3339 Patch killed UT

[legacy-WydoM@ker]

I have just applied Patch 5 - 3339 and now UT won't run...I get the following error message:

UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-11-11_10.48]

OS: Windows XP 5.1 (Build: 2600)
CPU: GenuineIntel Unknown processor @ 2710 MHz with 1023MB RAM
Video: RADEON 9800 XT (Omega 2.5.90) (6490)

General protection fault!

History: UGameEngine::Init <- InitEngine <- FMallocWindows::Free <- FMallocWindows::Free

The game was perfectly fine before applying the patch and no other actions have been done to my PC between game startup attempts except applying this patch.

Help...

[legacy-CrazYLarrY]

got the same GPF but i got mine to work by changing ut to render in d3d insted or dx9 you can use utbinder to do this or go into your ut2004.ini file and enable it manually.

[legacy-NiTrOcALyPsE]

UT2004 was never designed to run in DX9, they removed support for it. This has been adressed before.

[legacy-WydoM@ker]

Thanks for the responses.

This DX9 stuff is news to me, I've been running it since Patch 2 without problem. I also get better performance running DX9 rendering, but I'll revert back to DX8 if thats what is required.

Cheers.

Update: Yip that fixed it :sour:

[legacy-CrazYLarrY]

I did the same thing also with dx9

I do wish epic would putdxp suport back into ut2004 it ran and looked great enabled.

[legacy-WydoM@ker]

I agree, it does look good.

I'm going to try something...reapply Patch 2 over the top of Patch 5 and see if that brings the DX9 functionality back, without causing too many problems. :bulb:

[NotoriousBIC]

Originally posted by WydoM@ker
I agree, it does look good.

I'm going to try something...reapply Patch 2 over the top of Patch 5 and see if that brings the DX9 functionality back, without causing too many problems. :bulb:

That will not work in combination with ECE, since the bonus pack needs 3323.

Using the DX9 renderer does not improve image quality in any way since the game engine doesn't use any DX9 optimization.

[legacy-WydoM@ker]

Good point about ECE...hadn't thought of that :confused:

Well, you maybe right about the DX9 optimizations, but I have to comment that on my PC it does seem to have a possitive effect to use the DX9 enderer setting. Go figure.

[legacy-Big_Iron]

Hmmm .. .. 2 many newbs ... not enough SEARCH i guess.

:D

[legacy-Tom_M_Riddle]

Originally posted by NotoriousBIC
Using the DX9 renderer does not improve image quality in any way since the game engine doesn't use any DX9 optimization.

Did you run tests across the board with both renders, or are you talking in theory only?

Because I now see quite a few people were using the DX9 render, like myself. And at least one other thought the game did look better.

I'm going to refute this again.

Before recent patches, quite possibly this one, the game ran much better, and looked much better using the Dx9 patch. On my system, using Windows 98, and any set of Nvidia drivers dating back to last summer, the standard renders showed sluggish response, slightly drained of color textures, and less details on both characters and vehicles. I regretted purchasing the game based on the standard render. The DX9 render made me proud to own the game, once I added ram. The results were that tangible.

I don't have the theory on why.

When I play now, it seems like the non-Dx9 version was spruced up, because it looks, for the most part, better than it did before.

[legacy-WydoM@ker]

Thanks Tom_M_Riddle, I really thought I must have been kidding myself that I was indeed getting benefit for the DX9 renderer.

I agree with you, and I am using Win2K and WinXP, and I'm sure it looks and runs better under the DX9 renderer. I also found that I could run at higher resolutions without the FPS dropping to unplayable levels.

[NotoriousBIC]

Sorry, but you guys are still kidding yourself:
http://www.jetstreamgames.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=44812

[legacy-Tom_M_Riddle]

Originally posted by NotoriousBIC
Sorry, but you guys are still kidding yourself:
http://www.jetstreamgames.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=44812

I'm somewhat confused here.

Are you calling me a liar? What are you trying to say here?
It doesn't matter what you cite for "evidence" or who your source is .
You seem to be trying to discredit the experience that people had on their machines for many months of play. I wonder why, really.

