First Impression on iMacG5 1.8GHz GeForceFX5200 2G RAM [Archive]

cocogum

Jun 30, 2006, 01:34 AM

Hello everyone,

I'm from Sydney Australia, and just registered here today.
I got my copy this morning and installed it on my 1st generation iMacG5 20" (1.8GHz, NVidia GeForce FX 5200 @ 64MB VRAM and 2GB RAM) running MacOS 10.4.7 with all the latest updates.

Well, to begin, the graphics at all levels are jagged with lots of dropped frames. The background music even fails to play except for the first 5 secs at the start of a game, then you only hear the odd warning and other sounds. All settings are on low (was the default when first launched).
It's real frustrating to move your units at times as the computer feels like it's chocking on itself when it's the AI's turn (with the standard size world). It feels like playing Civ3 'large world' on low end G4 with not enough RAM.
Screen real estate was a little disapointing even though I've increased it to 1680x1050 (only thing I changed from default), but then it could just be the way the game is. It's slow to zoom in and out of the main map. I think with a 128MB VRAM graphics card, things should run a little better.
Finally, to top it all, it crashed after playing my first game, which lasted only 50 mins.
I've not started another one till I checked this forum but it seems, from a quick glance, that not many of you in the States have the game yet.

Anyway, hope this quick first impression will help others decide if it's really for them.
If I get the chance, I might add a little more later once I've played a few more games, but for now, I better get back to work! :)

Ciao for now all...

AlanH

Jun 30, 2006, 03:24 AM

Hi, welcome :wavey: :D

Wow! :eek: That's a minimum spec system, but with lots of extra RAM! Sounds like there's no hope for anyone with a below-spec system, then :(.

Did you get any clues about the crash? Did it invite you to send a crash report? If so, Aspyr might be interested in seeing it.

cocogum

Jun 30, 2006, 03:54 AM

Hey thanks AlanH,

Yes, I think you're right. One really needs the minimum specs to really enjoy the game. I am yet to try a smaller world, to see if the interface is a little more responsive and if the background music will play a bit more than what I heard.
As for the crash report, I did get the standard OS X dialog box asking to send a report, but I just closed it. I just wasn't sure if this particular report would only give info directed to Apple or if it was of any use to Aspyr.
I'll be back with a few more details when I get the chance to play this coming weekend.

Cheers :)

cocogum

Jun 30, 2006, 04:09 AM

Oh I did forget to mention that when I zoomed the main map right out to the start of the globe view, my discovered terrain and territory background graphic was totally messed up!
Big bug and sad because you can only see the names of your cities and your neighbours and that it.

AlanH

Jun 30, 2006, 05:29 AM

Yes, I think you're right. One really needs the minimum specs to really enjoy the game.From your description I wouldn't enjoy it on your Mac, which does meet the minimum specs.

I am yet to try a smaller world, to see if the interface is a little more responsive and if the background music will play a bit more than what I heard.Yes, please let us know.
As for the crash report, I did get the standard OS X dialog box asking to send a report, but I just closed it. I just wasn't sure if this particular report would only give info directed to Apple or if it was of any use to Aspyr.
If I were Aspyr I'd be keen to see any crash reports that occur as this gets into the hands of real users.

If you click "yes" you get a text screen that lists all the gobbledegook of the crash report, with a button to send it to Apple. If you send it to Apple I think they just accumulate them until they have a big pile before sending them to Aspyr. So my view is it's quicker and more efficient not to send it to Apple, but to copy the entire crash report (use Edit/Select All, then Edit/Copy) and paste it into an email to aspyr support.

If you are really keen you could even now open the Console application in /Applications/Utilities, select Logs, and navigate to the Civ4 crash log. That should contain a copy of the report for that crash, and you could do the copy/paste trick with that.

Zaimejs

Jun 30, 2006, 06:05 AM

That certainly is a bit disappointing... but probably not unexpected. This game is a resource HOG.

lost_civantares

Jun 30, 2006, 07:56 AM

As one of those hated "windows" users (thinking about Ubuntu though) dare I ask if there is an .ini that you can change the settings with to help with the demands of the game? There are a fair bunch of options that can help you at least in windows civ4, and not only in the ini, but also in the options menu.

AlanH

Jun 30, 2006, 08:00 AM

No, it's not your fault. You're not "hated", just "pitied" :p

lost_civantares

Jun 30, 2006, 08:18 AM

I may crash every 10 minuetes ( :lol: ) but at least I got my civ4 (and soon to be warlords!) 7 months (or is it 8 months?) ago, not to mention play it on mid to high graphics on my laptop! Civ3? Oh that, it's been a nice memory, I should go and look at my conquest cd for old time's sake. :D :p [/severe joking]

Zaimejs

Jun 30, 2006, 08:42 AM

Warlords for Mac?!

bio_hazard

Jun 30, 2006, 10:02 AM

enkiduMT

Jun 30, 2006, 10:12 AM

wow - my system exactly =(

what size world and how many oppoenents did you have?

well, all the more reason to save my pennies for a new MacProTower
sigh (kinda depressing)

telekon

Jun 30, 2006, 03:52 PM

bio_hazard

Jun 30, 2006, 05:55 PM

Hi Telekon
welcome!

Can you provide more details about your experience? Graphical artifacts? Sound issues? Crashes? Or just hecka slow?

Thanks!

gfeier

Jun 30, 2006, 06:45 PM

Hi, new user here.. I usually just lurk and I've been a civ junkie for years.

I have a similar setup (iMac G5, CPU Speed: 2 GHz, Memory: 1.5 GB) and just bought the game. On minimum settings this game is altogether unplayable on my system. I didn't get past 20 turns, honestly. Pretty disappointing. If you have a similar system (or worse) I can *not* recommend picking it up.

I'm going to try it on my MacBook but I can't imagine it being any better considering the integrated video card.

Please post your MacBook results. Macworld.com's first look said it was "fully playable" on a 1.83 GHz MacBook with just 512MB RAM, so I'm beginning to wonder just how "Universal" this software really is. They also said it ran "a bit smoother" on a dual 2GHz G5 with 2.5GB RAM, though, which would make me suspect a video card issue with the G5 iMacs.

ChiefSparkY

Jun 30, 2006, 07:18 PM

Thanks to cocogum and telekon for their experiences - pretty disappointing :( I'm holding off ordering it for my MacBook until someone from these forums posts their experiences on a MacBook. I know MacWorld said it was playable but I trust you guys a little more ;)

AlexandrNyetski

Jun 30, 2006, 07:18 PM

I suspect it unlikely that Aspyr would release a game with a stated minimum requirement that truly produced a BAD experience for any user with the stated minimum.

At least with requirements such as 2 GB of RAM and a G5.

I am curious as to what experience I will have with my 20" dual-core Intel iMAC with 1.5 GB of RAM. If it is anything less than completely optimal playability then Aspyr will have failed.

Could it be that G5's are already beginning to obsolete?

