Aller au contenu

Photo

Beta Patch Fix for: Unable to Save / Getting stuck on second transition screen / permanent save spinner


370 réponses à ce sujet

#101
Ganymedeboy

Ganymedeboy
  • Members
  • 9 messages

DashRunner92 wrote...

Ganymedeboy wrote...

It's time to spill some Dalish blood on this problem. These darn knife-ears have had it way too good for way too long!
...uh...incidentally, how do I figure out how many cores I have?...the non-nerdy, non-numbery answer would be just tops. I have no bleeding idea what bios are.


Lol I'm pretty sure the most a average person's computer could have is like 4 so you don't have to worry about a nerdy answer :P For your cores, go to "Run" and type "Dxdiag" and just type out what it says on your processor. I dunno, that's how i figured it out. 


Ok, so in the processor line it says "AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor 3500+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.2GHz"...which one is the number of my cores?

#102
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages

Ganymedeboy wrote...

DashRunner92 wrote...

Ganymedeboy wrote...

It's time to spill some Dalish blood on this problem. These darn knife-ears have had it way too good for way too long!
...uh...incidentally, how do I figure out how many cores I have?...the non-nerdy, non-numbery answer would be just tops. I have no bleeding idea what bios are.


Lol I'm pretty sure the most a average person's computer could have is like 4 so you don't have to worry about a nerdy answer :P For your cores, go to "Run" and type "Dxdiag" and just type out what it says on your processor. I dunno, that's how i figured it out. 


Ok, so in the processor line it says "AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor 3500+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.2GHz"...which one is the number of my cores?


I know enough about tech to say that CPU is indeed single core.
If you don't believe me, try looking up your CPU. Although I'm pretty sure I'm right. :)

#103
greg301

greg301
  • Members
  • 7 messages
If it's gonna be a month I want my money back from bioware ( store did nothing wrong). I'd actually like an oficial eta or something more solid than "here is what player 1 says worked for them). Right now we are on biowares site waiting. This could easily change to everyone on every gaming site complaining and warning people away. Who needs pitchforks. We got the serious rpg market right here thinking of which game their dollars should have gone to instead. I loved DAO and liked mass effect, couldn't wait for this game. Now witcher, diablo 3 etc are popping in my head and that's just the first 2 names that come to mind.
I'm posting from my phone, I don't have to be home to remind people of this next time there is a game offered for preorder. Facebook and Twitter campaigns have started over much less

#104
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages

vaalkyrie wrote...

This problem went away when I ran it as Administrator and then turned off UAC. I was not able to fix it by allowing the process to run on all CPUs by manually setting the affinity.


I've heard this from you but also heard it does not work for several people. I'll go ahead and try this out and report in. 

#105
SheilaD67

SheilaD67
  • Members
  • 207 messages

Jon Jern wrote...

Eva Galana wrote...






upset and worked up over a game is rather, ah, immature at best. .


This is TOTALLY not the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

I think I have a little right to be upset if my game is not working.

Day 3, 25 more days left!



A little upset, certainly.  I am upset as well. I am a penny pincher, that I've spent $60 of my hard earned money for a game I had hoped to play on release and I'm not screaming about it...trust me, totally out of character for me, as my hubby would tell anyone.  I value each and every dollar in and out of my pocket.

However, I'm not berating the folks who are working on the issue (and they are working on the issue.  I have complete and utter faith in these folks to fix the issue). 

We all know that, regardless of what game it is, if we purchase on release date there will be bugs that folks missed.  BioWare's problem is that they did not anticipate that folks would be using a single core machine when their specs were for duo core or equivelant.  How can we really berate them, call them names, accuse them of thievery when we were the ones stupid enough not to follow the spec guidelines?  They really are under no obligation to fix the issue.  That they are working on it speaks of good business sense (I am not nearly so naive as to think they are doing so out of the goodness of their hearts - it's a good PR and business practice to create a fix for us).

Oh, and you are correct....my comment is by far not the most ridiculous thing you've ever read.  There are several other posts on this thread far more ridiculous.

#106
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages
I dont think being upset about a video game is"immature".

IT IS NOT REAL LIFE.
THEREFORE, IT IS IMMATURE.

