My new build

[Wolverine@MSU]

I believe your mistake was in buyiung on board components. I don't recommend it and you shouldn't really do it. I'm not sure just what you can do about replacing that vid card, now Wolverine@MSU. I suggest saving up and replacing that MB, vid card, and sound card with separate components to straighten things out. Sorry...

All I have to do is disable the on-board video when I put in a video card. Same with sound card, if I ever decide to upgrade (which I'm in no hurry to do). I always knew when I bought the MB that I would be adding a vid card, and the board had lots of features that I wanted, not the least of which was the right processor socket, SATA controllers, 4 Ram slots (I have 4 Gig in it now) and a reliable USB controller. At the time it was the right choice for the amount of $$ I had to spend.

[Hawk]

You do realize that XP (or Vista) 32 bit will not recognize the full 4 GB of RAM. It will only recognize and utilize about 3.5 GB.
You need a 64 bit OS to utilize the full 4 GB.

[Wolverine@MSU]

Although windows itself has the 3.5 Gb limit, there is a thing called the "3 Gb switch" that will allow programs to use the RAM above 3.5 Gb. Photoshop, which I use a lot on some very large images, can make use of the extra RAM. Google "3 Gb switch" to learn more.

[thegrindre]

Thank you for that link! Very much appreciated...

[Hawk]

Although windows itself has the 3.5 Gb limit, there is a thing called the "3 Gb switch" that will allow programs to use the RAM above 3.5 Gb. Photoshop, which I use a lot on some very large images, can make use of the extra RAM. Google "3 Gb switch" to learn more.

If you're talking about PAE, here's what I've read on it.

http://windowssecrets.com/2008/12/18/03 ... /?n=story1

In particular note this from that link:

Microsoft warns in another TechNet article that some drivers will not load if PAE is enabled. After you make this change, keep an eye on your system. If you have problems with drivers or your system starts acting up, remove the /pae switch from boot.ini in XP, or enter the following command line in an administrator command prompt in Vista:

BCDEdit /set PAE ForceDisable

[Wolverine@MSU]

So I got a graphics card, and after a lot of fiddling (including a system crash), I finally got it to work. Its a PNY GeForce 9600-GSO, 768 Mb DDR3 memory, PCI express (got it for $99 at Best Buy), and I thought it would be a screamer. But so far I am far from enthused about its performance. The colors are great; I can really see the fine gradations in the red and green squares on the cargo overlay, which were pretty much featureless with the onboard graphics. The problem is, it's really slow, and I mean really slow (~ 10fps) when a big map is zoome out to max view. I have to cut the detail to "Average" or below to get decent frame rates. When the frame rate gets in the 10 - 20 fps range, I notice the music slowing down, and the whole games seems to be dragging its feet. I have about 100 trains on the map, but with my onboard graphics I didn't notice any slowdown even at the highest screen resolution and Ultra-High details. Anyone have any insight into this? Is there something in the BIOS that I should be tweaking. I've gone into the NVidia Console and tried to optimize performance by turning off some to the high-end features like anti-aliasing, anisotropic filter etc. but to no avail. I don't regret getting the card, because the color rendition is far superior to the onboard, which is important in my photographic pursuits, but I'm a little disappointed in the "rich gaming experience" promised in the blurbs about the card.

[WPandP]

I'm not sure, but it seems as if there is some amount of processing that should be happening on the card that is instead happening on the CPU. That card should have you zipping along, but the fact that you had to disable onboard graphics leaves me wondering if the problem is found there somehow. I used to have a Soundblaster Audigy in my system, for which I had to disable the onboard sound, and it was more than just a BIOS setting - there was an actual jumper on the motherboard that had to be set. If something similar is the case with you, you might have disabled the onboard hardware, but effectively not enabled the new card - even though it appears properly installed.

As I mentioned before, I've got an 8600 GT, and I learned there actually are big differences between GT, GTS, GS, and GSO (I hadn't heard of that one until now). So, you might actually have a less-capable card even with the higher series number... I don't know. My off the cuff guess though is that your card ought to be just as capable as mine, which means you shouldn't be seeing these issues.

