Jump to content

Schrullenhaft

Members
  • Content Count

    8,778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Rubalcalva in Uninstall - Reinstall on new systems   
    The old eLicense copy-protected games would require you to 'unlicese' the old installation first in order to preserve the activation (two per license key - an internet connection is necessary for the unlicensing). CMSF, CMA, CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, most of the Strategic Command series and a number of other games used this copy-protection system. Newer games from CMBN and on utilize a newer copy-protection system that does NOT have an unlicense function. Instead each license key has four initial activations and you simply activate the new installation on the new computer (or reinstallation of your OS, etc.), using a second activation, etc.. When you run out of activations you can simply contact the Helpdesk to request more activations (providing the license keys of those products that need new activations).
  2. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Rubalcalva in Unlicense or Uninstall first...   
    If your Strategic Command games have an 'unlicense' option, then you will WANT TO DO THAT FIRST. Those games utilize the eLicense copy-protection system and have two activations per license key that you need to maintain by unlicensing anything you're not going to play (such as moving to a new computer and the old one will get decommissioned). Later Strategic Command games utilize the newer copy-protection system that does NOT have an unlicense option. In those cases you can simply uninstall the game since they come with 4 activations per license key and you simply put in a request to the Helpdesk (https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/ , accessed from the main Battlefront webpage under the 'Support' menu) to have them add another activation once you have run out of your 4 activations.
  3. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from PIATpunk in Total Re-Install and Activation Question   
    As far as I'm aware you DO need to go through your orders in order to find the correct download. The '4.0 Upgrade' should get you the latest all-in-one installer. If you have purchased the base game or a bundle that includes the base game recently (after 4.0 was released), then the base game or bundle purchase should point you to an all-in-one installer.
  4. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from IanL in Total Re-Install and Activation Question   
    As far as I'm aware you DO need to go through your orders in order to find the correct download. The '4.0 Upgrade' should get you the latest all-in-one installer. If you have purchased the base game or a bundle that includes the base game recently (after 4.0 was released), then the base game or bundle purchase should point you to an all-in-one installer.
  5. Upvote
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from PIATpunk in After the next 2 modules?   
    I would assume that there will be at least 4 modules, CMFI ('Rome to Victory'), CMRT, CMBS and CMFB before the CM2 family is finished. There's a possibility that Battlefront could release 'Battle Packs' (scenarios and campaigns), 'Vehicle Packs' (just vehicles and no scenarios/campaigns) and possibly even modules with a new force/country (and maybe minimal scenarios/campaigns) for CM2. These could be done while CM3 is initially available, but it may be dependent on demand and how well a particular game family has already sold.
  6. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from PhilM in Will someone please help me get CM Helper working   
    I'm not really an user of CM Helper, but I downloaded and installed a copy. I got version 1.75 from here (a 'tiny url' that points to a DropBox location for download):
    http://bit.ly/cm-helper
    I extracted this to its own folder as you have done. Double-click on the 'cmh.exe' file (which doesn't have an unique icon) and NOT the 'CMH.ico' file (which is an icon file that has an image that you may want to select as the icon for CM Helper) and that should launch CM Helper which will display two small windows the first time it is launched (image attached is the main CM Helper window). One is the actual application itself and the other is a small diagnostic window that shows what CM Helper has done to configure itself with the CM games that it finds on your computer.
    I'm not sure where the "Windows asks me if I want to allow the program to be added to the computer and I click "Yes"." originates from since I had nothing like that occur on my computer (Windows 7 Pro 64-bit). Is this a different version of Windows (Win 10?) or possibly some sort of security program checking to see if you were intentionally installing a program ? If this is a security program doing the checking, then you may want to look through that program's controls to see how to fully enable CM Helper (in case it is being 'blocked' in some manner).
    If you want to launch CM Helper from the desktop, then open up the Windows File Manager, right-click on the 'cmh.exe' file and select 'Create shortcut' from the popup menu. Copy this newly created 'cmh.exe - Shortcut' file to your desktop (it will be a 'generic' icon). Then right-click on this icon and select 'Properties' from the popup menu. In here click on the 'Change Icon' button at the bottom in the middle. In here click on the 'Browse' button and browse to the location for the 'CMH.ico' file and select that. Highlight the image that shows up below and click 'OK', the click 'Apply' and then 'OK' and your icon should now be the one if the icon file instead of something generic.

