Jump to content


Sims2 Unplayable


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 05 September 2005 - 04:03 PM

Mandrake628, on September 5th 2005, 01:12 PM, said:

Also,

Why is there a SN on the back?  I never had to input it when I started up the game.

Mandrake628

View Post


The serial number is to register on sims2.com so you can upload/download things.

Glenda
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software

#22 simsbaby

simsbaby

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Location:USA IL

Posted 05 September 2005 - 08:18 PM

The number is for the web site.

Intel iMac 2 GHz Core Duo
Ram : 2 GB
Hard Drive : 250 GB


#23 bung-foo

bung-foo

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 04:44 PM

Mandrake628, on September 5th 2005, 01:12 PM, said:

Also,

Why is there a SN on the back?  I never had to input it when I started up the game.

Mandrake628

View Post


It's so you can register the game with EA to get access to content on the sims 2 website.

#24 rhiamom

rhiamom

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 09:51 AM

Back to the original topic...
The Sims 2 plays well on my wimpy Mac mini. I have the 1.42 gHz and 512 of ram, the Radeon 9200 video with 32 meg of video ram. It's pretty much the bare minimum for graphics! I can play at 800x600 or 1024x768 only. Playing at 1280x1024 is just too much. I can set the textures to medium if I have everything else on low and all the special lighting effects off. Surprisingly, it looks fine. Not like on my PC, with 128 meg of video ram, but certainly acceptable. Explanation: I bought a cheap PC JUST for use with The Sims 2, doing object recolors and stuff, using Photoshop and SimPE. Sure wish there was a SimPE and Clean Installer for the Mac!

Anyway, there is a huge problem with bad installs of The Sims 2 on Macs.  Be sure to install the game in Users/Shared and not your applications folder. I think the missing menu bar is due to a corrupt/bad installation.

All the PC .package objects, recolors, and hacks have worked for me, as well as the Sims2Packs. Make sure to install the CEP to allow recolors to show up in your game. There's a Mac version.

#25 Mandrake628

Mandrake628

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 03:55 PM

No, it was most definitely the gfx card.  I installed my 9200, and the "UCP"(menu) works fine now.  Strangely enough, my OpenGL score(frames) in Xbench dropped from 100 FPS to 40 FPS.  I don't know why.  I could have expected a small drop in performance, since the 9200 is PCI and the MX is AGP, but not this much.  Where Ut2k04 used to play 50-60 frames, now it plays 30-40(sometimes dipping into the 20's).

Is the 9200 that bad??  Or is there some abnormality?

Mandrake628

Edited by Mandrake628, 18 September 2005 - 03:55 PM.


#26 rhiamom

rhiamom

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 08:01 PM

Mandrake628, on September 18th 2005, 04:55 PM, said:

No, it was most definitely the gfx card.  I installed my 9200, and the "UCP"(menu) works fine now.  Strangely enough, my OpenGL score(frames) in Xbench dropped from 100 FPS to 40 FPS.  I don't know why.  I could have expected a small drop in performance, since the 9200 is PCI and the MX is AGP, but not this much.  Where Ut2k04 used to play 50-60 frames, now it plays 30-40(sometimes dipping into the 20's).

View Post


You have not mentioned the amount of video ram each card has. That will make a HUGE difference in how fast a game runs. You may need a newer driver for the card if one is available. But, basically, yeah, the 9200 would be obsolete and no longer supported by any games if only Apple would stop putting the poor underpowered thing into new computer designs. *cough* mini *cough*

#27 Mandrake628

Mandrake628

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 08:29 PM

It's the 128 Mb VRAM model, so your argument isn't quite relevant.

Mandrake628

#28 a2daj

a2daj

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3400 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 18 September 2005 - 09:20 PM

Mandrake628, on September 18th 2005, 02:55 PM, said:

No, it was most definitely the gfx card.  I installed my 9200, and the "UCP"(menu) works fine now.  Strangely enough, my OpenGL score(frames) in Xbench dropped from 100 FPS to 40 FPS.  I don't know why.  I could have expected a small drop in performance, since the 9200 is PCI and the MX is AGP, but not this much.  Where Ut2k04 used to play 50-60 frames, now it plays 30-40(sometimes dipping into the 20's).

Is the 9200 that bad??  Or is there some abnormality?

Mandrake628

View Post


Ignore Xbench.  It's complete crap for OpenGL benchmarking.  It has shown a Rage 128 to be 'faster' than a Radeon 9800 Pro...  But in general performance, the PCI interface can make a big difference.  Games which use Vertex Arrays or Vertex Buffer Objects really like AGP.  There's a lot of performance tweaks in OpenGL which only see a boost with AGP.
Dual 2.5 GHz G5-RADEON X800 -4 GB RAM-Revo 7.1
MBP 2.0GHz -Mobility RADEON X1600-2 GB RAM

#29 Mandrake628

Mandrake628

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:09 PM

So is the 9200(PCI, 128 VRAM) better or worse than the GeForce 4 MX(AGP, 64 VRAM)?

Mandrake628

#30 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 10:03 PM

Mandrake628, on September 19th 2005, 06:09 PM, said:

So is the 9200(PCI, 128 VRAM) better or worse than the GeForce 4 MX(AGP, 64 VRAM)?

In games, the 4mx is awful and the 9200 is merely bad. For $20 new, a 9200 would be OK for a non-gaming office workstation, unless you wanted to have all the UI effects of OSX. Unless the PCI vs. AGP thing makes that big a difference (as you said), or you find your favourite games to run better with a 4mx, the 9200 is just a bit better and might have ATI's overrides to sweaten the deal.