1247 réponses à ce sujet

[jeff4u66]

Windows Vista Home Premium
Intel 2 duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33 GHz
2.0 gb ram
Nvidea GeForce 8500 GT
32 bit operating system
I have updated Direct x ....I have updated card to latest version. I have turned off the firewalls and reinstalled.....I still press play and the black box pings up and promptly disapears again

[brain23]

yesterday i was running this game just fine on windows 7 after a mojor system crash i had to re-set up windows so now im back on XP but now after the checks im getting a AWC.dll  load failed error can this be fixed ive re-installed several times fed up now. any solutions please

[CharlieKay]

I have Windows 7 and was getting the "Dragon Age II has stopped working" message when I clicked play. Per one of the previous suggestions, I went into video options and switched to DirectX 9. Then I was able to start the game. So glad I read that!

[Gorath Alpha]

jeff4u66 wrote...

Nvidea GeForce 8500 GT

I have updated Direct x ....I have updated card to latest version. I have turned off the firewalls and reinstalled.....I still press play and the black box pings up and promptly disapears again

The official minimum Geforce graphics card is the 7900 GS, which was a borderline card in its day, between the Mainline mediums, and High End.  A year later, that 8500 GT was at the OTHER borderline, below the bottom of the Mainline bracket, roughly half as good as the 7900 GS, maybe only one third. 

It probably should be trying harder to barely work, to crawl when it should run, but it just isn't worth the time and trouble to beat the poor dead thing any more.  It's dead  It can't win the race. 

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 13 mars 2011 - 02:43 .

[GeorgeZip]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

The official minimum Geforce graphics card is the 7900 GS, which was a borderline card in its day, between the Mainline mediums, and High End.  A year later, that 8500 GT was at the OTHER borderline, below the bottom of the Mainline bracket, roughly half as good as the 7900 GS, maybe only one third. 

It probably should be trying harder to barely work, to crawl when it should run, but it just isn't worth the time and trouble to beat the poor dead thing any more.  It's dead  It can't win the race. 

Is there any logic to the Nividia numbering system?  I have an 8800 GT and thought the higher the number the better.    Is it the other way around or does the number not really tell you anything? 

[Gorath Alpha]

nVIDIA has always played fast and loose with the card names and numbers, so the general rules do not always apply, but from 2003 through 2008, more or less, they used the "600" and "700" part from the number for Mainline Gaming Graphics, including the 7600 GT, 8600 GT, and 9600 GT cards. Those are a game-players starting point. AMD (was ATI) was already using 700-800 for high end cards before 2003, but they created confusion by having 9500s that were faster and more powerful than a newer series of 9600s, that probably should have carried a "300" number in the name.

For people who really love gaming, the "800" and "900" cards used to be the very top of the pile = 7900 GTX, 8800 GTX, 9800 GTX Plus, etc. The leading number helps identify the age of the card, and thereby, the features included, but not the performance. For business graphics, there were 100, 200, 300, and 400 numbered graphics cards.

The 8500 GT was a fence-straddling part, somewhat better than business only, and comparatively cheaper than the 8600 GT, but on a frames per dollar basis, a much poorer value. Three years ago, the GT200 generation was late coming out, and the majority of the 9n00 cards were refreshed versions of the older 8n00 cards, although on a thinner dies, and thus, a more efficient card.

The GT200s threw away the old templates. Now, a "10" is equal to a "300", and the 20/30 pair ending up slightly under the "500" spot, with the 40s slightly better that the 500s. The "50" is the proper Mainline card, and a "60" is a borderline the other way, from Mainline to High End.

"70" and "80" and up are High End.

P. S.  Don't forget my initial warning.  there are many exceptions.  The very first "40" was a pair of GT 240s, one with slow VRAM, and not very good, and the other with the normal speed VRAM for the class, and it was pretty close to the middle of the Mainline class, although overpriced for its performance level compared to the Radeon HD 4650.  The GTS250 at the time was a second refresh of the Geforce 8800 GTX, having been the 9800 GTX Plus the year before.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 13 mars 2011 - 03:58 .

[harrison1988]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

nVIDIA has always played fast and loose with the card names and numbers, so the general rules do not always apply, but from 2003 through 2008, more or less, they used the "600" and "700" part from the number for Mainline Gaming Graphics, including the 7600 GT, 8600 GT, and 9600 GT cards. Those are a game-players starting point. AMD (was ATI) was already using 700-800 for high end cards before 2003, but they created confusion by having 9500s that were faster and more powerful than a newer series of 9600s, that probably should have carried a "300" number in the name.