  7. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Will someone please help me get CM Helper working   
    I'm not really an user of CM Helper, but I downloaded and installed a copy. I got version 1.75 from here (a 'tiny url' that points to a DropBox location for download):
    http://bit.ly/cm-helper
    I extracted this to its own folder as you have done. Double-click on the 'cmh.exe' file (which doesn't have an unique icon) and NOT the 'CMH.ico' file (which is an icon file that has an image that you may want to select as the icon for CM Helper) and that should launch CM Helper which will display two small windows the first time it is launched (image attached is the main CM Helper window). One is the actual application itself and the other is a small diagnostic window that shows what CM Helper has done to configure itself with the CM games that it finds on your computer.
    I'm not sure where the "Windows asks me if I want to allow the program to be added to the computer and I click "Yes"." originates from since I had nothing like that occur on my computer (Windows 7 Pro 64-bit). Is this a different version of Windows (Win 10?) or possibly some sort of security program checking to see if you were intentionally installing a program ? If this is a security program doing the checking, then you may want to look through that program's controls to see how to fully enable CM Helper (in case it is being 'blocked' in some manner).
    If you want to launch CM Helper from the desktop, then open up the Windows File Manager, right-click on the 'cmh.exe' file and select 'Create shortcut' from the popup menu. Copy this newly created 'cmh.exe - Shortcut' file to your desktop (it will be a 'generic' icon). Then right-click on this icon and select 'Properties' from the popup menu. In here click on the 'Change Icon' button at the bottom in the middle. In here click on the 'Browse' button and browse to the location for the 'CMH.ico' file and select that. Highlight the image that shows up below and click 'OK', the click 'Apply' and then 'OK' and your icon should now be the one if the icon file instead of something generic.

  8. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from domfluff in Will someone please help me get CM Helper working   
    I'm not really an user of CM Helper, but I downloaded and installed a copy. I got version 1.75 from here (a 'tiny url' that points to a DropBox location for download):
    http://bit.ly/cm-helper
    I extracted this to its own folder as you have done. Double-click on the 'cmh.exe' file (which doesn't have an unique icon) and NOT the 'CMH.ico' file (which is an icon file that has an image that you may want to select as the icon for CM Helper) and that should launch CM Helper which will display two small windows the first time it is launched (image attached is the main CM Helper window). One is the actual application itself and the other is a small diagnostic window that shows what CM Helper has done to configure itself with the CM games that it finds on your computer.
    I'm not sure where the "Windows asks me if I want to allow the program to be added to the computer and I click "Yes"." originates from since I had nothing like that occur on my computer (Windows 7 Pro 64-bit). Is this a different version of Windows (Win 10?) or possibly some sort of security program checking to see if you were intentionally installing a program ? If this is a security program doing the checking, then you may want to look through that program's controls to see how to fully enable CM Helper (in case it is being 'blocked' in some manner).
    If you want to launch CM Helper from the desktop, then open up the Windows File Manager, right-click on the 'cmh.exe' file and select 'Create shortcut' from the popup menu. Copy this newly created 'cmh.exe - Shortcut' file to your desktop (it will be a 'generic' icon). Then right-click on this icon and select 'Properties' from the popup menu. In here click on the 'Change Icon' button at the bottom in the middle. In here click on the 'Browse' button and browse to the location for the 'CMH.ico' file and select that. Highlight the image that shows up below and click 'OK', the click 'Apply' and then 'OK' and your icon should now be the one if the icon file instead of something generic.

  9. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from IanL in FPS Really?   
    Yep, the fact still remains...
    Optimizing is not simple little changes to the code to somehow make it faster. Graphic engines do NOT work that way. To get very significant improvements in performance (especially to the level that many users here complain about) would basically require rewriting the graphics engine. There are some tweaks that can be done (and they HAVE been done, going back to Engine v. 2.0), but the improvements are limited in their effect when they're still part of the same graphics engine.
