CariElf CariElf

*Unofficial* Test Build to address 1.1 Memory/Save Game/Crash issues

▼

*Unofficial* Test Build to address 1.1 Memory/Save Game/Crash issues

from GalCiv2 Forums

If you have Windows 2000 or XP you can try this UNOFFICIAL test exe. I will be updating this link periodically until we get the official update out.  I'm using an newer version of the DirectX SDK on my computer than the one that Brad uses to create the offical builds, and the version I'm using is not supported on Win 98/ME.

Before extracting the contents of the zip file to your GalCiv2 install folder, backup your GalCiv2.exe and Lib3D.dll and your save games, just in case. 

http://sd.stardock.com/carielf/gc2/GalCiv2MemTestWinXP13.zip

If you get an error about missing D3DX9_28.dll, here is a link to that file in a zip, which can be extracted to your GalCiv2 directory:

http://sd.stardock.com/carielf/d3dx928.zip

This test file is meant to

1) fix crash when loading save games

2) reduce save/load times (may only be slight difference)

3) make it less likely to crash while saving.

4) This version attempts to abort saving rather than just crashing when it runs out of memory while saving.  However, it is still possible to max out your memory so badly that the game will crash even if you're not saving.

5) You may get a few missing strings because I'm not including any data files with the exe. 

6) If anyone has been having the bug where the Metaverse submit dialog does not pop up at the end of a game, please let me know if you have that problem with this build, as I may have fixed this problem.

7) I took out some unused debugging code that may have caused slowdowns.

8) Fixed a random crash when you or the AI would colonize a planet whose surface had not been initialized.

9) Build 10 has the changes to the combat reverted back to the old system.

10) We also fixed a bug in the planet surface code caused by a timing issue; if you colonized the planet before it was initialized, it would fail to create the initial colony and then crash.

11) I fixed a few bugs in our resource manager.

12) Reverted the code that calculated the total number of stars  (based on the number of sectors) to the version in 1.0X2.  This will also affect the number of planets.  This should save a lot of memory and increase performance. 

In task manager on the process tab, select View and then Select Columns.  Add the column Virtual Memory Size.  That way, you can see how much RAM GC2 is using and how much Virtual Memory.

I think that the latest change (less stars and planets) will be enough for an update to 1.1, but we did find other areas where we can decrease memory and/or increase performance that we can try to get into 1.2.

Please report here with results on if your problems were solved, if there are new bugs, etc.  If you've been playing with simpler ship designs, turning down the stars, etc, feel free to turn everything up again to abuse the test exe.

 

73,971 views 111 replies
Reply #51 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Just an update:

Put 1.1 back on and played a good 20-30 turns with no issue. Re-installed Test9, CTD after turn 6. Guess I'm going back to 1.1 until 10 comes out.

***Edit***

Just for laughs I installed Test8 but got the same CTD.
Reply #52 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have gone back to one of the previous ones that does work ok. No new battle engine but no new error!!

For those of you who forgot to keep it here is the link: -

http://sd.stardock.com/carielf/gc2/GalCiv2MemTestWinXP7.zip

it is GalCiv2MemTestWinXP7
Siege of Centauri
Reply #53 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Combat system has been changed back to what it was before for now. I'll be working this week on getting the new system working properly.
Reply #54 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have rebooted, and it still gave the error. I then closed it and started it from the Start menu and tried again. It gave the same message.
Reply #55 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
CC is the change avail in a new D/L? or are we better off sticking to zip7 for now?
Reply #56 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
BTW i love the idea for the new combat system
Reply #57 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Used first zip update for 6 hours. Vastly improved save times for me. 1 sec versus 5-7 seconds. Load times seem faster. It seems stable. 2.8 Pentium D (2xCPU) 2 MG Ram 2048 fixed paging file

Thanks Carielf and Codecritter, this seems to be the right path to go.
Reply #58 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Build 10 is now up, as well as a link to D3DX9_28.dll if you need it. I am also in #galciv on irc.stardock.com today while I am trying to track down what is maxing out 2 GB of RAM.
Reply #59 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The link for the dll does not work.
Reply #60 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My Control-N problem is gone in build 10. I did it 8 or 9 times without a problem.
Reply #61 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I just put up a build 11 because CodeCritter had to remove a few other things so that the new features would be taken out, to make sure that this is stable.

