Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
This is beyond ridiculous
Man1ac
Member Posts: 1,428
I think this game atm is a pain. Not because of the UI, or the quest stucture or the lagg....It's the fact that the game doesn't run! Never in my life I have bought a game, installed it and it not running. All I get is a black windowed box and then windows displays a message saying "the program has stopped responding. A few things:-
I did disable my antivirus for the installation
It's a brand new laptop, I've updated ALL of the drivers of the laptop
I've fully updated Win 7
It's pretty much the first application I have installed on the laptop
Is there anything else I could do to get this damn game run? Can't find help on any forums and I've emailed the support. But seriously, wth.....
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
Comments
Still sounds like a bad install.
Uninstall, reinstall and see if that helps.
There is a known bug where the disk doesn't work very well with certain (new and old) disk drives. Try a digital copy or try and install from an ISO image. It's a few extra steps, but I've seen it work. (Had to for my girlfriend's Gateway machine.)
Even the game says you're not hardcore enough, go back to WoW.
Ok! Now I let the fanbots help you out. Seriously, I hope you can get the problem fixed because spending money and not being able to run it sucks, no matter how good/bad the product is.
what kind of video card does your laptop have? because there are lots of people who bought laptops that aren't even specced for high end gaming. you need 512mb video+ to run this game. an I can tell you I know some people that don't even have this on their desktops still. but long as they can play their previous games right? but won't cut it for anything after that especially in next couple years or so with dx11 being out people need to push to 512 already...i think few of these new mmoprgs an some fps out there will be 512+ an this ffxiv is a nice example.
On other hand i hear of people having bare minimum cards to run this game have problems. but I know people who are playing bare minimum atm with no problems. this is where we get techy
Did you update your DirectX?
Updating DX fixed most of the problems I was having, tho sometimes I still get a blackscreen when I launch the game, but all I have to do is just close it, and restart the game to fix it.
Reminds me of the days of retail where customers would come in and say "hey I want to buy an amazing laptop that will pretty much do everything and only cost $700". All I could do is gave a bizarre look on my face and say "well what did you actually want to do". Much like a previous poster said, few laptops out there can even technically run this gamer even if we put it on a bear minimum settings. Even a Macbook pro would have a tough time since the 17" series w/ an I-7 quad was overheating like hell. I think only a few of the Asus G70's could handle this game (since most of them were quads with 1 gig ATI and GDDR5) as well as a few Sony and Toshiba's with nearly similar specs. Players even with full fledged gaming desktops are seeking upgrades.
This game is probably is real system killer to play; then again I think it was the warning sign that if games get this high-end on the graphics, should move back to desktop gaming rigs. Guess I'm ready for Shogun 2: Total War when it comes out next year lol!
Quad isn't supported so well in FFXIV yet anyway and I don't think there's a good gaming Mac made so...
I'm playing it just fine on a desktop replacement laptop. 4 gigs of DDR3 a decent duo core at 2.3x2 and a 9800GTS 1024.
Really this game's knocking the GPU hardest. 512 video memory bare min, go for a gig or 2 gig of video memory for the best results. SLI doesn't help at all my desktop which is basically double my laptop's specs hits the same framerate in this game.
I had this and setting all the .exe to run as admin fixed it for me.
Hope it helps ;3
Quad isn't supported so well in FFXIV yet anyway and I don't think there's a good gaming Mac made so...
I'm playing it just fine on a desktop replacement laptop. 4 gigs of DDR3 a decent duo core at 2.3x2 and a 9800GTS 1024.
Really this game's knocking the GPU hardest. 512 video memory bare min, go for a gig or 2 gig of video memory for the best results. SLI doesn't help at all my desktop which is basically double my laptop's specs hits the same framerate in this game.
The game use the four cores. The other day i started the windows window that show core usage, started the game and then, after the game loaded alt-tab to desktop and the graphics show the four cores at around 65-70% loadThe computer uses them, not the game. Task manager's a good thing to watch, but it only tells part of a story even in it's most advance set up.
Not saying that 4 cores isn't nice to have, but it functionally runs equal to a speed equivalent duo core. If your video card can only eek out 45 fps on average the processor type has little affect as much as the GPU memory and the speed of your RAM.
Now we know you're lying, you cannot alt-tab when you're in the game
Yeah, unless in windowed mode then SLI wont work anyhow (not sure on crossfire).
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
It's more likely that the game is maxing two of your cores at 50% (2 cores is half of total usage) and the other 15-20% is for other programs that are running.
I believe this to be the case as well.
I remember reading a long thread on the Beta forums that outlined this. Supposedly, the program only utilizes 2 cores for graphics; in other words, two main threads. ( I think they were even called The Two Threads in the thread, heh). It might use the other cores for other things, like processing the user interface or something.
Supposedly this means that a CPU with more than 2 cores won't help much. I don't have a very firm grasp of these types of things though, but that's what I intrepreted. They called this "CPU Bottlenecking" in the thread, if I recall correctly.