AlexandrNyetski

Jun 30, 2006, 07:19 PM

I'll get back to these forums as soon as my copy (pre-ordered from Amazon) is actually in my hands and I can try it.

gfeier

Jun 30, 2006, 07:42 PM

I'll get back to these forums as soon as my copy (pre-ordered from Amazon) is actually in my hands and I can try it.

That should be soon. My preorder shipped today even though I used Super Saver shipping. I'll report how it runs on a 2GHz MacBook with 1GB RAM as quickly as possible.

AlexandrNyetski

Jun 30, 2006, 07:45 PM

gfeier

Jun 30, 2006, 08:38 PM

UPS is telling me "picked up from seller's facility" in Delaware today.

I did two shipping. I don't mail order often so I don't tell them to take their time, either, so that I can not waste mine over a few bucks.

I just can't wait to see my settler unit sitting there ... and ... and ... to hear Leonard Nimoy telling me all about it ;)

I've found out that you get stocked items much more quickly with the regular shipping, but on preorders it doesn't seem to make much difference (USPS shows "departure scan" in Maryland on mine). Besides, I had $50 worth of gift certificates, so this way I didn't need to charge anything.

I don't know about Nimoy. I just hope he doesn't say "Illogical" whenever I make a particularly ill-advised move.

Helmling

Jun 30, 2006, 08:41 PM

Helmling

Jun 30, 2006, 08:44 PM

Hi, new user here.. I usually just lurk and I've been a civ junkie for years.

I have a similar setup (iMac G5, CPU Speed: 2 GHz, Memory: 1.5 GB) and just bought the game. On minimum settings this game is altogether unplayable on my system. I didn't get past 20 turns, honestly. Pretty disappointing. If you have a similar system (or worse) I can *not* recommend picking it up.

I'm going to try it on my MacBook but I can't imagine it being any better considering the integrated video card.

Try it and report back, man!

Tip from my experience with the PC version: turn down all the graphics. It saves on the polygon count a lot but really doesn't subtract from the experience.

Cougarcat

Jun 30, 2006, 09:14 PM

Telekon, have you contacted Aspyr tech support yet? You meet recommended specs, so something is obviously wrong.

Who wants to place bets when the first patch will come out? ;)

cocogum

Jun 30, 2006, 10:36 PM

that's pretty much all you can see on the PC version.

Well to be more precise, when I trade with another civilization, the last frame of their portrait is used as the background of the main map global view.
When you start a new game or when you continue a game from where you left off after quitting, the background in the global view is fine, till again you start trading, and you're back to what I mentioned above. I'm attaching a cropped screen for you to see what I mean.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/777/globalview9eq.th.jpg (http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?image=globalview9eq.jpg)

I started a second game since my first post, and I've chosen the small world size as opposed to the standard. The background music played this time and of course, turns ran a little faster due to less AI civilizations. It again crashed after about 7 hours into the game. Not too much of a deal as I've restarted and continued from the auto saves. I did, however, kept the crash log for my next email to Aspyr.
Again, the overall game is slow in response, so if you want to select/do things fast or move your map around fast, well, you're in for real disappointments. Otherwise, you will enjoy the game if you have higher hardware specs than I do.

I would be interesting to see how the MacBook will perform.

Gatekeeper

Jul 01, 2006, 12:23 AM

Hmm. Well, there isn't much more that's higher than your set-up, other than a new Intel iMac 2GH with maxed out RAM (2G) and VRAM (256MB) or the forthcoming Intel Mac towers. This thread has me wondering if even those machines will be able to handle Civ IV.

Gatekeeper

P.S. This is the specifics of the machine I have on pre-order at the Apple Store:

iMac, 20-inch, 2GHz Intel Core Duo
Options:
065-6297 ATI Radeon X1600/256MB VRAM
065-6208 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
065-6210 250GB Serial ATA drive
065-6170 SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD+RW/CD-RW)

wiglaff

Jul 01, 2006, 12:37 AM

That machine will run it fine because of the video card. It'd run it fine with half the RAM and a G5, too . The video card is what is tripping everyone else up.

Gatekeeper

Jul 01, 2006, 12:42 AM

Wow. I didn't know the G5s had such poor video cards in them. That's bad, considering those machines aren't that old ... heck, they were top-of-the-line until mid-January 2006.

But what's the big difference between the GeForceFX5200 and ATI Radeon X1600/256MB VRAM cards?

Gatekeeper

wiglaff

Jul 01, 2006, 12:52 AM

My god, it's huge.

The technology in the fx 5200 was fairly weak to begin with, and it's terribly outdated now for advanced use.

The X1600 uses a completely different and much faster interface, PCI-Express, and is considered a great performance card. It is not quite as good as it gets, but it is a VERY significant improvement over the 5200.

And the X1600 is also a new card (late 2005). It is becoming mid-range but can handle anything thrown at it.

wiglaff

Jul 01, 2006, 12:53 AM

And, as a postscript, my Geforce 5200 cannot run Civ4.

My Radeon -- a weaker card than the X1600 -- can handle it flawlessly, huge earth maps, 9 civs, etc.

The fx, for whatever reason cannot handle civ.

Gatekeeper

Jul 01, 2006, 01:19 AM

*whew* God almighty, am I ever glad I *didn't* buy an iMac anytime prior to 2006. Odd thing is, it's my understanding that the GeForceFX5200 is a card supported by Aspyr's Civ IV. I wonder if it's a bug of some sort ... it'd be terrible if no one using an iMac G5 could run Civ IV due to this card's ineffectiveness.

Gatekeeper

wiglaff

Jul 01, 2006, 01:26 AM

Do all iMac G5s come with the fx 5200? Holy hell that's insane.

The Fx5200 will run the game. It will in all likelihood be very, very sluggish, and in an already-slow game like Civ, that is really a deal-breaker.

enkiduMT

Jul 01, 2006, 01:29 AM

Gatekeeper

Jul 01, 2006, 01:30 AM

Hmm. When Civ IV came out for the PC, I remember there was quite a bit of consternation regarding video cards as well. Seems there was one model in particular that did not work well with Civ IV, and it took a patch or two before it would place nice, so to speak.

And I don't know if all iMac G5s shipped with the FX5200. I doubt it's an unfixable bug, but tell that to the folks who will have to wait for the patching process to begin.

Gatekeeper

wiglaff

Jul 01, 2006, 01:38 AM

The problem you mentioned with the original PC release affected older ATI cards and ATI laptop cards. I don't think any mac has those, and if they did, the patch to fix it is included in civ-mac anyway.

I've got to admit, it is surprising that the FX can play (though struggle a bit in the process) Rome:Total War or some first-person games, but not Civ4. Its programming seems to demand too much by a bit. But IMO it is a beautiful..and extremely fun.. game when it finally gets working.

Gatekeeper

Jul 01, 2006, 01:47 AM

Heh. Well, this should be interesting ... I expect we'll learn more about this issue (and, possibly, others) over the next week or so. In the meantime, I'm off to bed! Have a pleasant Fourth of July weekend, folks!

