Needs more than 512.

[BigBear]

Do not complain about this game running poorly or having screwed up graphics unless you meet the minimum video card requirement and have MORE than 512mb ram. Not just 512, but more.

The game is playable with 512 but only on small maps, and even then it gets slow.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Okay.

[RAKKIR]

I cannot think of a valid reason why this game SHOULD need 512 MB of RAM, let alone more than 512. This game should function just fine with 512 MB of RAM.

However, my experience indicates that it does not. However I feel this is a fault of the developers (memory leak, poor design, etc.) rather than the true requirements for a game of this type.

Quite frankly, I think this game has a rather large memory leak. I've watched it go through my RAM like water. Several gigs worth of RAM, and then my ENTIRE pagefile.

Yes my video-card is more than capable and is more than the "Recomended" (not minimum) specs. My drivers are updated, etc.

I hope future patches make this game playable. I truly enjoy Civilization and bought this as soon as it cames out. However, I'm also honest and think people DO have a right to complain about a game that fails to live up to par even when played on a system well above it's "recomended" specs.

[Chernobyl2]

I think the only game the minimum specs apply to is a fast game on a small island map against 1 AI oponnent.

[CrONoS]

If i'm right:

The only problem that indicate when you the need more RAM is when the HD is spinning. Otherwise RAM dont have any effect on the Frame par second.

So for myself: I have 512mg ram. The game run fine on standart map, the HD never spin, or if it spin, it's between turn, and never to stop the game to be unplayable.

So if the game become slow, and your hard disk is not spinning. It's the not that you need more RAM, but you need a better GPU or a better CPU. Or maybe increase your virtual memory...

see ya

[camsmith]

Gotta add to this and say it doesn't seem to help having more than 512mb.

Just added another 256 to mine to make 768 and I get the exact same probs. Audio starts stuttering and then it either CTD's or freezes completely.

[Guy Saults]

I have an Athlon XP 3000, Nforce2 board, 256 MB GeForce 5500 AGP video card, and 2x512 MB PC 3200 RAM running in dual-channel mode, XP Home SP 2 yada yada yada and I takecareof myfreakincomputerandmakesureall thefreakinupdatesareinstalled; antispyware; antivirus;
withnoextraprogramsrunninginthebackground,etc,etc, etc and YES. I am also having huge problems.

Every other game works just fine, thank you.

It ain't us, folks, these jokers shipped a pig, and do not let them convince you that you need new glasses to see the unicorn!

[Drachasor]

For me going to 768 let me play on standard maps, but it will still crash on large.

I don't think it should take up this much memory. I have a friend who says that the first time a game genre goes from 2D to 3D crazy-high memory usage is not uncommon (though I think what we have is still super-crazy).

I don't think there is a memory leak though. Rather I think the game engine isn't optimized very well. That or something else is going. I have not yet heard from anyone with less than a gig of ram who doesn't have crashes on huge maps, however (and many people with a gig that do have crashes there). It seems like it wants to load way too much raw graphical information into the memory. Such as every single thing on the whole map. I think each unit on the screen, even ones in stacks (below other units) might be rendered (or at least taking memory). More than once I've seen stacked units display parts of the units "beneath" the "top" guy on the stack. A lot of things like this could easily eat up a bunch of memory when you put them all together. There's some sort of gross inefficiency going on*.

Roughly it seems like 512 is good for small or smaller. Every 256 more gives you another map size. Individual systems might be off this estimation by one map size up or down, but most seem to follow it. (Good rule of thumb so far).

In any case, we shouldn't be too hard on the Firaxis team. I don't believe they are that experienced in 3D graphics in this sort of setting (Civ-type games). Mistakes were bound to happen. I'm sure it will get better as the patches come along.

-Drachasor

*Someone well aquainted with graphics programming could correct me. The above is how the situation seems to me.

[Chernobyl2]

everything on the map - I think you're right. I wasn't having a problem on my standard map until I traded maps with the other continent and and my "explored" map area became at least twice as big.
Chern

[Guy Saults]

My experiences are very similar, playing on a huge world, no crashes until the save file exceeds 500KB. It's fairly amusing to see bunches of bananas showering down on a modern armor unit in the jungle, while a palm frond waves through the TC's hatch!

I, too, am confident that the developers will fix the problems, and after reading the issues addressed in the 1.09 patch, I realize there were several issues worse than late-game CTDs; fortunately, I experienced none of those.

To those who are having big problems: The game is worth the wait. It really is the best Civ game yet, IMHO. The learning curve from Civ III to the Civ IV engine is about the same as the curve from Civ II to the Call To Power / Civ III engine.

However, do not go out and start buying hardware in order to play (yet, unless you just want the excuse ;P). Let the dust settle first. According to the design specs, this game should be no more of a resource hog then Halo.

[RAKKIR]

I will preface my statement with a few caveats.

1: I'm a programmer so I know a little about what I speak.
2: I haven't programmed a CIV style game so bear that in mind.
3: I'm not a Python programmer so I don't know how much memory overhead exists for every object created in python and the available python data-types.