Additionally, does anyone know if this is unusual for games in general? I was under the impression that most games are programmed to utilize mainly only 2 cores, as it is too difficult to program for more. People in the previously mentioned thread were saying that the programmers for FFXIV must have been "lazy," and maybe this is the case for some of their other problems, but I thought it was unfair to call them out on this particular subject. Maybe not, though. *shrugs*
Well actually FFXIV uses 3 threads in 2 processors. (Which indeed is the common amount for most games [non-64 bit, but I've only seen like 1 that tried to use x64 so far anyway] and other x86 programs.) They just aren't given the proper 1s and 0s to make much use of 4 cores right now, so the technology only really helps multitasking because the programs will take the route of less resistance in moving about code. (Which helps keep other programs running while software takes up most of the bandwidth in the busy processor's bandwidth.)
It's not difficult to program for more cores actually, it's the same process. It just falls into the realm of 64-bit coding now and it's not economical since most computers (even 64 bit machines) are based around 32 bit architecture. So it's not lazy coding by any means. Maxing for few processor threads and putting most strain on the GPU and it's video memory means they were coding for the console from the beginning.
That's kind of obvious if you watch directx and opengl's workload when running the game compared to other PC games. In particular in comparison to Civ 5.
dont feel bad i spent 80 dolalr on the collectors editions when i got the game i had the same problem it wouldnt update i had to spend hours on the forum trying to figure out a solution. When i did i played the game for a few days and i could not bare the boredm and all the things so wrong with this game. I stopped playing i dont even care if they added another month of free play i am not coming back to this game. Im not going to pay for a game that is barely in beta stage and their making us pay. Sorry nice try Square enix your not scamming me again! So i went back to go play a real SANDBOX GAME DARKFALL .
Well worldspin85 I Cant see how this has anything to do with the technical advise this person if after, sounds like a troll gone mad, get back in your cage.
Back about the thread. It would probly be helpfull to find out what the up-to-date direct x is. With 10 and 11 being about but the game running on 9, is directx 9c still the latest?
9c is still the latest.
11 doesn't back ped too well for it, so that could be an issue. Installing them both can fix it, but I'd still put money on it being just a bad disk read.
Wow, that's so wrong, I had to say something. "64-bit coding" has absolutely nothing to do with this, and it's far from "the same process". If anything, with a multithread model where you have a dedicated thread per game task (sound, graphics, events, etc), it's far harder to scale up to more cores than you have threads. You have to manually split these threads up further in an effective way (probably not easy or you'd have done it to begin with) or just rewrite everything with a less stupid model where you make work packets and schedule those yourself. The latter is pretty clearly not already happening.
Also unless Windows has perfect processor affinity per thread you're going to see load on all CPUs/cores as the thread bounces around, even if you have a single-threaded app.
It's been proven that splitting the coding to take on a singular process is more of a hinderence than it is helpful. So machines throw that information into the RAM to be picked up and moved through the pipe as normal. 32 bit machines utilize this at a single core first, dual core second priority. There's few (and there have been a couple, like certain Photoshop builds) 32 bit based programs that have attempted to utilize 4 cores (8 channels) in the process you're describing because that's more like server technology than personal computing tech.
What you're describing isn't feasible in any gaming programming.
Because vram and ddr3 and up ram are quick enough to where programming for a specific pipeline is just more work than necessary.
More and more games are being written for multiple cores, but usually only for 2.
It's hard to generalize about gains from multicore programming because any potential gain depends very much on how finely you can subdivide the computational problem facing you. You can subdivide to a point, but you eventually reach one of two kinds of barriers:
1) The cost in overhead of further subdividing the problem exceeds the gains
2) You reach the 'atomic' level of your operations
A very simplified way of thinking about it is splitting up a long algebraic equation among multiple high school students, giving each a part of the problem, letting each of them solve their part of the problem, and then integrating their solutions to arrive at the final answer.
Example: 1 + 2 * 3 + (4 - 5 ^ 2) / 6
Some parts of this problem must be solved before the others (following the usual order of operations). 2 * 3 must be solved and 5^2 must be solved before more progress can be made. You can assign those to two students. Adding a third student to solve those 2 problems won't make it go any faster. Trying to break down 2 * 3 among two or more students won't work because it is atomic. The overhead of parsing the problem, determining the division, communicating the subproblems, communicating the answers to the subproblems, and integrating the solution, probably mean it will take longer than if you have just one student do it. Only a very long equation and some very practiced students will have a net gain.
If you replace the notion of binary math operations with subsystems you get an idea of the architectural challenge facing a game designer. Some subsystems are dependent on others. There are also tradeoffs in code complexity from a finely subdivided problem, which can lead to longer development and more bugs.
The more you look at it, the more complicated it can get. People write their theses about this sort of stuff. Thinking that "they didn't use more cores because they're lazy" is itself some atrociously lazy thinking.