"Insufficient memory" & "CTD" - workaround

[MadBoris]

Just patched my exe, will give it a shot in a minute. Just out of curiosity, is this workaround any drifferent from what has been described in this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...76#post4610276

It's different in the sense that will not work without preparing the OS. There is much confusion in this category, as to /PAE, /AWE addressing, /3GB, /userva, and what needs to be set for this to work. For 32 bit systems the OS has to be set properly, like XP needs 2 boot switches where Vista only needs one. So it's different in that it won't work for 32 bit users just to do that.

Although I have never used that tool, people can use it to set the process flag if they like, Step 2. But the batch I have for download is quite easy too.
In the not too distant future, all people will need to do is prepare the 32 bit OS when CA starts providing the exe flagged for Large Addresses.

[Tassen]

I'm running the modified exe with 3 GTX280s, each 1GiB of VRAM. No probs so far, in fact I haven't had any crashes since.
In spite of the fact that your drivers are called 185.20 they are actually pretty old beta drivers... I tested them myself as well, but becaue there are new things integrated into the driver such as SSAO from the Control Panel, they can cause a lot of headache.
The confusing 'number' (185.20) is a result of Nvidia emplying several different driver development teams, each with a different focus.
I recommend using 181.22 if using SLI or 182.06 if not, they should be the most stable.
Also, most changes included in 185.20 have later been removed from subsequent driver releases, indicating that there might be some underlying issues with this driver architecture.

Ok, Thank you.

I'll give the 182.06 a spin around the block and see how if they fix my problem.

[nick33marsden]

nice try but still ctd, losing hope, will be able to play this game for 6 mouths

thanks for advice anyway

i7 940
vista 64
gtx 295
12 gb

[MadBoris]

I read up a bit on the /3GB switch and as far as I understand it you can run into 'trouble' if using a video card with a lot of on-board ram. The video driver simply won't load and you will end up in Windows on some fallback 4bit setup. Just as I do. I also tested a few different values with the /USERVA switch, 2100-2400, but to no avail.


I have a fair amount of v-ram on my video card, 768MB to be exact. So to you guys who can boot back into windows, video driver loaded and all, how much on-board v-ram do you have on your video cards?

I'll speak to what I know. People with high video memory are the ones most effected by the virtual address space problem, and they are the ones that need these fixes most and therefore past experience shows that high vid mem alone doesn't have negative effects with the workaround. There's probably much you could learn by going through the Supreme Commander forum thread I cite in my original topic under The Workaround section. You'd see many 8800 GTX's were successful. There's just alot of mysticism and voodoo wrapped up in the subject in reading about it online, so it's hard for readers to know what's accurate and what is not.

Long story short, high video mem alone isn't something that should cause any specific issues that I can think of when it comes to the issue unless it's combined with some other strange issue.
It's likely either chipset driver or possibly a video driver that has gotten flaky, they really do get flaky sometimes. I suggest Driver Sweeper to remove all remnants of drivers in safe mode, then reload the driver of your choice.

[Tassen]

I'll be damned if it didn't work with the 182.06 drivers after all. I installed them, changed my boot.ini once again, rebooted and and not a hitch. Got right back into window with drives all loaded. Tried to get into game, not a problem. Smooth sailing all the way.


So hopefully this fix will prevent some of the issues some people have. if CA themselves say it is something they look into, it' can't hurt to have it activated. Especially since its is such an easy fix to apply.


Thank you Boris for all your help, and you too jmbuehler.

[hedges13]

worked great for me - thanks!

[jmbuehler]

I'll be damned if it didn't work with the 182.06 drivers after all. I installed them, changed my boot.ini once again, rebooted and and not a hitch. Got right back into window with drives all loaded. Tried to get into game, not a problem. Smooth sailing all the way.


So hopefully this fix will prevent some of the issues some people have. if CA themselves say it is something they look into, it' can't hurt to have it activated. Especially since its is such an easy fix to apply.


Thank you Boris for all your help, and you too jmbuehler.

Glad it worked!

[Rapyer]

does this work for other games?

[MadBoris]

does this work for other games?

It depends on a lot of factors. If the game is suffering from the identical cause then this workaround may or may not help.

[Zetto]

It's so funny, I have TWC installed on two computers, one with vista 64 and the other one with vista 32... Guess what? Vista 64 is unplayable while vista 32 is rock-solid. Both are running with 1gb videocard (gtx280), and no memory overflow on 32 while it happens all the time on 64...

[Mordrorru]

So I got this issue for the first time while loading a multiplayer battle (Vista 64-bit here), and just to be clear:

This error doesn't suggest a problem with my computer or a lack of memory? Because I got 4gb of RAM and a 4870x2.

Will it be likely that I'll get this error again?

If so, this problem won't go away unless I do something about? No patches will be released to correct this?

[apoll]

MadBoris...tks very much for answering and trying to help. When I said I have two options at bootup after enabling your fix...I mean when my system boots from off, it goes through the screens and then pauses, giving me two options to choose...both exactly the same (ie Windows XP Home edition) - and asking me to coose which one I want to boot into. All this before it reaches the actual Windows. My question is: which one do I choose? Which one uses the amended boot.ini line with your fix? Both are the same and on top of each other. I'm assuming if I choose the wrong one, it will mean your fix is ignored by the computer. So...which one do I choose? We have two exact lines in the boot.ini now...one with your extension on it. Does the top boot option reflect the top un-amended line in the boot.ini file? Or does the bottom one? Hope this all makes sense.

