to be honest the whole thing (DA:O) seems to have been hastily rushed out of the door, possibly at the insistence of the corporate bods at EA that there is every chance that there are a combination of programming errors that were not picked up by devs nor noticed by Q&A and as often happens it's the end user who does the Q&A in a real world environment and gets little thinks for, or satisfaction from it.
I've seen it happen when Sports Interactive were bought out by Sega and now their Football Management series gets churned out the same month every year ready or not and it;s the community that are left reporting the problems and sadly they seem to have fallen into that role with little complaint ( as is often the case with a large fanboi fraternity )
Sports Interactive used to be a great independent company with a great mindset and fun people. Now it's an in house development team under the cosh of Sega's corporate greed.
Memory leak ?
Débuté par
Avrii
, nov. 07 2009 11:20
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 12:00
JironGhrad
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
What I find ironic about this is that the majority of the problems we've had are hardware (CPU affinity and driver issues and the like- which "may" be affected by the programming) and DLC (every other thread is "MY DLC yadda yadda"). Hardware is to be expected as it's impossible for them to test even 1% of possible configurations before going gold. And really, if the game had shipped as originally scheduled (back in March, as a PC only release with the 360 and PS3 coming later) we'd have likely had only half the issues to deal with now. As game releases go, this one has been remarkably smooth as compared to say, Fallout 3. It's not a Civilization release (but then Civilization has been running essentially the same behind the scenes for almost 2 decades) but I'm actually quite impressed with the state of Dragon Age on release.
#28
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 12:15
Selvec_Darkon
-
- Members
- 722 messages
It's EA. The fact that the game hasn't caused computers to spontaniously combust is a bloody miracle.
#29
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 01:33
Gvaz
-
- Members
- 1 039 messages
When I turn on the game, like the first hour or so my load times are about 20~ seconds for the initial load, with new zone loads closer to 10~ seconds or so.
The longer I run it, the longer this gets. Playing yesterday for about 4-5 hours straight, my load times of a new zone skyrocketed. I took out a book and read it because the load times per zone were about 3-5 minutes. I could literally get up and take a crap and come back and it was just finishing.
Phenom II x3 720 BE
4gb ddr2
8800gts 512mb
windows 7 pro 64bit
all 7200rpm sata drives, defragged etc
not many running programs, no active virus scanning heuristics or anything
Game runs fine at highest settings that I can put on it.
Sometimes I get weird texture issues where poles in denerim become rainbow colored or the texture on people like, lose their cohesion or something making it look like their textures got scrambled based on how the camera looks at them.
Game crashes frequently on alt tabbing, even once. If I put the game in windowed mode, it does not crash from alt tabbing, but "locks up" every now and then when i load a new zone. windows says (not responding) on the title bar then a few seconds later it goes away and finishes loading hte zone. This only happens on load screens. It happens up to twice during loading on windowed mode.
The longer I run it, the longer this gets. Playing yesterday for about 4-5 hours straight, my load times of a new zone skyrocketed. I took out a book and read it because the load times per zone were about 3-5 minutes. I could literally get up and take a crap and come back and it was just finishing.
Phenom II x3 720 BE
4gb ddr2
8800gts 512mb
windows 7 pro 64bit
all 7200rpm sata drives, defragged etc
not many running programs, no active virus scanning heuristics or anything
Game runs fine at highest settings that I can put on it.
Sometimes I get weird texture issues where poles in denerim become rainbow colored or the texture on people like, lose their cohesion or something making it look like their textures got scrambled based on how the camera looks at them.
Game crashes frequently on alt tabbing, even once. If I put the game in windowed mode, it does not crash from alt tabbing, but "locks up" every now and then when i load a new zone. windows says (not responding) on the title bar then a few seconds later it goes away and finishes loading hte zone. This only happens on load screens. It happens up to twice during loading on windowed mode.
Modifié par GvazElite, 16 novembre 2009 - 01:35 .
#30
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 01:37
Gvaz
-
- Members
- 1 039 messages
I edited "does not" but its not showing up.
Anyways I havent tried any amd thing, i havent tried cpu affinity, im not running any weird ram defragging things, i'm on 1.01 from Impulse, and I run the game through steam.
Anyways I havent tried any amd thing, i havent tried cpu affinity, im not running any weird ram defragging things, i'm on 1.01 from Impulse, and I run the game through steam.