    The graphics engine was written with the OpenGL 2.0 API starting in 2004, primarily because it was supported by both Mac and Windows. Now Apple is in the process of deprecating OpenGL and moving to their own API, 'Metal'. In Windows DirectX has moved from 9.x (what was available at the time of CMSF1's development - DirectX 10 just coming out as CMSF1 was released) to now DirectX 12 with Windows 10, though each new DirectX iteration doesn't necessarily improve performance, but rather provides more graphic options to developers. Moving to DirectX 11/12 (on the PC...) would provide a bit of a boost in performance due to the optimized nature of DirectX video drivers (more development time and optimization is performed on them since most games on the PC utilize DirectX), but it isn't a simple matter to rewrite the graphics engine in another API (still a laborious, time consuming process).
    Writing a 3D graphics engine, even using such environments as Unity or Unreal, takes a long time, especially for a single programmer. This is what would be necessary to make the sort of drastic improvements in graphics performance most users are clamoring for. However such long periods of development are a significant risk for small developers. Take too long and you go out of business (assuming your making just enough to survive while developing said 'new engine'). Don't do it soon enough and you'll get complaints about the 'dated graphics/performance', etc. Which is where Battlefront finds itself right now. And of course there's always calls for new content ('Barbarossa', 'Stalingrad/Op Blue', 'Cold War NATO', 'Vietnam', etc.). So it is a somewhat safer bet to bring out new content, but with the old engine (you'll be getting a paycheck every so often...). Developing a new engine slows down (or even stops) that output and reduces your income for a significant period of time.
  10. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Bulletpoint in FPS Really?   
    Yep, the fact still remains...
    Optimizing is not simple little changes to the code to somehow make it faster. Graphic engines do NOT work that way. To get very significant improvements in performance (especially to the level that many users here complain about) would basically require rewriting the graphics engine. There are some tweaks that can be done (and they HAVE been done, going back to Engine v. 2.0), but the improvements are limited in their effect when they're still part of the same graphics engine.
    The graphics engine was written with the OpenGL 2.0 API starting in 2004, primarily because it was supported by both Mac and Windows. Now Apple is in the process of deprecating OpenGL and moving to their own API, 'Metal'. In Windows DirectX has moved from 9.x (what was available at the time of CMSF1's development - DirectX 10 just coming out as CMSF1 was released) to now DirectX 12 with Windows 10, though each new DirectX iteration doesn't necessarily improve performance, but rather provides more graphic options to developers. Moving to DirectX 11/12 (on the PC...) would provide a bit of a boost in performance due to the optimized nature of DirectX video drivers (more development time and optimization is performed on them since most games on the PC utilize DirectX), but it isn't a simple matter to rewrite the graphics engine in another API (still a laborious, time consuming process).
    Writing a 3D graphics engine, even using such environments as Unity or Unreal, takes a long time, especially for a single programmer. This is what would be necessary to make the sort of drastic improvements in graphics performance most users are clamoring for. However such long periods of development are a significant risk for small developers. Take too long and you go out of business (assuming your making just enough to survive while developing said 'new engine'). Don't do it soon enough and you'll get complaints about the 'dated graphics/performance', etc. Which is where Battlefront finds itself right now. And of course there's always calls for new content ('Barbarossa', 'Stalingrad/Op Blue', 'Cold War NATO', 'Vietnam', etc.). So it is a somewhat safer bet to bring out new content, but with the old engine (you'll be getting a paycheck every so often...). Developing a new engine slows down (or even stops) that output and reduces your income for a significant period of time.
  11. Upvote
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from c3k in FPS Really?   
    Yep, the fact still remains...
    Optimizing is not simple little changes to the code to somehow make it faster. Graphic engines do NOT work that way. To get very significant improvements in performance (especially to the level that many users here complain about) would basically require rewriting the graphics engine. There are some tweaks that can be done (and they HAVE been done, going back to Engine v. 2.0), but the improvements are limited in their effect when they're still part of the same graphics engine.