For people who really love gaming, the "800" and "900" cards used to be the very top of the pile = 7900 GTX, 8800 GTX, 9800 GTX Plus, etc. The leading number helps identify the age of the card, and thereby, the features included, but not the performance. For business graphics, there were 100, 200, 300, and 400 numbered graphics cards.

The 8500 GT was a fence-straddling part, somewhat better than business only, and comparatively cheaper than the 8600 GT, but on a frames per dollar basis, a much poorer value. Three years ago, the GT200 generation was late coming out, and the majority of the 9n00 cards were refreshed versions of the older 8n00 cards, although on a thinner dies, and thus, a more efficient card.

The GT200s threw away the old templates. Now, a "10" is equal to a "300", and the 20/30 pair ending up slightly under the "500" spot, with the 40s slightly better that the 500s. The "50" is the proper Mainline card, and a "60" is a borderline the other way, from Mainline to High End.

"70" and "80" and up are High End.

P. S.  Don't forget my initial warning.  there are many exceptions.  The very first "40" was a pair of GT 240s, one with slow VRAM, and not very good, and the other with the normal speed VRAM for the class, and it was pretty close to the middle of the Mainline class, although overpriced for its performance level compared to the Radeon HD 4650.  The GTS250 at the time was a second refresh of the Geforce 8800 GTX, having been the 9800 GTX Plus the year before.

So... Is the the 8600m GT below the min requirements then? I've been working with tech support for forever already, and they know what I have, but haven't said that that was the problem... If it is, would've saved me a ****load of problems. 

But it worked for the demo... The real game and demo have different min requirements?

[Delafoi]

Christ. If the only purpose of the release date checker is to check to date, why aren't we offered a chance to bypass it? It's clearly after the release date of Europe, but it's keeping me from playing the game. I don't know why it's so complicated.

[Gorath Alpha]

Although the 8600 GT is no longer solidly in the Mainline Gaming ranks, due to its age, it should be capable of playing the game, although not with recent drivers. These side by side comparisons aren't perfect, not are any benchmarks outside of the very same game perfect, but here you go:

http://www.gpureview...1=513&card2=443

With the screen resolution to medium, an 8600 GT should handle Low Image quality settings "fairly well", but for some of us, that isn't really good enough. You can also choose low screen resolutions to enable Medium Image quality settings. I believe that I can safely describe the Demo as having been a VERY POOR tool for predicting how the full game would run with any system.

Here's a reference for you to look at.

DA2 System Requirements and VGA Performance Rankings:

http://social.biowar...0/index/6423543

[harrison1988]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Although the 8600 GT is no longer solidly in the Mainline Gaming ranks, due to its age, it should be capable of playing the game, although not with recent drivers. These side by side comparisons aren't perfect, not are any benchmarks outside of the very same game perfect, but here you go:

http://www.gpureview...1=513&card2=443

With the screen resolution to medium, an 8600 GT should handle Low Image quality settings "fairly well", but for some of us, that isn't really good enough. You can also choose low screen resolutions to enable Medium Image quality settings. I believe that I can safely describe the Demo as having been a VERY POOR tool for predicting how the full game would run with any system.

Here's a reference for you to look at.

DA2 System Requirements and VGA Performance Rankings:

http://social.biowar...0/index/6423543

Ah, thanks for the links. I actually have the 8600M GT. Took a look at the comparison and certain things, like the clock rates were better than the 7900, but then a bunch of the other aspects, such as memory bandwidth and the different fill rates were a lot higher rated than on the 8600m GT. Idk what that means other than that I'm borderline...

My problem is the EV#52957 – Some are getting a “Dragon Age II has stopped working” error. And considering this is an older setup, I'd have no problem with Low quality, as long as i get the stupid thing to run at all.

[Avtomat9966]

I still cant get around the release date check. All fire walls are off. still nothing,

[Val demar]

I preordered DA2 in December 2010, waited almost 3 months and now still cant launch DA2 because of EV#52959 (Admin) error and waiting while you guys having your weekend. Hope you are enjoying.

[Val demar]

BTW system information is displayed correctly! But doesn't work.