#107
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages
Lets be honest though. If you're anticipating a game, and view the system requirements, you don't say "DERP, THIS GAME I HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATING FOR FOUR MONTHS, CAN'T BUY IT AND ENJOY IT LIKE THE REST OF MY FRIENDS BECAUSE MY COMPUTE IS 0.7% WORSE THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS." No. When you want a game really bad, but can't seem to reach the system recs, you don't admit defeat. You'll be a little worried, but you'll try to make it work. I'll admit defeat if I get 0.1 FPS ingame. But I don't. I average about 40 FPS with a bit of tweaking.

Honestly, no one takes system recs seriously anymore. You can't really blame us just because of a single core, because single core =/= "so ****ing terrible why did you even consider buying this game"

Modifié par Jon Jern , 10 mars 2011 - 11:49 .


#108
Ganymedeboy

Ganymedeboy
  • Members
  • 9 messages

Jon Jern wrote...

Ganymedeboy wrote...

DashRunner92 wrote...

Ganymedeboy wrote...

It's time to spill some Dalish blood on this problem. These darn knife-ears have had it way too good for way too long!
...uh...incidentally, how do I figure out how many cores I have?...the non-nerdy, non-numbery answer would be just tops. I have no bleeding idea what bios are.


Lol I'm pretty sure the most a average person's computer could have is like 4 so you don't have to worry about a nerdy answer :P For your cores, go to "Run" and type "Dxdiag" and just type out what it says on your processor. I dunno, that's how i figured it out. 


Ok, so in the processor line it says "AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor 3500+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.2GHz"...which one is the number of my cores?


I know enough about tech to say that CPU is indeed single core.
If you don't believe me, try looking up your CPU. Although I'm pretty sure I'm right. :)


I was told to open up the task manager, click on "performance", and count the number of columns in the "CPU Usage" box.  I saw two....and whatever the heck "PF Usage" is.  There's two columns in that box as well.  Does that mean I have two cores, or was this guy just blowing smoke up my can?

#109
Damoroc

Damoroc
  • Members
  • 34 messages

Jon Jern wrote...

Lets be honest though. If you're anticipating a game, and view the system requirements, you don't say "DERP, THIS GAME I HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATING FOR FOUR MONTHS, CAN'T BUY IT AND ENJOY IT LIKE THE REST OF MY FRIENDS BECAUSE MY COMPUTE IS 0.7% WORSE THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS." No. When you want a game really bad, but can't seem to reach the system recs, you don't admit defeat. You'll be a little worried, but you'll try to make it work. I'll admit defeat if I get 0.1 FPS ingame. But I don't. I average about 40 FPS with a bit of tweaking.

Honestly, no one takes system recs seriously anymore. You can't really blame us just because of a single core, because single core =/= "so ****ing terrible why did you even consider buying this game"


This and only this.

#110
DashRunner92

DashRunner92
  • Members
  • 616 messages

Ganymedeboy wrote...

Jon Jern wrote...

Ganymedeboy wrote...

DashRunner92 wrote...

Ganymedeboy wrote...

It's time to spill some Dalish blood on this problem. These darn knife-ears have had it way too good for way too long!
...uh...incidentally, how do I figure out how many cores I have?...the non-nerdy, non-numbery answer would be just tops. I have no bleeding idea what bios are.


Lol I'm pretty sure the most a average person's computer could have is like 4 so you don't have to worry about a nerdy answer :P For your cores, go to "Run" and type "Dxdiag" and just type out what it says on your processor. I dunno, that's how i figured it out. 


Ok, so in the processor line it says "AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor 3500+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.2GHz"...which one is the number of my cores?


I know enough about tech to say that CPU is indeed single core.
If you don't believe me, try looking up your CPU. Although I'm pretty sure I'm right. :)


I was told to open up the task manager, click on "performance", and count the number of columns in the "CPU Usage" box.  I saw two....and whatever the heck "PF Usage" is.  There's two columns in that box as well.  Does that mean I have two cores, or was this guy just blowing smoke up my can?


2 boxes means you have a dual core. One of the fixes on the OP should be able to help you out. 

#111
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages
Yeah sorry for the answer I pulled out of my ass.

#112
DashRunner92

DashRunner92
  • Members
  • 616 messages
The game-breaking issue from ME2 which took a month and the issue from New Vegas which took like 3 months has given me a good tolerance and patience for things like this. One thing that makes me feel confident about getting a fix is it's from Bioware who, unlike most developers, actually post here and update us from time to time, actively trying to get a fix for us.

