I recently installed NWN2 and it ran fine until I updated it. This is
after installing NWN2, MotB, and SoZ and finding that the game, after
being patched, would simply give me the small initial loading screen and
then nothing would happen after it disappeared. When I try to run the
game from nwn2.exe, it gives me "This application has failed to start
because the application configuration is incorrect. Reinstalling the
application will fix the problem."
I have re-installed everything
three times and reformatted my computer. I searched the forums and
couldn't find anything specific to my problem. Please, please give me a
hand, someone! I'm not tech savvy and have no idea what the problem is.
Here
are my specs:
Game Version: 1.23.1765
Game Language: English
Retail
or Digital: Retail DVD (NwN2 + MotB) / Direct 2 Drive (SoZ)
Processor
Manufacturer: AMD
Processor Type: AMD Athlon Phenom II X2 545
Processor
Speed: 3.0 Ghz
Operating System / Service Pack: Windows XP Home with
SP3
System RAM: 3 gigs
Video Card Manufacturer: ATI
Video Card
Model: nVidia Geforce 9400 GT
Video Card RAM: 1 GB
Video Card
Driver Version: 181.20 (DirectX 9.0c)
Sound Card Manufacturer: Legacy
Sound
Card Model: Legacy?s
Sound Card Driver Version: 4.34 ?
Problem
Description: NwN 2 will not run after being patched. I tested NwN2 w/o
an expansion or updates and it run, but after patching it the same
problem occurred. Is there a fix?
NwN2 Won't Start!
Débuté par
Zahvee1
, juil. 15 2010 09:31
#1
Posté 15 juillet 2010 - 09:31
#2
Posté 15 juillet 2010 - 10:02
The 9400 isn't SUPPOSED to be usable (not doe SoZ, anyway). You may have little to complain about.
(Original comparison follows)
http://www.gpureview...1=578&card2=180
That is your business grade device, intended only for charts, graphs, presentations, and spreadsheets, next to the minimum. Incidentally, the closest to being an ATI Radeon that the 9400 ever got was having the number in its name that the Radeon 9600 cards should have had, about seven years ago or so.
You are only getting 40% of the minimum (SoZ) card's memory bandwidth, and only 78% of its performance on two other gaming markers that they share.
(Edited here -- the Original Campaign and MotB have somewhat more lenient requirements, so that a card such as yours could have caught up to the minimum. I'll take a look at it now. I was never well impressed with the 6600 GT, which really performed badly in Oblivion and The Witcher -- http://www.gpureview...1=578&card2=187
Without SoZ, that 9400 GT does match to the minimum, which means either the Lowest Image quality settings with Medium Resolutions, or Medium Image Settings, with very low screen resolutions, and of course it won't handle SoZ correctly.)
It makes no difference how new nor how recently designed a card may be, if the various performance aspects are skimped upon. What counts are memory bandwidth, core speed, count of shader units, RAM speed, and type of RAM. The size of the VRAM that is attached means very little if the memory bandwidth is too narrow to pass much of it to the games.
Gorath
-
(Original comparison follows)
http://www.gpureview...1=578&card2=180
That is your business grade device, intended only for charts, graphs, presentations, and spreadsheets, next to the minimum. Incidentally, the closest to being an ATI Radeon that the 9400 ever got was having the number in its name that the Radeon 9600 cards should have had, about seven years ago or so.
You are only getting 40% of the minimum (SoZ) card's memory bandwidth, and only 78% of its performance on two other gaming markers that they share.
(Edited here -- the Original Campaign and MotB have somewhat more lenient requirements, so that a card such as yours could have caught up to the minimum. I'll take a look at it now. I was never well impressed with the 6600 GT, which really performed badly in Oblivion and The Witcher -- http://www.gpureview...1=578&card2=187
Without SoZ, that 9400 GT does match to the minimum, which means either the Lowest Image quality settings with Medium Resolutions, or Medium Image Settings, with very low screen resolutions, and of course it won't handle SoZ correctly.)
It makes no difference how new nor how recently designed a card may be, if the various performance aspects are skimped upon. What counts are memory bandwidth, core speed, count of shader units, RAM speed, and type of RAM. The size of the VRAM that is attached means very little if the memory bandwidth is too narrow to pass much of it to the games.
Gorath
-
Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:04 .
