what kind of PC can run 320 x 320 world map?

[Panag]

hi ,


just click " directory " , " civ 3 " , " maps " , " earth " , and there it is , .....

the apolyton directory is full of maps , mods and scens , ...

http://apolyton.net/dir/index.php?si..._pages&cat=298 , to el's 362 X 362 worldmap

http://apolyton.net/dir/ , to the apolyton directory

have a nice day

[Vince278]

Originally posted by jamesyao
if above link has problem, try this:

www.pacen.com.au/c3c/world320x320.rar

Not many people have WinRar. Anyway, my link works.

[jamesyao]

Now it's zipped:

https://www.pacen.com.au/c3c/world320x320.zip

[Vince278]

Thanks.

[Dis]

okay, just for the hell of it, I think I'll try a 320 X 320 map.

Can I do it in game, or do I need to modify the ini file?

I am running an Athalong 2600 + I believe with 512 megs of ram. I wonder how it will go.

but I figure I should try this at least once.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dissident
okay, just for the hell of it, I think I'll try a 320 X 320 map.

Can I do it in game, or do I need to modify the ini file?

I am running an Athalong 2600 + I believe with 512 megs of ram. I wonder how it will go.

but I figure I should try this at least once.

hi ,

you might aswell go for 362 X 362 , dont forget to defrag before , close all that you dont need and get all the updates for your OS , ....

enjoy

have a nice day

[Midget*Toilet]

My new PC can run a 362x362 world map just as well as a tiny map. Only problem is the sheer size of it.

It makes games take a LOT longer, even if there is no slowdown.

If it makes you feel any better, here are my specs.

Athlon 64 3200+ @ 1066mhz FSB

1024mb of DDR-400 RAM

Radeon 9800 Pro

80gb Western Digital @ 7200rpm

Win XP Home Edition (I have no need for Pro because, well, it's really not any different)

[Panag]

Originally posted by Midget*Toilet
My new PC can run a 362x362 world map just as well as a tiny map. Only problem is the sheer size of it.

It makes games take a LOT longer, even if there is no slowdown.

If it makes you feel any better, here are my specs.

Athlon 64 3200+ @ 1066mhz FSB

1024mb of DDR-400 RAM

Radeon 9800 Pro

80gb Western Digital @ 7200rpm

Win XP Home Edition (I have no need for Pro because, well, it's really not any different)

hi ,

only the speed of the hard disk could have been better , .... but for the rest , that looks like a machine who should have no troubles what so ever with it

as for long games , well what about a game on el mencey's map for 11 weeks , ...

have a nice day

[Dis]

I always have a problem defragging. It gets stuck at 1% and never goes anywhere.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Dissident
I always have a problem defragging. It gets stuck at 1% and never goes anywhere.

Try scandisk or disk doctor (whatever you have) first.

[Last Conformist]

Not alot of people have WinRAR, true. It's freely DL'able, however, and easily findable on google. It's well worth getting for the next timed you run into something rar'd.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Not alot of people have WinRAR, true. It's freely DL'able, however, and easily findable on google. It's well worth getting for the next timed you run into something rar'd.

How does it compare to Winzip or other similar programs?

[Dis]

how does it compare?

well it's just as easy to use. They are both pretty much instantaneous, so there isn't much difference .

I forget which site it was, but all their files were .rar files, so I just downloaded. I have both that and winzip. I guess I don't need both, but I like having both.

[Last Conformist]

I have WinXP, so I find Winzip a bit easier to use.

WinRAR is, in my experience, marginally more efficient at compressing things. Speed is about comparable, but you need to compress something big for either to take an appreciable amount of time.

In practice I find them equivalent. It's good to have both, because you're gonna run into both.

[Backpack]

Originally posted by Dissident
how does it compare?

well it's just as easy to use. They are both pretty much instantaneous, so there isn't much difference .

I forget which site it was, but all their files were .rar files, so I just downloaded. I have both that and winzip. I guess I don't need both, but I like having both.

Actually, When you're making compressed files, WinRar has better compression, by about 2-4% (Select Max compression with a 4096 Kb dictionary). That's not much to some people, but in quantity it always helps. Don't you cross the street to save 6 cents a gallon on gas?

On the not needing both, that is very true. WinRar can open and create *.zip and *.rar. I'm very happy with WinRar.

Kevin