Well,What about FPS?Got a new computer!With "all to the right" and everything as heavy as possible, without any tweak and a clean version of MS, 1280 x 1024 x 32 resolution and with all my silly code, I get 30 FPS, locked, flying into and landing at KSEA during business hours.It is a miracle.Only problem:All former bitmaps were 1024 x 768, so i have to redo litterally everything from start.Fun!Jan"Beatus Ille Procul Negotiis"

>With "all to the right" and everything as heavy as possible,>without any tweak and a clean version of MS, 1280 x 1024 x 32>resolution and with all my silly code, I get 30 FPS, locked,>flying into and landing at KSEA during business hours.>>It is a miracle.>>Only problem:>All former bitmaps were 1024 x 768, so i have to redo>litterally everything from start.Jan, do yourself and everyone a huge favor, and DO NOT create artwork at 1280 x 1024 resolution. Stick with 1.3:1 ratio so FS can scale properly...1280 x 960 x 32Congrats on the new 'puter. I upgraded to a new vid card a month ago, and went from 15 to 30 fps in one big leap... ;)

Bill,But I have 1280 x 1024 flat screen??Jan"Beatus Ille Procul Negotiis"

>Bill,>>But I have 1280 x 1024 flat screen??It should still be able to run in 1280x960 mode though...Try an experiment and you'll see the problem immediately. Run a panel designed with the standard 1.3:1 aspect ratio at 1280x1024. All the "round gauges" will be slightly "oval shaped."Select 1280x960 and you can then see that "round gauges" are still "round."1.25:1 may not seem like much difference in aspect from 1.30:1, but on small screens even that .05 difference becomes magnified.

Right Bill,But it is only for personal use and i think i have a nice pic now with 1280 x 1024.Jan"Beatus Ille Procul Negotiis"

Hi Bill,Just curious, but this is the first I've heard of this myself. Since a 4:3 (1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc.) aspect ratio is standard and represents square pixels on-screen, why would a 1.3:1 aspect ratio be correct for FS?I have several (square) gauges designed for 1600x1200 using perfect circles for various functions and none of them appear as ovals on-screen. I'm not saying you're wrong by any means, but I am curious as to why 1.3:1 would represent a correct aspect ratio when the pixels aren't square at that setting. FS can obviously be driven at any resolution your craphics card supports, so I'm just a little confused here.--Jon

>Hi Bill,>>Just curious, but this is the first I've heard of this myself.>Since a 4:3 (1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc.) aspect>ratio is standard and represents square pixels on-screen, why>would a 1.3:1 aspect ratio be correct for FS?Different mode of expression... 4:3 = (4/3) = 1.3333333Therefore, 4 is 1.3333333 times as large as 3, which also is the same as 1.3:1... ;)BTW, 1280x1024 is NOT 4:3 ratio though, 1280x960 is...1204/768 = 1.3333331280/1024 = 1.251280/960 = 1.33333331600/1200 = 1.333333FS will try to correctly render non-standard ratio screens, but it does so at the cost of accuracy and sharpness, because is not 100% correct all the time.>I have several (square) gauges designed for 1600x1200 using perfect >circles for various functions and none of them appear as ovals >on-screen.As well it should! 1600x1200 = 4:3Following the same mathematical logic then,1280 x 1024 is actually a 3.75:3 ratio... hence, circles will display as ovals...

>Right Bill,>>But it is only for personal use and i think i have a nice pic>now with 1280 x 1024.Jan, as long as you are happy, that's all that counts! ;)

Well you're absolutely right, Bill. I had always assumed 1280x1024 was 4:3; probably because so many flat-panels use that resolution nativelty. Now I'm grateful I haven't done any bitmaps for that res:)Thanks for clearing it up!--Jon

hi,After these comments going back to 4:3, 1.333333333333333"Beter ten halve gekeerd, dan ten hele gedwaald"!Jan"Beatus Ille Procul Negotiis"

>>Bill,>>>>But I have 1280 x 1024 flat screen??>>It should still be able to run in 1280x960 mode though...>>Try an experiment and you'll see the problem immediately. Run>a panel designed with the standard 1.3:1 aspect ratio at>1280x1024. All the "round gauges" will be slightly "oval>shaped.">>Select 1280x960 and you can then see that "round gauges" are>still "round.">>1.25:1 may not seem like much difference in aspect from>1.30:1, but on small screens even that .05 difference becomes>magnified.One of the other problems with scaling at ratios other that 4:3 is what I call gauge bounce... I have some rather tight tolerances on some parts of gauges within the panel. The non 4:3 scalings have a tendency to move out of tolerance, shifting up and to the right by about one pixel. Its not a lot, but its very noticable on my large screen. I have actually made a panel.cfg specifically for 1280x1024 that I switch to when I want to use that res.A lot also depends on the monitor and its firmware, however. My Samsung shows me round guages regardless of res chosen due to the way it sizes the screen... IE it corrects for aspect ratio differences.ATI has been smart and their current drivers include the full range of 4:3 ratios, even 1360x1024. They support 1400x1050 in Linux but for reasons unknown, do not in Windows (and #### do they ever perform well - I don't know if I got a odd card or what but my FPS actually goes _up_ when I turn on 2x FSAA and set filtering to 8 samples in the driver at 1360x1024). :)Shad

If you switch from full screen to windowed mode (maximized window) with the taskbar always visible, you get the aspect ratio nearly right even with a 1280x1024 resolution. And you need the correct ratio when you do bitmap work. I had to use windowed mode all the time before I got my 20" display (1600x1200).