no need to resize once back on the desktopI contacted a friend of mine to try this setting on his pc, his results ended up the same ( fixed)I am not sure If this has been on the forum before, but If It can help somebody else that Is what It Is all about( I am not sure as to why going to a higher resolution would fix my frame rate problem, to my way of thinking It should have made It worse) Mayby someone out there can answer this for meBryan Pentium 4, 2.4 512 ram, (128 meg gforce Ti 4800 V/card) Windows XP pro

When I read this I figured Bryan was smokeing something good, but I figured what the heck and tried it.I'll be dammed if I did not notice a 10-15% or so increase in frame rate with no visiable loss of quality. Granted thats not much but every little bit counts. I don't get it, by all logic it should make it worse.My SpecsP4 2.4 1Gig Ram, Ati Radion 9000 Pro (128megs) running the latest omega's. XP Pro Tweaked to no end.Oh wow I had folding at home running as well and that will attempt to grab any processor space it can slowing down the app. This is a great find Bryan who would have thunk it...

Hi Fella's,Sounds very interesting and very nice but without repeatable verifiable testresults this is just nice forumtalk..:) so please mention your hard- and software settings and the testenvironment. Or even better use Maurizio Losso's benchmark for FS2004 here in avsim's library (fs2004_benchmark_v.1.0_-_eng.zip). Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif"A Bad Day At The Field Is Still Better Then A Good Day At Work"

The Idea of my post was to let people know about how It Improved my frame rates as well as a friends pcPrevious I could only acieve 9-14 ( no higher, regardless of altitude), now at the runway It Is arounrd 18-19,as I ascend goes to around 20-24Its one of those things all you have to do Is try It, as It worked for me and all other tweaks have done very little

doh...:-dohRob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif"A Bad Day At The Field Is Still Better Then A Good Day At Work"

>Hi Fella's,>>Sounds very interesting and very nice but without repeatable>verifiable testresults this is just nice forumtalk..:) so>please mention your hard- and software settings and the>testenvironment. Or even better use Maurizio Losso's benchmark>for FS2004 here in avsim's library>(fs2004_benchmark_v.1.0_-_eng.zip).>> >Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries>http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif>>"A Bad Day At The Field Is Still Better Then A Good Day At>Work"I would be more than happy to but there is no such file in the library all the benchmark tools are for FS2002 and do not run on 2004. If you could provide a link I would be more than happy to provide this info.

I just want to say that I also looked for this filename and could not find it in the Avsim library. I then searched the whole library for the term 'Benchmark' and came up with the same thing, benchmark tools for FS2002 only.Jim

I've also did some searching and nothing :( That's funny because I downloaded the file from avsim (according to the avsim.diz in the zip file)So it seems that either avsim or the author has withdrawn the file. Anyhow I still have the file so if you wish I could send it ti you. It's about 2,5 MB... Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif"A Bad Day At The Field Is Still Better Then A Good Day At Work"

Well!!! I was also always running at 1024x768x32 and I tried the bump up one step to 1152x864x32 and I made no other changes to my settings. I like using the FSD Gmax Cheyenne, but I always take a huge framerate his and run at about 9-15FPS. In the new resolution I jump to 20-25FPS on departure and close to 30 once I have a little altitude. It looks just as nice and its really almost a 25% jump for me with this aircraft. I did not check to see if there is any change with default aircraft.Not sure what is going on here to cause the change, but there is no doubt that there is a clear advantage to doing this on my machine.P4 2.41.5Gb Ram128mb Geforce 4 Ti 4600Windows XP

hii always run in 1600x1200x32,seems to make it smoother than the 1280x1024 i used before.i saw a post on here saying to try it .and wouldn't go back now.have to say i am using a good computer.so it does help. best wishes steveUKathlon 3000xpgigabyte kt400 mobogigabyte 9800 pro1gb 333 memsb audigy 2cambridge soundworks 5.1 speakersch yokech throttlech rudders

In the past there has been talk about an increase in fps if your screen resolution is a full multiple of the basic 800x600, so 1600x1200 *could* improve fps over, say, 1280x960 because that is a fractional multiple of 800x600.The theory is that the system has less work to do when just doubling the res than trying to work out a fractional increase, as I say, that's the theory. You also get a hit if the video card can't quite cope with 1200x1600.Given the above there is no logical reason for such a screen res to give improved results, but if it works for you what the heck, and for such a simple change I don't think there is any need to back up the claim with benchmarks, it's easy enough to undo.Thanks for the tip, I'll try it.

yep common knowledge ain't it but testing is not about easy or not getting to the old situation it's about proving claims being true in a certain population to prevent that when this little story is forgotten and someone comes up again with a great fix, to which the flightsimcongegration will lift it eyes.It's not about bashing a fellow flightsimmer, it's about getting understandable, proven working fixes and tweaks. That's what we need (or a patch from MS which solves that stupid rock solid edge of visibility layers in mountains ;)) in order to run this sim 9 out of 10 times with a happy feeling.Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif"A Bad Day At The Field Is Still Better Then A Good Day At Work"