    The graphics engine was written with the OpenGL 2.0 API starting in 2004, primarily because it was supported by both Mac and Windows. Now Apple is in the process of deprecating OpenGL and moving to their own API, 'Metal'. In Windows DirectX has moved from 9.x (what was available at the time of CMSF1's development - DirectX 10 just coming out as CMSF1 was released) to now DirectX 12 with Windows 10, though each new DirectX iteration doesn't necessarily improve performance, but rather provides more graphic options to developers. Moving to DirectX 11/12 (on the PC...) would provide a bit of a boost in performance due to the optimized nature of DirectX video drivers (more development time and optimization is performed on them since most games on the PC utilize DirectX), but it isn't a simple matter to rewrite the graphics engine in another API (still a laborious, time consuming process).
    Writing a 3D graphics engine, even using such environments as Unity or Unreal, takes a long time, especially for a single programmer. This is what would be necessary to make the sort of drastic improvements in graphics performance most users are clamoring for. However such long periods of development are a significant risk for small developers. Take too long and you go out of business (assuming your making just enough to survive while developing said 'new engine'). Don't do it soon enough and you'll get complaints about the 'dated graphics/performance', etc. Which is where Battlefront finds itself right now. And of course there's always calls for new content ('Barbarossa', 'Stalingrad/Op Blue', 'Cold War NATO', 'Vietnam', etc.). So it is a somewhat safer bet to bring out new content, but with the old engine (you'll be getting a paycheck every so often...). Developing a new engine slows down (or even stops) that output and reduces your income for a significant period of time.
  12. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from 76mm in Another Resolution Question   
    Within CMBB there is no setting that could change this (scaling). Your monitor or videocard  MAY have settings to allow it to map the pixels one-to-one (so that a 1280 x 1024 sized image would be centered on the monitor and not stretched). I know in the past that the Nvidia control panel was capable of this (though it may have taken a lot of experimentation to get it to work). I'm not sure about the current Nvidia drivers (and specific OS versions) or if AMD Radeons have this functionality. The most convenient method would be for the monitor to have a setting that disables the scaling (mapping one-to-one on the pixels). Some monitors have such functionality, while many don't. The feature can go by a number of names/descriptions, so you may want to look through your monitor menus to see if there is anything that may support such a function.
  13. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from 76mm in Mouse Wheel Support?   
    The CM1 series does NOT support the mouse-wheel. Unless you map it to some sort of hotkey (outside of CM), which would simply be pressing it as if it was a third mouse button (not the actual wheel function).
  14. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Bud Backer in CMRT install - activation shortcut does nothing   
    You will probably need to open up 'Terminal' and type the following (with variations as to exactly where you installed CMRT):
    cd /Applications/'CM Red Thunder'   (press 'return')
    ./'Activate New Products - CMRT.sh'  (press 'return' - the './' at the beginning is important)
    This should hopefully bring up the activation window.
  15. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from WallysWorld in CMAK Available   
    Steve has mentioned to me that he intends to put these games back into the Store. However he always seems quite busy and this, I assume, is a lower priority. The CMx1 games (CMBO, CMBB and CMAK) WILL eventually be in the store, but when is anyone's guess.
  16. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Bulletpoint in game crashes after some time playing   
    The CM series utilizes comparatively basic OpenGL 2.x calls in a manner I believe is considered 'immediate mode'. This provides the greatest compatibility with most drivers that are capable of supporting OpenGL (though there are basically just 3 major video chip vendors left now). Most games on the PC utilize DirectX and those that utilize OpenGL may be using OpenGL 3.x or 4.x now.
    More than likely, as has often been the case in the past, an optimization within a newer driver release has broken something that CM's 'immediate mode' OpenGL 2.x depends on. There may be no 'fix' that Battlefront can release to work-around this issue. 'Working around' this issue could potentially require re-engineering the graphics engine (the bugs can be that significant that OpenGL 2.x simply won't work to fully support the graphics engine). This is no small task and goes beyond a 'simple patch'. The best course of action, if this problem is related to the video drivers (which seems to be the case based on some of the errors), is to go back to a slightly older driver and see if that helps. I would suggest the 388.71 (for Windows 10 64-bit). These were released only in December 2017, so they are not that old.
    When performing the installation I suggest selecting 'Custom' and then selecting the check-box for 'Clean installation', which should remove the previous drivers (and require a reboot).
