Only problem with 1600 res, I have Airports 2000 VL 3 on, and taking off from KSFO si like a slide show =(

3-22" Hitachi Pro's 1600 X 1200http://fsgateway.com/images/frank.jpgwww.FSGateway.com

19" 1600x1200x16

I run an old surplus 17-inch HP (It still looks great) at 1152 by 864 (32-bit, no FSAA) mainly because this is the highest res supported without too much flickering. I used to run at 1024 but I didn't notice any framerate hit when I bumped it up.-Leon Medado

1152x864 on Compaq MV740 17 inch and1024x768 pm Fujitsu 15 inch.That's the highest both monitors support. (compaq sucks...it doesnt even suppport 1280x1024...)

1152x864 on a nice 21 inch Sun Microsystems ($100);-) with a terrible Vooodoo3 3000. :-erks(sigh)If I only had a GeForce with AA..... :)http://turnhead.com/dot/alex/banner-stroke.gif

1600x1200x32 on a Samsung SyncMaster 955DF. System is P4 1.8gig w/ 512DDR ram

Gizbug,I gave up on Wilco's Airport series back in FS2000. In comparison to scenery in FS2002 the code is very inefficient and no-one with even the fastest machines will be able to run them enjoyably.Time to move on I'm afraid.Cheers,

bump

Actually I can't make up my mind - 1600x1200x32 without antializing or 1280x1024 with antializing..... There is no speed difference, the card is sitting waiting for the CPU anyway, but it can't do antializing at 1600x1200 as far as I can see. I run on an Athlon 1800+, ATI 8500 on a 7 year old 21" Compaq monitor.

800x600 and 100% satisfied :D

960x720x32 with 4x FSAA on a 17" mon.Chris Ehttp://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)

Brand new shiny Sony GPD-420S (ouch on the price!) but boy oh boy, FS really looks good at 1920x1440 :-lolRay

Can someone shed light on something I heard regarding resolution? That running FS in same resolution as desktop will result in smoother/more frame rates? Thanks.Rick

Maybe I should take tihs off then since it is just a framerate killer.