#31
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 03:17
dBrute
-
- Members
- 1 messages
Most of these fixes are simply hiding underlying issues and should be called "work arounds". Sure, if it will help me run my game, I'll patch the translation look-aside buffer or even set the processor affinity but these are not fixes and merely serve to mask the real issues.
Given the symptoms (gradual slowdown in graphical performance, gradual load time increase), the suggested fixes are irrelevant. The only fix is a patch whereby the resource leaks, contention issues or perhaps algorithmic errors are resolved.
The AMD TLB fix might as well be a free fix for every game ever made. It is a generic cpu level fix which provides performance gains across all applications (at a risk of system crash under certain loads). The fix is far too granular to blame for interactions with the BioWare engine. It would be like saying "changes to CPU branch prediction logic have fixed all our memory leaks!", it is simply not the way things work. A bug at the engineering level yields a consistent effect across the board.
If the problem was, "game loads 30% slower on AMD cpus" then this would be the fix. Instead, the load and performance issues demonstrate growth characterized by a resource leak or algorithmic error. Note that I use the words resource leak as opposed to memory leaks.
Context switching, which is what you essentially get rid of when you enforce processor affinity, is also not a fix for load times or graphical performance issues. It is just a mask for game engine issues relating to resource, thread, or algorithmic management in a multi-core environment. It will in fact decrease performance, on a situational basis, as there are less physical cores to execute on and thus less resources for A.I. and other logic operations. If your CPU is such that a given core can execute all of the game A.I and logic operations per game cycle sufficiently, then there will be no change in performance. This will show itself in large battles if you do not have a high per-core clock frequency.
A modern multi-tasking OS has a scheduler more than efficient enough to permit speedy loading of game resources irrespective of context switching.
Obviously, setting processor affinity does work for most (including me). This just emphasizes the obvious, a bug in the loading logic. As an aside, I have not run into bugs requiring me to manually set cpu affinity since the dawn of the dual-core days.
Finally, a memory/resource leak need not affect everyone to be a leak. Different system setups will deal with potentially leaky code differently. For instance, one player may have a leak and result in non-playability in 30 minutes. Another player may have 9GB of ram and never experience a leak due to his playtime versus available memory. Yet another player may have a single-core CPU which may never execute or go down a codepath designed for mult-core architectures and thus never experience any issues. If we were to say that a memory leak would have to affect every player then, good god, memory leaks would be 100 times easier to track down. Unfortunately, they are not. Each and every method/function in the code as well as libraries may have a resource leak. Players can access these in any order and in any configuration, making tracking without good memory profiling tools and a QA team, rather annoying.
While I appreciate the effort thus far, these are not fixes. I do not want BioWare thinking that the issue is under control. I am anxious for a proper patch.
Given the symptoms (gradual slowdown in graphical performance, gradual load time increase), the suggested fixes are irrelevant. The only fix is a patch whereby the resource leaks, contention issues or perhaps algorithmic errors are resolved.
The AMD TLB fix might as well be a free fix for every game ever made. It is a generic cpu level fix which provides performance gains across all applications (at a risk of system crash under certain loads). The fix is far too granular to blame for interactions with the BioWare engine. It would be like saying "changes to CPU branch prediction logic have fixed all our memory leaks!", it is simply not the way things work. A bug at the engineering level yields a consistent effect across the board.
If the problem was, "game loads 30% slower on AMD cpus" then this would be the fix. Instead, the load and performance issues demonstrate growth characterized by a resource leak or algorithmic error. Note that I use the words resource leak as opposed to memory leaks.
Context switching, which is what you essentially get rid of when you enforce processor affinity, is also not a fix for load times or graphical performance issues. It is just a mask for game engine issues relating to resource, thread, or algorithmic management in a multi-core environment. It will in fact decrease performance, on a situational basis, as there are less physical cores to execute on and thus less resources for A.I. and other logic operations. If your CPU is such that a given core can execute all of the game A.I and logic operations per game cycle sufficiently, then there will be no change in performance. This will show itself in large battles if you do not have a high per-core clock frequency.
A modern multi-tasking OS has a scheduler more than efficient enough to permit speedy loading of game resources irrespective of context switching.
Obviously, setting processor affinity does work for most (including me). This just emphasizes the obvious, a bug in the loading logic. As an aside, I have not run into bugs requiring me to manually set cpu affinity since the dawn of the dual-core days.
