the graphics are too good

[Wodan]

My main issue is that the "recommended" specs on the box are deficient.

My computer at home (not the laptop, the desktop) has the recommended RAM, a slightly better video card, and a better processor. This computer moves units painfully slowly on the lowest graphical settings possible. It's bad enough that it isn't tolerable. There shouldn't be movement lag and long time between turns when using the RECOMMENDED, NOT MINIMAL specs on the lowest settings! That's sour.

Depends a lot on map size and other factors.

e.g., you can meet the "recommended settings" on a huge map, and that's entirely different than meeting the "recommended settings" and playing on a tiny map.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Depends a lot on map size and other factors.

e.g., you can meet the "recommended settings" on a huge map, and that's entirely different than meeting the "recommended settings" and playing on a tiny map.

I'm talking about a standard map, you know default game settings. If the recommended specs can't play that effectively maybe they should recommend higher specs.

 

[deanej]

The recommended specs for civ are below the minimum specs for Windows (the real minimum, not the hilariously low specs Microsoft puts on the box). And this applies to XP too, not just Vista. For XP you should have a minimum of 1 GB of ram. For Vista you should have 2.

I'm also pretty sure that the memory error in vanilla wasn't fixed until Warlords or BtS and was never patched down to vanilla.

 

[Willem]

I'm also pretty sure that the memory error in vanilla wasn't fixed until Warlords or BtS and was never patched down to vanilla.

Yes it was. It was dealt with in one of the very early patches. Though there still seems to be some sort leak as I always need to reboot in the late game aftre a few hours.

 

[lermfish]

Ahh, graphics and compys...

I have a computer that can barely even run WoW at a playable speed, but...

Civ4 works for me perfectly.

 

[Wodan]

I'm talking about a standard map, you know default game settings. If the recommended specs can't play that effectively maybe they should recommend higher specs.

Or, if the recommended specs works for other people, maybe it's you.

 

[lordmacroer]

So rather than acknowledging that the other 20+ posts might have a valid point, you jump on the only one that supports your view.

This is just a rant, so unless you can direct me to a less graphic intensive mod for civ 4 or you agree with me, I dont want to read your crap.

I dont think any of the other 20 post were supportive or lead me to a less graphic intensive mod for civ 4. Therefore, they are irrelevevant to this thread and the people who made them wasted their time.

 

[deanej]

A 2D graphics mod for civ can't be made - Firaxis never released the source for the graphics system.

 

[Wodan]

A 2D graphics mod for civ can't be made - Firaxis never released the source for the graphics system.

Or, it can be made, it just won't use less memory.

 

[deanej]

It wouldn't be truly 2D. The most the graphics can be modified is the art def files. That's it (though the interface can be modified in python). It would still be 3D, even if it was just flat nif files with textures on them.

 

[Willem]

I dont think any of the other 20 post were supportive or lead me to a less graphic intensive mod for civ 4. Therefore, they are irrelevevant to this thread and the people who made them wasted their time.

Or maybe you just wasted your time hoping for a graphics quick fix. The bottom line is that no one has access to the graphics engine. It's under license by Firaxis from Gamebryo, I believe, so no one is allowed to make any alterations to the base code.

 

[Ajidica]

As above posters have siad, Civ graphics are some of the lowest for any modern game, and unless your playing on a dinosaur comp, your comp should be able to handle it. Shell out at most $60 to upgrade your comp.

Lordmacroer: out of curiosity, why do you have a naked fat guy as your avatar?

 

[GONdorman]

Civ 3 graphics were 2D. That is now an obsolete format. Not only does it cost more to produce a game that way, but the general public expects new games to be produced in 3D these days. For one thing it's the only way to handle the plethora of different monitor resolutions out there as 2D graphics don't scale, 3D does. So yes, there was a need to jump off to Civ 4 graphics. As far as 3D standards go Civ 4's graphics are pretty basic. If your computer can't run them, then it's time for a new system. Or at least a video card. You people who keep moaning about Civ 4's graphics are starting to sound like a bunch of old fogey's: "Well back in the good old days..." It's time to get in touch with the modern world.

