This has been addressed several ways, and has gotten significantly better. I haven't had an out-of-memory crash in months. The newly reworked graphics in TA are intended to reduce this problem even further. The problem is that the game is so big the problem may never be entirely eliminated.

Also, I'm pretty sure Stardock knew the memory problem existed while they were making DA. It just took a while to find where exactly the problems were and how to address them.

To clarify, it may or may not work. Some people can run it, some can't--the major mysterious issue is where some people are experiencing total system reboots after short periods of play (which are apparently not stifled BSODs). We just don't guarantee it'll work under such circumstances... that's what "official support" means, after all. At any rate, the out of memory error is a known and commonly reported issue NOT isolated to bootcamp macs.



It's being addressed in TA with various significant changes, and as Brad commented in a recent post, if anyone is still running into OOM in TA, we absolutely want to know about it so we can try to address any remaining causes. The new planet texture system, new ship part textures, etc, are all enhancing the game's appearance AND reducing the memory footprint at the same time.

As an aside, Cari has commented a number of times (as quoted in #21) that the memory issues do not necessarily mean there's an actual leak; the game simply did not look out for the 2GB limit at all. A lot of work has gone in over the past few months to make the game actually manage its memory usage to avoid it, and as noted above, by the latest version of TA the issue should be largely (hopefully completely) eliminated.

---

Anyway, everyone here needs to cool down. There's flaming going both ways and it's not at all necessary.

well...mmmmmmmmm that was interesting !!!

I have tried it and it actually increased the speed of the entire operating system system even though i have 2gb of memory installed! Great find and i am loving the results. Many thanks!   

Oh, where to begin....

As others have mentioned, TA is intended to address some of these memory issues, so if you were willing to buy an expansion to fix the problems with DA, then I would expect TA would fill your needs.

I'm also pretty amused by the 'enjoy beta testing TA for the next few years' line. TA is going through a signficant beta test as is, with an additional two months possibly being tacked on to focus on ai tuning. Given stardock's past record, there's no reason to believe the game will be any more unstable, unbalanced upon release than any other similar game, and will recieve some support upon release.

You throw around the term 'beta test' alot, without actually pointing to other turn based games that are signficantly better in terms of technical stability, ai, or balance than this one. And yet you consider this a 'great game'. What this tells me is that, while it might be fair to say that there are quite a few fanboys on this site, there are also quite a few posters who have a pathetic sense of entitlement.

Many of us have been frustrated with the OOM errors, but they definitely have decreased for me. And, in the rare instances I get them now, I usually do not lose the game. It takes a few minutes, but I hit the "OK" on the button that announces the memory error, and the game comes back. Then, I am able to save it successfully and continue to play.

(BTW, I am playing on Vista, and have 2Gig of memory.)

For me, the quality of the game itself (and the obvious efforts of the developers to fix the problems) has compensated for the annoyance of the problem.

Yes, i was ranting, and perhaps i owe everyone an apology for that. However, in my defense, i had just experienced yet another annoying loss of numerous actions taken during a turn of the game that i could not then save. Although i have the game set to save automatically every turn, sometimes, a lot happens in one turn. This is a very irritating bug that is known, and experienced by many. It is furher irritating to know that the only way to repair the bug, apparently, is to shell out more money for another expansion pack. Rather than have any constructive comments as to potential fixes, i am flamed and my concerns discarded simply because i am running the program on a Mac under boot camp. And, to say that it is "unsupported" is merely another way of ignoring the real issue, which is a bug in the programming, period. One can say what they will about Windows on the Mac being "thrown together" or "emulated"--what ever... but i know that i have numerous games playing on this machine and not a single one of them experience this problem. i run many other software titles as well... and again, i do not have this problem. So it is difficult for me to stomach that the problem lies with my system. It clearly doesn't.

Secondly, i sincerely appreciate the efforts of Stardock to fix the coding of this fantastic game. i wouldn't be so irritated by these errors if i didn't enjoy playing the game as much as i do. i absolutely love it! i would just like to be able to play it through without constant concerns of it crashing... And the fact that the error affects the ability to save the game is just the acid on the cake. It would seem to me that some fix should be in order to address this issue. Although i can't save the game, i can continue to play it, but that is pretty fruitless as a single game is hardly finished in one sitting.

i have looked on the MS website regarding increasing the RAM allotment that Windows can recognize to 3gb. i am very interested in trying this, but can't find the correct sytax to use. i am running Windows XP Home Edition, but the site appears to address only the Server. If anyone else has tried this trick with success, posting the lines added to the boot.ini file here for use with Windows XP would be really helpful.