Finally, a memory/resource leak need not affect everyone to be a leak. Different system setups will deal with potentially leaky code differently. For instance, one player may have a leak and result in non-playability in 30 minutes. Another player may have 9GB of ram and never experience a leak due to his playtime versus available memory. Yet another player may have a single-core CPU which may never execute or go down a codepath designed for mult-core architectures and thus never experience any issues. If we were to say that a memory leak would have to affect every player then, good god, memory leaks would be 100 times easier to track down. Unfortunately, they are not. Each and every method/function in the code as well as libraries may have a resource leak. Players can access these in any order and in any configuration, making tracking without good memory profiling tools and a QA team, rather annoying.
While I appreciate the effort thus far, these are not fixes. I do not want BioWare thinking that the issue is under control. I am anxious for a proper patch.
Modifié par dBrute, 16 novembre 2009 - 03:23 .
#32
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 06:04
Docjam
-
- Members
- 111 messages
Titius.Vibius wrote...
Listen to JironGhrad, his fix really does work until a patch comes around that can address the perceived memory leak.
I'm worried my computer won't be able to handle the game on just 1 core, I have a core2duo 2.18Ghz.. 3 years old.. so..
#33
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 06:42
f97ao
-
- Members
- 1 messages
Yes, there is CLEARLY a memory leak in the game. Myself I'm not suffering that much because I have so much memory but it did manage to crash the game once for me.
It's very easy to see that it's a memory leak. Just start Task Manager. Play the game and monitor how much memory is being used. If it constantly is increasing over time, then it is pretty much always a memory leak.
After playing for a few hours the game crashed running out of memory. I looked in task manager and my computer was using 5.5GB of Ram.
I run a 64bit Windows 7 with 12GB of Ram.
The reason it crashes is because even though Windows can hold more memory the game can only hold about 3.5GB of Ram since it's 32bit. Windows was using about 2GB ram and the game was using 3.5=5.5 in total.
I'm sure they will adress this with a patch, but memory leaks are not super easy to find so it may take them some time.
Otherwise I think the game is very stable. I'm impressed with the stability of the game for me.
My hardware (for the tech guys)
Gefore 295, 2GB
i920 Quad
12GB Ram
Windows 7, 64bit.
/A
It's very easy to see that it's a memory leak. Just start Task Manager. Play the game and monitor how much memory is being used. If it constantly is increasing over time, then it is pretty much always a memory leak.
After playing for a few hours the game crashed running out of memory. I looked in task manager and my computer was using 5.5GB of Ram.
I run a 64bit Windows 7 with 12GB of Ram.
The reason it crashes is because even though Windows can hold more memory the game can only hold about 3.5GB of Ram since it's 32bit. Windows was using about 2GB ram and the game was using 3.5=5.5 in total.
I'm sure they will adress this with a patch, but memory leaks are not super easy to find so it may take them some time.
Otherwise I think the game is very stable. I'm impressed with the stability of the game for me.
My hardware (for the tech guys)
Gefore 295, 2GB
i920 Quad
12GB Ram
Windows 7, 64bit.
/A
#34
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 07:00
metradon111111111111
-
- Members
- 22 messages
[quote]dBrute wrote...
Most of these fixes are simply hiding underlying issues and should be called "work arounds". Sure, if it will help me run my ...
[/quote
Excellent post. Most of what you have said has been churning around in my head. I agree that EA should take note and fix it. Unfortunately EA has not addressed major flaws like this in many of its major releases over the last year or so. Spore for example is unplayable for many with serious crashes they have not fixed in a over a year since release.
I suspect most of this is due to EA cutting a lot of their manpower to make more money. EA has laid off a ton of its workforce in the last year plus with another round of lay-offs just recently. They either can't or are not willing to spend the resources necessary on games that are released with bugs. With that trend in mind I'm still hopeful they fix some of the problems in this game. However, reality might dictate that we use these workarounds to make the game palatable.
Walnuts.
Most of these fixes are simply hiding underlying issues and should be called "work arounds". Sure, if it will help me run my ...
[/quote
Excellent post. Most of what you have said has been churning around in my head. I agree that EA should take note and fix it. Unfortunately EA has not addressed major flaws like this in many of its major releases over the last year or so. Spore for example is unplayable for many with serious crashes they have not fixed in a over a year since release.
I suspect most of this is due to EA cutting a lot of their manpower to make more money. EA has laid off a ton of its workforce in the last year plus with another round of lay-offs just recently. They either can't or are not willing to spend the resources necessary on games that are released with bugs. With that trend in mind I'm still hopeful they fix some of the problems in this game. However, reality might dictate that we use these workarounds to make the game palatable.
