Major bugs in GWX 3.0

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Too late.....I've deleted everything GWX related.

Back to Pacman for me.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It is on like Donkey Kong!

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Those specs are more than good enough to run SH3/GWX, having a bit more Ram or better gfx card might improve your fps marginally at best. The CTD you get will not be related to your hardware - i gaurentee it.

@ Seawolf, SH3 is now an OLD 2005 game that ran perfectly on a single core CPU with 1GB and an old 6600GT 128mb.... If you have the 'recomended' specs for stock SH3, GWX should not be an issue.
end of story.

Originally Posted by SeaWolf U-57

Nice statement but even Wreford-Brown do's not agree with you on that look two post up

I see where this thread is going.....

Let me leave you with this;

Danlisa = GWX Dev
JU_88 = GWX Dev
Jimbuna = GWX Dev
Wreford-Brown = Not GWX Dev

No offense to WB (he's being most helpful, as will most around here) but when 3 GWX dev teamers tell you that the game + GWX is stable on specific hardware stats, you can take that to the bank. All GWX Devs have spent more time (gameplay hours) testing than they actually have playing. We identified the limits of the SH3 core, exceeded them and then scaled the expansion back to ensure stability.

[AVGWarhawk]

You forgot one danlisa:

AVGWarhawk=douche bag

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

You forgot one danlisa:

AVGWarhawk=douche bag

You looked nothing like one the last time I glanced

[Wulfmann]

Bugger!! It seems my reading this post has caused rain to move into Florida where we get very little of anything but wonderful weather from November to April.
Not sure if the time frame to blame president Bush has passed but it seems, after careful review of other posters in this thread it is GWX3 Gold that has brought this foul weather.

Oh the virtual humanity!

Am I alone in wondering why someone wants to upgrade to the most reality possible then do things that have no basis in any kaleun's reality???

Wulfmann

[SeaWolf U-57]

Originally Posted by danlisa

I see where this thread is going.....

Let me leave you with this;

Danlisa = GWX Dev
JU_88 = GWX Dev
Jimbuna = GWX Dev
Wreford-Brown = Not GWX Dev

No offense to WB (he's being most helpful, as will most around here) but when 3 GWX dev teamers tell you that the game + GWX is stable on specific hardware stats, you can take that to the bank. All GWX Devs have spent more time (gameplay hours) testing than they actually have playing. We identified the limits of the SH3 core, exceeded them and then scaled the expansion back to ensure stability.

Now this I Believe but thanks anyway.

For Windows Vista users 2Gb of ram is recommended for normal system usage although if heavy usage that comes with playing high graphical games is the norm we recommend at least 3Gb of ram and also a higher spec Graphics card to allow the game to run smoothly.

Window 7 User need know the minimum system requirement of Ram for using the 64Bit version of this OP is 3Gb although 4Gb and above is recommended for game players.

[SeaWolf U-57]

Originally Posted by Padvotke

Why you pushing this Win7 into the topic ? Most ppl stil sticks to XP anyway. Since Win7 is a little resource predator. It's not that clever to use Win7 on weaker systems but it's already offtopic. This is clear that if you can run stock SH3 you also can run GWX3 since it uses the very same graphic engine. The problem of CTD as we discussed may be lying inside poor code of original game wich is hardcoded and can not be accessed by moders. I bet you could use a NASA supercomp to play SH3+GWX but you would still get random CTDs..

In what post did MT say what Operating System he was using I gave a answer to all types of OP and how is it off topic.
The year and specs you are say is needed no longer apply as even XP has had two service packs added to it which also need more specs to run than the original version of the operating system.
I wonder how long it will be until you see one of the later operating systems working and think to yourself how come it runs so much faster.
So can I meet you at the Closes hardware store.

[Wreford-Brown]

Originally Posted by danlisa

I see where this thread is going.....

Let me leave you with this;

Danlisa = GWX Dev
JU_88 = GWX Dev
Jimbuna = GWX Dev
Wreford-Brown = Not GWX Dev

No offense to WB (he's being most helpful, as will most around here) but when 3 GWX dev teamers tell you that the game + GWX is stable on specific hardware stats, you can take that to the bank. All GWX Devs have spent more time (gameplay hours) testing than they actually have playing. We identified the limits of the SH3 core, exceeded them and then scaled the expansion back to ensure stability.