#3
Posté 15 juillet 2010 - 10:04
Interesting... you're fully patched and if you were using W7 I'd say make sure you're running in XP Compatibility mode and as the Administrator. But that doesn't apply here.
Is there no further information you get from the error message?
There's a line you can put in your config to disable those intro screens... don't know if that would help. What screen(s) do you get before the crash?
Edit: yes good point about the video card... I was going to go do some research on it. You must have a laptop I suppose?
Is there no further information you get from the error message?
There's a line you can put in your config to disable those intro screens... don't know if that would help. What screen(s) do you get before the crash?
Edit: yes good point about the video card... I was going to go do some research on it. You must have a laptop I suppose?
Modifié par NWN DM, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:06 .
#4
Posté 16 juillet 2010 - 01:08
I was exaggerating, accidentally. Only SoZ exceeds the level that a 9400 GT can reach to, so that the OC and MotB should be able to run at the minimum card settings (All Low Graphics Image settings with Medium Resolutions, to stay above 30 FPS, or very low resolutions in order to have medium image quality at 30 FPS or more).
My prior comment has been amended.
I don't think that an HD 4350 is even as quick as the 9400 is. I'll take a look, though (and it's so hard to compare across company lines, that I'll use the SoZ minimum for ATI cards, the Radeon X700 Pro).
http://www.gpureview...d1=585&card2=96
According to that, the HD 4350 is as bad or worse when compared to the SoZ minimum.
If we were discussing a current game, the HD 4560 is the bottom end of the HD 4n00 generation for Mainline performance, and the HD 5570 is the next generation's lowest Mainline card. The Geforce 9500 GT does meet the SoZ minimum, and passes it, although it's not as quick as the HD 4650 is. To do that, nVIDIA had the Geforce 9600 GT in that generation.
G
My prior comment has been amended.
I don't think that an HD 4350 is even as quick as the 9400 is. I'll take a look, though (and it's so hard to compare across company lines, that I'll use the SoZ minimum for ATI cards, the Radeon X700 Pro).
http://www.gpureview...d1=585&card2=96
According to that, the HD 4350 is as bad or worse when compared to the SoZ minimum.
If we were discussing a current game, the HD 4560 is the bottom end of the HD 4n00 generation for Mainline performance, and the HD 5570 is the next generation's lowest Mainline card. The Geforce 9500 GT does meet the SoZ minimum, and passes it, although it's not as quick as the HD 4650 is. To do that, nVIDIA had the Geforce 9600 GT in that generation.
G
Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:39 .
#5
Posté 16 juillet 2010 - 01:12
I don't get any more information from the error message. I use a desktop and the only screen I get before the crash when clicking "Play" from the start-up is the small rectangle with "NwN2: Storm of Zehir" on it. It sits there for ten seconds and my computer hums like it's doing something, but then nothing happens and no processes seem to be registered when I check the Task Manager.
#6
Posté 16 juillet 2010 - 01:14
Okay. Luckily, I have another 1GB DDR2 video card on hand. HD 4350? Does that sound familiar?
What do you think the overall problem is, Alpha?
Edit: It has a 64-bit bus. That can't be good.
What do you think the overall problem is, Alpha?
Edit: It has a 64-bit bus. That can't be good.
Modifié par Zahvee1, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:15 .
#7
Posté 16 juillet 2010 - 01:49
It is not.
Get this instead: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814125277
Only $45 after rebate, stateside, in USD. That's a tremendous price, really.
Get this instead: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814125277
Only $45 after rebate, stateside, in USD. That's a tremendous price, really.
Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:50 .
#8
Posté 16 juillet 2010 - 01:57
Thanks for all of the advice! I just can't afford a new card right now.
Alpha, look at this:
Had my exact same problem and manual patching seemed to fix it: http://www.dasaria.n...&t=7355&start=0
Alpha, look at this:
Had my exact same problem and manual patching seemed to fix it: http://www.dasaria.n...&t=7355&start=0
Modifié par Zahvee1, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:58 .
#9
Posté 16 juillet 2010 - 06:06
If that solves it, great. There is just way too much inter-relation among the various hardware and software elements to be sure ahead of time that any particular thing is causing a more or less "generic" symptom such as what you've experienced lately.