I merely described my experience on my system (my retail version of the product, video card, patches from the last 4 months, and various versions on NVIDIA drivers. )

For the last time, I'm going to say that the standard rendered performed poorly on my system. The colors were faded, there were less details on tanks, aliens, humanoid models. Less gloss on the windows, less details on skin, less features to the Onslaught vehicles. The environment had more aliasing. Even the Linux versions looked and played better at times. The original demo *certainly* looked better.

I used this board and others to follow every optimization suggested. On the DX9 rendered, patch 3323, the game played as fast and as detailed as I'd seen it. I now use 800x600. Even 1024 by 760 was almost playable, at high detail, for the first time since the demo version. When I added RAM, it was playable.

I saw people on this board saying there wasn't much of a difference at the time I first got the game. At the time I wondered what was going on, because I was using a pre-DX 8 card. I now run DX 9.0c and the game got slightly faster each new install. I kept the same conditions before each update. The same regimen on defragging and tweaking. The paper specs say this shouldn't happen. But it did.

I didn't post my impressions at the time; I only just registered to the board. I only spoke out because I couldn't use the game any more in this latest patch.

I will not have my reality questioned this way, sir. I'm not a fool. I'm also someone who actually got use out of Windows 98 long after plenty of people gave up on it. I didn't have the crashes that everyone else complained about.

It is fortunate that things changed, and the non-DX9 render now works better than it did. I was prepared to keep things at 3323 as the last working patch, and call it a brilliant, but support-dead game.

[legacy-A-1]

First time search pulled some good results for me.

I dont know but the game ran smoothly for me using DX9.

Hopefully it still will.

[legacy-Necromancer]

only thing i noticed was the amp looked wierd
and there was a ons map that had invisible rocks:bulb:

[legacy-O_Dogg]

I would then want to know why I was able to run UT2004 in D3D9 mode (which is ACTUALLY fluider on MY system) with all patches until patch 3323 included, and I cannot anymore with patch 3339?

I'm not arguing whether or not D3D9 is better than D3D.

I've been running in D3D9 mode until the latest patch (I had D3D9Drv.dlll in my system folder and the UT2004.ini pointed towards it), so why can't I now???

[legacy-NiTrOcALyPsE]

Originally posted by O_Dogg
I would then want to know why I was able to run UT2004 in D3D9 mode (which is ACTUALLY fluider on MY system) with all patches until patch 3323 included, and I cannot anymore with patch 3339?

I'm not arguing whether or not D3D9 is better than D3D.

I've been running in D3D9 mode until the latest patch (I had D3D9Drv.dlll in my system folder and the UT2004.ini pointed towards it), so why can't I now???

Because DX9 support has been removed from the game.

[legacy-kevyslee]

I haven't had any problems with the patch yet.....the only thing i noticed is that my frames have dropped slightly...but in retrospect...the game seems smoother....weird....just my 2 cents on the new patch.....i also said i haven't had any problems "YET!!!!!"

[legacy-O_Dogg]

Because DX9 support has been removed from the game.
Well that's bad news for me and some others. I don't understand this compatibility break, was it so difficult to leave the DX9 render "as is", even if it was experimental, so that users whose systems perform better with it could continue using it? :(
Plus I've got the server browser freeze problem too (clicking "join game" freezes the game, and it's not a firewall problem) already mentionned in other threads, so I'm back to 3323 for good.

[legacy-SoL-Badguy]

UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-09-07_17.17]

OS: Windows XP 5.1 (Build: 2600)
CPU: GenuineIntel Unknown processor @ 2402 MHz with 510MB RAM
Video: No Video

Assertion failed: sizeof(*this)==GetClass()->GetPropertiesSize() [File:.\UnGame.cpp] [Line: 148]

History: UGameEngine::Init <- InitEngine <- FMallocWindows::Free <- FMallocWindows::Free

I installed 3339 early this morning, noticed glitches and what not, i rebooted, then i got this when i tried to open UT. Any clarification would be helpful.

[legacy-utz.Bluesman]

I passed by the same problem.

Just ran UT2004 Safe Mode, asked to it reset all options to default and everything was back to normal.