  17. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Captain Black in Update problem   
    The Battle Pack is a separate purchase and it requires the 4.0 Upgrade patched to 2.10.
  18. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Captain Black in Update problem   
    Here's the link to the store for the Windows version of the CMBS 4.0 Upgrade.
  19. Upvote
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in Irratic Framerate Issue   
    I ran the same scenarios as Hister using my system with the following specs:
    AMD FX 8320 3.5GHz 8-core (4 modules totaling 8 integer, 4 floating point, up to 4.0GHz turbo mode)
    8GB of DDR3 1600 (CAS 9)
    MSI GeForce GTX 660 Ti  - 388.00 driver
    Asrock 880GM-LE FX motherboard (AMD 880G chipset)
    Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD
    Windows 7 Home 64-bit SP1 (latest patches)
    Running at a resolution of 1920 x 1200.
    Using the default settings in CMBN 4.0 (Balanced/Balanced, Vsync OFF and ON, AA OFF) and in the Nvidia Control Panel I typically got about 6 FPS (measured with the latest version of FRAPS) in "Op. Linnet II a USabn UKgrnd" on the German entry side of the map (all the way to the edge) and scrolling right or left looking at the Americans in Richelle. In "The Copse" scenario it measured around 28 FPS behind the allied armored units at the start (scrolled around the map a bit).
    Messing around with Vsync (both on and off), anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, Process Lasso (affinity, etc.), power saving settings in Windows control panel, etc. didn't seem to have a significant performance effect on the low FPS of 'Op. Linnet II...'. I overclocked the FX 8320 to 4.0GHz (simply using the multipliers in the BIOS and turning off several power saving features there too, such as APM, AMD Turbo Core Technology, CPU Thermal Throttle, etc.). With 'Op. Linnet II...' the FPS increased to only 7 FPS. Turning off the icons (Alt-I) did bump up the FPS by 1 additional frame (the option reduced the number of objects to be drawn in this view) to 8 FPS.
    There are some Hotfixes from Microsoft that supposedly address some issues with the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture and Windows 7 involving CPU scheduling and power policies (KB2645594 and KB246060) that do NOT come through Windows Update (you have to request them from Microsoft). I have NOT applied these patches to see if they would make a difference since they CANNOT have their changes removed (supposedly), even if you uninstall them. A number of users on various forums have stated that the changes made little difference to their particular game's performance.
    I decided to compare this to an Intel system that was somewhat similar:
    Intel Core i5 4690K 3.5GHz 4-core  (possibly running at 3.7 to 3.9GHz in turbo mode)
    16GB of DDR3-2133 (CAS 9)
    eVGA GeForce GTX 670 - 388.00 driver
    Asrock Z97 Killer motherboard (Z97 chipset)
    Crucial MX100 512GB SSD
    Windows 7 Home 64-bit SP1 (latest patches)
    Running at a resolution of 1920 x 1200.
    Again using the same settings used on the FX system with CMBN and the Nvidia Control Panel I got 10 FPS in 'Op. Linnet II...' while scrolling on the far side looking at the American forces in the town. In 'The Copse' scenario the FPS went to 40 FPS behind the allied vehicles at their start positions. The biggest difference between the GTX 660 Ti and the GeForce GTX 670 is the greater memory bandwidth of the 670 since it has a 256-bit bus compared to the 660 Ti's 192-bit memory bus. So POSSIBLY the greater GPU memory bandwidth in conjunction with the Intel i5's higher IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) efficiency and the increased system memory bandwidth (faster system RAM) resulted in the higher frame rate on the Intel system, but only by so much.
    I ran a trace of the OpenGL calls used by CMBN while running 'Op. Linnet II a USabn UKgrnd' on the FX system. This recorded all of the OpenGL calls being used in each frame. The trace SEVERELY slowed down the system during the capture (a lot of data to be written to the trace file). Examining the trace file suggests that CMBN is SEVERLY CPU BOUND in certain graphical views. This is especially true with views of a large amount of units and terrain like that in 'Op. Linnet II...'.
