I've come to notice quite recently that some of the newest and hottest first-person shooters out there can damn near cripple my machine when trying to run at 1280x1024x32 (which is where I have FS2004 set at).My system is as follows:AMD XP 3200XP+ on an A7N8X Deluxe 2.01024 MB Corsair XMS Platinum Dual-Channel DDR400PNY GF-FX 5900 Ultra 256MB(2) 80 GB Maxtor SATA 7200 RPM HD's in RAID-0Latest Forceware driversI've had to back-down Half-Life 2 and Medal Of Honor - Pacific Assault to 1152x864x32, and then they run flawlessly. Is anyone with a system comparable to mine running at less that 1280 resolution and getting better performance? I've had one other flight simmer tell me to back down to 1280x960x32, but I'm unsure if such a small change will make a difference.Thanks in advance!Scott

I used to run 1600x1200 with 4x AA and 8x AF. However as I just bought ActiveSky2004.5 and am flying with alot more weather now that I was, I have dialed it back to 1280x1024 to get better frame rates. I haven't tried going lower as the jaggies from the horizontal lines on textures really get ugly below that point. Something about the ATI engine that doesn't AA those well I've read. Athlon 64 3200+ on Asus K8V SE Deluxe1gb DDR400 RAMATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb

I would never run FS2004 with a resolution that is not 4:3 ratio. Otherwise I see distortions to the gauges (small but I can see it). I like 1280x960.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

When I had a CRT I ran 1280x960. See sig for current config.Greg

>I would never run FS2004 with a resolution that is not 4:3>ratio. Otherwise I see distortions to the gauges (small but I>can see it). I like 1280x960.>>Michael J.>WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB>Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2Ditto.

Same here, that 1280X960 is the correct ratio. I also run at 32bit color.Bob Johnson

Always 1280x1024x32 here with varying degrees of FSAA and AF. That's because it's the native resolution of my LCD.In FS, I used 4x AA/8X AF with my old system:XP 2400+ @ 2.2 GHz, 512MB RAM, Radeon 9700 ProSome new games, Doom3 especially absolutely killed that system causing the game to turn into a slideshow.Will obviously use the same resolution on my new system but I'll probably be able to use more AA and/or AF. But it depends on how much spare GPU power I end up having.Athlon64 3500+, 512MB RAM, Radeon X800XT

HiEasy to get correct aspect ratio if you run in a window (forced to with LCD monitors)

Hi Scott,I suggest that you try setting both Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic filtering to Application Preference in the Control Panel while running games like HL2. Let the application decide what settings to use. The exception is, of course, FS9 when AA should be switched OFF in the sim.These are the settings I use for Doom 3 and I am rewarded with good performance most of the time and the visuals are still very pleasing to the eye at 1280x1024x32.Having an ATI Radeon I am able to use a very useful utility called RadLinker which allows you to incorporate your preferred 3D settings into a unique shortcut (a RadLink) which links to the executable of your chosen game. This is very useful if, like me, you prefer not to be dipping into Display Properties all the time to change settings. When you exit the game the RadLink resets AA and AF to the user defaults which, in my case, is Application Preference. Works like a charm AND you can create a RadLink to FSAutoStart which is just what I need to ensure maximum flexibility.Unfortunately, RadLink has been created for the ATI Radeon series of cards so, unless there is something similar available, Nvidia card users will have to continue using the standard approach.MikeP4 2.4GHz (400FSB), 1Gig PC2100 DDR Crucial, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB (Omega 2.5.90), SB Audigy (5.12.0001.0443), Hyundai ImageQuest Q17 17" TFT LCD 20ms Monitor (1280x1024x32), Gigabyte GA-8IRXP MoBo, Ultra-Quiet PSU 400W, WinXP Home (SP2), DirectX 9.0c, AGP Aperture = 128MB

1024X768X32 and have done so for many years. Whats so special about smaller resulutions like 1024 x 1080. The screen is tooooooo small

>Unfortunately, RadLink has been created for the ATI Radeon>series of cards so, unless there is something similar>available, Nvidia card users will have to continue using the>standard approach.>>MikeNvidia cards have for some time featured Application Profiles to achieve the same thing at a driver, without the need for a link or addon application. Simply set up the preferences against the game *.exe and all settings are changed automatically. I normally use 1280x960x32 on my 21" Mitsubishi CRT, but increasingly I am also having to step down a notch or two with the more complex stuff. But then my GF FX5600 card is hardly cutting edge and is renowned for falling into `seconds per frame` mode at the first sign of anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering together!Good job Christmans is coming!Allcott

Hi Guys,Wow, am I the only one running 1600x1200x32?. Am I missing something here?.Mike

Well, things SEEM better at 1280x960x32. I use no AA at all in-sim, and the card is set for app-preference. I do set the card to 8x AF, and then leave the slider half-way in the sim. That appears to be the only way to get crisp ground textures at a distance from the plane.I have almost all the sliders jacked-up in the sim with 100% on the clouds. Now, if someone could just help me with 'decent' settings for vis and cloud draw distance...TIA!Scott

Primary Monitor: 1600x1000x32 yep, it is a widescreen CRTSecondary Monitor: 1024x768x32 GPS, Weather Radar, engine gaugesAlex

1280 X 960 X 32 & I only use 2X AA & 4X AF (did not find the image quality to match the performace loss at higher AA & AF settings). I can run pretty well at 1600 X 1200, but with my standard 19" CRT that is not a proper ratio and the panel is slightly distorted. Sony Multiscan G410 19" CRTNvidia 6800GT 256MB1GB RamP4 3.2HT 800FSB