Gatekeeper

metalhawk

Jul 01, 2006, 07:40 AM

well, I have a G5 iMac 1.8 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, and a NV 5200fx 64MG
and I have a G4 1.4GHz, 1.2 GB RAM, Radeon 8500 64 MB
till be interesting to see which set up plays it better (albiet a slowly and on smaller worlds)

My money's on the G4/8500. In the win world, Civ IV runs nearly flawlessly (tiny graphical glitches, inconsequential) on and old Athlon XP with a Radeon 8500 I have. I haven't bothered to try it on my laptops that have 5200 Go cards on them, I don't think it'd be worth the effort :rolleyes:

Cougarcat

Jul 01, 2006, 10:34 AM

Rev. B iMac G5s have ATI Radeon 9600s w/ 128 MB RAM. This topic (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=213302) over at MacRumors suggests that the card isn't much better than the 5200.

Thing's aren't looking good for my powerbook and its 9700...

gfeier

Jul 01, 2006, 05:13 PM

Sonofagun!!! My copy showed up today (ordered from Amazon with Super Saver shipping - they mailed it yesterday by the U.S. Post Office and it got here this afternoon). I loaded it on a 2GHz MacBook with 1GB RAM, selected Continents and Warlord on a huge world with medium graphics and it appears to run OK. Now for the tutorial and I'll report more later. :D :D :D

Edit - The tutorial ran just fine.
Edit - Same sound issues as everybody else.
Edit - Running with 7 other civs on a huge world at Chieftan level - up to 1 AD in game. OK so far except for an intermittent graphics issue where the screen darkens and the game slows (sort of like night falling but reloading from a save fixes it). Considerable difference on the MacBook when it's set to best performance - combat animations work a lot better.
Edit - The graphics issue came up more frequently after 1000 AD (every 5 turns or so at 1200 AD), but the overal performance improved when I unchecked full screen-mode and started running in a window.
Edit - Just played 1500 AD - 1535 AD with no problems at all and background music playing right along. The game itself is very, very good.

dhamilton

Jul 01, 2006, 08:49 PM

Not too many performance reviews for G5 towers here, thought I'd drop my experience so far.

PowerMac G5 1.8 Ghz
1.5GB RAM
Radeon 9800 128mb

Game runs very, very poorly. It's not even a processor issue, it seems like (the processor is the only part of my machine that doesn't exceed even the Recommended specs), as turns and enemy unit movements are fast. All the under-the-hood, gameplay stuff works fine, it's just the graphics which are behaving weirdly.

I am getting maybe 4-6 fps, choppy as hell, virtually unplayable. There's no reason a card like the 9800 should do that poorly (at minimum res, to boot, with all options at minimum!). I can run World of Warcraft at 1920x1200 with everything turned all the way up at 40fps. Civ IV's pretty, but it's not THAT pretty. The intro videos stutter, as well, which is something to note; why are QuickTime movies choking a G5 tower?

Same sound issues as everyone else.

Glad we all just paid $50 to be unwitting beta testers.

Gatekeeper

Jul 03, 2006, 12:59 AM

Hmm. I'm considering delaying my Civ IV order for the time being. I'm not keen on being a guinea pig, even more so aftering paying $50.

Gatekeeper

ancestral

Jul 03, 2006, 01:22 AM

If you have a recommended system and you're experiencing unplayability, I would contact Aspyr, see if there's anything you're missing, and if troubleshooting fails, and unless a patch is imminent, then I'd ask for a refund (through wherever you purchased the game or through Aspyr). If you've gotten nowhere and paid $50 and it's not working on a system that should, you shouldn't have to eat the bullet.

girtholomew

Jul 03, 2006, 02:46 AM

I have:

iMac Intel Core Duo 20"
2GB of Ram (half 'Apple', half samsung - matched in terms of specs if not maker)
256MB VRAM

Has anyone run it on a system like this? What were the results?

I'm hopefully having a copy shipped from US this week - too impatient to wait for European release:mischief:

netbjarne

Jul 03, 2006, 03:06 AM

I got my copy this morning and installed it on my 1st generation iMacG5 20" (1.8GHz, NVidia GeForce FX 5200 @ 64MB VRAM and 2GB RAM) running MacOS 10.4.7 with all the latest updates.
Well, to begin, the graphics at all levels are jagged with lots of dropped frames.

2GB RAM and a 1.8 GHz processor should be more than enough - heck, I only got 1 GB RAM and Civ runs smoothly..

But your graphics card is ancient - do consider upgrading it to a recent model - even the economic models at ~100 US$ features 256 MB RAM these days - that will probably do the trick.

Regards
Bjarne

Beamup

Jul 03, 2006, 05:32 AM

Has anyone run it on a system like this? What were the results?
I'll be running it on that tonight - hold tight. But, if we can't get good performance out of it, nobody can. So I'm not so worried.

girtholomew

Jul 03, 2006, 06:55 AM

fair enough - that's what I thought.

But the problem is always bugs - software conflicts, VGA issues etc etc

I'm a Mac n00b (got system 3 weeks ago) - a bit shocked to see the issues but I suppose it's inevitable with ports (I assume that's what this is) that are rushed - my faith isn't shaken tho:goodjob:

metalhawk

Jul 03, 2006, 08:07 AM

The comments I'm seeing don't seem to promise it'll work well on *any* machine. I presume that a patch will be needed. There were *tons* of problems on windows when it first came out, so perhaps we're seeing the same here.

I can run it on a windows machine that I couldn't run it on when it first came out, due to patches.

It *should* work great on that G5 with 128MB 9800 - I run it on a windows machine with and A64 3200+ (which is on the same order of power as a G5 1.8, I'd think) and a 128MB 9800 and it runs flawlessly in 1600X1200, at max settings. I really don't think OpenGL is that much worse then Direct3D!

gfeier

Jul 03, 2006, 08:24 AM

2GB RAM and a 1.8 GHz processor should be more than enough - heck, I only got 1 GB RAM and Civ runs smoothly..

But your graphics card is ancient - do consider upgrading it to a recent model - even the economic models at ~100 US$ features 256 MB RAM these days - that will probably do the trick.

Regards
Bjarne

Bjarne, He's got an iMac. Not likely he will be able to upgrade the graphics card. Since it meets the published specs, he needs to contact Aspyr.

AlanH

Jul 03, 2006, 10:04 AM

I'd also be interested in a link to a recent $100 video card with 256MBytes ... for a Mac.

Zaimejs

Jul 03, 2006, 10:09 AM

Good luck finding that card at that price. About the closest thing is the Radeon 9600 http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&from=R10&satitle=radeon+9600+mac&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&bs=Search&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction=compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=68003&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=

Even the 256 mb 9800s are still going for over $200.

Gatekeeper

Jul 03, 2006, 05:06 PM

iMac, 20-inch, 2GHz Intel Core Duo — that's what I have on pre-order at the Apple Store. The other options I took include:

ATI Radeon X1600/256MB VRAM
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
250GB Serial ATA drive

Strange thing is, when I upgraded the video card from 128MB to 256MB, it only cost roughly $65 to do so. One other thing this tells me is that the top-of-the-line iMac — which is what mine will be — has a video card that is seemingly upgradable, at least by Apple. Unless they weld it into place while fulfilling the order.