    What appears to be happening is that some views in large scenarios of CM involve A LOT of CPU time in issuing instructions to the video card/'frame buffer'. The CPU is spending so much time handling part of the graphics workload (which IS normal) and sending instructions to the video card on what to draw that the video card does not have a full (new) frame of data to post to the frame buffer at a rate of 60 or 30 FPS (Vsync). At 30 FPS each frame would have to be generated between the CPU and the video card within 33.3ms. Instead this is taking around 100ms on the Intel system and about 142ms on the FX system (resulting in the 10 and 7 FPS respectively). Some frames in the trace file had hundreds of thousands of instructions, some reaching near 700,000 instructions (each one is not necessarily communicated between the CPU and video card, only a fraction of them are), whereas sections where the FPS was higher might only have less than 3000 instructions being executed. The low frame rate is a direct consequence of how busy the CPU is and this can be seen with both Intel and AMD CPUs.
    So the accusation comes up, is the CM graphics engine un-optimized ? To a certain extent, it is. There are limitations on what can be done in the environment and with the OpenGL 2.x calls that are available. CM could be optimized a bit further than it is currently, but this involves a HUGE amount of time experimenting and testing. Working against this optimization effort is CM's 'free' camera movement, the huge variety, number and size of maps available and the large variety and number of units.These features make it hard to come up with optimizations that work consistently without causing other problems. Such efforts at optimization are manpower and time that Battlefront simply does not have as Steve has stated earlier. Charles could be working on this for years in attempt to get better frame rates. While this would be a 'worthy goal', it is unrealistic from a business standpoint - there is no guarantee with the amount of time spent on optimizing would result in a significantly better performing graphics engine. Other, larger developers typically have TEAMS of people working on such optimizations (which, importantly, does allow them to accomplish certain optimization tasks within certain time frames too). When CMSF was started sometime in 2004 OpenGL 2.0 was the latest specification available (with the 2.1 specification coming out before CMSF was released). Utilizing newer versions of OpenGL to potentially optimize CM's graphics engine still involves a lot of work since the newer calls available don't necessarily involve built-in optimizations over the 2.0 calls. In fact a number of OpenGL calls have been deprecated in OpenGL 3.x and later and this could result in wholesale redesigning of the graphics engine. On top of this is the issue that newer versions of OpenGL may not be supported by a number of current user's video cards (and laptops and whole Mac models on the Apple side).
    As for the difference between the GTX 550 Ti and the GTX 660 Ti that Hister is experiencing, I'm not sure what may be going on. The GTX 550 Ti is based on the 'Fermi' architecture, while the GTX 660 Ti utilizes the 'Kepler' architecture. Kepler was optimized for the way games operate compared to the Fermi architecture which had slightly better performance in the 'compute' domain (using the GPU for physics calculations or other floating point, parallelized tasks). The GTX 660 Ti should have been a significant boost in video performance over the GTX 550 Ti, though this performance difference may not be too visible in CM due to the CPU bound nature of some views. It's possible that older drivers may have treated the Fermi architecture differently or simply that older drivers may have operated differently (there are trade-offs that drivers may make in image quality for performance - and sometimes this is 'baked into' the driver and isn't touched by the usual user-accessible controls). I have a GTX 570 I could potentially test, but I would probably need to know more details about the older setup to possibly reproduce the situation and see the differences first-hand.
  20. Upvote
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from sburke in CMBN persistent crash Scottish Corridor Campaign, Hansel and Gretel   
    Sorry to take so long to look at this. I loaded up the saved campaign on my 'full 4.0 installation' of CMBN and was able to play it for 28 minutes without issue (saved the game at that point). I played the game in a fairly passive manner, not issuing a lot of or detailed commands. 
    I played this on a PC with Windows 7 64-bit and an i5 2500k with 16GB of RAM and a GeForce GTX 770 video card (with NOT the latest drivers). Everything played fine and I even played it twice; the first time for about 6 minutes before quitting the game... I had forgotten when exactly you were experiencing the crashing, so I had to load it up again and play for a bit longer to make sure I was duplicating the issue.
    This install should have been a '4.0 full' installer, but I can double-check on another installation that I'm fairly certain would also be that.
