Ship designer gets wonky

from GalCiv2 Forums
I've seen this problem since the very early days, and it seemed to be getting better around 1.2, but in 1.3 betaX I'm seeing perhaps the worst behavior yet.

Vexing things include: 1) parts on legacy designs that are only there visually (no effect on ship stats) and cannot be deleted (e.g. a Singularity Driver). 2) Corruption of the images for components (e.g. Photonic Torpedo). 3) New designs that will not generate an image in the Shipyard list.

Something funny is going on with the image building b/c when #3 happens I have to wait quite a while after clicking OK (accept?) before the Shipyard displays again.

Could this be a result of a humble-but-otherwise-workable video card (NVidia GEForce2 MX 400)?
3,309 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
1) parts on legacy designs that are only there visually (no effect on ship stats) and cannot be deleted (e.g. a Singularity Driver).


are you talking about the core designs? you shouldn't be using those, make your own ships since the core ones suck.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
No, I mean ships with names from my past games and some odd-looking things that I don't recall adding, like those Singularity Drivers.

High on my wish list for the Shipyard is a "Hide Core Designs" option. I'm a role-player at heart, and those core clunkers have no character
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Are you naming your ships with the same names as core ships?
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Egad, no!
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
uhm, Geforce 2 MX, are you living in the dark ages of computing or wut??!!!!    

VIDEO CARD PRICES

There are LOTS of cheap Video cards out by now, especially the 6600, and 7600, you should check out the above link, it may prove usefull in getting a new 1.



Monc34
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I got an apparent restoration of normal function in ship editing after several game restarts (but not a system restart). I peevishly deleted the ship with the un-deletable parts, so I don't know if that changed too.

To Monclova34: I said "humble-but-otherwise-workable video card." One of the things I admire about Stardock is that they have built a game that can produce fine eye candy for resource-rich players but still plays decently for those of us who do not believe a video card should be an annual expenditure (or cannot afford to feed a bad chipset habit ).

That said, if Monclova34 or anyone else (especially a Stardocker) is confident that an aging video card is the most likely culprit, please say so clearly and I'll likely expedite my search for a hand-me-down that's better than what I've got.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
I can't say about the other two, but your video card could be at fault with (2). I know that video memory leaks cause texture corruption, so with the likely tiny amount of VRAM on your card there could be a similar result if the game is running out of room for textures.

At any rate, you're likely missing out on quite a bit by not having a remotely recent video card. You likely have flat-shaded ships and other potential graphical anomalies, which would be resolved by getting a card with at least DirectX8 support (most of them you can buy new anymore are DX9 comaptible, which is what the game requires to use all the graphic features it was made to use).
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Kryo, I know my VRAM is low, but the card supports DX9, which I've been running about as long as its been out. Do you mean that the card "specs" I've read are like Microsoft "minimum system requirements" (i.e. if we baby it in a lab, it will run that way, but only a fool would try it in production)?

p.s. I know I've been "missing out" on the eye candy, but I'm a Civ junkie from way back and am most concerned about having a board-game like thing with ludicrous numbers of elements interacting, etc. I've figured I can scrounge a good card around the time I buy DA and then waste far more time than usual clicking away at y'all's game over the winter holidays.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Running with DX9 on your computer is not the same as supporting DX9 features in hardware. Check this page on wikipedia for a listing of all nVidia GPUs and which versions of DX they support. As you can see there, GeForce2 is a DX7 part. The game's minimum requirements state that a DX9 part is the minimum to work with all features functioning, which equates to a GeForce FX 5000 series card or better. The game should work for the very most part with no noticable problems though on a DX8 card, which lowers the bar to include GF3 and GF4Ti (but not GF4MX).
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
GF2 is a DIRECTX 7 card not a direct x 9 card for a LONG shot. It works because it does SOFTWARE EMULATION, but its just that EMULATION.


Monc34
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thanks, Kryo. If Windows or DX9 complained when I installed DX9, I must have missed it.

p.s. I still gotta say I'm impressed with how well the game plays in a low-graphics mode, at least for us modeling-oriented folks.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It wont complain no matter how old your card is, Direct x is just like drivers for Windows OS.


Monc34
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Which also should complain when they find incompatible hardware--a beloved old comlaint of mine. How stupid is it that you can whack out your desktop by applying "the latest driver" for your add-on cards?
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Agreed, Thank God for Windows Vista  

It wont happen anymore  


Monc34
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
Which also should complain when they find incompatible hardware


It's not so much incompatible as it is that it just doesn't support many features that have been added to newer cards and become standard since it was made. Games that don't use those newer features won't have any problems (aside from performance), but even if newer games don't use those new features, they will still generally require the latest DX.