wow, do you need that much of ram, graphics proccessor to just play the game, does anyone know the min specs to run this game?

min specs are in the FAQ, but it can CURRENTLY run way under-spec, pretty sure this is going to change a bit though

no, not at all. I'm running the game quite successfully on a 1.5 GHz core 2 duo laptop with a gig of ram and an integrated video card (on low, but without any slowdown at all, and it doesn't matter if the models the icons represent are blurry that much anyway), so I think you could do it on even less if you turn the effects down. I don't even the devs know how little you can get away with, but I'm guessing you definitely need a d3d card. This game really looks good on low texture quality too, because all the eye candy other than the ships looks fine (the ships and stars look a bit off too, but not by much). I have successfully played games where I had 300+ ships, so d3d capability might be the limit


One last thing for EBITAD, if you get 4 gigs of ram and are running a 32 bit os, you'll only see about 3.25 or so gigs with a 512 meg video card, but it works fine and'll be considerably cheaper to upgrade in the future, since you can just throw in another 2 sticks. I recommend this set, since it's what I've got and G.Skill has amazingly good customer service (Actually having people do your customer service... ingenious, and they even try to help out posters on newegg). Also, the memory is high quality considering its made for overclockers.

Are you running on Highest textures? If so, that's the problem. Turn them down to Low with that video card and system RAM.

Thanks Everyone, I followed Ron's advice, no viruses but my computer was in bad need for a defragging. I also changed the swap file to 500mb from letting the computer decide. I changed the max and min swap file so that both was 500 mb per an article I found on line.
The game loaded very quickly and without the usual delays. I decided to try 200 mb for the swap files and the existing game took 4 1/2 minutes to load so I figured maybe it was just the defragging that had helped. I switched the swap file back to letting the computer decide and restarted the computer. I ran SOASE and this time I could not get beyond the "The Vasari Arrives" screen. I uninstalled and reinstalled SOASE and changed back to the 500mb. I attempted to start a new game and once again I could not get past the Vasari Arrives screen. I am now uninstalling and reinstalling for the second time. I followed the procedure in the FAQ about how to do a clean reinstall.

Now the instal states that I have exceeded my allowable downloads and must have Stardock to reset. Lets see if I can get this done and try to reinstall the game.

I am going to try to follow all the good advice found in this thread about purchasing a new computer. Did you folks go with Vista or XP?

I went xp because I had a disc lying around. If that's illegal, sue me... or actually don't, I really have no need to pay protection money to microsoft right now. I feel no compunctions because the new computer is replacing the previous user of that copy of xp. Plus, it runs better without all that DRM stupidity they packed Vista full of. Still, os is your call, and it is definitely a complicated trade-off. Same with 64 and 32 bit, its complicated. I had those choices made for me, because I had a copy lying around. XP runs stuff faster, but microsoft's going to figure out a way to make you run vista or its successor eventually. Also, check out some sites to see if your favorite games work on a 64-bit os, and if they all do, go with that, because they are faster and more secure (especially in the case of xp x64, because nobody bothered writing viruses for it and its also based on the most stable microsoft kernel (Yes, there is a 64 bit version of xp, and it's rather good, just a bit more expensive)). Also, you can then go with 4 gigs of ram and see it all instead of 3.25 like I do, or if you saved the cash on the video card, you can get 8 gigs and still save money over the gtx. G.skill makes an 8 gig bundle of what I was recommending for 300 bucks, but if you want to spend more, you can get some ram with slightly better timings. See here for all the 8 gig packages newegg carries, they're all pretty good deals for slightly different products.

Oh, and sorry, when I was talking about my old desktop, I wasn't trying to run any aa, and i have a 512 meg 6800, so its got a good bit more video card than yours.

why would anyone spend that much money on a computer :/

Ironically, most of the people bashing Vista these days are the ones who aren't running it. Most of the Vista users I've heard back from have no issues with it at all.

which os would sins run on better? xp or vista

Because, for about 1400 bucks, I can make a computer that'll probably stay relevant for four or five years instead of buying two or three cheaper computers, and have significantly more performance now. If you buy stuff for price/performance, you can get a really solid computer that'll last a long while for a reasonable price.



