PDA

View Full Version : Dungeon Siege



RichL
2nd June 2002, 15:08
Anyone else having problems with Dungeon Crash? I mean, Dungeon Siege?
The f*cking thing keeps throwing up "Exception Error" at me, usually when I'm well into a game and havent saved for a while.

Then again, it is a Microshite game :(

BuddMan
2nd June 2002, 16:52
Never had a problem with the game and I have a crapola PII 366Mhz, 128MB RAM, with a Rage LT Pro w/8MB. What's your video card, your settings, your OS, and what drivers are you using?

Kosh Naranek
3rd June 2002, 06:52
No problems here either ...runs for hours and hours and hours and ... without any problems ( yes The PIT....Win XP roxor I know ;) )

Cryomenace
3rd June 2002, 15:51
Originally posted by RichL
Anyone else having problems with Dungeon Crash? I mean, Dungeon Siege?
The f*cking thing keeps throwing up "Exception Error" at me, usually when I'm well into a game and havent saved for a while.

Then again, it is a Microshite game :(

Hey RichL,

http://forum.matrox.com/mgaforum/Forum10/HTML/004256.html

Please do read the entire thread, because it addresses both demo- and retailversion :)


/Cryomenace

RichL
3rd June 2002, 18:55
Thanks, thats a good thread.
I've actually never had a problem with the demo version, but have had these errors since getting the full version.
I'll try playing with some settings tommorrow and see what happens.

RichL
5th June 2002, 03:53
Well, straight upping my AGP apature to 256mb didnt make a jot of difference.
However, winding my FSB back to default 100mhz let it run okay.

I've run my system at high FSBs (from 145mhz to current 112mhz) and never had any problems before now with any application or game. It looks like Dungeon Siege is ridiculously sensitive to hardware issues.

NetDisruptor
5th June 2002, 12:08
Hahaha So you had it over clocked and got all mad at the game..
That's just to funny.

Marshmallowman
5th June 2002, 19:38
have you tried 133x7.5, that used to work well for my duron (but 7X140 was better)

do you have any extra cooling on your chipset?

RichL
6th June 2002, 02:27
Originally posted by NetDisruptor
Hahaha So you had it over clocked and got all mad at the game..
That's just to funny.

Hmmm yes.

You're an idiot, aren't you?

RichL
6th June 2002, 02:32
Originally posted by Marshmallowman
have you tried 133x7.5, that used to work well for my duron (but 7X140 was better)

do you have any extra cooling on your chipset?

Actually I used to run at 145x7, but I had to scale it back when I wanted to use the mobo's onboard HPT370 RAID. It used to lockup on boot occasionally so I ended up running it at 112x9. Performance isnt an awful lot different between the two settings.

As far as cooling goes, the chipset is cooled with a fan as standard, I've got front and rear 80mm YS-Tech fans, a slot-fan over the G400, mini-coolers on both HDDs, and I've even placed the 256mb DIMMs in odd slots to leave as much free air as possible around them.
Regular temps are 27 degrees case (23-24 room temp) and 38 degrees CPU, rising to 43 under full load.

Like I said before, this is the first game I've ever had that has given me any problems due to overclocking.

PS : I'm not currently using the onboard RAID controller. I had my fill of Highpoint related problems. The extra performance just isnt worth the unreliability

NetDisruptor
6th June 2002, 08:00
Originally posted by RichL


Hmmm yes.

You're an idiot, aren't you?


lol yes I'am an Idiot for poniting out how stupid you were.

RichL
6th June 2002, 09:15
:rolleyes:
I can almost place money on this post going right over his pointy head but still, I feel strangely compelled to educate the LUsers...

When 99 out of 100 games and 100 out of 100 applications, including the likes of 3DMark2000 & 2001, SiSoft Sandra and other applications designed especially to stress a system WORK PERFECTLY and have done for months on end, but the 100th game fails, do you assume its a problem with the new game, or do you assume its your hardware, which has been running the other 199 apps&games perfectly for some considerable time? Especially when one of those games tried successfully was the DEMO VERSION of the same game that is now not working?

What part of the "Everything else works and has done for months and months at the very same hardware settings" are you having difficulty understanding?

