Reply With QuoteI've tried several mirrors (including 3dgamer) and they all give me the 'data on server differs from client' message.. meaning I've got the beta patch.
Anyone know which mirrors are the real thing?
EDIT: the patch on Gamespot works.
Just snagged the 22 meg update from 3dgamers.com, it's also on gamespot complete.
And of course it isn't even mentioned on the "official" battlefield 1942 website or available for download from ftp.ea.com....sheesh. Oh well, gotta run home and try this :)
cheers,
ian
I've tried several mirrors (including 3dgamer) and they all give me the 'data on server differs from client' message.. meaning I've got the beta patch.
Anyone know which mirrors are the real thing?
EDIT: the patch on Gamespot works.
Do not get it from 3d gamers, I did and have the exact problem described here.
http://boards.ea.com/messages?14@116...DxE.1@.efa0fcd
Yay! Install a patch - reinstall!!!!!!!
Seems you do not need to reinstall - just reboot. Still not much fun to have wasted a download, if only big companies like EA could be their own expected source for patches.
I don't know what the problem seems to be. I got it on my first try. 3Dgamers, use the Cali server.
The problem is that EA accidentally released the beta version of this patch yesteday. (Ah, way to go EA). That got on all the mirrors and caused a lot of migraines, 'cause the beta version was unstable. By the time EA got the actual release version out, the beta version had already gone around and pissed a ton of people off.
Whatever you do, just make sure you get the release version, and not the beta version. The site you download from should note so. The site mentioned above had the release version.
I downloaded one version yesterday... Anyone know how to tell the real version from the beta? File size, etc?
The version you want is 22,959,029 bytes.Originally Posted by DennyA
Playable on ISDN yet ?
it's still a horrible memory hog with ridiculous load times on a 256MB machine. *sigh*
This patch makes the game much smoother to play. Less popping and jitteriness. The aiming is much improved, and you no longer need to lead the target by four feet. If you hit a target, your crosshair changes to let you know your shot hit. The changes have really improved the game.
Excellent. I will be getting back into this game after several weeks off. Are people playing on any particular server?
To save anyone else the potential coronary event, I think it is actually 22,956,029.
The patch does help a lot. I was trying a lot of the stuff that never worked well before (like AA fire) and now it is much better.
As far as servers, I've been playing on the nVidia servers. They run 42 players each, and I ping well under 100 to them. They put them up to show off the nForce2 boards, and they are doing an excellent job. http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=ba...ld1942_servers
Geez, I consider 512mb the absolute minimum for a gaming rig these days. 1gb is even better.it's still a horrible memory hog with ridiculous load times on a 256MB machine.
Yeah, but we all know what kind of disposable income you have. I'm waiting for 256 MB of DDR to drop below $30 again. Wish me luck!
I saw pc2100 for $51 for 256mb on pricewatch. My suggestion would be skip your next game and upgrade your memory. 256 is not anywhere near enough for most games today as wumpus points out. The extra 256 will make all of your current games run smoother and your O/S as well.
-- Xaroc
I'm playing with 512mb of PC-2700 (scaled down to 2100). This game is still a system hog. Takes forever to load a level, and after playing for an hour or so, it takes forever to quit out as the system has to clean up all the virtual memory that was used up.
It is insanely fun, though. Found a 64-person server on the Net that actually had sub-100 ping, and it was insanely fun. 32 folks on each side made for some massive battles. Planes, tanks, and snipers EVERYWHERE.
He must be playing different versions of the games we play cuz 256MB is fine for every game currently on release - and running on either winXP or win2K. Unless of course you're foolishly running a ton of apps at the same time - which you should not be doing to begin with. :roll:
My last game, BCM is probably one of the most resource intensive game to date, due to its sheer size and scope and I still have to breach 85MB with 1000+ NPCs running around. In fact, for the XBox game I'm working on, my first goal was to fit my entire game image into a 64MB footprint - then work my way down from there.
XP, your experience is due to a number of problems with the how the game was developed. The most primary being efficient memory management, memory fragmentation and post-destruction cleanup. Someone should send them a copy of PC-Lint as a Christmas present. :D
It's not unusual for games to use more than 256mb. I just finished Age of Mythology and my commit charge peak is 344mb. I'm pretty sure that's not from IE or Outlook Express.
When playing Return to Castle Wolfenstein multiplayer, I remember my peak commit charge being over 500mb-- I checked it because the HDD would go crazy after exiting the game, and I "only" had 512mb of memory at the time.
You can find this figure in Task Manager. I'll pre-empt Derek's indignant response with this:
Other technical specifications are listed in this window. You can see how much physical memory (actual RAM) is being used, as well as how much kernel memory. The window shows how many processes, handles (how Windows NT manages system objects), and threads (subprocesses) are being used, as well as your total and peak commit charge. Total Commit Charge indicates the amount of physical and virtual memory used; Peak Commit Charge shows the largest amount of memory that has been used since you turned on the Task Manager; and Limit Commit Charge is the total amount of physical and virtual memory available. If want to chart your kernel memory along with the CPU usage, select Show Kernel Times in the View menu.
Actually Maximum PC states that 512 mb ram is the sweet spot for Win Xp. They tested 256 mb, 512 mb and 1 gig of memory. And when running Quake 3, there was hardly a meaningful gain going from 512 to 1 gig. If your running a memory intensive application than put as much memeory in your system as possible, but for games 512 mb should be plenty.
Well, considering that Quake 3 is FOUR-YEAR OLD technology, I would hope that there's not meaningful difference between 256, 512, and 1 gb. But these new games use up more texture memory than Quake 3 uses to run.
Just downloaded the patch, re-installed BF1942, and got all patched up. I set up my options (detail: high, sound acceleration: hardware, that's about it), then fired up a quick singleplayer skirmish on operation battleaxe.
