Scourge of War Boards

Ok, I had to go to bed last night after getting the game, so I only played half an hour of the corps toturial. Now from what I've gatherd it has 4 corps in it, so mabye as many as 40 000 soldiers.

Man did my compturer buckle under the pressure, ofcourse had the game played on the CPU or 3d card it would have run smooth, but ofcourse the main bottle neck of the game is the same as my comtpurer the RAM I only have 2gig, now usualy that's not a problem as most modern games use the CPU and 3d card to run the game, with RAM only having a secondary role.

So I'm gonna have to buy more ram, luckely it only costs $75 for two more gig or ram

I run with 3 gigs and it seems to be pretty smooth. Only if I do a whole OOB battle does the game crawl.

I am also upgrading the RAM in my machine from 2 GIG to 4 GIG.

I ordered 2 additional GIG from Crucial .com on Saturday and should be here tomorrow !!!

Chamberlain

I run a 4 gig system, and believe me it runs smooth.

Drummerboy wrote:

I run a 4 gig system, and believe me it runs smooth.

Great news Drummerboy!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo:

Chamberlain

Yep 4 gigs is sweet!

Lol, I`m a 54 year old gamer, and been doing this for years. That`s why I bought a system that will take up to 8 gig if I need it. The games today really burn up the ram, so it`s wise to be ready for it.

Someone silly question if my OS doesn't register anything over 2.5gbs *512mb video card makes it so 500gbs do not show* would it be wise to go higher than 3gbs? Would it still work despite the OS not showing it any higher? I don't know much about this kind of stuff.

I have been under the impression that if a ( 32bit ) operating system exceeds the ( 2.0 GB ) of ram in a game, the game will usually crash to desktop!

I have Vista with 3.0GB of ram, but the Operating System will usually use about (800 MB) of that, leaving two GB to run the games.

davinci

According to Microsoft, this is possible:

The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB.

I found that in this article: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pl ... aemem.mspx

Now, I interpret that to mean that an application has to be programmed to utilize IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in order to take advantage of that extra 1GB. I'm sure Norb could tell us if SOW:G is so enabled or not.

I think I'm going to try that out tonight. I've got 6GB of RAM on my Windows XP Pro machine, and if that switch works, I might as well use it until I upgrade to WIndows 7.