Gatekeeper

Beamup

Jul 03, 2006, 05:36 PM

20" Core Duo iMac, 2.0 GHz. 1 GB RAM, 256 MB video card.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to truly stress-test it on a huge map with lots of civs in the late game, but...

On a huge map with max civs, early game, with all graphics options maxxed out, it runs beautifully. Very high framerate, extremely responsive. No crashes yet after an hour or so. It really looks gorgeous with all the eye-candy turned up.

So it works great on at least some systems. I'm seeming to see hints of a pattern that it does well on Intel chips, but poorly on G5s. Possibly a system of differing amounts of optimization somewhere, possibly a meaningless fluctuation.

No sounds, running 10.4.7 w/ QT 7.1.2. Hopefully that will be patched soon, as I'm in no mood to downgrade.

jdevo

Jul 03, 2006, 07:05 PM

Do you know what kind of video card you have? I'm thinking about upgrading... the bad performance makes this game frustrating to play.

I'm wondering about the people who have never been to these forums, and never played a previous version of civ are thinking with the bad performance and no sounds... how did aspyr miss this stuff?

Beamup

Jul 03, 2006, 07:25 PM

The standard Radeon X1600 that comes with all new iMacs, with the upgrade to 256 MB. Note that I am getting extremely frequent kernel panics now. For the first while, it worked fine. Now, I'm getting them every 10 turns or so.

Gatekeeper

Jul 03, 2006, 07:30 PM

Beamup:

Good news WRT the computer, because it's the same model and customizations I have on pre-order at the Apple Store.

Bad news, of course, is the lack of sound. This huge, honkin' bug should get emergency priority in terms of patching. In fact, if Aspyr doesn't have a patch out within two or three weeks, I'll ... why, I'll just keep whining here at CFC and 'Poly. ;)

Gatekeeper

Edit: Kernal panics? OK, now I'm not in a very good mood.

Beamup

Jul 03, 2006, 07:44 PM

Update: it appears to kernel panic every time I attempt to move a Scout. 100% reproducible so far. But that's not the only time - just the only one I've isolated.

I'm coming close to categorizing this as unplayable. The kernel panics just keep coming!

wiglaff

Jul 03, 2006, 08:11 PM

Wow. Aspyr really did a terrible job with this. Can someone define for me what a kernel panic is? Is that just a blue screen of death equivalent?

AlanH

Jul 03, 2006, 08:40 PM

Yes, sometimes referred to as a TSOD - Translucent Screen of Death. It shouldn't happen to OS X unless a very low level component gets very confused, like a hardware driver. It sounds as if the video or sound system is doing just that.

Gatekeeper

Jul 03, 2006, 09:52 PM

Heh. Just as I was about to cancel my order for Civ IV, I get confirmation from Amazon that it has been shipped and should arrive on my doorstep Friday.

Word of advice, Aspyr: Folks would have gladly accepted a delay in the release of Civ IV for the Macintosh if you'd simply explained *why* it had to be delayed. I can't believe, Aspyr, that you'd be so brazen as to ship a flawed product, so that leaves only one possibility: When Apple released 10.4.7 OS update and the QuickTime update, something got seriously screwed up in the process.

It had better be that, because if this product was shipped with known, major flaws, it's a big kick in the teeth to your customers.

Gatekeeper

netbjarne

Jul 03, 2006, 11:44 PM

I'd also be interested in a link to a recent $100 video card with 256MBytes ... for a Mac.

I didn't think Mac required special hardware anymore - thought a regular PCI or AGP card would do :blush:

Regarding the prices - I found 77 products in the ~100 US$ range on this Danish price comparision site (6 dkr ~ 1 usd): http://tinyurl.com/zrmpd

Example: NVidia GeForce 6600, PCI Express x16, 256 MB DDR II SDRAM - at $89 plus shipping.

We're are infamous of the highest tax rate (~50%) and the highest vat rate (25%) in the world - the typically means that most consumer products much cheaper in our neibourghing countries than here. So I'd be quite puzzled if you can't find a good deal on a recent video card where you live...

Sorry if this got a bit off-topic

AlanH

Jul 04, 2006, 03:11 AM

Macs use Mac-edition video cards, and we pay silly prices for them. Some people buy PC ones and flash them, but (a) you need a PC to do the flash process and (b) there seems to be a lot of voodoo surrounding the process, and you are quite likely to end up with a door stop.

Also, only very recent Macs have PCI Express slots.

A $100 Mac video card option for these specs doesn't exist ... except maybe on eBay ... if you're lucky.

Drahkkael

Jul 04, 2006, 03:59 AM

my powermac has pci express slots but i don't know if it is even worth the investment for another card....i mean, is it even going to run if i upgrade from my geforce 6600 le?

ainwood

Jul 04, 2006, 04:13 AM

Macs use Mac-edition video cards, and we pay silly prices for them. With the move to intel, any chance that they'll also make a move to use "PC" peripherals? Or is that moving too far towards complete motherboard redesign (PC in mac clothing?)

Drahkkael

Jul 04, 2006, 04:18 AM

no they won't do that. one of the things that keeps macs so stable is the fact that the hardware is guaranteed to work together. if they start throwing other hardware in there they will not have the same reliability, which is first and foremost on jobs' mind. they may however, accept more hardware because of the switch, but you can be sure that they will test the hell out of it first.....unlike aspyr......bastards. if this does not work out i will NEVER buy anything that has anything to do with aspyr ever again.

girtholomew

Jul 04, 2006, 04:23 AM

See my thread - write to Aspyr and tell them exactly that!!:goodjob:

AlexandrNyetski

Jul 04, 2006, 09:44 AM

Here is some feedback: 20" Intel iMac, 1.5 GB RAM ...

Graphics/sound/playability so far good, though I have yet to proceed much into even the ancient era.

It has crashed the OS once - some sort of video card issue - in about 30 minutes of play time.

They're going to have to patch this thing.

lateralis

Jul 04, 2006, 12:12 PM

on performance -

dual g5 2.5, 4 gigs RAM with geforce 6800 ultra. for those keeping score, that is the ABSOLUTE best AGP card released for mac in the fastest G5 that still had AGP with every RAM slot filled with a 512 chip. (*unless the 2.7's had AGP, I think those were the first PCI-E's though)

I installed the game and immediately went to the options thinking, come on, I've got an uber machine, lets see what this thing can do. I juiced the res to 1920x1200, turned all the settings up (2x AA) and had a go.

totally unplayable. from the first turn.

so I turned everything from high to medium and pulled the res back to 1344xsomething.

still worthless. It feels like when I used to play the first UNPATCHED civ3 on my G3 (you remember that version of civ3, you know you do.)

I.m gonna keep playing with settings when I get a change to see what (if anything) makes the game playable. EMPIRICAL DATA = my wife, who hates games, looked over my shoulder and said "why is everything so jumpy? is it supposed to be like that?" not a good sign.

this, coupled with the sound issues (every sound starts and then cuts off) tells me that a patch is needed and I may just wait until that happens so as to not totally ruin my enjoyment of the game forever. Mainly because I was really hoping to spend this weekend playing like 20 games to get a feel for all the new stuff. I struggled through one game and don't really feel like going back right now.