[Hawk]

I'm pretty sure you have to disable the onboard video chip in the BIOS.
It's been a while since I've done any of that but I do remember having to go into the BIOS to disable the onboard chip.

[WPandP]

My point is that I think he did do that, in the BIOS software, but that there might also be a hardware setting like a motherboard jumper to consider. Probably, if the computer gets confused as to where the graphics processing should take place, it may be defaulting to handling it all on the CPU, thus resulting in poor performance.

[JFMarvelous]

Hi Wolverine, Did you read your manual. You must use a PCI express 16 video card on that asus MB. If you can't find your manual, here's a copy I downloaded.

e3279_p5k-vm.pdf

(1.82 MiB) Downloaded 212 times

Check page 1-25. Also did you check your IRQ and set one for your new card?

[Hawk]

My point is that I think he did do that, in the BIOS software

OK! I guess I misunderstood in that he hadn't made in changes in the BIOS yet.

[Wolverine@MSU]

Thanks for all of your comments. I haven't had a chance to try any of them out yet, but for what it's worth:

I DID NOT disable the onboard graphics. I chose an option to default to the PGE x 16 , but then use onboard if no PGE card present. Now that the card works, I should try disabling onboard entirely.

There is no jumper to set on the board (as far as I know). It's all done in BIOS.

I have not assigned an IRQ for the card. I'll have a look at the attached manual (thanks JFM) and see if it says something different than mine. By the filename it looks like it's for the same board.

Hope to have better results by tomorrow.

[Wolverine@MSU]

Hooray

All is well with the world (at least within the confines of my computer case).

WP&P and Hawk get a Kewpie Doll! I hadn't disabled the onboard graphics. I assumed that since I had chosen PGE/IGD (Inboard Graphics Display) that the IGD would be disabled automatically when there was a PEG card present. Just goes to show why we shouldn't assume, and should instead follow the instructions in the book thanks JFM).

I also noticed in the BIOS for the PGE setup that the option "Force PEG x 1" was enabled. I had wondered what this meant, but now that I know what PEG means (PCI Graphics Express), and that I had an "x 16" card, I disabled that one while I was there.

The result is a whopping 300 - 400 fps rate when zoomed in, and at least 50 fps when at full unzoom. All this with 1240 x 768 resolution, Ultra High details and all the other bells and whistles checked (anti-alias, anisotropic filter, clouds, reflections, font shadows etc.).

Thanks to all who chimed in. My wife is much happier now.

[Hawk]

Who's happier? You or your wife.

[WPandP]

Cool beans, Wolvy!

Now you can afford to run all the mods I have been creating. The file structure of the 3DP files is set up such that there are "levels of detail" built into the model, with the most detailed (i.e. highest polygon count) model listed first, then 4 or 5 iterations of reduced detail versions. The game selects a model to use based on your hardware. However, for me to edit a 3DP, it's preferable to reduce it down to just one instance, i.e. the first and most detailed model, so I don't have to redundantly edit several versions. This means that, for instance, my N&W Class A is a highly detailed model that could be taxing to lower-end systems. Of course, as a practical matter, not every object rendered on the screen is a Class A, so even on a lower end system it probably wouldn't be terribly detrimental. But as I build up a library of edited 3DP files, all with single high-detail instances, the full suite will call for decent graphics horsepower.

As the game is so old, and even a cheap graphics card today is more than adequate, I'm not too concerned about it. But I think what you've got now is a system that can handle any and all mods you might throw at it!

Thanks for the kewpie doll... I wonder where I'll put it...

[KevinL]

I was going to suggest a driver update from their website. It might not hurt to do that anyway.

[Wolverine@MSU]

I was going to suggest a driver update from their website. It might not hurt to do that anyway.

I'm a little leery of driver updates, especially from NVidia, where I've seen numerous complaints about new drivers not working well with a particular system. To revert to previous versions is also a bit of a hassle because you have to not just "uninstall" but physically remove (delete) all other driver versions. For the time being, I'll stick with what I have, although I have already downloaded the latest drivers. Just haven't installed them yet.