I`ve seen posts mentioning the 4Gb patch. It seems good. Where can I get it?
I`ve got Windows 7 64bit - is the patch irrelevant with a 64bit OS ?
Thanks
Printable View
I`ve seen posts mentioning the 4Gb patch. It seems good. Where can I get it?
I`ve got Windows 7 64bit - is the patch irrelevant with a 64bit OS ?
Thanks
2.2b is a standalone, full instalation version.
I don't know whether EB2 includes large address aware patch, commonly known 4GB patch.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim600
It basically tells exe that it can use more than 2 GB of memory, which will boost your M2TW mod stability a lot, no CTDs. Newer mods whose units have more polygons desperately need it. For instance, BotET is unplayable with out it.
We do not include any exe file in our installation.Quote:
I don't know whether EB2 includes large address aware patch
We can't include it with the mod, because strictly speaking it alters the executable, which is of course illegal.
Which exe. file do you pick for running the app - is it the kingdoms.exe file ? or the EBII .exe/launcher file?
Thanks
Im running it on Kingdoms.exe and that seems to be working, less crashes now.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim600
Is it still illegal if you're modifying the .exe for private use only?Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
Either way, I generally apply large address aware to just about all of my games (that don't already feature it, of course).
Yes, it's still a breach of copyright and CA's intellectual property to alter the .exe, even for private use. That's why we can't recommend or link it (because we'd be encouraging people to break the law), but we can't stop people doing so.
Where'd you get this? Always thought private use was fair game?Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
It may well be; reality is CA isn't going to waste their time or money chasing individuals for it. On the other hand, if we were handing it out or otherwise facilitating it, that would be a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooz
Technically it is in the agreement we all signed when installing their game that we can't reverse engineer their product in any way, this is meant to protect their technology from rivals and not necessarily modders. In theory CA could prosecute modders and or use any modding material without permission, in practice CA has outright endorsed mods, in fact EB itself was explicitly mentioned, which was a first for TW modding at the time. In our present day CA goes out of their way (which is very much appreciated) to support modding in their latest titles through tools and tutorials and agreements with other companies/paperwork which enables modders to do what they do. However directly touching the exe really isn't something that is allowed, questions about this have always come to naught.
This is the kind of specifics I'm wondering about, and whether or not it applies to something like the patch in question (not that I'm saying it should be automatically included or anything like that, just curious since the topic came up and went so far as to be mentioned that it can't be officially recommended). Does whatever Large Address Aware does count as reverse engineering? Though you also said touching the exe isn't allowed, but is that actually spelled out that broadly?Quote:
Originally Posted by z3n
Aaaand being that I was curious and felt weird asking you guys about all these details as if you're CA lawyers, I just opened up the EULA and checked (I wanted to do this last night when I initially asked about the private use thing, but I was posting from the phone and couldn't find a copy of this particular EULA online).
So yeah, I guess it is pretty broad indeed as far as the kinds of things that constitute modifying the "Game Software", which I guess means the exe? And anything about private vs. public use has more to do with commercial gain than anything, not so much that you can necessarily do these things if it's just for yourself. So like Quintus said, it's not like anyone is actually gonna go after anyone for using the 4GB patch or whatever, but technically... they can (though I wouldn't worry about it, there's plenty more compelling things people can be gotten after than this). "Except as the applicable law expressly permits", which is interesting, and would require someone with deep knowledge of copyright law to know if any such laws exist and permit the specific alterations relevant to this patch, and if private vs. public comes into play at that point, and whatever else may apply. But of course, that wouldn't be worth the attorney fees to find out. :tongue:Quote:
LICENSE CONDITIONS
You agree to only use the Game Software, or any part of it, in a manner that is consistent with this License and you SHALL NOT:
(f) reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of the Game Software, in whole or in part (except as the applicable law expressly permits, in which case all and any modifications, adaptations, improvements, etc. shall belong to, vest in and be the exclusive property of Sega and/or its licensors on creation, in any event);
(h) export or re-export the Game Software or any copy or adaptation in violation of any applicable laws or regulations;
Though I gotta say, it seems to me like making and distributing any mod is itself in violation of this agreement, especially the following.
Which is only to say, don't be too shy about recommending the 4GB patch officially in the sticky or official release threads and posts and stuff like that. It seems like a pretty helpful (perhaps to the point of being necessary) thing to hold off on informing people about due to legal concerns, especially when those concerns can already be founded on the existence of the mod itself. And I know you guys aren't keeping it a secret or anything, or actively trying to suppress information about it or anything remotely like that, I'm just sayin.... don't worrrryyyy abboouuuttt iiiiiiit. :whistlingQuote:
(i) create data or executable programs that mimic data or functionality in the Game Software.
You can argue that because CA was previously contacted about memory modification and gave the go ahead this could be construed as permission to allow the exe to use more RAM. However editing your RAM and editing both the RAM and the exe are different concepts, which means by this own sites rules (TWC) it isn't necessarily allowed but I could be wrong.
This entire idea is a sore point for some modders who believe they own the modification they created however as soon as it is published it belongs to Sega as per the user agreement. In any case, the issue isn't really something I want to get into, despite my recommendation of CFF explorer over some third party middleman app.
Does this sort of thing allow a machine to utilise more than one core? I know M2TW can only use one in normal circumstances, but mine's a dual core 2gb processor - so, if I've understood right, I'd only benefit from a "patch" such as this if it'd open up the other core for me to grant the extra 2 gigs.
Allowing for multi core CPU usage would require a rewrite of the game engine (the exe itself). In any case it doesn't really matter too much as modern computer architecture is better than older architecture which means that core speed isn't as big of a deal in older games, which is why a modern day 3770k can run M2TW just as speedily as an older and faster per core processor.
As to what this 'patch' would do for you, it would allow the application to call on more of your RAM specifically to be used. It's not necessarily a given that the application would actually do that, but it does open up that possibility.
Memory modification is fine - there is (was) even a work group trying to make use of it.
Executable modification (that's what the 'patch' does) is against the ToS.
As a rule of thumb I would say any multi core machine that has more then 3Ghz per core can run the game pretty well. I have got 3.2Ghz and run the game at full specs without having a problem like this.
They could not forbid this anyway, what is loaded into the memory is yours and you can do anything you want with it :laughter:Quote:
You can argue that because CA was previously contacted about memory modification and gave the go ahead this could be construed as permission to allow the exe to use more RAM.
Correct, unless you use the 'patch' (which modifies the executable) to achieve that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafkos
Well, I was talking about it being allowed on TWC primarily, as TWC had to contact CA to find out what they thought about it. If CA had said 'No >:[', TWC likely would have deleted everything related to memory modification or the discussion thereof. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Rafkos