:(

Beamup

Jul 04, 2006, 12:27 PM

Sounds to me like it's an architecture problem. On my Intel iMac, not terribly close to that in terms of nominal power, it performs extremely well on the absolute highest settings. I might therefore speculate that, for some reason I couldn't begin to guess, the code is substantially better optimized for Intel than PowerPC, or something like that.

Cougarcat

Jul 04, 2006, 01:55 PM

Glenda Adams posted bad news about the kernel panics. (http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=26228&view=findpost&p=273106) It's a driver issue, and there's not much Aspyr can do.

Dalmuti

Jul 04, 2006, 06:31 PM

Strange thing is, when I upgraded the video card from 128MB to 256MB, it only cost roughly $65 to do so. One other thing this tells me is that the top-of-the-line iMac — which is what mine will be — has a video card that is seemingly upgradable, at least by Apple. Unless they weld it into place while fulfilling the order.

Gatekeeper

For those who don't know, the graphics card on the iMac is soldered onto the board, you CANNOT upgrade it after the fact. I'd advise anyone who is buying one to pay the extra $70 for the better card.

END TRANSMISSION.

Gatekeeper

Jul 05, 2006, 12:59 AM

Glenda Adams posted bad news about the kernel panics. (http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=26228&view=findpost&p=273106) It's a driver issue, and there's not much Aspyr can do.

Hmpfh. What are the odds a manufacturer (or Apple) will send out a fix in response to problems from a single game? I'd think not so good, which would make the game permanently troublesome on anything above certain resolutions.

Gatekeeper

Dalmuti

Jul 05, 2006, 06:03 AM

Hmpfh. What are the odds a manufacturer (or Apple) will send out a fix in response to problems from a single game? I'd think not so good, which would make the game permanently troublesome on anything above certain resolutions.

Gatekeeper

Actually the prospects aren't that bad. Driver issues aren't usually that complex to fix and many games have them at first. Apple will want this fixed, if it's possible, and the Civ franchise isn't a small one as far as Apple is concerned.

I think with Civ4 the real problem lies with Fraxis' poor overall technical direction and implementation of the game and Aspyr's need to get it on the shelves sooner rather then later. Personally I have a feeling that Aspyr got sucker-punched by Fraxis on this one and they have been trying to do the best they can with a poorly designed product.

That said I do think that Aspyr could have handled the roll-out better, doing a bit more due diligence on what graphics cards the more recent Macs have (within the last year and a half at least), it's only about a half dozen or so as Apple hardware is pretty standard.

Another thing to think on is that ports my soon be a thing of the past as well. There is a page one rumor; Windows Applications On Mac, Without Windows at http://www.macrumors.com/ , that, if true could spell the end for costly ports...

Gatekeeper

Jul 05, 2006, 12:24 PM

Dalmuti:

Well, I'm always hopeful that Apple, et al., will correct the driver issues ... but I also like to hedge toward "the glass is half empty" perspective on life. That way, when good things happen, I haven't gotten my hopes too high in the first place to suffer much disappointment if fixes don't come.

Regarding the rumors ... hmm, is this that Parallels thing I've been hearing about that uses WINE (whatever the heck that is) as an interface layer? If so, I understand that not many games will be supported, at least as of now. Nonetheless, it's fascinating to think about playing Windows games on an iMac without the Windows software (or an emulator).

Gatekeeper

Zukov45

Jul 05, 2006, 01:35 PM

Pharaohx

Jul 05, 2006, 01:46 PM

I'm running it on an Imac G5, 1.8 Ghz, 750 Ram, 64mb video card...and i'm rally dissapointed. All in all my computer was SUPPOSED to play the game based on the minimum requirements on the box. The sound, like posted elsewhere, is either non existant or comes in spurts. The whole experience is jagged, and any animations or zooms in/out on the world screen are really choppy...I was eagerly anticipating this game, having been hooked on Civ since Civ 1 came out way back when...I can't believe they'd post minimum requirements that are simply untrue (unless you want a turn to take 10 min) and simply alienate so many fans of the franchise that have machines that are over 6 months old. Shame i say.

Welcome to the CivFantics Board. I agree it is a shame, but I'm giving Aspyr the benefit of the doubt for now. Let's see if they can tackle the 5200 card problem before giving up on the game.

As for all the people having the sound trouble with many different Mac setups, I am hoping we see a patch soon.

But, I agree, it is shame, as it stands.

Zukov45

Jul 05, 2006, 01:59 PM

I'm willing to bet that most people that went out to buy the game did so to play it on Imacs or Power/Mac books (based on the fact that they outsell the G5 towers). Most will have similar if not the same videocards and specs, so hopefully Aspyr will be quick in fixing a problem experienced by the majority of its customers.

Pharaohx

Jul 05, 2006, 02:04 PM

I sure hope so, Zukov45.

I totally agree with you. If there are many out there like me, they use their Tower at work and an iMac, Macbook at home. Heck, it wouldn't be a big deal if I could play Civ IV at work all day, but alas, I cannot.

lateralis

Jul 05, 2006, 02:28 PM

I work at home on my dual G5.

I'm considering sealing the DVD in a time lock safe to prevent... well you know what. ;)

tone666@optusne

Jul 06, 2006, 11:40 PM

I was so looking forward to paying civ 4 after getting it delivered. Not anymore! I've now been playing it over the last 2 days and the performance is so bad. I'm using a 1.8Ghz G5 iMac with 1Gig of RAM and it is so sluggish. I started playing using OS 10.4.6. So i thought i would update. But it does not seem to make any difference running 10.4.7.

I get almost no sound apart from intermitent moments. Zooming in and out sometimes does not work, and sometimes when it does work it zooms right out and the graphics go crazy - i get a large red blotchy area and multi coloured areas. Even moving the map around using the arrow keys is very sluggish.

Moving your workers and troops around around your terrain is just as bad - so general gameplay is consequently very slow and tries the patience. I can't believe a game came be released with this many bugs. Unless a patch comes out very quickly ill be wanting my money back. Play civ 3 was dream compared to this. Not Happy!

AlexandrNyetski

Jul 07, 2006, 04:09 PM

Intel dual core iMac 20" 1.5 GB RAM - great fun so long as the anti-aliasing is turned off, and screen resolution 1 step beneath max. hums right along.

nauticus

Jul 07, 2006, 07:35 PM

Hello everybody,
This is my first post, but Ive been reading the forums ever since the C3C buzz last december. But now Ive decided to join the conversation.

Here is my experience thus far:

My system: iMac G5 1.8 GHz 1gig RAM GeForce 5200 OS 10.4.7 and quicktime 7.0.2 or whatever the latest one is.

I am happy to report that CIV is playable on my machine, not only that, it is extremely fun!!! I almost didnt open the box b/c I thought I would send it back and buy it later after reading all of the bad reports on the forum here, especially since my machine has the doomed 5200. But, I am pleasently surprise! Not only does it play, I think it plays very very well. It is fast, smooth, and doesnt have any major graphical problems. Even the fraxis intro played great with full sound.