Always happy to be proven wrong by the guys who know a hell of a lot more than me about GWX .

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

You looked nothing like one the last time I glanced

You're right Jim. My hose is much longer!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by jimbuna
You looked nothing like one the last time I glanced



You're right Jim. My hose is much longer!

That's not what I heard

[MidnightTempest]

Originally Posted by flakmonkey

Only port i could think of that even came close to whart you typed was southampton, just checked it out, no crashes or problems of any kind. In fact its a port in name only, there are no 3d docks or ships present.

If this is the port you were referring to i can see no reason for a ctd, although there did appear to be quite a lot of land units on the shore so perhaps if you have low system ram <1Gb this could cause issues loading all those building/tree models.

Nope.

My specs are:

Vista 64 bit
Intel Quad Core 2.33 GHZ
4G RAM

My graphics card is a bit outdated, GeForce 9500 GS, but for a 2005 game it's more than adequate.

So I don't think the crash is caused by my system.

[MidnightTempest]

Originally Posted by Wreford-Brown

Which port are you talking about? If you can let us know then we can do some testing to see if we're also having problems or whether it's unique to your system. We'll also need a fairly precise location for where you suffer the CTD. My system sometimes crashes when I hit a mine at high TC. It's a fault caused by my computer specs rather than any of the mods I've got installed and, although annoying, I've learned to live with it.

We'll also need the date that you're suffering the CTD, as some problems are time/date specific.

With a little more info we can do some more investigation and try and help you out.

The exact name of the port is Southampton, it is directly west of Portsmouth, grid BF31.

I don't forget the exact date, but it was early October to mid-October, it was a night between 0000-0400.

The location of where I crash every time is the small passage in between Portsmouth and Southampton, i was heading NWW towards Southampton.

Hope these info helps.

[MidnightTempest]

Originally Posted by danlisa

WTF, I have time to spare.

Harbour entrance depth:

When striving for realism (in as far as possible within game constraints) GWX focused on the RL activities of the majority of UBoat operations. This obviously focuses on the Atlantic, North Sea, Pacific, Med and Indian Ocean theaters, not the unhistorical aspects of harbour raiding. While it is possible to alter the sea floor depth using a terrain tool, it was considered unnecessary as all UBoat commanders knew that raiding was a coffin nail.

As for the traffic you found and without checking the campaign files, I would suggest that, while they are sinkable, they are only eye candy. They will only spawn as docked items. Note that Stock SH3 had significantly less harbours and nearly no harbour traffic.

That sucks.........I was hoping to find some larger <10k ton ships to sink in ports rather than trying to find them out in the ocean.

Military naval history in WWII isn't my forte, but didn't Gunther Prien sneaked into Scapa Flow and sank the Royal Oak?

I still wish they give you the option to raid docks.

Besides Portsmouth, several other docks I foud plagued with the impassible depth level are: Loch Ewe, Portland, and Ullapool.

The only one I managed to raid succesfully is Lerwick and Scapa Flow. Lerwick also has the impassible depth floor, but I did some exploring and found a small passage that subs can pass through.

Scapa Flow has no impassible depth level.

[MidnightTempest]

Another two bugs I found that I must mention:

The attack periscope ship identification system is almost DOWNRIGHT BROKEN at night against stationary ships. I can see the docked ship plain and clear as it is no more than 500 meters away, and yet my periscope fails to recognize it as a ship at all. In a stormy weather at night, I can be literally 10 meters away from a docked ship and my periscope still won't identify it as a ship.

However, when I surface my ships on the exact spot, my watchers always inform me of warships being close by, and enemy ships will attack me in kind, thus ruling out the fact that they may be merely decoration objects.


Second bug is that whenever I reload a save while submerged in the water, my sub will always be at the 11 m depth, semi submerged but my watchers are at duty on the bridge.... And even when I set it to silent mode in the save, after loading the save the sub will be in non-silent mode. Pretty annoying.....

[AVGWarhawk]

Second bug is that whenever I reload a save while submerged in the water, my sub will always be at the 11 m depth, semi submerged but my watchers are at duty on the bridge.... And even when I set it to silent mode in the save, after loading the save the sub will be in non-silent mode. Pretty annoying.....

This bug came with the game. Do not save submerged or by other vessels.