My new peak commit charge, according to task manager, is 511mb. Heh. That's gotta be painful on a 256mb system; lots of disk paging.
Anyway, back to the patch. I love, love, LOVE being able to tell when I've hit someone via the cursor change. This is an interesting approach, as most other games show blood or a pain animation or whatever. One nice thing about the cursor change-- you can pop out to fire the bazooka, then get safely behind cover and watch your cursor to see if your aim was good. I hear they improved the close range combat, which is a definite plus if true. Great game, probably my pick for GOTY 2002, but man the close combat was sketchy as hell.
You'd have to do a LOT better than that ol' boy. Remember, I do this for a living and am not a fanboi hobbyist throwing figures around.
Only a complete novice would even begin to think that the memory commitments displayed in Task Manager are the defining factor in determining memory usage for the game and/or program that is running.
You obviously don't know how to run these tests, do you? Here's a tip. Kill your VMM and let the system rely on physical RAM - then go from there. There are numerous resources on the web which deal with this same very issue. Go find them. Read them. Stop posting unfounded posts without merit.
Again, my previous post remains as it was originally written and I stand firmly on those statements. If any game requires 512MB of phystical RAM in order to run, there is something very wrong in that game's memory implementation.
That would depend on the game in question. Part of the 512MB is used by the OS. And unlike previous incarnations of Windows, winXP being based on the win2K architecture, benefits greatly from its advanced and robust memory management.
Unfortunately for developers with bad memory management skills, even the OS can't compensate for this. The result is an over commitment of memory, memory fragmentation, bad memory freeing and allocation etc etc. Once the OS thinks its out of memory (due to any of the above factors), it will start to page. And on shutdown, all that paged memory has to be freed. Hence the disk thrashing. Freeing physical memory is virtually instantaneous and is a as fast as the speed of the memory chip. Freeing VM is just as fast as the HDD, the routines themselves which have to deallocate them and the fragmentation of the HDD clusters.
At the risk of sounding like a troll here, Derek, but I have read alot of your posts around at various boards, and each and every time you come off as a pompous ass.
Why do you feel the need to talk down to people who you percieve to have less knowledge than you? There are tactful ways to inform someone of their errors. Maybe you should take a course in etiquette.
Really? Because I would think that a complete novice wouldn't have any clue as to what the Task Manager was to begin with, let alone trying to determine memory usage for an application.Only a complete novice would even begin to think that the memory commitments displayed in Task Manager are the defining factor in determining memory usage for the game and/or program that is running.
Lay off and lighten up a little, man.
Oh, I forgot why I checked this thread. :)
BF1942 is the best game I have ever played. Period. The 1.2 patch made a good game great.
I speak of multiplayer, of course.
Yeah well, I think you're a total and complete twat. Does that mean you're going to go to bed tonite worrying about what I think? Oh please, spare me the tiring old rhetoric and save it for someone who gives a toss.
I don't perceive anyone as anything other then how they present themselves. I have an opinion. I state said opinion. Anyone who doesn't like it, well, they can kiss my rear end and thank me for allowing them the priviledge.Why do you feel the need to talk down to people who you percieve to have less knowledge than you? There are tactful ways to inform someone of their errors. Maybe you should take a course in etiquette.
You can talk. You're the one with his knickers in a twist over my post. I was perfectly fine with it - and I still am. :roll:Lay off and lighten up a little, man.
My mistake. You rock.
Sure, we never said that BF1942 required 512mb RAM-- merely that it runs like ass with 256mb. And do you know why? Because the game creates a commit charge peak of over 500 megabytes.Again, my previous post remains as it was originally written and I stand firmly on those statements. If any game requires 512MB of phystical RAM in order to run, there is something very wrong in that game's memory implementation.
Sure, commit charge peak is a combination of virtual memory (read: DISK SPACE) and physical memory. When your hard drive is doing double duty as memory, things don't run so fast. That's where the "ass" part of "runs like ass" comes from.
And since you asked, I have a Battlefield 1942 skirmish running in the background right now. Task manager indicates that bf1942.exe is using 358mb of memory as I type this. My commit charge is 499 mb.
The moral of this story is, any gaming rig worth its salt should have 512mb these days.
Well, I didn't think we were in disagreement here. Unless I missed something.
I was merely pointing out that 1GB is ludicrous and that even with 256-512, no game should even have to require that much physical RAM to run.
Maybe my post wasn't clear, but it sure as hell makes sense to me. :?
Actually, the single player ain't too bad now, either. My net connection went down this afternoon, so I decided to try out the single player BF1942 again. The bots (turned up to max CPU use) no longer act like complete morons. They act like a bunch of n00bs, but that is a huge improvement. They now pick weapons other than AT, attempt to cap flags, miss a reasonable amount, stay in a vehicle once they decide to use it (which also means they don't steal all the vehicles at the initial spawn, either), and bail out when the vehicle is heavily damaged. They don't seem to recognize certain vehicle obstacles, so they still get stuck on those.
This is pure agony: I can't reinstall BF1942. During the install I get to 26% complete, and then it stops and thinks a long time, and finally asks for the second disk. I put that in, and it immediately gives me a message, "necessary component is missing" and my screen goes PITCH BLACK!!! I've tried everything the EA website suggests (cleaned out my temp file, updated the installer program, turned off the virus program), but I've had no success. I've installed this game before, so this makes no sense to me since I haven't changed my system since then. What gives??
Sounds like your first CD is damaged somehow. I don't know if it would help but maybe try copying the files off of the CD onto the hard drive and install from there or try to rip the CD to a cd-image and install it using Daemon Tools (www.daemon-tools.com).
-- Xaroc
Posting Permissions