My Game: low res, graphics low, standard map, 6 rivals, normal speed. I am in the year 1650 or so and the whole game thus far has moved right right along. In fact, I actually think that the rival turn moves happend too fast, as its sometimes hard to ascertain what they just did. My goal now is to push the limits of my system. First, see how the end game goes, then either up the graphics or increase rival # and world size.
(personal note: I dont really care about dazzling graphics and "moving" music in my civ games, so it doesnt bother me that I may not be able to play on full graphics. I like strategy and unit sound!)

What doesnt work: Unit sounds DO NOT work. This is the greatest disappointment so far. History wasnt silent. It isnt as fun when there is no combat sound or when unit movement is silent. I hope this can be fixed. The music and the ambient sound doesnt seem to work. Although, once mysteriously the music kicked in (then it went away, but honestly I cant remember if that was me turning it off:) ooops). Graphically, the globe mode has red distortion at a certain height. Other than that most things seem to work. No crashes and no kernel panics.

I am happy thus far and hope the sound problems get worked out. Now back to figuring out CIV...it is different yet very familiar...

Zukov45

Jul 09, 2006, 03:50 AM

I'm really surprised at your experience, I have the exact same computer (a bit less ram, 750mb) and its runs pretty slow and choppy...i can't believe you say that it runs 'fast,' on your imac...please give some more info, or tips on how you've managed to get it rolling well. For me its choppy and slow, and I didn't realize how much so until i loaded it on my friends intelmac and saw a blazingly fast performance.

nauticus

Jul 09, 2006, 10:42 AM

Well, first I must state that Im no serious gamer (just civ3 and sim city 4) so my reference point to "fast" and "smooth" are based on those games. For me, the screen scrolls as I imagine it should (it is a little jumpy but not choppy and the graphics maintain their integrity). Maybe on a more powerful computer it would just scroll so smooth it would be like moving my web browser. I might have a different reference point then.
All I did was load the game and start playing, making sure that I was on a standard size map, graphics and res low, and only 6 rivals.

For me, the turns are not slow, the graphics look great and dont lose their integrity, and moving around the map is fast enough--even when jumping from one part of the world to the next. Im not claiming that it works like it should on a powerful computer, but that it works very well on mine.

One last note, when I played Sim City 4 and only 256mb RAM, whenever I moved around on the screen I had to watch the game load the graphics for each detail. That was slow and choppy, but once I got 1gig it changed the whole experience.

So maybe it is our subjective notions of "fast" and "playable." Or maybe the extra RAM, or some other factor. Hope this helps.

Lebris

Jul 09, 2006, 11:18 AM

I've managed to get Civ4 up on my iBook G4, believe it or not.

I bought the computer last fall, it's specs are PowerPC 1.33 processor, with 512 mb RAM. Graphics card is Radeon 9550 with 32 mb RAM.

As you can see, this is by not even remotely close to the minimum required, but I've still managed to get it going.

Everything is, of course, turned as far down as possible, no sound, basically nothing that is not needed.

I've played all afternoon without any crashes, the game slows down after a while (I'm playing on a small map as it is), but it's still playable.

If anyone would like me to post further, jsut say so.

AlanH

Jul 09, 2006, 11:26 AM

Hi. Welcome :wavey:

Impressive! That comes close to the spec of my G4 tower. I have more RAM but only 1 GHz CPU. My Geforce 4MX is also only 32 MBytes. I wasn't expecting to be able to play the game, just to do some work on S/GOTM support, mod installation and such. But you've given me some hope that I may actually be able to see what all the fuss is about when it finally makes it to these remote shores! :)

Brad Oliver

Jul 12, 2006, 03:19 PM

I'm really surprised at your experience, I have the exact same computer (a bit less ram, 750mb) and its runs pretty slow and choppy...i can't believe you say that it runs 'fast,' on your imac...

This is believable. We've identified an issue that can cause two nearly identical Macs (typically, PowerPC-based) to run Civ4 with dramatically different performance. There is no workaround you can apply right now (that I'm aware of), but it will be addressed very soon in a patch.

AlanH

Jul 12, 2006, 03:36 PM

I can load and run it on my 1 GHz/1.12 GByte G4 system. It's slow and choppy, but then I never expected to be able to actually play it until I invest in a new system later in the year.

I see some strange behaviour that is not mentionedanywhere else as far as I can tell. I see no fog. Trees and rivers are black where there should be fog, but the base terrain is clear. I imagine it's related to my well-below-spec video card - a Geforce 4MX with 32 MBytes VRAM, but I'm intrigued that I seem to be the only person seeing it.

Beamup

Jul 12, 2006, 03:42 PM

IIRC that was reported several times on the Windows side, by people with similarly below-spec video cards. IIRC your card isn't capable of displaying the FoW for some reason.

Brad Oliver

Jul 12, 2006, 03:45 PM

I imagine it's related to my well-below-spec video card - a Geforce 4MX with 32 MBytes VRAM, but I'm intrigued that I seem to be the only person seeing it.

That's exactly right. Your card is not only below-spec, it's fantastically below spec. It doesn't support most of what Civ4 needs out of a 3D card. The 4MX is really just a GeForce 2MX with some minor enhancements, which places it several generations behind in the 3D card wars, unfortunately.

AlanH

Jul 12, 2006, 03:48 PM

I remember seeing lots of people complaining that all they could see were eyes in a black screen, but that seems to be the opposite of my experience. I also recall some comments that flood plains were visible in the fog area. I don't recall this total visibility effect being mentioned, though, and I would have expected it to come up in the GOTM forums since it's a deal breaker for competition play. But I'll have another look around.

bio_hazard

Jul 12, 2006, 04:20 PM

I had almost the opposite experience on the PC side. All terrain was black- it didn't matter whether you had revealed the terrain or not. Only resources and sometimes rivers/shorelines were visible.

I also had the "eyes-and-teeth-only" leaderheads. I uninstalled in January, so I have no idea if any of the more recent patches would help this. I had relatively frequent crashes (once ever 1-5hr) - sometimes with graphical anomalies, sometimes sound related, sometimes???

Can't remember exactly what card it is, but it was an integrated graphics card on a Presario.

AlanH

Jul 12, 2006, 04:22 PM

I think most of those issues were resolved by the patches and/or players realising they had to upgrade their video cards. I'm still aware of at least one PC player with visible flood plains though.

Brad Oliver

Jul 12, 2006, 10:00 PM

Riesstiu IV

Jul 12, 2006, 10:25 PM

I'm running civ4 on a Macbook Pro with 1.83 ghz core duo, 1gb of memory, and an ATI X1600 graphics card with 128 mb of video memory. The game runs beautifully on max settings and large maps. The only problem comes with using the scout unit on maximum settings. Do not attempt to move the scout! It completely freezes the system. Just play the game with medium graphics settings then after disbanding scouts when no longer needed, have the settings on high again.

For some odd reason, when on the menu screen my MBP’s fans rev up like crazy.

With the G5 system’s, it sounds like the graphics card is the problem. Weren’t the Geforce 5200 series cards pretty lackluster in performance?

