Thanks for all of the feed back. I located my Samsung monitor on line. It is a 214T which is 21.3" TFT/PVA with a max resolution of 1600X1200. Amazing that they describe a 8ms response as ultra fast.I will try this later today.

Microsoft has no reason to support 3rd party developers, especially since FS is one of the only series of games I know that allows third party programs to be sold commercially. If your third party software does not work well with FSX, that is not the fault of the developers. Their goal is to create a working flight simulator, and they do not cater to the special interest companies. While in some ways that would be ideal, at least for those that have significantly modded their game, this poses numerous business issues for ACES if they were to cater to the third party developers. With the release of the new software, it is the job of the third party programmers to get their product working with FSX, not the other way around.

>Microsoft has no reason to support 3rd party developers,>especially since FS is one of the only series of games I know>that allows third party programs to be sold commercially. If>your third party software does not work well with FSX, that is>not the fault of the developers. Their goal is to create a>working flight simulator, and they do not cater to the special>interest companies. While in some ways that would be ideal, at>least for those that have significantly modded their game,>this poses numerous business issues for ACES if they were to>cater to the third party developers. With the release of the>new software, it is the job of the third party programmers to>get their product working with FSX, not the other way around.I thought ACES were SPECIFICALLY developing this version WITH 3rd part developers in mind? That was all the blurb a few months back anyway.I know that many 3rd party developers were on the beta team, so this statement makes no sense whatsoever.

MS has an obligating to make MSFSX, not make MSFSX with an addon 747 with ultra realistic detail. Microsoft bid their acknowledgments to 3rd party developers by including the SDK at release, with decent (not perfect) documentation. Several add on programs are already being converted or are currently being developed for FSX. By the next time a new FS game arrives for our consumption, I assure you the add on community will be just as big, if not larger then it currently is. We can't always have our cake and eat it though.

But that's not what you said.You said that Microsoft has no obligation to SUPPORT 3rd party developers. I never mentioned MS providing detailed addons, I only talked about 3rd party, as did you.If they were not supporting 3rd party devs, there would be no need for the SDK would there?This brings us, once again, to performance. If the FPS is already struggling with default aircraft, what's going to happen when you throw in a PMDG or Level-D aircraft? s-l-i-d-e-s-h-o-w......Going from FS2002 to FS2004, I remember transferring my PMDG 737-NG.There were no such performance penalties in this transition. FS2004 had it's issues, but out of the box, the performance was not too far off from FS2002. The same cannot be said for FS2004 to FSX transition.

They are not obligated to do it, but they do it anyway. I think part of it has to due with the fact it has become a staple of the series as Bruce Artwick's original idea of allowing 3rd party developers to continue adding to the product.What I am saying is the developers at ACES cannot be concerned whether or not the newest addon for FS9 will be implemented properly and efficiently with good FPS into FSX. That is not their concern. I have heard numerous people say that ACES has made a mistake and that 3rd party developers will suffer from it. I strongly disagree, and as I said, it is not ACES job to do THEIR job for them.

Hey there Ray, way to twist that around. You may want to watch the name calling there. FSX runs fine at higher resolutions depending, of course, on the other settings. Read some of the posts in these threads.You seem like a really irritated person but calling someone a suckup to the same company which also sells FS9 is both idiotic and hypocrytical.Ian.

Yep, thats quite true with FSX. Depends on the card too..On FS9, I could run up to 1600x1200 and still not see a lossin frame rate vs 1078x768. "9800pro". This is not the case with FSX. All resolutions above 1078 are slower using this card. So I've been using 1078x768. Sure, it's not as good as1600, but it's still quite usable, and the frame increase is worth it. I won't be able to run high res until I get a newcard. Maybe new cpu too... But I'm in no hurry. It may be a few months before I upgrade. I want to let the smoke clearfor a while first and see what works best for FSX. Outside of cities with the autogen off, I often peak at my40 fps limit with the 9800. With mild autogen I'm still usually in the 20's unless I get around a big city. If I ran at 1600, I'd probably be in the mid teens instead.MK

Reading this thread I figured, why not change my resolution from my standard 1024 X 768 to the native of 1280 x 1024 (I have an LCD 17".) Surprise: I seem to get a wee-bit higher frame rates, maybe 2 or 3. Like it unloads the CPU for some reason and puts the difference on my average GeForce 6600 LE... Texture definition is also indeed better.

