Hello everyone,Can someone suggest a good alternative to 1600x1200 resolution view? What are other people with a high performance computer flying in - and why? Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated!Regards, SteveSystem Specs:O/C homegrown MSI 865PE Neo 2, O/C P4 2.9Ghz/800Mhz FSB, 1GB PC3200 400Mhz Ram, 36GB 10,000 RPM WD Raptor/120GB Maxtor ATA133, O/C GeForce4 Ti4600 w/45.23a Omega drivers, DirectX 9.0b, WinXP Pro, SoundBlaster Audigy 2 with 6.1 speakers, CH Products Flight Sim Yoke USB

1280x960 still keeps the 4:3 ratioIt's not just a high end computer that matters of course, there's a little matter of monitor, hate to do 1600x1200 on a 15 inch monitor :-)

Thanks...Roger that Vulcan.I have a nice 19" Trinitron that can do 100Hz at 1280x960 - I'll give that a try, and thanks for your feedback!!! Regards, SteveSystem Specs:O/C homegrown MSI 865PE Neo 2, O/C P4 2.9Ghz/800Mhz FSB, 1GB PC3200 400Mhz Ram, 36GB 10,000 RPM WD Raptor/120GB Maxtor ATA133, O/C GeForce4 Ti4600 w/45.23a Omega drivers, DirectX 9.0b, WinXP Pro, SoundBlaster Audigy 2 with 6.1 speakers, CH Products Flight Sim Yoke USB

Um - why are you asking? My Notebook has 1400x1050, the resolution also works on my normal PC with the Omega Radeon drivers...If your system can handle it, I'd probably prefer high quality antialieasing over an extreme resolution.You should also check which resolution is best for the monitor - I have a Philips 19" monitor, and it gives me moiree with some resolutions.-Daniel

I'm running 1400x1050x32 now too. It's excellent. Running 4xAA & 8xQualityAF with my 9700Pro on my desktop with the 2.5.04 Omega drivers. (based on the Cat 3.10)

1280x960 seems to work well here.(Ti4200 GPU).Dave

Hi everyone, thanks for all the input, I appreciate you taking the time to answer.The reason why I'm asking is I'm trying to balance frame rate/resolution/ansiotrophic filtering/antialiasing. I can run 1600x1200 with 8x filtering, 4xAA locked at 27 fps, but it sometimes flutters. I can run 1600x1200 with 4x filtering, NO antialiasing and keep a forever steady 27 fps. So, I'm just experimenting, that's all - and just wanted to see what specs others were using.Thanks...

I was running 1600x1200 but found I didn't quite have the "juice." I've done some tweaks since then so might try it again but I'm quite happy with the 1280x1024 I'm running now. I know that 1280x960 is more accurate in terms of keeping the proper ratios, but I'm thinking of getting an LCD and native mode will be 1280x1024. It's close enough that I can't really see any difference. 1280x960 (or 1024), lot's of AA and AF, and you'll be a happy camper...billg

I run 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. I refuse to run any lower. I used to get awful stutters when I had my Ti4800 with FS2004. It ran better at 1280x960, but I couldn't stand it.

Hmmm, interesting. Thanks for the replies, I'll continue to experiment, but maybe for now I'll just stick with 1600x1200...Regards, Steve

Best trade-off between performance and visual quality on my system (P4-2.4 @ 2.8, OC Ti4200 w 52.16 drivers..)==> 1280x960x32 w. 2XAA and 4XAF.

Thanks for your feedback Bert. I'll give it a try!

>I run 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. I refuse to run any lower. I used to>get awful stutters when I had my Ti4800 with FS2004. It ran>better at 1280x960, but I couldn't stand it.Interesting post John, I have a Ti4800 and have to compromise on some settings at 1600x1200, then I saw your specs :-), if I could afford a 9800 Pro then I would upgrade :-lol