jam

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    5,523
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

jam last won the day on June 28

jam had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

360 Salty

1 Follower

About jam

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. I won't comment with any authority as to whether the introduction of AOs caused a further decline in the player base or not. It certainly was an attempt by the Rats to stem the outgoing tide. But anyone who thinks that the player base was not in decline before AOs were introduced is flat-out wrong. The Rats saw that the number of active players was insufficient to stimulate and sustain a fight in any one area when those who were available roamed too far afield failing to find action. If you happen to think AOs are evil, then they were a necessary evil. With AOs, one could be sure that there was always a fight even though the fight might not be in a place of personal preference. I did not like the introduction of AOs one bit, but in a fairly short time, I had to accept them as a necessity. I wanted to continue to play the entire map and I felt that AO turned the game into a moving shoebox game - but what real choice was there? In my view, it was not necessary to eliminate visible resupply, but I may well be wrong. You either believe what the Rats were saying at the time or you don't . . . and what they were saying was that they were getting exit interviews from players as they quit the game, and as I remember it, the leading complaint was that it took too long to get into a fight and the departing players were simply bored with the game. High learning curve, low satisfaction. AOs concentrated the ground players (and also gave the flyboys some concentration of fleshy targets without them having to fly all over the map for a one kill here and another there.) Brigade swapping - instant refresh of the spawn lists - made it possible to sustain longer fights. Spawning away from the front and taking a lot of time to get to the fight and having to drive up units from the rear while risking interdiction - visible supply - was just a royal pain in the arse for too many players - those who lacked the requisite patience of which there were many. Can anyone actually blame people for wanting to experience fun in a short time rather than often suffer long periods of tedium? This is a video game we are discussing, right? So the game I once played faded and disappeared. Had it not, there probably would be no game at all today. I stopped playing the game a few years ago and I don't really know what it is like today. I'd like to see the game survive without me though.
  2. I'm not going to write a book here, but I'll share a couple of observations in brief . . . I'm sure this post would come out sounding better if I thought about it for a few days and made some notes in advance, but I hope it will be at least adequate without so doing. I started playing the game in January 2002 and for a couple of years I was as "hooked" as any drug addict may be attached to his or her particular glorious poison. I've not complained about the changes that the Rats made to the game for the simple reason that the game was never meant to cater to my personal tastes and I always knew this and did not expect anything. I'm older than all of you. Shame on me for playing video games at my age. I merely enjoyed what was for as long as it existed. For a period of time, the game mechanics accidentally supported what I enjoyed, but as things changed, I realized they were changing because they needed to change. I never felt a second's worth of resentment. Allow me to flesh this out just a bit. When the player base is large enough, the game can meet many of Nugitz likes, and my own likes - while satisfying the desires of others who think differently. Numbers are everything for this game. AOs came about, in my view, mostly because a shrinking player base needed to be concentrated into an area where a good fight may occur. This is partly why the necessity of driving to front in a Beddy or an Opel was eliminated. Too much waiting around time for all but the most dedicated and nuttiest of players. The hope was that more grognards wold come and stay. That was nearly always the hope. Twitch-players were a necessary evil and fodder for the true believers. But hopefully, many twitchers could be converted. The smaller the overall dedicated player or subscription size, the more the need for areas of focus to exist on the map and the smaller the map becomes for any given period of time. I got to play on my chosen area of a vast canvas. Back in he days when there was a larger number of players on at peak times, one could literally pick a town and instigate a good fight in it, pretty much at will. My squad years ago used to alternate between the flat north and the hilly south, just for variety sake and, as we were Germans, we'd sometimes like to fight the British kit and sometimes, we'd like to fight the French kit. We had the luxury of choice. North to fight the Brits; south to fight the French. Anhee was our home town, though we had others whose names I no longer remember. if Anhee was Allied, we'd cap one flag and wait for the Allies to start spawning in and a really good fight would be practically guaranteed. There seemed to be enough players on either side (East Coast US peak after dinner and into the wee hours) to maintain a battle at the front while allowing for players to defend or attack seemingly randomly selected towns. I loved town-centered finite spawn lists because, as the fight developed and the enemy's spawn-list was attrited, they'd have to bring up supply - visible supply - from neighboring towns. Invisible spawn-list swapping became anathema to me. For me there was real opportunity right there - in the days of visible supply - as I was a certifiable mad bushwacker. I lived for the opportunity to create WTF moments in the brains of my opponents. I'd take my Opel (Jamsbus) and my ATG and I'd roam the countryside setting up one ambush after another each night. Oldzeke and I could