Windows wont let you revert back to an older DirectX version (without hacking and lots of not so stable third party software - or emulators). I think Win98 was the last OS you could retro apply earlier DirectX versions.
As for the extra 90 vertical, I'm not quite sure what you mean. At 5040x1050 everything should look crisper (if 1680x1050 is your monitors native resolution). As for 'bigger' you wont actually see more as Paddy says, because the image is just upscaled to fit your monitors if it's displayed at 3840x800.
Don't forget, you are not going from 5:4 to 16:10 where you would see more (obviously). You are going from 16:10 to 16:10 but with just a higher resolution. 5040x1050 is the same as 3840x800 in so far as what they actually display. If you have 3x22" monitors displaying an image at 5040x1050 and next to them 3x19" monitors displaying the same image at 3840x800 - they will look identical. Physically, yes the image would be 'bigger' because of the monitor size compared to the 3x19" monitors, but it is actually showing the same image ingame as the 3x19" monitors would show, just at a higher resolution... Phew, hope all that makes sense.
Just remember, once you go widescreen or surround, you are going to see as much as you are going to see. A 30" widescreen monitor displays the same image as a 19" widescreen monitor. It's just 11" bigger is all...
Now I know what your thinking. So how come if I take a screenshot at 3840x800 and then have it as my desktop backgound in windows whilst my display is set at 5040x1050. How come there is so much extra space around the edges then eh? eh? That proves you must see more at 5040x1050...
Er, no. A static image obviously has a given size depending on the resolution run when the image was taken. Ingame (which let's face it is where it matters), this is not the case. Please see paragraph above for reason why...
Sorry this turned into a lecture of sorts and I never mentioned FSX once. Now I have :-)
But now that I know that, it must mean that I have found a way of increasing the FOV in IL2-1946 by changing the ratio then.
Are you sure you are not just getting confused as ... 3 x 16:9 ( 3840x720 - 4080x768 - 4098x768 ) has a greater FOV that 3 x 16:10 (4098x768 - 3420x900 - 5040x1050) which has a greater FOV than 3 x 5:4 (3840x1024) ... which has a greater FOV than widescreen ... and so on ... :wink:
Are you sure you are not just getting confused as ... 3 x 16:9 ( 3840x720 - 4080x768 - 4098x768 ) has a greater FOV that 3 x 16:10 (4098x768 - 3420x900 - 5040x1050) which has a greater FOV than 3 x 5:4 (3840x1024) ... which has a greater FOV than widescreen ... and so on ... Wink
oh yea, I am definitely confused. It is confusing, is it not? :D
bottom line though, is after trying many many multiple settings and resolutions for IL2-1946 the best I could get, I described in the IL2-1946 post. I am definitely not confused about which setting and resolution worked best for me and how I was able to get it though.
See the screenshots, a picture is worth a thousand words right?
