I would say qualifed yes. 1200 gives you more addressable pixels so is obviously better. For some things. Anything that uses pure software rendering will benifit from having more pixels. However, if you want to watch LOTR extended blue ray directors cut, then you dont want a pretty dumb piece of software attempting to map 1080 input to 1200 output display area and taking guesses about how to handle the discrepencies. The advantage that 1080 has over 1200 is that it is a standard that a lot more people use, and when they design their stuff to look its best in 1080, it can not look better in 1200 (or any other resolution) but it can look worse.

For FSX what do you think?

1080 is a TV resolution. If your media player is incapable of displaying a video in its original format then get a proper media player. 1200 is superior in every single way

Have you got a 1200, they are extremely rare now adays?

If you can afford a machine for FSX only, then 1200 is better then 1080, because the software renderer has more output pixels available to it (depending of course on your have sufficient GPU to drive it). But if you are lucky enough to be in that situation, then you would probably consider 2560x1440 or even 2560x1600!1920x1080 is not as some would say, a TV resolution, it is a media resolution and more importantly, it is a widely standardisd one. If you are old enough, you will remember when VGA (640x480) was introduced in 1987. It is still in use today on mobile devices and even the Windows splash screen not because it was better then the others, but because it was widely adopted. Have a look at any decent site selling monitors and you will see that the HD (1920x1080) monitors out number all others.

If you can afford a machine for FSX only, then 1200 is better then 1080, because the software renderer has more output pixels available to it (depending of course on your have sufficient GPU to drive it). But if you are lucky enough to be in that situation, then you would probably consider 2560x1440 or even 2560x1600!1920x1080 is not as some would say, a TV resolution, it is a media resolution and more importantly, it is a widely standardisd one. If you are old enough, you will remember when VGA (640x480) was introduced in 1987. It is still in use today on mobile devices and even the Windows splash screen not because it was better then the others, but because it was widely adopted. Have a look at any decent site selling monitors and you will see that the HD (1920x1080) monitors out number all others.

Paul thank you so much for all your time, greatly appreciated sir,- You are completley right regarding what sells more, I hardly see any monitors ANYWHERE offering a 1200 res. From a 1680x1050 going to a 1920x1080 will I see a "more stretched image," or is it simply a direct larger and higher resolution than my 22" 1680

You will be hard pressed to notice the extra 30 vertical pixels available. The view in your cockpit wont be stretched (unless you fly 2d) you will simply be able to see a little more on each side of your cockpit. It is hard to explain, but think of a scene in a movie when two people are talking face to face and it looks fine. The extra width you get means you would be able to see their ears aswell and for reasons psycology and socio-anthropology which are way beyond me, it looks better.I still believe getting a widescreen was the best upgrade I have ever made to my flight sim experiance, but I struggle to explain why it is so much better.

You will be hard pressed to notice the extra 30 vertical pixels available. The view in your cockpit wont be stretched (unless you fly 2d) you will simply be able to see a little more on each side of your cockpit. It is hard to explain, but think of a scene in a movie when two people are talking face to face and it looks fine. The extra width you get means you would be able to see their ears aswell and for reasons psycology and socio-anthropology which are way beyond me, it looks better.

Thank Paul, I am probably going for this screen, thoughts? Or 24". Cheers guys!http://www.ebuyer.com/263934-asus-ve278q-lcd-led-27-hdmi-monitors-with-speakers-ve278q

Sweet! (The speakers will be shite but I am sure you know that). This is definatly one area were size matters and bigger is better.

Sweet! (The speakers will be shite but I am sure you know that). This is definatly one area were size matters and bigger is better.

Have no idea why they start putting inbuilt speakers in, I am sure you can turn them off completely.Looks ok?

Same monitor is a little cheaper here: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-029-AS&groupid=17&catid=1120&subcat=

Same monitor is a little cheaper here: http://www.overclock...id=1120&subcat=

Thanks so much, does it look good to you, worth it?

I would toss a coin between it and http://www.overclock...id=1120&subcat=but I would be happy to buy either.

...- You are completley right regarding what sells more, I hardly see any monitors ANYWHERE offering a 1200 res. From a 1680x1050 going to a 1920x1080 will I see a "more stretched image," or is it simply a direct larger and higher resolution than my 22" 1680

The aspect ratio is different. You get a wider aspect with the 1920x1080 screen than your old 1680x1050. The 1920x1080 screen is 16:9, your old one 16:10. 1920x1200 is 16:10, so with that one you'd get a "direct larger and higher resolution than my 22" 1680" as you put it yourself

I would toss a coin between it and http://www.overclock...id=1120&subcat=but I would be happy to buy either.

Yeah looks gr8, think I will go with the Asus 27"

I am after a bigger monitor that's over 100 hz and displays 1080p pref 34 inch any suggestions please thanks Wayne H .

1080 would look bad on a 34 incher imo. You should look for far greater resolutions if you want that big of a screen.

At 34" you should start looking at TV sets with HDMI inputs.