Rags
6th June 2002, 12:13
I don't assume. If I have problems with a game, I set my clocks back to default to verify. It's only common sense.

Rags

BuddMan
6th June 2002, 12:32
If I overclocked it would be the first thing I would check out no matter how many other things will work on my system with it. At least you figured out what it was though.

NetDisruptor
7th June 2002, 00:36
^ :)

I would just like to think that before you go and make a thread to bash on a game that you would have done all that you could to help it along 1st. :rolleyes:

I just thought it was funny, don't take it so personal.
In fact I jumped in to this thread to maybe help or find out some cool new info on the game not to argue. :cool:

Marshmallowman
7th June 2002, 01:20
I have the same board as you Rich, but I could never get it anywhere near reliable at 145fsb.

as to the highpoint, with a single disk its reliable at 140. with a RAID 0 setup(one drive per channel) I have to put the udma mode back one notch to stop corruption problems.

The_King
16th June 2002, 23:26
I was thinking of getting this game, but I wanted to play multi using my secondary comp and primary comp. Does it run OK with G400's? I have a friend who has it and it runs a bit jerky with settings turned off on his Gforce MX400 64MB. My second system is a PII 450 128MB G400 MAX. Thanks.:)

Electric Amish
17th June 2002, 09:24
Originally posted by The_King
I was thinking of getting this game, but I wanted to play multi using my secondary comp and primary comp. Does it run OK with G400's? I have a friend who has it and it runs a bit jerky with settings turned off on his Gforce MX400 64MB. My second system is a PII 450 128MB G400 MAX. Thanks.:)

It runs perfectly on my system, highest res:

G400/Win2k/512mb DDR/1.5GHz Athlon XP

amish

The_King
17th June 2002, 15:39
Why on earth? I know that gforceMX's are crap but not so bad as to be beaten by a MAX. Of course it could be due to his 600 Celeron.... :rolleyes:

Joel
18th June 2002, 19:11
BTW: Dungeon Siege looks and plays great on the Parhelia.

Joel :D

Kruzin
18th June 2002, 19:12
Yes, it does.
That's one that I've ben playing for the last few days, and it's been great on Parhelia.

BuddMan
18th June 2002, 19:22
Originally posted by Joel
BTW: Dungeon Siege looks and plays great on the Parhelia.

Joel :D

Did you have shadows off in that shot??

Joel
19th June 2002, 11:15
Hey Buddman,

No I did not have shadows turned off. I know they work because I have seen them. But since you are so obsessed with this one aspect of parhelia I will try to get you a screenshot tonight showing them. Also give me a list of some more software that uses this form of creating shadows and I will see if I can look into them too.

Joel

TdB
19th June 2002, 11:22
could you try this:
http://www.pvrdev.com/extra/h/FableMark.htm
it is a benchmark program by powervr, that has some VERY advanced stencilbuffering shadows(technically like doom3īs shadows, I think).

you donīt have to post the score or anything, just tell me if it works with 16xfaa.

also, could you test glQuake, im interrested in that game because it has always been the weak spot on the old gxxx opengl icd(and yes, I play that game from time to time :)).

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 11:40
Ok, Quake 3, Morrowind, Jedi Knights 2, and I guess Dungeon Siege. Just curious as to all the speculation that FAA will cause problems with stencil shadows. If you can, have 16x FAA and Anistropic filtering enabled. Thanks. :D

Kruzin
19th June 2002, 11:58
Here is a pic of Dungeon Siege, with all complex shadows, 16xFAA, and Anisotrpic all turned on.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 12:03
That's odd....jaggies in the trees on the background and the shadows have big jaggies. Can you provide that same shot without FAA turned on?

GNEP
19th June 2002, 12:05
The trees are made up of textures by the look of things - which won't get FAA-ed

Kruzin
19th June 2002, 12:10
The shadows are also done with texture and lighting tricks.
Only actual polygon edges get FAA treatment.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 12:13
Yeah, but are they not stencil shadows? I mean it actually makes them look worse. I happen to have Dungeon Siege and installed it on my roommate's computer. Shadows without FAA look way better. Perhaps this was what the speculation was all about?