Walnuts.
#35
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 07:23
Docjam
-
- Members
- 111 messages
actually.. it's running quite fine.. and it's only been a few hours so I can't say for sure but no problems so far with load times or other performance issues..
#36
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 08:23
JironGhrad
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
dBrute wrote...
Most of these fixes are simply hiding underlying issues and should be called "work arounds". Sure, if it will help me run my game, I'll patch the translation look-aside buffer or even set the processor affinity but these are not fixes and merely serve to mask the real issues.
Given the symptoms (gradual slowdown in graphical performance, gradual load time increase), the suggested fixes are irrelevant. The only fix is a patch whereby the resource leaks, contention issues or perhaps algorithmic errors are resolved.
The AMD TLB fix might as well be a free fix for every game ever made. It is a generic cpu level fix which provides performance gains across all applications (at a risk of system crash under certain loads). The fix is far too granular to blame for interactions with the BioWare engine. It would be like saying "changes to CPU branch prediction logic have fixed all our memory leaks!", it is simply not the way things work. A bug at the engineering level yields a consistent effect across the board.
If the problem was, "game loads 30% slower on AMD cpus" then this would be the fix. Instead, the load and performance issues demonstrate growth characterized by a resource leak or algorithmic error. Note that I use the words resource leak as opposed to memory leaks.
Context switching, which is what you essentially get rid of when you enforce processor affinity, is also not a fix for load times or graphical performance issues. It is just a mask for game engine issues relating to resource, thread, or algorithmic management in a multi-core environment. It will in fact decrease performance, on a situational basis, as there are less physical cores to execute on and thus less resources for A.I. and other logic operations. If your CPU is such that a given core can execute all of the game A.I and logic operations per game cycle sufficiently, then there will be no change in performance. This will show itself in large battles if you do not have a high per-core clock frequency.
A modern multi-tasking OS has a scheduler more than efficient enough to permit speedy loading of game resources irrespective of context switching.
Obviously, setting processor affinity does work for most (including me). This just emphasizes the obvious, a bug in the loading logic. As an aside, I have not run into bugs requiring me to manually set cpu affinity since the dawn of the dual-core days.
Finally, a memory/resource leak need not affect everyone to be a leak. Different system setups will deal with potentially leaky code differently. For instance, one player may have a leak and result in non-playability in 30 minutes. Another player may have 9GB of ram and never experience a leak due to his playtime versus available memory. Yet another player may have a single-core CPU which may never execute or go down a codepath designed for mult-core architectures and thus never experience any issues. If we were to say that a memory leak would have to affect every player then, good god, memory leaks would be 100 times easier to track down. Unfortunately, they are not. Each and every method/function in the code as well as libraries may have a resource leak. Players can access these in any order and in any configuration, making tracking without good memory profiling tools and a QA team, rather annoying.
While I appreciate the effort thus far, these are not fixes. I do not want BioWare thinking that the issue is under control. I am anxious for a proper patch.
f97ao wrote...
Yes, there is CLEARLY a memory leak in the game. Myself I'm not suffering that much because I have so much memory but it did manage to crash the game once for me.
It's very easy to see that it's a memory leak. Just start Task Manager. Play the game and monitor how much memory is being used. If it constantly is increasing over time, then it is pretty much always a memory leak.
After playing for a few hours the game crashed running out of memory. I looked in task manager and my computer was using 5.5GB of Ram.
I run a 64bit Windows 7 with 12GB of Ram.
The reason it crashes is because even though Windows can hold more memory the game can only hold about 3.5GB of Ram since it's 32bit. Windows was using about 2GB ram and the game was using 3.5=5.5 in total.
I'm sure they will adress this with a patch, but memory leaks are not super easy to find so it may take them some time.
Otherwise I think the game is very stable. I'm impressed with the stability of the game for me.
My hardware (for the tech guys)
Gefore 295, 2GB
i920 Quad
12GB Ram
Windows 7, 64bit.
/A
The i920 quad is one of the processors I've identified (and I've been collecting data for almost 2 weeks on this) that can have the affinity issue. Blaming a memory leak is a convenient excuse but it's untrue. If you set processor affinity your memory usage won't run away (which means it's not a true leak as you can't work around a leak.) A true leak would affect everyone equally, but my game has now been running continuously for almost 60 hours with no sign of this "leak" and my load times are consistently the same (15-45 seconds depending on the size of the area), I even noticed a drop (that means it went faster!) when I started loading into shops and small buildings in Denerim. So stop spreading the garbage about a leak and let them address the real problem (which may or may not be the way the game tells the processor to handle itself).
