Saving problem
#23
Posted 19 January 2009 - 09:42 PM
Regret to report that resetting my virtual memory to 8096 Mb does not allow EAW to save GFFA in the first week. It just causes an exception when I try to.Glad to hear that this works! I'm about to restart and try this now. Not surprised that it doesn't fix the lag. Looking at the task manager CPU history, my CPUs (2x3 GHz) are maxed out whenever the galactic map is being displayed.After reading some of the above I changed my virtual memory's upper limit from 4096Mb to 8096Mb. I then tried saving upon entering the GFFA lite version and it saved. No others tested as yet and it does not improve the lag.
I'll probably go with blasting a few pirates until I think save is possible.
#25
Posted 21 January 2009 - 09:18 PM
Not sure if it helps the developers but the GFFA Lite save I did upon entering the game was 116Mb in size.
I think waiting for the patch for GFFA is going to my choice of option.
#27
Posted 25 January 2009 - 07:59 PM
I am thinking having read else where of deleting out the pirate fighters of the 158 planet version but when I have time. I am finding that the rebels are not building/taking over like they did in v1.
(Off topic and probably else where)Does anyone know if the lag improves once you have beaten up lots of pirate planets?
#28
Posted 25 January 2009 - 08:41 PM
The AI is for some reason not building Space Colonies, so it can't build starbases at any conquered planets, so it can't build ships anywhere but the starting positions. PR is working on it, but I don't think there is a fix yet.I am finding that the rebels are not building/taking over like they did in v1.
Does anyone know if the lag improves once you have beaten up lots of pirate planets?
Yes, lag improves very noticeably as the total number of units is reduced. Keep in mind that occasionally the AI will spam tugs or something else cheap, and so requires a raid to kill a few units.
Frosty Freaky Foreign Forum Fox
<DevXen> Today I was at the store and saw a Darth Vader action figure that said "Choking Hazard." It was great.
#30
Posted 27 January 2009 - 11:55 AM
Thanks for the reply much appreciated. Shame about the space base thing.
I partially fixed this by maxing out construction facilities on all AI starting planets, so at the beginning the AI has MUCH better construction facilities than you do.
This should ensure a steady production of ships - especially as the AI has to focus it's spend solely on starting planets....
#31
Posted 29 January 2009 - 12:19 AM
I wonder, why the AI does not build star bases and star colonies; maybe there's sth incorrect with "naming" of these facilities?
If the original star base has been renamed into "space colony" and the support facilities (gravity well and defense satellite) renamed into "star base" then maybe the AI gets dumb as it does not recognise the "new" names?
When playing vanilla EaW and FoC, as well as the other mod (Ultimate EaW) I've noticed that the AI veeeery rarely builds anything more than higher levels of "original" star base, just to have better ship production capabilities; however, I don't remember to see ANY AI-built gravity well and only a handful (about 5 per 60+ planets of whole galaxy) of defense satellites, yet I was not sure if these facilities have been built by AI DURING the game or had been preprogrammed by the authors of the vanilla game or the mod.
Thus maybe the new system, yet quite nice-looking, does not fit the engine and typical behaviour of the AI? And maybe, though with great mourn and regret, we'll have to go back to "vanilla" star base system?
#32
Posted 29 January 2009 - 03:59 PM
Well, but this also educes AI to its starting planets, as it uses all others that are conquered only as the resources...
I wonder, why the AI does not build star bases and star colonies; maybe there's sth incorrect with "naming" of these facilities?
If the original star base has been renamed into "space colony" and the support facilities (gravity well and defense satellite) renamed into "star base" then maybe the AI gets dumb as it does not recognise the "new" names?
When playing vanilla EaW and FoC, as well as the other mod (Ultimate EaW) I've noticed that the AI veeeery rarely builds anything more than higher levels of "original" star base, just to have better ship production capabilities; however, I don't remember to see ANY AI-built gravity well and only a handful (about 5 per 60+ planets of whole galaxy) of defense satellites, yet I was not sure if these facilities have been built by AI DURING the game or had been preprogrammed by the authors of the vanilla game or the mod.
Thus maybe the new system, yet quite nice-looking, does not fit the engine and typical behaviour of the AI? And maybe, though with great mourn and regret, we'll have to go back to "vanilla" star base system?
This has partially been covered in another thread, but to cut a long story short, it's not the names. AI code covers perceptions and plans as well, and it's likely to be a mix of several parts that's causing the problem. We will get there though, so don't worry about having to go back to the vanilla starbase system.
#34
Posted 03 February 2009 - 02:19 PM
OK - good to hear such nice news!
Maybe the AI is not "intelligent" enough to fully realise and use the new, complex system of starship construction?
Yeah. Lots of bits need to be rewritten. You may have noticed that the AI spams Hypervelocity guns and refuses to build barracks. Something about the original FOC code that spends its money on the more expensive build items. How dumb is that!
So we need to take the AI to Anchorhead and have it's memory wiped - and recode chunks from scratch!
#35
Posted 14 December 2009 - 12:10 AM
Sorry for the threadomancy but this is very much the same problem.
I'm playing a v1.1 Outer Rim Slim Campaign and I've got this "not enough disk space" problem again.
Anyone else still seeing this? I haven't had any trouble with it at all and I've played through Thrawn, the Core, and Inner Rim Campaigns. Re-reading the thread, it seems that the issue is hardcoded into EAW/FOC. Is this the case?
v/r
feld
#38
Posted 16 December 2009 - 10:58 AM
nope 28 free gigabytes.Unfortunately, I'm as stumped as anyone on this. I don't think I could say either way without seeing the actual code that does the saving. I take it you're not actually out of disk space?
v/r
feld
What about RAM? How much RAM are you running. My system has a glut of RAM and i've not seen the problem yet. Perhaps it's coincidence.?
#39
Posted 17 December 2009 - 12:53 AM
Hnmm...3Gb...that might be it I suppose...the problem seems to go away when I stop trying to save over one file and start a new save...wierd.nope 28 free gigabytes.Unfortunately, I'm as stumped as anyone on this. I don't think I could say either way without seeing the actual code that does the saving. I take it you're not actually out of disk space?
v/r
feld
What about RAM? How much RAM are you running. My system has a glut of RAM and i've not seen the problem yet. Perhaps it's coincidence.?
v/r
feld
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users