  21. Upvote
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Hardradi in CMBN persistent crash Scottish Corridor Campaign, Hansel and Gretel   
    Sorry to take so long to look at this. I loaded up the saved campaign on my 'full 4.0 installation' of CMBN and was able to play it for 28 minutes without issue (saved the game at that point). I played the game in a fairly passive manner, not issuing a lot of or detailed commands. 
    I played this on a PC with Windows 7 64-bit and an i5 2500k with 16GB of RAM and a GeForce GTX 770 video card (with NOT the latest drivers). Everything played fine and I even played it twice; the first time for about 6 minutes before quitting the game... I had forgotten when exactly you were experiencing the crashing, so I had to load it up again and play for a bit longer to make sure I was duplicating the issue.
    This install should have been a '4.0 full' installer, but I can double-check on another installation that I'm fairly certain would also be that.
  22. Upvote
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from sburke in Could not initialize OpenGL graphics.   
    Sounds like you may need to install/reinstall your video drivers. OpenGL drivers typically come with your video drivers. On occasion (and somewhat rarely) I've seen a Windows Update version of some video drivers possibly not have the OpenGL files that may normally be part of the driver installation. However I don't really see that anymore. What Windows version are you running and what video card/chip do you have ?
  23. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Chrizwit3 in Game crashes during command phase.   
    When the games crash during the command phase are you issuing any particular type of order ? Are you issuing orders, looking around the map etc. or are you leaving the game idle (possible power savings issue) and then it is crashing ?
    Is this CMBN or is it another game or possibly is this happening with several/all of the CM games ?
    Do you have anything running in the background (utilities, browsers, etc.) ? Do you know what is loading up a startup ? You may want to check by right-clicking on the Start Menu and selecting 'Task Manager' from the popup menu. Then go to the 'Startup' tab and in here will be a list of programs/applets/utilities that launch at startup. If you would like to remove an item from launching at startup, right click on its listing and select 'Disable' from the popup menu and it should NOT load the next time you launch Windows.
  24. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from Chrizwit3 in Game crashes during command phase.   
    the 'Wondershare Studio' is some sort of collage/scrapbook software that appears to get installed with other programs. If you're not using it, then I suggest disabling it (though it likely isn't the cause of the issue here). We've seen problems with 'Nahimic' audio software. This often gets installed with some MSI laptops/motherboards and other systems. I can't recall off-hand if the software prevented the running of CM or caused problems while it was running. I don't recall any problems with the Realtek Audio Manager (usually a 'red speaker' icon in your lower right tray). If it isn't being used, it can also be disabled without affecting your audio.
    The 'chrome' I assume is simply a Chrome browser being launched at startup. Removing it may speed up boot up times, unless you almost always head to the internet on each boot. The 'Delayed Launcher' may be some Intel software that is involved with 'system restores'. You could disable that and it supposedly should make booting a bit faster.
    I personally haven't really seen too many problems with Windows Defender. I do use other anti-virus security programs, so they typically run the security on the computer while Windows Defender acts more as a reminder service about updates or security being off/disabled. As a primary/sole security system you could add an 'exclusion' for the CM executables/folders in Windows Defender. If you're running a separate anti-virus/security program, then you could do something similar for it. However exceptions/exclusions really are geared for when the program will not run at all. It is somewhat rare for the security software to interfere once the program is running (at least in the manner that is being seen here).
    Are you overclocking your video card or CPU at all ? If so, you may want to down-clock them or return them to the default clock speed and see if that makes any difference. 'Factory overclocks' typically should be fine (since they're the defaults as programmed by the manufacturer).
    You may want to run some memory diagnostics on your computer (typically requiring a reboot into the diagnostic's OS), such as the free edition of Memtest86. There are some tests with the memory diagnostics that can cause almost any memory to not pass (certain 'hammer' tests), but most tests should be applicable and if there are errors you may need to replace your RAM or possibly change settings/voltages on it in your BIOS/UEFI setup.
  25. Like
    Schrullenhaft got a reaction from IanL in can not play these game any more?   
    I only know stuff that Google tells me...  I'm on the glideslope of mental oblivion myself.
×
×
  • Create New...