Quite frankly, the size of the map really shouldn't be that HUGE an issue in Civ IV. Even huge maps as the maps really aren't that big that they should cause problems on a modern computer. Each map tile doesn't take up a large memory space. A couple hundred bytes would be more than sufficient for each tile. That is UNLESS python imposes a large overhead on this. And that assumes each map tile has to be its own object which is not necessarily the most optimal course. (It might be better to implement maps as a series of 2-dimensional arrays. One array representing the "base terrain 'layer'", the second representing the "improvements 'layer'," the third implementing the 'roads/rails' layer and so on. Who knows.)

So, even the largest maps in the game shouldn't take up THAT huge an amount of RAM.

Where large maps MIGHT prove problematic is in pathfinding algorithms which would require longer to process long routes the larger the map. This basically breaks down to this...
Stupid pathfinding=fast
Smart pathfinding=slow

However, I don't think the pathfinding algorithm is that good in Civ IV (I've seen really STUPID moves as I'm sure you have) so I don't think it's necessarily evaluating things that optimally to begin with. Plus you can cache pathfinding results and save them later and/or set up some pre-determined routes.

So, I don't think large-map pathfinding is affecting things.

However, of course, the larger the map the more civs can fit on it and the more cities. And the more civs/cities you add to the mix the larger the data required by the game.

However, once again, city data structures should, likewise, not be that large. A few kilobytes I would imagine. I think that's being generous as well.

Units shouldn't require large data sizes either.

So, I don't think the memory problems lie there. At least I hope not.

The textures the game uses aren't that huge. And you don't necessarily have to load EVERY texture at once. For instance, there is no point in loading most of the unit textures in 2000 BC as you can't build most of the units then. Likewise, I SURE HOPE they are not loading a SEPERATE texture for EVERY unit/tile of terrain instead of just loading the texture once and re-using it. Plus, of course, a screen isin't that large. In the most common scenario you have a few dozen tiles, and a couple of units. That doesn't really represent that many large/complex textures you have to load.

Here is what I suspect...and this is entirely based upon my experience only...

I let the game sit for a couple hours while I did household chores and made dinner.

When I came back the game had eaten a lot more RAM then it had been using when I left it.
I hadn't made any moves.
This makes me think that something the game is doing -all the time- has a memory leak.
My first impression was that it might be something in the sound. Does something in the sound have a leak? To the effect that every new song that plays eats up a little more RAM? I somewhat doubt this as I believe they probaly take advantage of Direct X to handle sound and I haven't seen this same sort of problem with other Direct X games. Of course, maybe they use some sort of proprietary routine to convert their MP3 format sounds into something Direct X will understand and that routine has a leak. I just don't know if Direct X can handle MP3 format sounds directly but I would suspect it can.

Secondly, I would wager that while the PLAYER is making his moves and doing things a second thread is running in the background (probably concerning AI strategy) and something in the algorithms used here has a leak.

Whatever the leak is in, I think it's in something that's called fairly routinley as it builds quick. Maybe something like every time a unit moves or something.

Anyways, I've said why I think certain thing's SHOULDN'T be the problem...but keep in mind that doesn't mean they are NOT the problem.

This is just my two cents.

[RAKKIR]

I should add an adendum to my post.

I am assuming the developers used even decently designed data structures and routines. Not necessarily completly optimized but decent. If so I don't believe there should be problems.

If they did then I think there is a memory leak.

If they didn't then I suspect what Drachasor said above about "gross inefficiency" may be accurate.

I hope they're not trying to hold the entire graphical data for the map in memory at once.....

[Guy Saults]

Rakkir,

re: the memory leak. I too left the game running for about two hours without making any moves, and when I returned the sound had locked up into a short loop of about 7 notes. The rest of the game worked, just the sound was affected. I closed the game, and the sound loop was still running. I had to reboot to clear it.

[Smauler]

Re: Needs more than 512.

Originally posted by BigBear
Do not complain about this game running poorly or having screwed up graphics unless you meet the minimum video card requirement and have MORE than 512mb ram. Not just 512, but more.

The game is playable with 512 but only on small maps, and even then it gets slow.

I hate feeding trolls... but anyway...

Do not complain? Why not? Look at the minimum and recommended specs on the back of the box.

I have a pretty clean system that exceeds all recommended specs, and have 1gb of RAM. It still runs horribly slowly on _all_ map sizes. There are lots of people with similar problems. People posting saying "do not complain" haven't been reading the specs of people who have been having problems.

[BigBear]

Not a troll, just would rather people not put up the money thinking this game is going to run well on their 512 system. From what I have played, on tiny maps, I do enjoy the game, but I want a full functioning product. I hope Fraxis will fix this issue, but I will also be getting more RAM anyway.

I should have said something about not purchasing the game, rather than "don't complain". But, I've never really trusted system specs on the box either, for any game. It's just more profitable to stretch the truth a bit (reach more consumers) and put the absolute minimum to get the game to open.