Two things I can expand on here. Native Resolution isn't specific on a per-monitor basis, and it isn't new to LCD's either. Native resolution is a non-technical term really. What it refers to is based on the size of the screen. For 17" monitors or LCD's, 1024x768 was more than enough to provide tiny details on the screen, but on a 19" screen that little detail becomes a box.... so at 19", they suggest 1280x768.The larger the screen, the larger the pixels are at a baseline 1024 mode. While text would look okay on a little 17" screen, it would look rather chunky on a 24" widescreen. So Native Resolution is a suggested resolution basically, a suggestion of what resolution would give the appearance of smooth text or general graphics. Run a 17" monitor at 3000 by whatever would render it useless, since text would be so small.Secondly, FPS in most games will decrease with higher framerates. (providing your not locked at 60fps while the card is rendering 100 or the likes. Some people say that they see no FPS drop when changing resolution, could it perhaps be because their FPS is locked to 30fps and their card is actually rendering more at either setting, giving the illusion that it's not actually changing? Unlock your FPS and see a true result.... I bet it changes slightly.In addition to that, here's why it changes. At 1024x768, there are almost 900,000 pixels on the screen. Every enhancement, from Bloom to Antialiasing, works on this matrix of data to do its job. If you increase to 1280x1024, your looking at a matrix of over 1.3 million pixels that need attention. Raise the bar higher and you can imagine how large this gets. So for Bloom to run, it must take the matrix, apply a filter to the data and save it back to the screen buffer. Ray tracing, i.e. determining brightness of a pixel by tracing sunlight and other sources of light.... takes another chunk of time. Remember, each shader effect does it too, tho it's more selective and only hits pixels that are part of a particular material. It does this many times per second.... less pixels = less time to run a particular filter.If Bloom has any impact in your FPS, then so would doubling the number of pixels of resolution, your adding that much more overhead to each frame. Since the dawn of early gaming design, it's always been a solid bet that lowering the resolution will raise your framerate, only if your FPS isn't maintaining a locked rate. This is so old-school I almost want to play Heretic!!!Anyways, hope that helps in understanding it all... it is quite simple really.btw: nice angry thread guys :)

Is your Windows desktop setting also 1280 x 1024?Taking a cue from CFS3, which was also an ACES/MS sim product, early on many people felt that they saw an increase in FPS when setting the sim to match their Windows desktop resolution. Can't explain why, but simply filed in the "Strange but True" category.

Might be psychological though. I'll check tonight.

Taking the advice from this post I set both my screen and game resolution to 1600X1200. In doing this I saw about 4 -5 more FPS and every little bit helps.Thanks to everyone.

Agreed....as it can be with many tweaks wherein actual measured, hard data from a consistent and repeatable flight isn't used. This is why all claims of benefit simply have to be explored by each user as they feel warranted. Back in the day, when CFS3 was in exactly the same boat with performance issues and unhappy users, and now pretty much runs like a scalded cat on any modern-day system, there were so many claims of 5-10 FPS boosts from each individual tweak, that when you put them all together, you'd expect to be getting 200 FPS.Fortunately this one isn't difficult or lengthy to try. I don't lay any claim to it's validity, since results always vary from one system to another anyway, but it's just one more buffalo chip to throw in the bucket, so to speak.In my limited experience with the demo, FSX certainly seems CPU-bound as others indicate, so in actuality it would be a surprise - a delightful surprise nonetheless - if this did yield a benefit. G'luck.