#113
greg301

greg301
  • Members
  • 7 messages
It's not an issue of people trying to force the game to run on systems they knew weren't good enough. (at least not to me) it's the words "or equivelant". If you have a CPU that is a good amount faster than required but not dual core it could be seen as equivalent (to a dual core not a quad). Dual core and single core are architecture issues not speed. People ask themselves when they look at a game "is my computer fast enough". Well some software doesn't take advantage if dual cores so it's better to have a faster CPU. Some software takes advantage of 64 bit so it's better to have that. I know I saw this speed or equivelant, my CPU is a good amount faster so I said yes I'm fast enough (did not see multicore only anywhere) my graphics card is also faster than needed. Also played the demo very smooth. So I'm supposed to guess, I can play but it won't save because that one part needs an extra core. I don't have 60 bucks to throw away so if I knew or thought it wouldn't run I wouldn't have got it. If I knew it was broken for me and people with multicores I wouldn't have got it. Also it's not just $60, I'm sure I'm not the only person tired of paying for something only to have a company not give it to me and have no real recourse. Even a company that up until now I liked a lot. They have my money, I can't get it back but I can make sure next time they get a lot less peoples money if it comes to that (and it's quickly conning to that)

#114
xyeeman

xyeeman
  • Members
  • 27 messages
greg says it perfect.

#115
turpinm

turpinm
  • Members
  • 9 messages

vaalkyrie wrote...

This problem went away when I ran it as Administrator and then turned off UAC. I was not able to fix it by allowing the process to run on all CPUs by manually setting the affinity.

Also of note: I am using Steam


I'm sure this is a dumb question, but what's the UAC? I am also running on Steam. I've tried all of the fixes I've seen so far, but none of them have worked. I have 2 processors and my task manager says they are both running, so does the set affinity window. I'd love to try this one as well.

#116
JTutt

JTutt
  • Members
  • 5 messages
I had resigned myself to not buying the game because I saw that it required dual-cores. However, just for kicks, I decided to try the demo. I found that it played much better than Origins even played on my single core. So, I decided to buy it. Besides, my computer plays many modern games that are supposedly beyond its specs. The real game played great as well, I just couldn't save it. Yes, I know I don't have the minimum specs and people have argued that we have no right to complain. However, many people use demos to see if their rigs can handle the game.

For me, that's the frustration I'm feeling. If the demo hadn't worked, I wouldn't have bought the game. The demo worked so well that I didn't foresee any problems.

#117
JTutt

JTutt
  • Members
  • 5 messages
Ha! Greg typed that up as i was reading the page and then typing. Sorry Greg as I echoed some of what you said.

#118
Catpriest

Catpriest
  • Members
  • 3 messages

Q4Waveslr wrote...

So I have a Pentium D 820 but Task Manager and CPU-Z are saying I only have one core... anybody have any idea why this might be and how i might fix it?


See my post on page 2 of this discussion

#119
Damoroc

Damoroc
  • Members
  • 34 messages

greg301 wrote...

It's not an issue of people trying to force the game to run on systems they knew weren't good enough. (at least not to me) it's the words "or equivelant". If you have a CPU that is a good amount faster than required but not dual core it could be seen as equivalent (to a dual core not a quad). Dual core and single core are architecture issues not speed. People ask themselves when they look at a game "is my computer fast enough". Well some software doesn't take advantage if dual cores so it's better to have a faster CPU. Some software takes advantage of 64 bit so it's better to have that. I know I saw this speed or equivelant, my CPU is a good amount faster so I said yes I'm fast enough (did not see multicore only anywhere) my graphics card is also faster than needed. Also played the demo very smooth. So I'm supposed to guess, I can play but it won't save because that one part needs an extra core. I don't have 60 bucks to throw away so if I knew or thought it wouldn't run I wouldn't have got it. If I knew it was broken for me and people with multicores I wouldn't have got it. Also it's not just $60, I'm sure I'm not the only person tired of paying for something only to have a company not give it to me and have no real recourse. Even a company that up until now I liked a lot. They have my money, I can't get it back but I can make sure next time they get a lot less peoples money if it comes to that (and it's quickly conning to that)


Agreed with all of this. At the bare minimum (and I mean bare bare) there should have been a very noticeable "This game is not designed to work for single-core processors" on the minimum system reqs. System reqs give the average computer user too much credit when it uses the hardware terms it does. I'll admit I'm ignorant in many areas with computers, but I'm very knowledgable in others. That shouldn't disallow me from playing a game.

#120
Catpriest

Catpriest
  • Members
  • 3 messages

turpinm wrote...

vaalkyrie wrote...