Additionally, i have Windows Vista, if the game runs better under that, i can certainly install it. Does the game run better under Vista? Does Vista enable greater RAM allotment to the game? i think, although i am not for certain, that Vista can recognize all the RAM i actually have installed on my system. However, i don't know if the game itself would be affected by its doing so... Any feedback on this would be helpful as well...

I have had the same issue on two other games CIV4 and Supreme Commander.
In researching it I have found it in others inc GalCiv.

GalCiv developers are the first I have noticed to openly admit an issue so I'm very happy with the support for galciv, honesty is not often found anymore. They didn’t even blame Microsoft.

I can understand there issue, basically it’s a limit in windows 32bit they can either do their best to work around the issue with memory management or not allow it to be installed on a 32bit OS. But they’re hitting a limit with little margin for error and they cannot tell what other programs\spyware\adware are running on your PC.

Since day one windows and anything programmed for it has had memory leak issues but it was never really a problem till now because we had so much of it.

I think we are hitting the threshold for the 32bit OS, correction the windows 32bit threshold, not many good games run under linux so I do not know if a 32bit linux distro would be any better. I really need to get myself upgraded to a 64bit windows OS shame it will have to be windows. Look forward to the day I can play my games on Linux. Nothing like a free OS.

Vista 32bit may have the same issue so try the 64bit. I think there was a way to install any of the Vista versions and trial it for 30 or 60 days without needing to activate but I have forgotten how.

The following is an example of the boot loader switch for XP home\pro. It did not work for Supreme Commander (had to reduce the number of AI players, sigh) but helped with CIV4. Have not had any issues on GalCiv yet.

Go to
System Properties - Advanced - Startup and Recovery "settings" - Edit.

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition" /fastdetect /3GB /NoExecute=OptIn

You can add a line so you can choose at bootup if you want to load a non switched windows.

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition" /fastdetect /3GB /NoExecute=OptIn
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition" /fastdetect /NoExecute=OptIn

Be sure to change the disk numbers or partition address’s if needed in case you have your windows located elsewhere.

Good luck.

Rhamiel go ahead and send in save game if posable and a debugger any way,.. it may be

be helpful!!!

and yes OOM are a pain,.. alto i`ve not had one for a while and i can play hugh in DA and TA new maps size and play far in to the game then what most would play,.. meaning i could have won by now but i like to research the tech tree all the way thur so by the time i do decicde to win i have a lot in may save games and yes after losing 2 to 3 savegames in a row it is hard to keep playing !!!!
i thing they have work on it some for DA and i know it has been work on in TA but try turning down or off the Planet Surface Variety slider in Video option and see if that helps if you have all ready my bad


Nasty

PS if you come fully arm with guns to a gun fight here,.. you`ll find that there are those that are willing to shoot back !!! And NO It Does Not Help Fix The Issue

Very helpful Scoutmaster. i am going to try this out immediately.

i did a bit of research on Vista and it seems that the 32 bit version (which is the one i have--Home Premium) can recognize maybe up to 3 GB of memory. The 64 bit version can recognize more, so i wish i would have gotten that version. Amazing to me that PC's are so lightweight these days. My MacPro has two 64 bit processors and can handle up to 32 GB of RAM if i wanted to push it to that... even OS 10.4 recognizes all my RAM (currently at 13GB), not to mention 10.5/Leopard) but MS's newest operating system is hobbled in this respect even as it gobbles up the memory just to look pretty (Aero). Utterly astonishing!

Oh JUST found something that explains this issue a lot better than I could. I just deleted four paragraphs and was able to replace it with a link and the following summary FANTASTIC! Pretty much confirms what I already was thinking what could cause this issue honest

Link http://www.ittvis.com/services/techtip.asp?ttid=3346

Summary.
Issue caused by Low available memory.
Solution: get more memory, allocate more virtual memory or close down existing programs.
Issue caused by Operating System Limits.
Solution: Try the switch (mixed results) otherwise upgrade to a 64bit OS.
Issue caused by Memory Fragmentation.
Solution: Has to be fixed by the application developer.

"A program must be designed to take advantage of the additional memory address space."

