41 réponses à ce sujet

[Tikkas]

im not saying it is a memory leak all im saying is that the issue of takeing a long time to load was fixed by what i did and was seeing if any one else tryed it thats all

[dragoaskani]

zacrobmer wrote...
I am running a Q9550 and 8Gb of ram.

Ah but remember a memory leak uses up ram slowly. The more excess ram you got the longer it takes to notice it. As in my poor systems 2 gigs of ram I notice it in an hour...be so glad when I get the last few parts for my I7 machine. Going up to 6 gigs myself, should be nice.

[JironGhrad]

dragoaskani wrote...

zacrobmer wrote...
I am running a Q9550 and 8Gb of ram.

Ah but remember a memory leak uses up ram slowly. The more excess ram you got the longer it takes to notice it. As in my poor systems 2 gigs of ram I notice it in an hour...be so glad when I get the last few parts for my I7 machine. Going up to 6 gigs myself, should be nice.

Your new rig will still be limited to 2gb per process, so you'd have to make use of the OPs hack to make it take longer just the same.  Zacrobmer is correct though... the slow downs don't affect people equally ergo not a leak.  I've never had a load time over 45 seconds, and my processor doesn't even meet the posted minimum requirements (it's a single core OC'd to 4.9 Ghz)and I also only have 2 gb of RAM. If there really is a leak it should be crippling my system but I run for 15 hour stretches without a hint of slowdown or increased load times.

[dragoaskani]

JironGhrad wrote...

dragoaskani wrote...

zacrobmer wrote...
I am running a Q9550 and 8Gb of ram.

Ah but remember a memory leak uses up ram slowly. The more excess ram you got the longer it takes to notice it. As in my poor systems 2 gigs of ram I notice it in an hour...be so glad when I get the last few parts for my I7 machine. Going up to 6 gigs myself, should be nice.

Your new rig will still be limited to 2gb per process, so you'd have to make use of the OPs hack to make it take longer just the same.  Zacrobmer is correct though... the slow downs don't affect people equally ergo not a leak.  I've never had a load time over 45 seconds, and my processor doesn't even meet the posted minimum requirements (it's a single core OC'd to 4.9 Ghz)and I also only have 2 gb of RAM. If there really is a leak it should be crippling my system but I run for 15 hour stretches without a hint of slowdown or increased load times.

Yes I know it will be limited in that aspect, but the current machine is so old that its running ddr1 at 200mhz...If it wasn't for the fact that I know how to squeeze the most outta her, she wouldn't be worth spit. Though I am also gonna be running a 64bit os version of win 7 probably...god I hope that doesnt give me problems...

[Wintermist]

I changed from Vista to Win7 during my playing, and it was a noticable improvement tbh.

[dragoaskani]

Wintermist wrote...

I changed from Vista to Win7 during my playing, and it was a noticable improvement tbh.

Yeah but I am going from xp to win 7...

[Wintermist]

dragoaskani wrote...

Wintermist wrote...

I changed from Vista to Win7 during my playing, and it was a noticable improvement tbh.

Yeah but I am going from xp to win 7...

Then I'm pretty sure you'll find an improvement, XP is slightly faster with older games, but newer games run faster on Win7.

[zacrobmer]

dragoaskani wrote...

zacrobmer wrote...
I am running a Q9550 and 8Gb of ram.

Ah but remember a memory leak uses up ram slowly. The more excess ram you got the longer it takes to notice it. As in my poor systems 2 gigs of ram I notice it in an hour...be so glad when I get the last few parts for my I7 machine. Going up to 6 gigs myself, should be nice.

I'm well aware of that. To be more specific, using my G15 runing either the stock "performance app" or the one I downloaded and can not remember for the life of is called, shows 36% ram usage at DA:O start up. I typically do not shut a game down for days at a time, I may exit out to the main screen, but usually just ESC to the options/save/load screen. Right now DA:O shows 38%, and it has been up and running since yesterday morning. So if there was a memory issue, I should be at 100% memory usage and according to some, 100% processor usage.

The dreaded "memory leak" seems to be the catch all issue for gamers these days.

I am running a modest system, given that it is mostly 1+ years old, but I have no issues with DA:O outside it taking up huge amounts of my free timeB).


Edit: Win7 Ultimate is fantastic, in my opinion.

Modifié par zacrobmer, 15 novembre 2009 - 12:39 .