This problem went away when I ran it as Administrator and then turned off UAC. I was not able to fix it by allowing the process to run on all CPUs by manually setting the affinity.

Also of note: I am using Steam


I'm sure this is a dumb question, but what's the UAC? I am also running on Steam. I've tried all of the fixes I've seen so far, but none of them have worked. I have 2 processors and my task manager says they are both running, so does the set affinity window. I'd love to try this one as well.


UAC = User Account Control. You can turn it off in Windows Vista and change the settings in Windows 7. See Control Panel under User Accounts / Action Center respectively.

#121
Lev1

Lev1
  • Members
  • 2 messages
I got this game because i played the demo on my single core and it worked perfect and since it was a demo i figured you couldn't save... the game just stays on the loading screen going to the second town and on the demo it went to the next section no prob ...all i can say is lamo! .....

#122
SheilaD67

SheilaD67
  • Members
  • 207 messages

Jon Jern wrote...

I dont think being upset about a video game is"immature".

IT IS NOT REAL LIFE.
THEREFORE, IT IS IMMATURE.


So, then, normal, decent behavoir is not to be expected because it's regarding a game?  That makes no sense.  If my child were to behave like some of those posting on this forum, I'd take away his/her gaming privileges.  Good sense should be applied to every aspect of life - whether in game play or otherwise.  Maybe I'm old fashion, but I strongly believe  that's what's wrong with this country these days anyway - just because you're posting on annonymous, 'faceless' boards does not mean that you should act in a way that would be unacceptable out in public.  And, I doubt seriously that many of those acting childishly here would do so to the faces of the various programmers at BioWare.

New topic, please.  I shoudn't have to teach you the manners your parents should have.

#123
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages

Eva Galana wrote...

New topic, please.  I shoudn't have to teach you the manners your parents should have.


Man this subtle insult is killing me. Good one.

#124
Cartina

Cartina
  • Members
  • 16 messages

greg301 wrote...

It's not an issue of people trying to force the game to run on systems they knew weren't good enough. (at least not to me) it's the words "or equivelant". If you have a CPU that is a good amount faster than required but not dual core it could be seen as equivalent (to a dual core not a quad). Dual core and single core are architecture issues not speed.

People ask themselves when they look at a game "is my computer fast enough". Well some software doesn't take advantage if dual cores so it's better to have a faster CPU. Some software takes advantage of 64 bit so it's better to have that. I know I saw this speed or equivelant, my CPU is a good amount faster so I said yes I'm fast enough (did not see multicore only anywhere) my graphics card is also faster than needed. Also played the demo very smooth.

So I'm supposed to guess, I can play but it won't save because that one part needs an extra core. I don't have 60 bucks to throw away so if I knew or thought it wouldn't run I wouldn't have got it. If I knew it was broken for me and people with multicores I wouldn't have got it.

Also it's not just $60, I'm sure I'm not the only person tired of paying for something only to have a company not give it to me and have no real recourse. Even a company that up until now I liked a lot. They have my money, I can't get it back but I can make sure next time they get a lot less peoples money if it comes to that (and it's quickly conning to that)


Since this needs to be read and is the shared feeling of at least handful of people, I decided to paragraph it up a little. Being a "poor****" person, with less then average computer, I have learned through the years that games can and in most cases will run even below minimum reqs. It's just that loading times and performance(FPS) might not what the average person feel is a "enjoyable" experience, which is what I feel the developers are aiming for with their Minimum and recommended specs. Where the game is "reasonable"  to play.

This is for me personally, the first time dual core requirements has actually blocked me from playing the game completely. People say you shouldn't be angry over video games, but in all honest, we aren't angry over that if anything. We spend real life cash on it. We preorder for a reason when we do, usually to get our hands on the game as soon as possible. Of course you are gonna feel angst and disappointment when you can't play, even if it's partly self-inflicted.

Anyway, no need to be longwinded on this. Hopefully this is fixed "soon" enough. But considering the programmable nightmare it gonna be to redesign something into using just one core when it orginally was intended to be dual. Then on top of that testing it and making sure it actually works,  it might be a while, as in a week or longer.

#125
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages

Eva Galana wrote...




So, then, normal, decent behavoir is not to be expected because it's regarding a game?  That makes no sense


I'm not really what  sure what you're getting at on this. Is there only two types of behaviour? Normal and immature?
I thought we were just upset. Not immature. But I guess I'm just an immature brat who only cares about video games.