Using the /3GB switch only enables the OS, it does not automatically mean that any program will/can use it. There is a special flag that must be set the the game's .exe header as well.

"Executables that must see the 3-GB address space are required to have the bit IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set in their image header."

you could also hold on until GalCiv2 2.0 is released. if i understand and recall correctly, they'll be backporting most of the improvements from TA into previous versions. you might want to look for more than a half-remembered possibility, though.

on a separate note, i've got nothing against Mac-ophiles, but seriously, if you want to play video games, they're really not the best way to go. i imagine the purchase was probably made out of professional necessity, video editing or something along those lines, and if that's the case it was a fine choice to make. but if you can afford a seven thousand dollar computer for professional applications, i think you can suck it up and assemble five to seven hundred dollars worth of standard PC components for gaming. if you live in the U.S., you can probably count your Mac as a tax deduction if you purchased it during the last year (or any components you purchased last year), and that could help out along those lines of a new purchase. i'm not trying to brush your problem aside, i'm just being realistic: if you're determined to game using Mac hardware, you're going to have problems.

honestly, i wish it weren't the case. i really, really don't want to use Vista. ever. i was hoping development would become less focused on MS's line of operating systems when Vista came out, but it didn't turn out that way. but as they say, if you want something done right, do it yourself.

Agreed. But the image header is set by the developer. I got an unofficial patch for another game which was said to change the image header and used it conjunction with the 3gb switch without any effect. There is a pretty good chance that the patch was useless but still I cannot help thinking that if it was that easy we wouldn't have the issues we do and suspect that developers are already flagging the files.

When I read about the Memory fragmentation issue I figured I'd try the boot loader switch and leave it at that. If it still wouldn't work there is nothing that can be done.

From what I read about the free height map update for GalCiv II a large percentage of the memory used has been removed are there people having this issue after installing that update?

i believe this to be a misnomer. i have owned only one WinTel PC in my lifetime. i will never purchase another. It was painful enough to buy XP and that bloatware called "Vista." And, now with the newer Mac's there is absolutely no need to do so. i have Windows XP installed on my computer simply to play games. i have quite a few and they all run as well as they do on any WinTel PC. The problems i am experiencing with this game are equivalent to those experienced by WinTel PC users. i would pit my MacPro against any PC anywhere anytime, period. Does that mean that my system is "better?" Perhaps not, but it is certainly more versatile, and suits me just fine. i do intensive graphics and video on my MacPro, but i hardly got it as a professional machine, as i am not a professional in either of those areas. i got it because it is, in my personal opionion, the best bang for the buck, and offers a superior user interface. And i certainly would not want to clutter my space with several computers when one does the job quite nicely. i would strongly suggest checking out the newer Macs before underselling them. And, you certainly don't have to pay out the nose for one these days.



Yes, as i stated earlier, everything is up to date. i have not, however, tried the new beta of the newest expansion pack, and don't believe i will do so as my experience with the game has been what it is. If the game as it is is repaired, then i might purchase the expansion.

I`ve run both of these games and GalCiv2 on 3 different computers. The first 2 had WinXP an my new one Vista. I have never seen this happen in any of the 3. I don`t really have anything to add to this thread, I`m just amazed at so many people can have this issue yet I`ve never seen it once.

Quite true! BUT STOP. WAIT. Don't do it on your own unless you know what you're doing. You could seriously mess up your exe file if you go around hex editing it.

If you're going to mess around with it, back it up! But as a practice, i recommend NOT trying it. You can enable the 3GB flag in your boot.ini file (if you know what you're doing), but having the game use that 3GB DOES require that IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE bit in the game's exe file be enabled.

Now as a concept, it might be something Stardock could look into as far as enabling it for those who want to try the 3GB boot. I don't know if enableing the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE bit without using the 3GB flag in your boot.ini would cause any adverse effects (i can't imagine it would, i just don't know as i have had the 3GB flag enabled since i built my 64-bit machine).

If there is no downside to it, it could be an easy fix for those who just can't get rid of that OOM error, and have the additional memory to spare. But aside from the fact i may or may not have done it myself, i'd still recommend that everyone wait for stardock to do it themselves, if they choose to. Or at the very least, wait for them to make a seperate, downloadable, officially unsupported exe file available for those who want to try it.

And remember, if you do it yourself (which i DO NOT recommend), you SHOULD NOT distribute that file in any way! Doing so could very well be highly illegal, as exe files are often proprietary in nature.