Apart from this, I shall try your 2900 suggestion. I really hope tey sort the roblem asap, as it seems on my rig - which BTW is a killer rig - to have real problems with it. (crossfire 2 x 4870 x 2s...i7 CPU...fast 3 GB RAM...two drives in RAID 0 et al.

One final question..some of the threads found a 'gfx video memory' line in the script file that read '0'. They suggested changing that '0' value to the amount of video RAM on the vid card...1 GB in my case. I did that. Will this work and does it conflict with your fix? Should I return it to the '0' value? Grateful advice.

apoll

[MadBoris]

MadBoris...tks very much for answering and trying to help. When I said I have two options at bootup after enabling your fix...I mean when my system boots from off, it goes through the screens and then pauses, giving me two options to choose...both exactly the same (ie Windows XP Home edition) - and asking me to coose which one I want to boot into. All this before it reaches the actual Windows. My question is: which one do I choose? Which one uses the amended boot.ini line with your fix? Both are the same and on top of each other. I'm assuming if I choose the wrong one, it will mean your fix is ignored by the computer. So...which one do I choose? We have two exact lines in the boot.ini now...one with your extension on it. Does the top boot option reflect the top un-amended line in the boot.ini file? Or does the bottom one? Hope this all makes sense.

I did actually answer that in response 2 if you reread it. Look between the quotes in the boot.ini as per my example, change the name of the quotes in the boot.ini. Like 3GB in minem, which you will see the lines are not identicval anymore on boot up. You can change it to "E:TW 3GB FIX" for all the boot loader cares and then when booting choose E:TW 3GB FIX. I have like 7 boot options with different names for what they do. Then on boot up it will be very obvious which is which and it won't matter which is on top or below, choose the one with the name that reflects what you named it. If this is confusing reread my initial response and look at my boot ini entry, change the text in the quotes.

One final question..some of the threads found a 'gfx video memory' line in the script file that read '0'. They suggested changing that '0' value to the amount of video RAM on the vid card...1 GB in my case. I did that. Will this work and does it conflict with your fix? Should I return it to the '0' value? Grateful advice.

No it won't conflict, feel free. I don't know if it absolutely helps this issue or not, it may lower the buffering of the game, if it actually does then it may.

[MadBoris]

This error doesn't suggest a problem with my computer or a lack of memory? Because I got 4gb of RAM and a 4870x2.

"Background" section answers those questions pretty conclusively I think.
If not then I need to rewrite it.

Will it be likely that I'll get this error again?
If so, this problem won't go away unless I do something about? No patches will be released to correct this?

Probably likely over time, when/if a patch arrives is unknown, it's planned but nobody knows when. Wait and see if you get it again or be preemptive, it's up to you.

[Mordrorru]

"Background" section answers those questions pretty conclusively I think.
If not then I need to rewrite it.



Probably likely over time, when/if a patch arrives is unknown, it's planned but nobody knows when. Wait and see if you get it again or be preemptive, it's up to you.

Okay. Thanks for the help. +rep

[jmbuehler]

No it won't conflict, feel free. I don't know if it absolutely helps this issue or not, it may lower the buffering of the game, if it actually does then it may.

I actually did that before applying MadBoris's workaround, and still haven't changed the value of that line. All it does imho tho is signalling the app which level of gxf fidelity it will allow you to select.
Leaving it at '0' will have the game register your actual amount of VRAM. This way some users with low VRAM cards were able to select high and ultra values, altho the point of that kind of eludes me, as the will probably be watching a slideshow with those settings.
It does, however, not conflict with MadBoris' workaround.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

I actually did that before applying MadBoris's workaround, and still haven't changed the value of that line. All it does imho tho is signalling the app which level of gxf fidelity it will allow you to select.
Leaving it at '0' will have the game register your actual amount of VRAM. This way some users with low VRAM cards were able to select high and ultra values, altho the point of that kind of eludes me, as the will probably be watching a slideshow with those settings.
It does, however, not conflict with MadBoris' workaround.

The main reason that option is there is to allow people with broken drivers to set a sensible limit on the amount of video memory that the game uses. We've seen some integrated graphics chipsets that report upwards of 1 gb of available memory, most of which is not on-chip and so quite slow, and in those cases you don't really want the game to be using that much detail. It might also help out a few people trying to run the game with less-than-minspec

[apoll]

MadBoris...ahhh! Got it re the boot option. Tks.

apoll

[Dewy]

thank you for posting this

[No_Limit]

Year 2009

No Multicore Support, no optimized (SLI) Driver Support from nvidia , no address more than 2GB
Empire Total War.exe Header http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...76#post4610276

Company of Heroes (32bit App) original --> adress more than 2GB on the exe Header

For example :
Empire Total War Demo 26.02.2009 --> no optimized nvidia Treiber (and SLI)
HAWX Demo 02.03. 2009 --> optimized Driver from Nvidia with SLI Support 10.3.2009
Empire Total Full Version 04.03.2009 --> no optimized nvidia Treiber (and SLI)

Who's to blame? Buyers, Nvidia, CA?

No Communikation CA <-----> nVidia ?