occasionally decimate an entire British armor spawn-list with a pair of Pak-36s. Back then, you could be in the middle of nowhere, discover a field with flowers growing in it that you never saw before . . . and come across an enemy taking a long drive bringing up his favorite tank from three towns back. As I loved to kill tanks, not only did the death of visible resupply hurt my game play, but then inf players, constantly complaining about too many tanks eventually got their wish to reduce the armor spawn lists while at the same time, new and competing methods of killing tanks was introduced. My kill per hour rate plummeted. Interest flagged. I shifted to AAA for a rime. It's a constant struggle for the developers to please the flyboys, to please the armor guys and to please the foot soldier and as there are always more foot soldiers that need pleasing, the game has to favor them. I saw the player numbers shrink. I saw the Rats being forced to compromise what they actually had on their white board to try and change a negative churn into a positive churn. Few of you probably remember this, but there was a time when the Rats wanted the game to have unit cohesion. Some of the true believers back then did not only believe that one should earn rank by army type or side, but also by unit. If you were in the Duncan Donut brigade and you earned rank there, you'd have to start all over if you switched to the Tim Hortons brigade and . . . in the vision of the Rats at the time, the player base was going to be so large that one wouldn't even know what was going on in other parts of the map except on a need-to-know basis - so you weren't tempted to bail on Duncan Donuts to go and assist the Tim Hortons. There was going to be a separate noncom class and a distinct officer class. I could say a lot more, but why? Bottom line is that the only way to keep the game alive is for the developers to keep experimenting so as to find a model where the churn is at least slightly positive - no matter what it takes to do so. The continuing existence of the game depends upon more people coming than going . . . and individuals must either embrace the changes or else move on.
  3. Give my love to odolf, lol. ~ Joe
  4. I'm still peeking in here now and then, though I won't re-up just to post in OT as I had been doing for years. Here's what I see in Sorella's post . . . the big tease: Of course, I have to host the snapshot myself. <shrug> Cheers, ~ Joe
  5. Research is needed to get at the facts of the matter, I reckon. One of the many things we can say about Internet posting is that one encounters a lot of people who think they know something - and while it is true that everyone knows something that someone else doesn't know, there are many who think they know something in particular and don't know that they don't really know it - that something that they think they know, that is. ,s Joe Rumsfeld
  6. Still no joy, but . . . I found a potential explanation here: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3000&sid=bf57d3dcc60fffed77aac56f671915b5&start=15 And it goes like this: While this post is from a Warzone 2100 forum, it seems to explain something that points back to the suggestion Oldzeke made earlier on - and may cause me to eventually bite the bullet and upgrade my system to Windows 7 64-bit, if the underlying argument is true. Player (WZ) Kaldera asserts that a 32-bit OS can only address something less than 4 GB of memory - including the memory of the peripheral devices. If he is correct, then, in my case, I have 4 GB of cache RAM in my system, plus another 2 GB. on the Quadro 3800M board - 6 GB. in all. So the memory address space violation issue may be due to the newer nvidia driver treating my system like a 64-bit OS system attempting to address 64-bit OS memory locations (on the video card) that do not exist. I can: Try the low-mem option that OZ suggested. Continue to find an nvidia driver that works. As an experiment, pull out 2 GB of memory from my system, leaving a total of 4 GB counting what is in the vidcard. This may still be an issue because the total is over the 3.5 GB. Long-term, the best thing to do to access the full power of my system is to go to Windows 7 64-bit. It also should go without saying that I ought to verify the assertions of Kaldera even if his suggestions do make sense, logically. Cheers, Joe
  7. I am going to keep an eye on this thread. I started a thread here where I CTD, usually after playing from minutes to an hour or so since I upgraded to 260.99 on a laptop using a Quadro FX3800M. For a few months, on the laptop, I had no such problem. The driver that worked well was the one that came with the Dell M6500 from early 2010. I uninstalled 260.99 and replaced it with 197.16 with no change. In my case, the error comes when a hit a particular terrain view. It is repeatable. I.E. if I have a CTD while spawning in to a particular FB and I re-spawn in the same place, I get another CTD immediately. Go somewhere else and I am fine. Not meaning to high-jack the thread, just adding another OpenGL driver related issue. My next step wil be to find a good nVidia driver cleaner and try an older driver a second time. Cheers, Joe
  8. Small update: I noticed in the Nvidia control panel that: OpenGL Rendering GPU was set to "auto-select," which, I suppose, ought to be fine. But the laptop only has the one GPU and so I set it for the "Quadro 3800M," the only other choice in the drop-down box. Afterwards, I had five missions without a CTD, 2 were under 1 minute and the other three were 10 minutes, 5 minutes and 18 minutes for a total time w/o CTD of about 33 or 34 minutes. I have "threaded optimizations" off and the above setting for the chosen GPU for OpenGL. The game seems fine to my eye - with good frame rates and fluidity. I may not have fixed anything, but so far, there seems to be some improvement. Cheers, Joe