#37
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 08:46
Docjam
-
- Members
- 111 messages
Well memory leak, or problem with hyperthreading.. there is an issue with the game and while workarounds can work, it's better to fix the problem, yes? So hopefully Bioware is aware of a problem and will eventually fix it.
#38
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 08:55
sbrite
-
- Members
- 5 messages
I am having exactly the same issue.All sounds like a memory leak to me.Also Core i7s procs dont have 7 cores they are only quad core unless I missunderstood what the poster was saying.
#39
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 08:56
JironGhrad
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
Docjam wrote...
Well memory leak, or problem with hyperthreading.. there is an issue with the game and while workarounds can work, it's better to fix the problem, yes? So hopefully Bioware is aware of a problem and will eventually fix it.
The point I'm trying to make (and people should be aware of it) is that it may not just be something they patch and it will go away. They "fixed" the problem in Neverwinter Nights... by adding a CPU affinity toggle to .ini file. Incidentally, people screamed that Neverwinter Nights had a memory leak too, but 7 years later there are computers that explode when playing it (a friend of mine had that problem but he gave up after 30 minutes of troubleshooting so I never got a chance to solve that one, and this was on a brand new system just 18 months or so ago).
And it's not a problem with hyper-threading itself as my hyper-threaded P4 works fine.
Modifié par JironGhrad, 16 novembre 2009 - 09:01 .
#40
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 08:57
JironGhrad
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
sbrite wrote...
I am having exactly the same issue.All sounds like a memory leak to me.Also Core i7s procs dont have 7 cores they are only quad core unless I missunderstood what the poster was saying.
i7 processors are quad core with hyperthreading. It effectively has 8 cores for doing the easy parts and 4 for running the hard parts.
#41
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 09:07
sbrite
-
- Members
- 5 messages
JironGhrad wrote...
sbrite wrote...
I am having exactly the same issue.All sounds like a memory leak to me.Also Core i7s procs dont have 7 cores they are only quad core unless I missunderstood what the poster was saying.
i7 processors are quad core with hyperthreading. It effectively has 8 cores for doing the easy parts and 4 for running the hard parts.
Ahh ok thanks for clearing that up for me.
As far as the mmory leak issue which Im not yet convinced it isnt a memory leak my machine specs are as follows:
AMD Athlon X2 6000+ 3.0ghz
Asus Crosshair MOBO
6gigs DDR2 Ram
CreativeXiFi Xtreme Gamer Fatality 1Pro
Geforce 8800gt 512
#42
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 09:08
JironGhrad
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
the 6000+ has been proven to work better when set to CPU 1 only
#43
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 09:15
sbrite
-
- Members
- 5 messages
JironGhrad wrote...
the 6000+ has been proven to work better when set to CPU 1 only
I must have missed how you change that setting.How does one do this in Windows 7 64bit?
And thanks for the great info.Very Thorough.
#44
Posté 16 novembre 2009 - 09:32
mcgintis1979
-
- Members
- 6 messages
Still having this issue and setting core affinity did not help. Any eta on a fix?
#45
Posté 17 novembre 2009 - 02:55
lngo
-
- Members
- 6 messages
For my case, I don't think that it is a memory leak. I placed DAO under windows-mode and I open up task manager/CPU temperature watch in order to keep tab of its. My memory never goes above 3G (out of 4), but immediately after starting up DAO, the CPU goes up to 100%. If I do core affinity, then the one I placed DAO on goes to 100%.
After 5-10 minutes, when the game starts to become sluggish, thats when the CPU temperature reach critical and the measurement software sounds alarm.
My guess is that there is something in DAO that just eat up CPU (PhysX?) and make the system to slow down as a whole.
I have updated Nvidia driver and I will see if disable PhysX makes any difference.
After 5-10 minutes, when the game starts to become sluggish, thats when the CPU temperature reach critical and the measurement software sounds alarm.
My guess is that there is something in DAO that just eat up CPU (PhysX?) and make the system to slow down as a whole.
I have updated Nvidia driver and I will see if disable PhysX makes any difference.