I was building my own PCs many years back, but never liked the earliest games that began pushing hard on the envelope, and RPGs were late to start going that way. I was very badly stung by nVIDIA with their Geforce FX scam, and vowed never to be taken advantage of like that again.
After that, I studied the gaming graphics cards in detail, learned a lot about them, but I'm not quite as well rounded about other PC hardware facets, and tend to look for errors that may relate to video, because with those, I can help more folks fix things, given all of my study.
I was building my own PCs many years back, but never liked the earliest games that began pushing hard on the envelope, and RPGs were late to start going that way. I was very badly stung by nVIDIA with their Geforce FX scam, and vowed never to be taken advantage of like that again.
After that, I studied the gaming graphics cards in detail, learned a lot about them, but I'm not quite as well rounded about other PC hardware facets, and tend to look for errors that may relate to video, because with those, I can help more folks fix things, given all of my study.
#10
Posté 20 juillet 2010 - 09:20
With Vista and WIn 7, install NWN outside the system path. Make sure to manually delete the root directory folder before reinstall. After that you should not have any issues. Don't turn off UAC, it will bite you in the butt in the end.
And be sure to get a proper GPU as well, and keep it cooled via RivaTuner settings.
Belnor.
And be sure to get a proper GPU as well, and keep it cooled via RivaTuner settings.
Belnor.
#11
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 09:14
"Application configuration is incorrect"
If anyone else still cares and has this problem the solution is to install this.
The old forums suggested something similar but it doesn't work, it needs to be sp1.
I find it difficult to believe that this isn't a very common problem. It's been driving me nuts for months on several machines. A virgin install of XP with NWN2 installed works fine up until the 1.22 patch where it just stops working.
This is the only google hit that is still active so I'll stick my solution in here and hope it helps someone else down the line....
If anyone else still cares and has this problem the solution is to install this.
The old forums suggested something similar but it doesn't work, it needs to be sp1.
I find it difficult to believe that this isn't a very common problem. It's been driving me nuts for months on several machines. A virgin install of XP with NWN2 installed works fine up until the 1.22 patch where it just stops working.
This is the only google hit that is still active so I'll stick my solution in here and hope it helps someone else down the line....
#12
Posté 23 novembre 2010 - 12:14
.NET 3.5 also fixes
#13
Posté 01 décembre 2010 - 01:13
I installed NWN 2 and during the installation it could not install Direct X. I am fully patched up to 1.23. What should I do?
#14
Posté 01 février 2011 - 05:24
my game also doesn't work.
I tried nearly everything, from that cliche "upgrade directx" to "game verify" from the steam menu.
it does look like starting but closes even before opening the game.
no crash, no error.
please help, i will be very glad...
I tried nearly everything, from that cliche "upgrade directx" to "game verify" from the steam menu.
it does look like starting but closes even before opening the game.
no crash, no error.
please help, i will be very glad...
#15
Posté 01 février 2011 - 05:52
#16
Posté 02 février 2011 - 08:50
Gorath Alpha wrote...
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/158/index/3116296
what is this for? installation guide? steam automatically installs the game.
#17
Posté 02 février 2011 - 08:51
these are the things I did:
I rebooted the PC.
I updated DirectX.
I restarted Steam.
I verified the files on Steam.
I updated the graphic card drivers.
I updated Windows.
I rebooted the PC.
I deleted the files on the redist folder.
I tried compatibility mode on the NWN exe files.
I uninstalled and then reinstalled the NWN2 game.
I uninstalled and then reinstalled VC and dotNetFx files.
I can launch and play other games with this PC.
I have a PC that can play every new PC games of 2010 and 2011.
I tried closing my antivirus software while installing the game.
I rebooted the PC.
I rebooted the PC.
I updated DirectX.
I restarted Steam.
I verified the files on Steam.
I updated the graphic card drivers.
I updated Windows.
I rebooted the PC.
I deleted the files on the redist folder.
I tried compatibility mode on the NWN exe files.
I uninstalled and then reinstalled the NWN2 game.
I uninstalled and then reinstalled VC and dotNetFx files.
I can launch and play other games with this PC.
I have a PC that can play every new PC games of 2010 and 2011.
I tried closing my antivirus software while installing the game.
I rebooted the PC.
Modifié par Bonecrusherr, 02 février 2011 - 10:36 .





Retour en haut







