Works Fine

[gamesguru]

Nice to hear the news.

This has got my hopes once more, a couple of s for you fine sir.

[camdean]

How do i clean up my drivers?

Please reply.

If it's for ATI or any Nvidia drivers use this ..

 

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,...escription.html

 

1. Uninstall using the Drivers uninstall

2. Restart pc in safe mode (press F6 or F8 just after bios screen)

3. Run Driver Sweeper

4. Restart

[Mocambo]

and it doesn't surprise me you're on a 8800GTX since that seems to be the graphics card the developers optimized this game for.

Sorry but i have a 8800GTX, best perfomance but Fatal Error: RESC10 after 45 Sek.

[Krieger91]

How do you guys think this will run if I get it???

 

 

AMD Phenom 9600 black edition

ATI 3870 EAH 512

2 Gigs of RAM

DFI 790FX M2R

Windows XP 32bit Home Edition

 

Thanks for the help.

 

http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10296/...sInfoId=1543827

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm still waiting for my game to get here, probably a couple weeks. I've noticed that a lot of people with 8800GTX aren't having that many problems compared to others on the forums. I have one myself, so I'm hoping I can be as lucky as you guys.

 

I got a pretty similar system as you:

 

Intel Duo Core 6700 @ 2.66Ghz

2GB ram

Nvidia 8800GTX 768mb

Windows XP SP3

 

Hoping for some screenshots and videos from you soon!

[WilderDK]

well after the frustration installation and log into that, and that, and sign up here and here, and say yes, and confirm some e-mails, and some tweaks, its runs great here too, but, i still thinks the shadows are a way back in years.

 

and the way the ask us paying costumers to accept all those anti-piracy, there not help anyway in the end, i will say, its a sad time for pc-gamers, i really hope the fix so it would run more smoother and allow some more tweaks in setting, like AA and that.

 

 

but the game play its self, its amazing so far i have come, not so long, but its seems to work great.

 

 

my spec.

 

quadro core 2.4 ghz

8800gtx 765 mb ram

4gb 800 mhz ram

vista 64bit, service pack 1

22" syncmaster 2 ms

 

regards

 

 

<------

[Zach]

 

where's the logic in your statement about the 32-bit os only using 2gb of ram?

FYI, it's a built-in limitation in Windows (any 32-bit variant, be it Vista, XP, Win2K, etc.). The per-process address limit is 2 GB... period, end-of-story.

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

 

 

Edit: So there's no misunderstandings, the OS itself will use all 4 GB (minus the address space needed to access the system's I/O space, of course), but any individual application can only allocate up to 2 GB and no more.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Zach

[aNdReSk]

I'm getting between 36-47 FPS depending on what im doing etc.

 

It looks perfectly fine to the naked eye, well my naked eyes anyway.

wow that's awesome. you're lucky compared to some people here running the same or better hardware with half as good fps and/or graphic settings.

 

congratulations once again.

That makes me wonder if the problem are the people too used to have everything working right away

[Smurfen]

exactly what i was thinking when i first saw all the "crap" threads... i ignored them and bought the game installing now.. not having high hopes tho

[duffman12]

to the OP - thanks for the good news, glad you're enjoying it!

i have a similar system, slightly poorer GPU but faster CPU. will be running it at the same resolution, and will try the gfx settings you have used, hopefully will be able to achieve similar results!

 

cant you use the built in replay editor to make a gameplay movie? althou running fraps would be better so we can see what kind of FPS you are getting in game. keep us informed, always good to hear how people with similar hardware are getting on

[dr.whiz]

 

where's the logic in your statement about the 32-bit os only using 2gb of ram?

FYI, it's a built-in limitation in Windows (any 32-bit variant, be it Vista, XP, Win2K, etc.). The per-process address limit is 2 GB... period, end-of-story.

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

 

 

Edit: So there's no misunderstandings, the OS itself will use all 4 GB (minus the address space needed to access the system's I/O space, of course), but any individual application can only allocate up to 2 GB and no more.

thank you! i never realized there was a limit for windows processes and i never came across it when browsing windows ram guides on microsoft.