  9. The rollback option on the video drivers AFAIK only provides one step back to the previous driver, which was also problematic. I frequently create restore points, but for some reason I did not do it with this recent round of video driver updates. Anyway . . . I had one eventful mission tonight that lasted 9 minutes and then, I respawned in a new location, found my Flak-30 on its side and as I was getting ready to despawn, I CTD'd Prior to playing, I set "threaded optimizations" to off for wwiiol.exe, but even so, I crashed. As we can clearly see, the CTD cause is the same. I am not about to give up on some experimentation. Cheers, Joe
  10. Intersting thread here: http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=232426 I may try turning off "threaded optimizations" and see what happens. Apart from a mild gamma adjustment, I have not tweaked any of the three nvidia driver settings to be game-specific with any of the three drivers that have been used on this laptop. ===================================== There is a lesson to be learned here that I am sure I will fail to learn - and that many before me have failed to learn: "If it aint broke, don't fix it." If you have good or acceptable frame rates If you have completely fluid game play with no stutters If you can max out most of the settings If you are, overall, quite satisfied with the performance of the game and of the other applications you run, then why the hell would you update your video driver? I can think of a few off-color analogies here, but I'll leave them for OT. Cheers, Joe
  11. Again, The laptop was working flawlessly until I updated the driver, so I think the drop-out or CTD is driver related. I see as confirmation, the wording of the WWIIOL/BE error log: There are a handful of clues above that I have not yet investigated. If one Googles "nvoglnt", there is lots of info . . . I'll work on this some and eventually report my results. It appears the CTD is being caused by an access violation by one of the driver's OpenGL support elements, specifically, nvoglnt.dll. Other games have had this issue in the past couple of years. There are a number of discussion threads for NWN or Never Winter Nights, KOTOR and Q3, to name a couple. So this is not a "never before been seen" issue. Here is another clue from an Nvidia developer's forum: Someone else had a similar issue with his app, but there was no nVidia response in that thread. =============================== I am definitely not interested in pursuing using anything other than an NVidia Quadro driver. I am still betting that, I may find a tweak for the present driver, or else I may roll back my driver to the last one that worked fine, or else, I may just wait it out for a new driver. As far as the hardware monitoring goes . . . The software is reading the sensors on the dies, so accuracy of readings is not an issue. There seems to be little difference (as in no discernible difference) between SpeedFan and HWMonitor. I am convinced that this is not a temperature related issue because the CTD for the game does not correlate to observed temperature. Before using the current driver, I had the game up for hours on this laptop and although it really did get warm to the touch, it never quit. The fans would periodically speed up and then slow down again, indicating that no uncontrollable terminal temperature or runaway had occurred - no artifacts; no BSOD; no CTD - all OK. I am still very open to suggestions though. Thanks to those who have made them, Joe
  12. I'll have a look at HWmonitor; thanks for the suggestion. Even so, there is no indication that the problem is heat-related. Yes, I do know its actually a quad-core, though this is not germain to the issue. No, there is nothing wrong with using a Quadro vidcard for gaming. This is my third Quadro and I have never had any problems with the other two - or with this one, until I updated the driver recently. Yes, if you read the first posts, you'd know I used the correct driver. Although I haven't tried installing the *wrong* driver on purpose, I doubt that Nvidia would fail to warn the installer - or let one install the wrong driver without some compatibility checking. In any case, I am not going to attempt to install a GF driver. Does anyone think it could be a 32-bit OS versus 64-bit OS issue? I don't think so. In the end, this will likely turn out to be either a tweak needed or a replacement driver. It's fair to say that Quadro drivers are not written with gaming in mind and are probably not regression tested for the gaming environment. Regards, Joe
  13. Nah, I usually play the game in my underwear, Bill, so I stay cool. ,s J/K Actually, I installed a neat little applet called SpeedFan which monitors and indicates the temperatures of the GPU and each of the 8 cores and there is no excessive heat. No artifacts, no problems with any other apps. Just for the heck of it a bought a neat Rosewill black anodized aluminum laptop cooler with a pair of quiet 60mm fans in it. When the GPU is at 54 C at idle, and I turn on the cooler, within 2 minutes the temperature goes up to 59C, lol. Turn off the cooler and it goes back down to 54 C. I haven't quite figured out yet why the cooler increases the temperature. It draws air from underneath and pushes it up, but I suspect that it may fight the air flow in the M6500. A little further investigation is in order. The GPU and the cores go up to nearly 70 C while playing the game, but the CTD does not seem to correspond to any spike in temperature. The internal fan speeds are CPU controlled and when I was having no trouble, they would only increase in speed when the game was running for half an hour or more and after awhile they would slow again. So the laptop does not *think* it is overheating. BTW, the M6500 costs a lot of scratch, but I am enjoying it. Had I to do it all over, I would have specified Win 7 64, but I usually wait for an OS to be out for awhile before I embrace it. Win 7 seems a real winner, but it is a lot of trouble - PIA - to go from XP to 7 when one has many apps installed. Regards, Joe
  14. Ran all of the DirectX tests and there were no issues detected. Cheers, Joe
  15. After this, my laptop and I feel pretty exposed. Time to put some clothes back on, lol: I will run the tests, but frankly, I'd be surprised if it fails any of them. Cheers, Joe