Is there a big difference say from 2x AA to 4x AA? I noticed with my 9700pro, the higher the value, the more it stutters? I've also heard people leave AA and AF off? Could someone also give a dirty rundown of what AA and AF are controlling in FS9?<-- has radeon 9700pro with 3.9 cats

bump

I've noticed the same correlation between stutters and increased AA/AF values. I usually just use maximum AA and 4x AF; works for me as those seem to be the best trade-off. I usually don't get stutters; what I get is the scenery looking like I am viewing it through a wire mesh of sorts. Don't know why....I also have the same settings: 9700 Pro (AIW) with 3.9 cats. I dont know but the 3.9 cats didn't really solve the flickering problem for me; they just reduced the severity. I can still see the screen flickering ever so slightly, especially when changing aircraft, or making changes to the visual settings.

What AA does is align the pixels where it deems necessary because a lower pixel array is not capable of doing it by itself.In short, the higher the resolution, the less need there is for AA because at high resolutions there are enough pixels being displayed on the screen to render the image without much pixel manipulation. At lower resolutions there are not enough pixels to maintain the desired angle of alignment.If displays and processors were capable of handling a resolution of 16,000 x 12,000 there wouldn't be a need for AA.However, the higher the AA or resolution, the more work the GPU has to do and the lower the frame rate will be. It's a balancing act and up to your preference and GPU capabilities. I would doubt that your 9700 is the primary cause of stutters.I have it 1280x960 2xAA (FX5900U) at present as this seems to be a happy medium.I would like to hear from some people who run 1280x1024. Is there an advantage of some sort? It is not the 4:3 multiple, so I was wondering about that.My personal opinion about AF is that the latest nVidia drivers are fudging this at 2X for certain games/sims with FS9 being one of them. I don't know about ATI.

P4 3.06 Gf4 Ti4200 56.12 drivers card controlled anti-aliasing,2xQ in the Nvidia settings. Runs beautifully. Unlimited frames.Peter Sydney Australia

AA "aligns" pixels by "blurring" them. If you have a black/white diagonal line with no AA, you will see stairsteps or "jaggies" along that line as you get closer (higher magnification). AA creates midtones of gray and distributes them along that line to feather or transition the stair steps into a more blurred but smoother looking line. Different video card drivers do this differently and there are several things that the code must deal with such as which lines to blur. Lines are usually identified and treated according to their contrast with the background against which they are seen, so even switching drivers can affect the visible results.AF, on the other hand, is a feature that attempts to sharpen receding lines as a texture map recedes into the background (like railroad tracks that get smaller as you look at them going toward the horizon). The sharpening works much like the "unsharp mask" feature in graphics editors by increasing contrast of "soft" edges against a contrasted background.It is obvious, then, that these two functions work against each other. If you max out AA, you are defeating some of the chosen lines that AF is trying to sharpen. Mipmap settings also will sharpen edges as you increase the setting.What I have said on several occasions is that these are all adjustments, and that maximum realism is achieved differently on different cards, but never by maxing out all the settings. Find a balance between AA, AF and mipmapping. There are also settings in the nVidia drivers for "quality vs. performance" which should usually be set for qualityThere was a long thread on screen resolutions earlier. Maximum textures in FS2004 are 1024x1024 (although I have found some FS2004 panel bitmaps at 1600x1200). Theoretically, 1280x1024 should be the maximum resolution that sees any benefit, although some newer panels do look sharper and gauges are easier to read at 1600x1200. The 1280x960 is close enough to 1280x1024. Derek Wildstar had a good post on monitor aperature grids, LCD panels and the results of various screen resolutions and concluded that 1280x1024 was optimum. I agree except for the hi-res panels, mainly for reading the gauges.Your system will dictate, to some extent, which settings are best for you. It depends on CPU power, video card capability, your monitor's maximum resolution rating (1280x1024 is a common ceiling), and what looks best to you at your chosen slider settings.I run a 3.2GHz (slightly overclocked), FX5900U on a 19" CRT at 1280x1024 normally, but also at 1600x1200 if the panel bitmap is that size. HIgher resolutions are a waste of time for normal FS2004 scenery because of the 1024x1024 texture bitmap limits. You can prove that to yourself by taking screen shots at 1280x1024 and at 1600x1200 and comparing them side by side. I like 2XAA/8XAF all on the card settings, trilinear filtering, 4 mipmap in FS2004, and full autogen and scenery settings, 70% 3D clouds set to medium density. MDavis