(P.S. I don't want a flame to happen, and I'm not trying to bash the Parhelia. I'll most likely be buying the card myself :D ).

EDIT: Maybe you have the shadows turned to low detail??

Kruzin
19th June 2002, 12:36
The shadows where set to complex.
They look the same whether 16xFAA is on or off.
Stencil shadows or not, they are not polygons, and will not get FAA'd.
The only way to make them look different is to use FSAA, which is too big a performance hit, and makes other things look worse.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 13:04
Hmmm...can you provide a shot without FAA then to show this, because my roommate's comp with a GF2 shows the shadows without the drastic jaggies. I'm about to run it on my ATI Rage Pro just to see if it looks any different on it...

Kruzin
19th June 2002, 13:09
Look at the last picture.
That's exactly what they look like with FAA off.
Another picture showing the same thing would just be a waste of my time, and MURC's bandwidth.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 13:44
This is actually a pic from Dungeon Siege Vault, but this is what the shadows should look like. This is how it looks on both my ATI card and a GF2. I will post my own pic from my ATI card in just a sec.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 14:08
I never stated it couldn't be the drivers. All I'm saying is there is a definate issue with it. Again MA, I don't want a flamewar, this is not a Parhelia bash or anything. Anyway, I get a whopping 1fps with all details maxed out on my ATI card, and when I try to take a screenshot it boots to desktop....:( I guess that pic will do though (I can get the GF2 shot later tonight, gotta go to work in a few). Sorry if this is annoying to some, but Kruzin was being....evasive so to speak, but glad I finally got some answers.

Kruzin
19th June 2002, 14:51
I was being evasive?
Perhaps you would prefer if I didn't say anything.
I went out of my way to answer your questions, and even took the time to post your special request picture.
I was being HELPFUL, not evasive, and you where taking advantage of my good nature by hounding me with the same question over and over. After that, what are the odds that I will want to answer your questions in the future? Not good.

Jake
19th June 2002, 15:04
Why EXACTLY is BuddMan being an "annoying reefer oozing freak", M A?

Just because it's sometimes difficult to explain what you are asking about so that other people will understand it and resond accordingly, does not give you the right to bash the guy you two-post B*TCH!

The queries in Buddmans post are quite valid for this thread IMO even though a "difference of oppinion" or whatever seems to exists between him and Kruzin.

Like everyone else he just seems anxoius to see the card for himself. And if it bothers Kruzin too much to answer I think he will stop posting in this thread.

If Buddmans beef "wit dem shadow fingies'n'jaggies stuff" is a lack of functionality in the drivers, maybe someone at Matrox will pick up on it and get it implemented (hurra) or get it corrected if it is indeed a bug. I believe that was also implied in Buddmans posts.

If you want to get a name for yourself here go HELP someone or participate in another constructive fashion.

Jake

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 15:23
Originally posted by Kruzin
I was being evasive?
Perhaps you would prefer if I didn't say anything.
I went out of my way to answer your questions, and even took the time to post your special request picture.
I was being HELPFUL, not evasive, and you where taking advantage of my good nature by hounding me with the same question over and over. After that, what are the odds that I will want to answer your questions in the future? Not good.

Kruzin, you were helpful, but for some reason you declined to post a pic with complex shadows without FAA on the Parhelia. You know as well as I do that the pic of Joel's doesn't have complex shadows enabled, and it looks like he is using FAA as well (if complex shadows are enabled, I sure can't see them). Sorry for pissing you off, but I asked many times for you to post a pic, and you finally said no so I posted my own. Anyway, I hope you don't get mad over little incidents like this (if you consider this an incident), but thanks for posting the FAA pic.

Kruzin
19th June 2002, 15:57
I declined to post another pic for 2 reasons:
1) I told you they looked the same. More than once. Why should I waste my time to post a picture that only shows what is already shown in the first pic?
2) It was a PITA to get the first pic. The only saved game I have is deep in a dungeon. It took me 5 mins to backtrack out to daylight to get that pic, and I didn't feel like doing it again.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 16:12
Well sorry again man, I didn't mean to upset you. But if it looks the same with FAA on or off, then the Parhelia has trouble displaying shadows on this game in both cases. I dunno?? Maybe it's a simple driver issue that can be fixed...