Boy, if a G5 system can’t even run the game smoothly, then what are the chances of my brothers G4 iBook with a ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 graphics processor with 32 MB video RAM even working at all.

Edit: Also, are there supposed to be sounds when units attack, defend, and move? Because I'm getting nothing.

Cougarcat

Jul 12, 2006, 11:07 PM

This is believable. We've identified an issue that can cause two nearly identical Macs (typically, PowerPC-based) to run Civ4 with dramatically different performance.

Weird. Just out of curiosity, what is the issue exactly?

AlanH

Jul 13, 2006, 03:28 AM

Yeah, we should resolve this by simply permitting the game to not run on cards that can't handle it.

Oh, thanks! That'll kill my efforts to support the community :eek: Let's hope my new Conroe/Woodcrest/whatever Mac is released soon, and is affordable.

Brad Oliver

Jul 13, 2006, 11:06 AM

I'm running civ4 on a Macbook Pro with 1.83 ghz core duo, 1gb of memory, and an ATI X1600 graphics card with 128 mb of video memory. The game runs beautifully on max settings and large maps. The only problem comes with using the scout unit on maximum settings. Do not attempt to move the scout! It completely freezes the system. Just play the game with medium graphics settings then after disbanding scouts when no longer needed, have the settings on high again.

Turn off multisampling and you should be able to avoid the lockup. Let me know if that is not the case.

Many PowerPC macs are being affected by a performance bug, so it's hard to make an accurate assessment right now of performance. Needless to say, it should be much more in line with the Intel Macs.

The sound bugs in the Mac version are known, and are in fact approaching legendary status. ;)

Brad Oliver

Jul 13, 2006, 11:08 AM

Oh, thanks! That'll kill my efforts to support the community :eek: Let's hope my new Conroe/Woodcrest/whatever Mac is released soon, and is affordable.

The bug you're seeing does represent a serious cheating issue with multiplayer games, and it's difficult to make a case for trying to find a solution for such a low-end card as opposed to just eliminating it. The card has none of the shader support necessary to fog the items properly, and there is no non-shader code in the game to do that.

Brad Oliver

Jul 13, 2006, 11:19 AM

Weird. Just out of curiosity, what is the issue exactly?

Civ4 has a "hotload" mechanism whereby it monitors several game folders and gets notified if any files are added/removed from those folders while the game is running. We used a kqueue/kevent mechanism to do this on the Mac.

As it turns out, on some machines, kqueue starts failing, and we end up spawning off dozens of threads and consuming a huge chunk of CPU time. If you are seeing CPU usage of 180% on a dual-CPU PPC or Intel mac, that's what's going on. It doesn't happen for everyone (none of us 3 programmers, for example), but we were able to finally reproduce it in dramatic fashion on Glenda's Mac.

bio_hazard

Jul 13, 2006, 01:16 PM

The bug you're seeing does represent a serious cheating issue with multiplayer games, and it's difficult to make a case for trying to find a solution for such a low-end card as opposed to just eliminating it. The card has none of the shader support necessary to fog the items properly, and there is no non-shader code in the game to do that.

This assumes everyone plays multi-player. Seems better to somehow add a flag that a game was played using an unsupported video card. Then, in situations where it would matter for competition purposes, administrators or whoever could exclude those games as needed. As I mentioned earlier in this post- my PC has an under-spec integrated graphics card that showed no terrain at all- far from giving me an advantage it was a real pain in the butt.

This would likely make sense for Aspyr too: look how many people are playing Civ4 on underspec machines!

Gatekeeper

Jul 13, 2006, 01:31 PM

Civ4 has a "hotload" mechanism whereby it monitors several game folders and gets notified if any files are added/removed from those folders while the game is running. We used a kqueue/kevent mechanism to do this on the Mac.

As it turns out, on some machines, kqueue starts failing, and we end up spawning off dozens of threads and consuming a huge chunk of CPU time. If you are seeing CPU usage of 180% on a dual-CPU PPC or Intel mac, that's what's going on. It doesn't happen for everyone (none of us 3 programmers, for example), but we were able to finally reproduce it in dramatic fashion on Glenda's Mac.

I'm sure she appreciated it, too, didn't she? ;)

Gatekeeper

P.S. Define "dramatic," please. ;)

AlanH

Jul 13, 2006, 01:53 PM

This assumes everyone plays multi-player. Seems better to somehow add a flag that a game was played using an unsupported video card. Then, in situations where it would matter for competition purposes, administrators or whoever could exclude those games as needed. As I mentioned earlier in this post- my PC has an under-spec integrated graphics card that showed no terrain at all- far from giving me an advantage it was a real pain in the butt.

This would likely make sense for Aspyr too: look how many people are playing Civ4 on underspec machines!

That would make sense. The simplest way to mark such games would be to remove the Protected Assets flag in the saved game. All competitive games are played using protected assets, so this would be an immediate red flag.

gfeier

Jul 13, 2006, 02:45 PM

Yeah, we should resolve this by simply permitting the game to not run on cards that can't handle it.

And, of course, Aspyr would refund the purchase price to those folks since the game would no longer work, right? Actually, I guess Aspyr would have to make the refunds in states with the appropriate consumer protection laws. Some credit card companies might also refund the cost, at the expense of the retailer, under these circumstances. REALLY bad idea! :nono:

Riesstiu IV

Jul 13, 2006, 03:48 PM

Turn off multisampling and you should be able to avoid the lockup. Let me know if that is not the case.

Thanks, that seems to have worked.

The sound bugs in the Mac version are known, and are in fact approaching legendary status. ;)

To be honest, I didn't even realize unit sounds were gone well after a day of playing the game since my ears were focused on the culturally unique music when zooming in near cities.

Nevertheless, I think this Mac port is pretty good for a rushed release. These two bugs haven't caused my games to be unplayable.

Thanks for not dashing my brother's hopes completely concerning the PowerPc performance, but it still sounds like his video card is underpowered. It doesn’t even meet the minimum requirements.

Brad Oliver

Jul 13, 2006, 05:20 PM

And, of course, Aspyr would refund the purchase price to those folks since the game would no longer work, right?

Such cards are dramatically below our minimum requirements - not by a little, but by quite a lot. To have any expectation of using the game in the first place is almost beyond belief.

AlanH

Jul 13, 2006, 05:52 PM

To be clear, I had no expectation of playing the game with the GeForce 4MX. I *did* hope to be able to provide some assistance with compatibility issues for mods, getting players into the GOTM competitions and such. This stuff really only requires that the game installs and launches. If the patched version no longer allows that I can probably still do my things using the unpatched version, so I guess I'll survive.

gfeier

Jul 13, 2006, 06:32 PM

Such cards are dramatically below our minimum requirements - not by a little, but by quite a lot. To have any expectation of using the game in the first place is almost beyond belief.