[Gorath Alpha]

OK, I've just looked up the 8600m GT, and the news is really pretty bad.  Where the desktop card (IMO) ought to soldier on, and generally work for most folks, who accept the limitations of its age,  the laptop card is quite a bit worse. 

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

I'm afraid that you'd have to go with both screen resolution low, and image quality low, but laptop screens usually don't offer as much flexibility in that regard as a desktop LCD screen can handle . .

Remember, there is no Official Support for laptop PCs, and there are just way too many compromises that are involved -- especially when you consider that game-capable laptops are such a miniscule minority.  95% of what's being sold isn't good enough for games like this (90 % of desktops, but those are easily upgraded). 

Here's a laptop site's opinion of the 8600m GT: 

www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-8600M-GT.3986.0.html

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 13 mars 2011 - 06:18 .

[ChaosEpyon]

To be honest I think You underestimate both 8600M GT and laptops. It would seem from what I've read here that I should be running most games on 800x600 resolution and with terribad quality. But anyways if that's the case Bioware could at least warn us, that uneless you have imba high-end PC, and upgraded drivers for every single piece of your machine, reinstalled bios and windows you can't even be dreamin about starting the damn game.

[9y2rpuvz6y7e2h7u]

Bioware как вы заебали - с 9 го числа (релиз) не могу запустить игру МУДАКИ

[Ajizzle]

Rob Bartel wrote...

Thanks chris2c2 - and just to be triple-sure can you confirm that you...

• ...renamed/destroyed your current repository folder before running the 'winmgmt/salvagerepository' command?
• ...ran the “net localgroup administrators NetworkService /ADD” command prompt?

Sorry - still trying to hammer this out with the engineers.

Can anyone help with renaming / destroying the repository folder? I have attempted this in normal and safe mode, and it's always in use, preventing me from doing so.

Having said this, I have tried pretty much everything else mentioned in this thread to get DA2 working, and I'm still faced with "This application is unable to run on guest accounts or Windows accounts without sufficient privileges. Please log in using another Windows account."

I'm running Windows 7 Premium 64 bit, nothing is missing from the system information, I've never had any problems of this kind with any other game/program/application. The demo worked fine, so there's clearly something going on with validation, be it Securom or whatever.

I'm hoping for a quick resolution to this, considering I've had the game since Thursday (though not been able to play it until midnight) and I still can't play it now, this is really becoming a joke. I think I speak for many people when I say that I do not expect this from Bioware.

[9y2rpuvz6y7e2h7u]

почему я заплатив за игру (лицензия) должен читать этот форум и искать возможности запустить игру?

[9y2rpuvz6y7e2h7u]

Люди (bioware) - вы охренели?

[9y2rpuvz6y7e2h7u]

Я срал на политкоректность!

[starscreamPOL]

I will tell you something very strange. Pirate crack eliminates that privileges problem. I DIDN`T USE IT AND I WILL NOT. But I heard from some guys from my country that game is working with it.

[9y2rpuvz6y7e2h7u]

Какого хрена ты должен использовать крак если у тебя ЛИЦЕНЗИЯ? Может быть я что-то не понимаю? Люди играют в пиратки без краков! а мы с лицензией дрочим форум!

[9y2rpuvz6y7e2h7u]

Ау

[9y2rpuvz6y7e2h7u]

Извинения bioware - это как просьба вора войти в его положение!

[harrison1988]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

OK, I've just looked up the 8600m GT, and the news is really pretty bad.  Where the desktop card (IMO) ought to soldier on, and generally work for most folks, who accept the limitations of its age,  the laptop card is quite a bit worse. 

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

I'm afraid that you'd have to go with both screen resolution low, and image quality low, but laptop screens usually don't offer as much flexibility in that regard as a desktop LCD screen can handle . .

Remember, there is no Official Support for laptop PCs, and there are just way too many compromises that are involved -- especially when you consider that game-capable laptops are such a miniscule minority.  95% of what's being sold isn't good enough for games like this (90 % of desktops, but those are easily upgraded). 

Here's a laptop site's opinion of the 8600m GT: 

www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-8600M-GT.3986.0.html

I'm perfectly okay with Terrible visual quality/performance. I knew that that would be the case, seeing as my rig is pushing the low end of the minimum requirements (it's 3 1/2 years old, I have low expectations). The problem is that I have NO performance. It doesn't even start! A ****ty game is better than one that doesn't even launch, you know what I mean? For $50, even I could probably design a program that crashes immediately after starting up. Not much skill involved. <_<