It probably wouldn't have adverse effects without an increased user-mode virtual address space - it just wouldn't do anything.

I think a likely cause of "failures in one case but not another" is the memory fragmentation issue. Unfortunately it is not just our problem, but those of library and driver writers (especially the latter, now that user mode drivers are in-vogue for video cards and sound cards).

Increasing virtual address space may work for a time. However, it may also reveal bugs that were not previously evident. It's probably worth trying at some point, but we might not see such a change come out in the initial release of Twilight - instead, we'd be trying to lock down as much of the actual fragmentation as possible.

i have this *program* with a short "install"guide for the boot.exe, its adding something to the game...seems to work

One advantage of linking the application with the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag is under x64 OS's, WOW64 will give a 32-bit application a full 4GB of virtual user memory. This 4GB, under WOW64, is unshared memory. Another plus, there is no need mess around with RAM tuning, like the /3GB switch you need on the 32-bit OS's; the 4GB allocation is automatic under WOW64. It would allow GalCiv to scale with the OS, like it currently does with hardware.

Kay. I'll grant you this one. After all i truly AM one of these Morons for trying to help out a complete stranger who was actually ranting about OOM on a costly Mac with an alternate OS.
But lemme insist on some personal history here; I've coded stuff since 1982 (that's a whole T-w-en-t-y__F-i-v-e years, right there - and as anyone serious about their work, i have evolved and kept up with the industry). Thus, i know a few things about PCs (and Apples, Oranges, Lemons, etc). And, can be helpful to anyone if they are behaving in a civil manner. Although, you really were coming across, somehow, i dunno, like a few words quoted above.

As for THE problem, i know exactly what it is, i DO have a definitive, final, sturdy, excellent, perfect, immmediate solution... but since i'm such an idiot (quoting/end-quote) i guess it would take a LOT more than a mood swing to share it with YOU.

Secondly;



Maybe gallagher118, is however absolutely RIGHT about a couple of things above.

Thirdly;



Kay #2! And yet, my collaboration mood will possibly take a few more days (even, weeks) of thorough moronic reflection.
Sooooo, i'll say it again - THERE is a solution. The road to paradise was hinted about in some posts above.
Nobody on the WWW is an expert. Everyone is unknown enough to not be trusted by anybody. But, perhaps the other person(s) which DO have something positive to add, will never submit to anybody's tears of memory leaks (extremely easily configurable)... unless --

- Zyxpsilon.

Zyx, if you had anything constructive to add you would have done so some time ago. So just troll-la-la-la along...

In other news, i tried the memory switch described above, but began a new game... so it will be a while before i see a difference i guess. However, reading what has been written about adding this, and looking at other info i've seen about making this addition, i should probably reverse the changes.

i wish i would have purchased the 64bit version of Vista when i had the opportunity... but there is no way i'm giving M$ any more of my $.

there your solution,...

you solve it yourself,.. live with it

I don't think anyone should ever buy Vista. Further, if you're just running games, especially something that's not really heavy on memory usage like GC2, 3 GBs is more than enough memory. My native XP system has a gig and a half and I can play halflife2 decently (more decently if I had a newer processor to match my newer graphics card).

But I wonder... these out of memory errors... as I recall, windows does this thing where each application has its own 4GB chunk of virtual memory (I forget what that's called) which would then be mapped to the next layer of redirection and finally to your ridiculous 13 GBs.

Some random guesses as to where a bug might exist here. Isn't there a memory allocation guess that the compiler inserts into the executable that gives the OS a basic framework for how much heap space a program is going to need? Is it possible that this is too small and that bootcamp's RAM-to-disk memory swap is inadequate to the task or doesn't behave as windows expects it to? Perhaps then at a certain point the game decides its time to swap something and then the out of memory error occurs.

The only other thing I can consider is that there are two or more different modules in GC2 that use different memory allocation systems... perhaps one is linked to a 64 bit safe library and one is not or perhaps one uses a flag that is unsupported by the current version of bootcamp, etc.

I hope these are vaguely accurate guesses to some underlying problem. There are so many levels of indirection here...

To the people who said something about spyware and other applications above. Aren't memory limits are separate for each process? Spyware can slow the system down, but I don't think it can cause "out of memory" errors.

Also, I've read about open-source replacement for windows memory manager a while ago. Can't seem to find the link anywhere...