#46
Posté 17 novembre 2009 - 03:35
Herethos
-
- Members
- 378 messages
Right now I have choppy low fps when moving around after a huge random battle with everything killed and it won't stabilise. So I alt tabbed out and ran taskmanager to check.
And Daorigins.exe is maxing both cores, cpu usage 100%
memory usage reads 859 764kb,
most used memory: 933 976kb,
size on virtual memory 1 159 264kb
I'm looking at physical memory under performance and available memory is decreasing rapidly along with the system cache. Allocated total memory also increasing rapidly. Pagefile is maybe 45% used. Gonna save and restart the game now.
Hmm I alt tabbed back and the fps lag seems gone, gonna restart anyway since the memory usage is still higher.
And Daorigins.exe is maxing both cores, cpu usage 100%
memory usage reads 859 764kb,
most used memory: 933 976kb,
size on virtual memory 1 159 264kb
I'm looking at physical memory under performance and available memory is decreasing rapidly along with the system cache. Allocated total memory also increasing rapidly. Pagefile is maybe 45% used. Gonna save and restart the game now.
Hmm I alt tabbed back and the fps lag seems gone, gonna restart anyway since the memory usage is still higher.
Modifié par Herethos, 17 novembre 2009 - 03:41 .
#47
Posté 17 novembre 2009 - 03:45
JironGhrad
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
GvazElite wrote...
I edited "does not" but its not showing up.
Anyways I havent tried any amd thing, i havent tried cpu affinity, im not running any weird ram defragging things, i'm on 1.01 from Impulse, and I run the game through steam.
Your issue is probably as you just described. Both Steam and Impulse use their own patching system; I'd venture a guess that you've somehow corrupted your install by running your Impulse client through Steam.
sbrite wrote...
JironGhrad wrote...
the 6000+ has been proven to work better when set to CPU 1 only
I must have missed how you change that setting.How does one do this in Windows 7 64bit?
And thanks for the great info.Very Thorough.
Setting CPU affinity is described at length in the Troubleshooting FAQ sticky (2nd post)
#48
Posté 17 novembre 2009 - 04:15
Gvaz
-
- Members
- 1 039 messages
Err... adding a non steam game (which is what I did) doesn't work like that. When you add a non-steam game steam essentially acts like a container of shortcuts, only games purchased through steam, or added to your steam account and downloaded get patched.
I downloaded the game and updated it through impulse and all it is, is adding a shortcut telling steam to launch the exe. You do not need impulse running for ANY game you buy from them.
Since it does not do as you describe, it cannot be what you suggest. Furthermore, this has been happening since before I added the shortcut through steam, just more frequently now that I've spent over 70 hours on this character.
I downloaded the game and updated it through impulse and all it is, is adding a shortcut telling steam to launch the exe. You do not need impulse running for ANY game you buy from them.
Since it does not do as you describe, it cannot be what you suggest. Furthermore, this has been happening since before I added the shortcut through steam, just more frequently now that I've spent over 70 hours on this character.
#49
Posté 17 novembre 2009 - 04:38
JironGhrad
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
GvazElite wrote...
Err... adding a non steam game (which is what I did) doesn't work like that. When you add a non-steam game steam essentially acts like a container of shortcuts, only games purchased through steam, or added to your steam account and downloaded get patched.
I downloaded the game and updated it through impulse and all it is, is adding a shortcut telling steam to launch the exe. You do not need impulse running for ANY game you buy from them.
Since it does not do as you describe, it cannot be what you suggest. Furthermore, this has been happening since before I added the shortcut through steam, just more frequently now that I've spent over 70 hours on this character.
I'm familiar with the way Steam can run some other apps (I was under the impression that it worked like it does with Dawn of War 2 on games available through Steam though... you can install- I installed my copy of DoW2 from the DVD- but then Steam will recognize the game and start patching and such.) Did you have the toolset installed? Or any other non-official DLC mods?
#50
Posté 17 novembre 2009 - 05:02
Gvaz
-
- Members
- 1 039 messages
Only some games can be added to steam, like to your account anyways.
Hrm...Perhaps it is from the toolset, I don't remember having these issues until about maybe 20 hours game time ago, which would coincide with around when they released the toolset. Could have ****ed up my install perhaps? I never used or accessed any files from within the toolset.
Hrm...Perhaps it is from the toolset, I don't remember having these issues until about maybe 20 hours game time ago, which would coincide with around when they released the toolset. Could have ****ed up my install perhaps? I never used or accessed any files from within the toolset.