Greebe
19th June 2002, 19:36
Hey Jake, you know sometimes I agree with EXACTLY how M A feels. Just look at the pathetic excuse of a thread this one has become, it goes on and on and on over the same ol BS.

Appears to me that Kruzin agrees with M A so take your flippin two post bitch comment elsewhere or you'll see how I treat you from here on out.

Got it?! geesh

Kruzin
19th June 2002, 20:03
I did take the time to install the game on my kid's G400 rig, and the shadows looked exactly the same.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 21:37
(Mainly to Greebe) - Haha, it's so funny how the mods really don't seem to like me. I guess I'll continue to be a pain in the ass. :D

Ok Kruzin, thanks. I'll do some more tests on it tonight and try zooming in, etc. It's probably the perspective that just made it look like that. I guess I should see it in action to really know how it looks and all. Thanks again.

EDIT: Greebe, that post was kinda uncalled for I think. I wouldn't have expected that from a mod....:(

DGhost
19th June 2002, 21:51
The shadows look exactly the same as the ones kruzin posted on my system too. and i am running a Radeon 8500.

the FAA shots look dreamy tho.

about the overclocking... there was an article a loongg time ago by a group that did 3d rendering and such... rendering on overclocked systems that would test as 100% stable, they would get random 'noise' in the rendered images. slight glitches, things that you normally wouldn't notice. just because its overclocked and you don't see problems doesn't mean they are not there...

Jake
19th June 2002, 22:19
Originally posted by Greebe
Hey Jake, you know sometimes I agree with EXACTLY how M A feels. Just look at the pathetic excuse of a thread this one has become, it goes on and on and on over the same ol BS.

Appears to me that Kruzin agrees with M A so take your flippin two post bitch comment elsewhere or you'll see how I treat you from here on out.

Got it?! geesh

Pathetic thread to you maybe, not to me. Yes Kruzin seems to be irritated with the persistance of Buddmann, so what. Like I said, if it bothers him to respond to the questions, why not just leave the thread alone.

As for you my friend, throwing threats around will get you nowhere. I could really care less how you will "treat me from here on out". And everone knows you can bitch. Quite a number of your 5000 posts has that written all over them.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 22:40
Ok, ok, I think this should be dropped. Greebe was right, I was way too persistent in asking and can see why I would have annoyed Kruzin. When I get interested in something I tend to go overboard. I apologize on behalf of Kruzin and the rest of the mods, and to the members of the forum. Let's not get into flaming and forget the whole thing.

Kruzin
19th June 2002, 22:51
Yes, this should be dropped, and if it's not, the thread will be closed. I closed it once earlier already, but reconcidered. Now I'm re-reconcidering.

And I hope you just made an error in your grammar here

Originally posted by BuddMan
I apologize on behalf of Kruzin and the rest of the mods, and to the members of the forum.
I most certaintly don't need you to apologize for me (which is what you are doing when you do something on someone's behalf)

Greebe
19th June 2002, 22:56
I seriously believe that's a goof and he's truely sorry for his persistance on this issue Kruzin.

BuddMan
19th June 2002, 23:06
Yeah I typed that pretty fast....had to get it there before the flames started rolling in. :D And to think, I'm an Enlgish major (I spelled that wrong on purpose).

WaltC
23rd June 2002, 12:08
Originally posted by RichL
Well, straight upping my AGP apature to 256mb didnt make a jot of difference.
However, winding my FSB back to default 100mhz let it run okay.

I've run my system at high FSBs (from 145mhz to current 112mhz) and never had any problems before now with any application or game. It looks like Dungeon Siege is ridiculously sensitive to hardware issues.

Rich, just a suggestion here, but what you might want to try is to set your ram back to CAS3, and then give 133MHz a whirl. What you'll probably notice if this works for you is that 133MHz at CAS3 is much faster than 100MHz at CAS2.

The fact that the game runs fine for you at a lower FSB suggests that the problem is in your ram timings relative to this particular game. Don't know if this will help but wanted to make the suggestion.