I'll check the link...the forum code doesn't always like links with underscores in them.

Reply #62 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Does that mean build 10 still has the combat mods?
Reply #63 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You know something...

I am having a blast with you guys.
Never in my life have I found Tech Support to be so responsive and personal. I love it.
Reply #64 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yup these Guys (non sexist remark ) rock!!!
Reply #65 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Moosetek13, no, just some related code.

 

Reply #66 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I didn't get 10 as I was back playing 1.1, but 11 seems to have fixed my CTD. I too tried CTRL-N about 5 times before starting to play. Was able to play through a little over a year before I closed it down.

I have to agree with Moose and DG above, you folks could teach the so-called "big dogs" a thing or two in customer service. Until this one, I was almost to the point of no longer buying a game until it hit the bargin bin so that way I could check to see if the makers had patched it to make it at least worth the bargin price. With service like this, I will definately check out Stardock for future software purchases. It is a pleasent change to see a company stand behind their products!

Sorry about going offf on a tangent there but this seemed as good a place as any for it.
Reply #67 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
...I'll wait until this test is a little more stable or a full-blown release. i'm only posting in response to this.

Also, if you have very complex ship designs with a lot of jewelry, please zip up your ships folder and e-mail it to [email protected] so that I can use them in my testing.


You know Cari, it's not that hard to throw together some hideous but complex-jewelry laden ship for testing. Are you sure you're not just looking for an excuse to get as many cool ships as you can? I'll have to send in some of my pretty ones one of these days.
Reply #68 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

dystopic,

Sure, but if I get ships from people who are having the problem with 1.1, I know that they are files that can reproduce the problem, assuming that it is the ship designs causing the problems.

Reply #69 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
just out of idle curiosity, is part of the problem caused by the saved game trying to find ALL of the usable ships, old weapon/defense/speed configs that you have from previous games that could be built in the current game? - i "try" to delete old ships, but they have a tendancy after a few games to just spontaneously multiply.
Reply #70 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As an add on to the above -

is there a way via code to signify custom ships as "base designs" - therefore only loading those designs that you created in the current game + those designs with the "base design" tag?

Edit- also, does the number of hardpoints (that the right term? just woke up after watching too much hockey last night - attachment points) make a significant differance in memory usage? would there be a way to add to the ship designer a "turn off hardpoints" for a paticular piece of jewlry that you are not planning on using for anything but looks?

oh yeah, what exactly is considered "alot" of jewelry? the most on any one ship im using in my current *crash on load* game has 21 total. Running 3.4 pentium 2gig, pagefile 3gig, Ati x800
Reply #71 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

just out of idle curiosity, is part of the problem caused by the saved game trying to find ALL of the usable ships, old weapon/defense/speed configs that you have from previous games that could be built in the current game?

The save games save all of the shipcfg files in the save game file, so the more .shipcfg files you have, the bigger your save file will be.  But I don't think that in itself is causing any of the problems, or we would have seen this sooner.

Edit- also, does the number of hardpoints (that the right term? just woke up after watching too much hockey last night - attachment points) make a significant differance in memory usage? would there be a way to add to the ship designer a "turn off hardpoints" for a paticular piece of jewlry that you are not planning on using for anything but looks?

No, it's not the number of hardpoints in itself.  But the more pieces of jewelry that you have attached to a ship, the more copies of the meshes are in memory.  We are working on making meshes be shared, but it's complicated because of the scaling, sizing, and rotation.   

Reply #72 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I tested Memory Issue 6 and 9 and I thought they work pretty well. I save in 15 seconds I load in 30 seconds.

I didnt have any problems with either.
Reply #73 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Much obliged for the reply Cari - going to load up a ship builder scenerio and delete some of the old ship config's just to see if it helps while watchin hockey! (boo@ redwings early exit)
Reply #74 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I put up another test build, 12, which fixes some bugs in our resource manager.  This will make memory usage go down a bit, but probably not a lot. 
Reply #75 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, dang! I got an email back saying that the email I sent with my SE and debug info attached to it got filtered out. Since I said what I had to say in SE, I left the body blank, which I'm guessing is the reason it was sent back? Maybe SE should have a note saying not to leave the body of the email blank? Would help those of us that just assume the attachments are all that is needed when sending the email.