Help me understand this, Brad. I find the unsupported MacBook plays the game plenty well enough for me to enjoy it. My daughter bought a copy for her MacBook and agrees (and so did the Macworld reviewer who found the game to play OK on a 1.83 GHz MacBook with 512 MB RAM), but you say that we're all wrong and should not have paid $50 to Aspyr for this game. Is Aspyr planning to stay in business? Read these forums. Your customers don't agree with your minimum requirements, probably because most of them, like us, are solo gamers. I believe the majority of your customers do not plan to ever play on line. If Aspyr want to leave all this money on the table it's their business, but I think they'd have to be nuts. :crazyeye:

khedron

Jul 13, 2006, 07:37 PM

Help me understand this, Brad. I find the unsupported MacBook plays the game plenty well enough for me to enjoy it. My daughter bought a copy for her MacBook and agrees (and so did the Macworld reviewer who found the game to play OK on a 1.83 GHz MacBook with 512 MB RAM), but you say that we're all wrong and should not have paid $50 to Aspyr for this game.

You know, when I bought Civ III, back when, I was playing it on a souped up Pismo. And I thought it was playable then too -- until I saw how it ran on my girlfriend's TiBook. I didn't play it again until I bought the iMac G5 last December.

This is to say, if you find it playable and enjoy it, that's great! More power to you. But that doesn't mean that the people who buy it and complain about how it runs on setups which are below the listed specs should get tons of sympathy. A little, sure, but not a lot.

gfeier

Jul 13, 2006, 09:38 PM

...This is to say, if you find it playable and enjoy it, that's great! More power to you. But that doesn't mean that the people who buy it and complain about how it runs on setups which are below the listed specs should get tons of sympathy. A little, sure, but not a lot.

Agreed, but I haven't seen anyone posting here who has said the game is unplayble on a MacBook. Do you think it would be a smart business move for Aspyr itself to make the game unplayable on Apple's hottest-selling machine as Brad has suggested?

glendaadams

Jul 14, 2006, 08:35 AM

A couple notes about Civ 4 & unsupported configs like the MacBook (not Pro):

- we don't intentionally a game not work on those macs. Of course we'd love if it did. But we have to draw the line somewhere, and the Intel integrated graphics chips are very underpowered compared to the rest of the supported video cards. Once we had the game up and running on the Mac and had done initial optimization, we tested on all the configs we could and decided which we thought were playable and which weren't. We felt the MacBook and Intel Mac Mini with integrated graphics didn't have a good enough play experience, especially later in the game, to be officially supported. That doesn't mean you might not be perfectly happy with how it runs on the MacBook, depending on what frame rate you look for as playable.

- The unsupported configs are simply that- unsupported. If you buy a copy of the game and run it on a Mac below spec, and are happy with, that's great. But if you experience problems, Aspyr won't be able to provide technical support and troubleshooting. We have to draw the line somewhere, simply so we don't end up trying to support every model and OS apple has shipped in the last ten years. If you buy Civ 4 or any game intending to run it on a below spec Mac, you just need to know you are taking a risk. If it doesn't work well, you can't return it for a refund, and you can't call/email Aspyr or whichever publisher made the game to get tech support to try to make it work.

Hopefully that clears things up. As far as the integrated graphics goes, we're constantly working to figure out ways to get performance up on future games to support as much of Apple's hardware as we can. But sometimes Apple throws us a curve- we had no idea Intel macs would ship with integrated graphics until the day apple announced them.

Glenda

gfeier

Jul 14, 2006, 10:05 AM

glendaadams

Jul 14, 2006, 10:12 AM

Thanks for the response, Glenda, but it doesn't address my point which is that Brad said that there was some consideration of a patch which would make the game unplayable on unsupported configurations:

"Yeah, we should resolve this by simply permitting the game to not run on cards that can't handle it."

If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, that's your business, of course, but I think it's a really bad idea.
I'm not sure what you thought Brad meant, but we have no plans to patch the game to refuse to run on certain hardware. At most we may put in an alert warning you your Mac is below spec so you may experience problems.

I also don't understand how we shoot our selves in the foot by only officially supporting configurations that match our minimum specs. To be honest, it costs us more to provide hours of tech support to a user who bought the game to run on an unsupported config than the money we make off the sale of the game. We're better off not taking someone's money for something we know doesn't work (not to mention that fact that it seems kind of sleazy to do that).

Glenda

AlanH

Jul 14, 2006, 10:20 AM

It sounds as if there are two levels of out-of-spec graphics that are being confused here, and the heat is being generated by a misunderstanding.

Level 1. I reported that fog of war doesn't show up on my way-below-spec card. That's a real problem for competition and multi-player games, obviously. Brad was responding to this case, saying they should prevent players from running such configs at all so as to avoid cheating. They can presumably detect such cards, as they don't support specific capabilities like shaders that are required by the software. I would obviously prefer that such players' saves were flagged in some way rather than Civ4 refusing to run, but ... whatever.

Level 2. Video systems like MacBook integrated graphics that work and support all teh graphics functions required, but are slow or give poor graphics performance. It sounds as if this is the case that Glenda is addressing, and that they will not prevent players from using this level of hardware.

Brad Oliver

Jul 14, 2006, 01:12 PM

It sounds as if there are two levels of out-of-spec graphics that are being confused here, and the heat is being generated by a misunderstanding.

You've hit it on the head.

If your card is so bad that you can easily cheat in a multiplayer game, we need to address that. In the case of the GeForce 4MX, our options are extremely limited. I can see us disallowing its use in a multi-player game, but allowing it for single-player. That'd be weird, but if the PC guys know you can so easily cheat, it'll only lead to trouble down the road.

bio_hazard

Jul 14, 2006, 03:15 PM

You've hit it on the head.

If your card is so bad that you can easily cheat in a multiplayer game, we need to address that. In the case of the GeForce 4MX, our options are extremely limited. I can see us disallowing its use in a multi-player game, but allowing it for single-player. That'd be weird, but if the PC guys know you can so easily cheat, it'll only lead to trouble down the road.

I guess that would solve some of the problems, but would require additional steps to safeguard the fan-organized single-player competitions. This might be a question better addressed to AlanH, but if, for example, the GOTM or HOF had clear instructions "MAY NOT BE PLAYED ON VIDEO CARDS X,Y,Z", how many people would be likely to do this anyway? If the cards are so bad, I would guess the games would have other performance issues that would make cheating in this way such a chore that there might not be many people enduring that kind of game. Worst case might be an Ancient Age screen shot that shows more than it should?

AlanH

Jul 14, 2006, 03:50 PM

I guess that would solve some of the problems, but would require additional steps to safeguard the fan-organized single-player competitions. This might be a question better addressed to AlanH ...
I agree it's very unlikely that someone would choose to play that way. The problem is that although you and I might think it's unplayable on a GeForce 4MX, there may be someone out there who disagrees and who is prepared to cheat by using it. As long as that possibility exists the competition's integrity is tainted by it.

That's why I liked your suggestion that Aspyr could simply flag any games that have been played on hardware with no shader support, or whatever else results in spoiler information being available to players. Removing the protected assets flag in any save made on such a Mac would be sufficient. It still allows people to play solo games if they really want to, maybe making a few more sales for Aspyr, but prevents them entering any competition - single or multi-player - where protected assets are mandated.