I was not moaning, and you need not tell me "fogey". I was just saying my opinion.

I prefer Civ4 graphics over Civ3, I just thought they weren´t essential.

You´re right though, Firaxis had to evolve. Let´s keep cool...

BTW I CAN run the game. And I quite prefer Civ4 over Civ3

EDIT:
@lordmacroer

What are your specs?
Have you patched your game?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Or, if the recommended specs works for other people, maybe it's you.

Yes, because I can somehow influence the operation of a machine that clearly meets the specs......

Dude, it's not like the thing doesn't work for 100% of my other programs or something, including ones that are similarly tight with the minimums. I have to play civ IV on my laptop (which is actually better since it's newer and runs it quite well, even on larger maps).

My desktop will certainly run the game on standard maps. Maybe civ's idea of "recommended" entails a lot of slowdown compared to better machines or something. "quick move" should actually be...quick.

It'd be one thing if I was trying to run default graphics on the recommended specs...but no. I was running MINIMUM graphical settings with greater than the recommended specs. That civ can't at least run smoothly with that? It's a joke. Although maybe I'm just spoiled because I have a high end machine, and people who like taking 7 years per turn aren't bothered by the slower movements because it's such a small % of their time played. Possibly, from that perspective, it IS me. I'm pretty sure your typical user of this game doesn't spend 20+ min/turn though, even if that is *somewhat* prevalent on the forums.

 

[Wodan]

Yes, because I can somehow influence the operation of a machine that clearly meets the specs......

TMIT had his sense of humor shot off in the war.

(ps it was a joke!)

Although maybe I'm just spoiled because I have a high end machine....

What are the specs of your high-end machine that nevertheless has trouble running CIV? Maybe we can identify the component causing the trouble.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TMIT had his sense of humor shot off in the war.

(ps it was a joke!)


What are the specs of your high-end machine that nevertheless has trouble running CIV? Maybe we can identify the component causing the trouble.

Actually, my laptop runs civ IV great, even on the larger map settings. The only slowdown I get is like huge/marathon post 1800 AD or so, and then it's like 3-5 seconds between which really irks me but in reality isn't so bad...but my laptop is well above specs...my desktop not so much .

My guess is that my desktop can't handle it due to the RAM - it's got the recommended amount but it's not exactly quality or anything. I could possibly tweak my settings to free up more memory for civ, but like I said the laptop spoils me because its performance of such little time between turns/etc is so much better.

 

[Willem]

My guess is that my desktop can't handle it due to the RAM - it's got the recommended amount but it's not exactly quality or anything.

Civ needs a lot of RAM in the late game on larger maps. I've seen it use up well over 1 gig. You should have at least 2 gig in your machine if you want decent performance later on, 3 if you're running Vista.

 

[deanej]

Do you have "Show friendly moves" on? That option slows the game down a lot for reasons unrelated to system performance - the AI moves every unit it owns every turn, where the unit has something to do or not. This means that there are units the literally move a tile and then back to where they started all in the same turn while doing NOTHING along the way (the AI does not comprehend "sleep" and "fortify"). This is especially bad for naval and air units, as land units at least defend cities in the early game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ needs a lot of RAM in the late game on larger maps. I've seen it use up well over 1 gig. You should have at least 2 gig in your machine if you want decent performance later on, 3 if you're running Vista.

Haha! I know way better than to fall for that sleezy vista trick! I'm not going to touch that nuclear software bomb even with gloves.

My laptop only has 1k but even that seems to do just fine, whereas anything less seems like...er...the extremely late game from turn 1.

 

[Wodan]

Haha! I know way better than to fall for that sleezy vista trick! I'm not going to touch that nuclear software bomb even with gloves.

I know what you mean. I won a free copy of Vista at a conference, and it's still sitting here on the shelf unopened.

My laptop only has 1k but even that seems to do just fine, whereas anything less seems like...er...the extremely late game from turn 1.

Your laptop probably has a separate integrated video memory, while it's entirely possible your desktop is using main memory to supplement (or even entirely fulfill) video memory.