[dragoaskani]

zacrobmer wrote...

dragoaskani wrote...

zacrobmer wrote...
I am running a Q9550 and 8Gb of ram.

Ah but remember a memory leak uses up ram slowly. The more excess ram you got the longer it takes to notice it. As in my poor systems 2 gigs of ram I notice it in an hour...be so glad when I get the last few parts for my I7 machine. Going up to 6 gigs myself, should be nice.

I'm well aware of that. To be more specific, using my G15 runing either the stock "performance app" or the one I downloaded and can not remember for the life of is called, shows 36% ram usage at DA:O start up. I typically do not shut a game down for days at a time, I may exit out to the main screen, but usually just ESC to the options/save/load screen. Right now DA:O shows 38%, and it has been up and running since yesterday morning. So if there was a memory issue, I should be at 100% memory usage and according to some, 100% processor usage.

The dreaded "memory leak" seems to be the catch all issue for gamers these days.

I am running a modest system, given that it is mostly 1+ years old, but I have no issues with DA:O outside it taking up huge amounts of my free timeB).


Edit: Win7 Ultimate is fantastic, in my opinion.

I wonder if the memory leak has a common thread, like are all the users using the same operating system. I havent been trying to find a common factor like that. Though I personally believe the memory leak in this game is involved in the part of the game that unloads an old level, and loads a new one. Yet I don't suffer from the 100% cpu problem either...hmm. I hate computers sometimes. **eyes the hammer**

[JironGhrad]

My suspicion is that the game switches the loading between cores when areas load so as to simultaneously load and unload areas and that for some processors it gets "sticky" as it tries to unload. The net result is that processor cycles are left in limbo trying to unload. For some machines (those with things running on the main core) this would basically create a buffer overflow on the CPU (in the cache) and either blue screen or crash to desktop. For machines with more cores, or less running in the background (and possibly larger caches) it would appear to take longer to load and it would likely take longer to appear as well.

[Tikkas]

*sigh* i love how i leave for a bit and come back and see how far off course the topic gets...if any one dose try what i have said in other posts let me know i want to know what happened...

...and i hate to say it but you sir are a retard...

Cycles don't really load or unload The processor always runs at the normal cycle rate Regardless of how much load its under The cache is only for loading of instructions and instruction sets, nothing else No "memory" is actually resident in the "cache" or buffer

Modifié par Tikkas, 15 novembre 2009 - 01:18 .

[JironGhrad]

Tikkas wrote...

*sigh* i love how i leave for a bit and come back and see how far off course the topic gets...if any one dose try what i have said in other posts let me know i want to know what happened...

...and i hate to say it but you sir are a retard...

Cycles don't really load or unload The processor always runs at the normal cycle rate Regardless of how much load its under The cache is only for loading of instructions and instruction sets, nothing else No "memory" is actually resident in the "cache" or buffer

the cache handles threads, if the threads are sticking... then it would do exactly as I said. You sir, need to read up on things before accusing others of intelligence lower than your own.

[Tikkas]

i just keep reporting your posts in my topic as spam and reported you for harassment....just beucase you fixed yours once dose not me you know every thing about every thing. so as i said befor....go do your white knighting some place else

[dragoaskani]

Tikkas shut the **** up you hypocritical bastard. You don't own a thread, you posted on a public forum. So get off your high ****ing horse, pull your head outta your god damn ass, and go get some air. Mouth breather.

[Mithrennon]

While I don't know anything about the technical aspect of either of those ideas, I do use a program to make all my games large address aware, most of the time without noticable benefit, but I haven't had a single issue with it either. The link you posted to the fallout 3 enabler works too but you could also use this:
http://www.musikbank...echLaaTiDo.aspx
It doesn't require you to rename the .exe so essentially it saves you about 2-3 mouseclicks ^^
That and it has an auto backup function.

Modifié par Mithrennon, 15 novembre 2009 - 07:59 .

[Wintermist]

I've had time to test this now and I'm sad to say that no, it didn't help with the slowing load times, but, it did actually make the game run a bit more fluent so atleast something good came out of it.

[MuisicAllie]

Turning off "Persistent Gore" has kept the load times below one minute for me.



I read that the game remembers the Gore and "stores" it. But it never clears out the gore until the game is restarted. That's why (particularly in high battle areas) the speed slows down so much.



It may not be the only thing that is causing the memory leak - but it seems to be a big part.



BTW - not everyone can afford to buy 8Gb of Ram - that's why I posted this cheaper fix here.