And I thought that the lack of recent Vista horror stories was because the people who wanted to do stuff Vista wouldn't let them do went back to xp. I will upgrade eventually, but I built my computer when Vista was going through some really nasty teething troubles. I also just disagree with some of the stuff microsoft is doing with the drm. There is a reason why I love stardock so much, apart from the games.

I'm considering upgrading -- if only because of DX10 + wanting 64 bit so I can break the 2 (4) GB limit, but I'd really like to wait for Vienna -- its the next OS on their road map, and apparently its due out relatively soon.

When I can play the game again, after the tech folks have reset my downloads, I will check the textures. I had the resolution turned to the lowest possible but I am not sure I did anything with the textures.

My computer just sent me a message stating the virtual memory was not at what they recommended. Ir was a Dell warning. They suggested like 1038mb. I have 1 gb of ram.

Ron stated 200 to 500 mb, the article I found recommended 1x to 1.5x the ram. It was running the best ever on the 500mb, should have left it alone at that but this could have been just caused by the defragging. Should I set the minimum and maximum to the same figure?

Any thoughts?

I'm going to purchase the new computer and will follow the recommendations in the thread, thanks so much.

... No way. Your article was insane. Your pagefile usage (sitting at desktop) should be in the MB range -- if your into the GB range something is seriously wrong. Unless your looking at how large the pagefile is allowed to be, something you should always let windows decide on its own. If you've been mucking around with the maximum pagefile size... which looking back I think you have... thats a bad idea.

Use DXDiag to check the pagefile usage.

If this works, you can run dx10 on XP eventually. I'm thinking of getting XP x64 edition, which will break the 4 gb limit, and seeing if that demo will work properly in x64 xp, and if it does work, ill just wait for the full version. I'll see how it goes after I back up my data. Also, mucking around in your maximum pagefile settings can and will screw up your performance hard at the very least if it goes wrong, and it will.

Yep, have no idea what I did but I think the article I read was refering to something other tha what you recommended in your post. I went to System Properties, Advanced, Performance Options, Virtual Memeory. Is this what you were refering to in your post:
Anyway I have changed this back to letting the computer decide as you recommend.

Thanks

Yarlen,

Setting the texture to low fixed most of the delay issues. Really miss the detail though, just more justification for a new machine.  

Anyone playing the game on Vista and any issues?

I run the game on Vista 64-bit at home and on Vista 32-bit at the office. No troubles at home; the troubles at the office come when I'm trying to run it at Highest textures and run out of RAM. The game still plays but I have to hard reset the PC to get back into the OS.

Kosh,

Does the video card RAM get spread over the 4 processors? My existing video card shows as a description in a pull up window 1/2 the video ram being allocated to each of my dual core intel processors. I would not think the video ram would be allocated this way. Otherwise with software perhaps not utilizing Quad core processor dual core could be faster if the video ram was divided by 2 instead of 4. Again, I don't think video ram works this way but before I pull the trigger and purchase a new computer I thought I would ask.

Thanks so much

Your question doesn't make sense... Your video card's VRAM should be used up by the video card, not the CPUs. Now, with multi-core cards becoming more common, that might be what your looking at, but I can't gauge it from a distance.



OK, let me try to be clear: What I am not talking about is the maximum limit -- leave that at computer decided! What you need to check is how much of that limit your using. Go to windows -> run type in DXDiag and check what the program says about your pagefile -- it should have both used and maximum.

That won't ever work.

yeah, it probably won't work (but one can hope...). just go vista.

Here's why:

Crysis in DX9

vs.

Crysis in DX10

I love XP and all, but (no offense to the pointilists) DX9 crysis looks like a pointilist's take on the DX10 version. And, once nvidia and ati get their drivers sorted out, DX10 should be faster. Looks like i'll have to buy vista eventually, or maybe i can make it till vienna.

I was able to complete a beta4 game. It did crash twice when an ai planet was taken over by another ai culture, but the game was easy to reload

Here is what eventually worked for me.

I took Ron's advice and defraged my hard drive. This dramtically effected the load time of the game and made it run smoother. I had forgotten to ever do this on my home computer.

I took Yarlen's advice and swithed to low texture instead of high texture. This allowed the game to load right up and I could start to play right away, no lag time. I sure missed the detail though.

Then I took Kosh401 and xthetenth suggestions and ordered a new computer.

Thanks everyone