I have noticed that some of those with high end (Core 2 Duo) computers are running at screen resolutions five times higher (1920 x 1200) than normal, and wondering why they get very low frame rates.My suggestion would be to set the screen resolution to the lowest setting 1024 x 768 and try that for a few days. I am sure your frame rates would be vastly improved, and you could have most of the sliders high or maxed. (Only if you really need to, then increase to say 1280 x 1024 if frame rates are still acceptable.)I fly in this 1024 x 768 resolution all the time on my 3 year old P4 3.0gHz computer, and with autogen off, can get 21 frames (locked) quite easily outside of cities, and the scenery is looks great. If I had a core 2 duo, I would not increase screen resolution, but rather move some of the sliders up and then enjoy all of the things that FSX has to offer.I think Screen Resolution plays a big part in frame rates, but is too often ignored when folks here compare systems and settings and frame rates. My guess is that it has almost as much impact as autogen does on frame rates.

There is some truth to this. Too many folks push things too hard. I have a Radeon 1900XTX and I run my card at 1152x864 for several reasons:1) I can see menus without feeling like I am taking an eye exam2) Lower resolution = better framerates. I gain 3 FPS from dropping even my current settings to 1024 as a sidenote.3) Most issues with jaggies among other things can be fixed in your software for your GPU such as AF and AA, with little to no frame rate loss.I have NEVER understood why people choose such ridiculous resolutions, but then again I am not them so I don't understand the motivations. In the framerate war, we need everything we can get, but damnit don't complain to me about terrible framerates at 1900.Regards,-Cody

why high resolution ?a) see more (feel you are looking outside a cockpit rather than a port-hole on a ship):( get better image qualityFSX defaulted to 1024x768 on my PC which looked rubbish (being a TFT monitor) and performed shockingly.I changed resolution to 1280x1024 to match my monitor native resolution. FSX looks a lot better and runs a lot smoother.Not sure of FSX frame rate counter difference, and not sure why so many people worry about what it says since it never seems to be accurate.

If you have a flat panel monitor, changing to the resident resolution is nearly a must or it WILL look rubbish. This is also another reason I still use a CRT (albeit flat screen.)You WILL get better image quality, but you can still maintain that quality with AA and AF enabled through your video card (note, not FSX.) As for seeing more, not really true... changing the resolution doesn't really give you all that much more to physically see, it just crams in more pixels per a square inch which removes jaggies and condenses menu size, and in some cases 2d overlays.

I have never paid any attention to native resolution. May sound stupid but how do you determine what this is for each monitor.

>>I think Screen Resolution plays a big part in frame rates, but>is too often ignored when folks here compare systems and>settings and frame rates. >>My guess is that it has almost as much impact as autogen does>on frame rates.>Depends on what graphics card you've got. If you have a high-end one (latest GF 79x or 8x or comparable ATI) it just doesn't matter that much. You may lose 1 or 2 frames here and there.Also, have you ever seen 1024x768 used on 24 inch wide screen flat panel monitor? It's almost unreadable.

>I have never paid any attention to native resolution. May>sound stupid but how do you determine what this is for each>monitor.In the manual.

only matters if it is a TFT flat panel / lcd / plasma etc.should say on the box it came in, in the manual, specs on the internet. Correct me if i am wrong, but one way to find the native resolution is looking at the maximum resolution that can be set in the control panel. (mine wont go past native resolution)everything seems to look sharper at higher resolution as whilst the same object is drawn with same amount of pixels - the pixels take up less physical real estate on screen. i.e. the same object is smaller at high resolution resulting in extra room around edge of screen for more detail.So in flight sim, it appears that you have wider angle of view (when in reality its more like sitting back / zooming out a bit). I'm talking about the scenery here, not the 2d panels (which seem to resize to full up the space at higher resolutions).Its the same with counterstrike/BF2 etc...going back to lower resolutions...say 800x600 as an extreme...feels like you are playing with blinkers on / looking through telescope.so to answer OP, thats why i play it like that

For the most part native resolution is a termed used in reference to LCD flat panel screens. These screens have a specific resolution that they will look best at, while any other resolution is basically filtered and looks like trash. If an LCD screen is supposed to have a native resolution is 1280x1024 then preferably you will get the best quality of your monitor at that resolution. This does not really apply to non LCD monitors.

. . as well as running better at their native resolution - the newer, larger monitors are usually designed as "wide-screen" monitors to take advantage of being able to play full, wide-screen movies without the black bands at the top and bottom of the screen. It seems to me that - in the near future, because of the rate of technology advance - we will be using 25" - 27" - 30" - 35" television screens, instead of pure monitors, to run our flight sims on - period. A Samsung 23" lcd television now delivers 1366 x 768 resolution at BestBuy. This is pretty good resolution at 23" wide using VC and TrackIR. There are smaller and bigger with higher resolutions than this. At U$799 it's much easier to persuade (insert family member) that you "think we can use a second/third television", than a bigger monitor for the flight sim!

I get exactly the same frame rate running at 1280x1024 in FSX as i do running in triplehead mode at 3840x1024 on my 7900gt or on my 8800gts. The game is too cpu limited to be affected by a change in graphics resolution once you have a certain spec of hardware. 14fps on the runway at seattle regardless of what rez I'm in. FS9 and FSX are the only games that i own that exhibit this behavior. Any of my first person shooters all decrease performance with an increase in rez. Not the case with flight sim.

For the most part, it greatly depends on your GPU. Even on my GPU (Radeon 1900XTX) I can see a loss in a few frames a second as compared to higher resolutions. Note, that this is also scalable, as the lower your framerate, the less of a hit you will notice. A loss in .03 or 3% of performance at 17FPS is only a loss of .51 frames a second, whereas that same loss at 50FPS would result in 1.5 frames per a second.I am beginning to think though that FSX is having some issues with the current incarnations of the Catlyst drivers and or ATI architecture. This of course if unconfirmed, but I am hearing from many people like myself that lower resolutions with powerful cards like mine tend to give better performance. *shrugs*I have seen losses of framers per second when bumping my resolution up.

1600x1200 for me simply because it's the native resolution of the monitor. (I would like to go higher if anything)As for 1024x768, come on, It's nearly 2007!!I was using that resolution on a 19" CRT in 2002 and it looked terrible then!Even the Xbox kids get 720 and 1080 now...............

My eyesight must be getting bad. I actually prefer my resolution a bit lower so I can see things!

So the fact that I can get 50+ FPS in FS9 running on two displays (23" 1920x1200 + 20" 1600x1200) means that I have to throw my equipment in the garbage and pull out a $25 monitor and run at 1024x768 with FSX???For this *right*, I get to loose all my addons and have to pay to replace them all.Wow! Thanks Microsoft!If this was any other game from any other company, it would be rated a 2.5/10, but there are just too many suckups around who don't understand that by sucking up all they are doing is sending the message that it is perfectly ok to screw the consumer.Enjoy your fantasy patch and Windows Vista. I'm happy with FS9 + PMDG + FSNav ... see ya'll with FS11.