 

what usually puzzles me is how people don't seem to realize that their video card (or any other i/o device for that matter) will occupy their respective memory capacity for addressing, because usually that seems to be ignored when people are talking about their RAM. some seem to believe that the OS is just evil and just don't use all of the computer's RAM.

[duffman12]

where's the logic in your statement about the 32-bit os only using 2gb of ram?

FYI, it's a built-in limitation in Windows (any 32-bit variant, be it Vista, XP, Win2K, etc.). The per-process address limit is 2 GB... period, end-of-story.

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

 

 

Edit: So there's no misunderstandings, the OS itself will use all 4 GB (minus the address space needed to access the system's I/O space, of course), but any individual application can only allocate up to 2 GB and no more.

thank you! i never realized there was a limit for windows processes and i never came across it when browsing windows ram guides on microsoft.

 

what usually puzzles me is how people don't seem to realize that their video card (or any other i/o device for that matter) will occupy their respective memory capacity for addressing, because usually that seems to be ignored when people are talking about their RAM. some seem to believe that the OS is just evil and just don't use all of the computer's RAM.

Is the 32bit limit not 3.5gb? When i was running 32bit Vista it showed up as 3.5gb, and when I changed to 64bit, it showed up correctly at 4gb.

[JohnnyK77]

Vista 32bit will show the full 4GB of RAM after installing SP1. Of course, the address limitations of a 32bit OS still apply, so depending on your VRAM and other details you won't be able to address more than 3-3.5GB.

[Zach]

Is the 32bit limit not 3.5gb? When i was running 32bit Vista it showed up as 3.5gb, and when I changed to 64bit, it showed up correctly at 4gb.

Don't confuse "System" memory with "Application" memory.

 

The "System" limit is 4 GB, and the 0.5 GB you saw missing was just due to Windows needing to reserve some of that address space to talk to your peripherals (video card [including accessing the VRAM], network card, soundcard, etc.).

 

The 2 GB limit I was talking about, which very few people seem to know about, relates to how much memory any given single application can access.

[dr.whiz]

where's the logic in your statement about the 32-bit os only using 2gb of ram?

FYI, it's a built-in limitation in Windows (any 32-bit variant, be it Vista, XP, Win2K, etc.). The per-process address limit is 2 GB... period, end-of-story.

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

 

 

Edit: So there's no misunderstandings, the OS itself will use all 4 GB (minus the address space needed to access the system's I/O space, of course), but any individual application can only allocate up to 2 GB and no more.

thank you! i never realized there was a limit for windows processes and i never came across it when browsing windows ram guides on microsoft.

 

what usually puzzles me is how people don't seem to realize that their video card (or any other i/o device for that matter) will occupy their respective memory capacity for addressing, because usually that seems to be ignored when people are talking about their RAM. some seem to believe that the OS is just evil and just don't use all of the computer's RAM.

Is the 32bit limit not 3.5gb? When i was running 32bit Vista it showed up as 3.5gb, and when I changed to 64bit, it showed up correctly at 4gb.

it's a bit misleading. but in one way, yes your vista 32-bit might only be able to address 3.5GB RAM but really no.

 

 

32-bit os can address to 2^32 bytes which equals 4GB. so vista 32-bit can address to all your spots in memory. however you also have a bunch of i/o in your computer that needs addressing, the computer will use some of your address space to address these i/o devices and thus occupying some addresses to the video card for instance, making it impossible for the computer to use all of the spots in your RAM cause it can no longer address them, since they are addressing your video card. so if you have a 1024MB video card, only 3GB will be used to address your RAM and 1GB to address your video card, thus leaving you with only 3GB of RAM.

 

so what the 32-bit os should do is display something like Physical RAM 4GB, Addressable/Usable RAM 3GB and with some kind of explanation as to where the other GB went to.

 

if vista 32 bit SP1 displays 4GB it's super misleading i'd say since it gives people the impression you can actually address 4 GB. what if you got a 2GB video card, that would only leave you with less than 2GB of addressable RAM.