30 replies to this topic

[Tesseract]

Ouch. http://www.codeweave...t=27;msg=131580

Anyone know if Cider and other WINE versions are affected?

[Tesseract]

Looks like yes. The problem is apparently in the X server (patch).

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Any version of WINE that uses X11 is affected but not Cider since of course it does not use X11. Good thing I don't use just one type of way to wrap my games I use the method that best fits the game whether it's wineskincrossover engines, cider or playing the game native whenever possible
.

[Janichsan]

A fix for CrossOver is apparently already underway (see the link to the Codeweaver forum above).

[Janichsan]

There's a XQuartz version available now with a workaround for this problem. I don't know (yet) whether that fixes WineSkin wrappers, but it definitely enables me to run other XWindow applications again.

[doh123]

Wineskin is affected too.

to get a wrapper working, you need to update to a version that can use XQuartz (2.5.5+, so just use 2.5.7).
Install XQuartz 2.7.4 RC1
Set the wrapper to use XQuartz instead of WineskinX11

I'm going to work today on getting a fixed version of WineskinX11 built for a Wineskin 2.5.8 update to fix the issue... when I get the time.

See this post
OS X 10.8.2 and OS X 10.7.5

[doh123]

As an update... Wineskin is fixed in version 2.5.8.  Any wrapper thats older than 2.5.8 will need to be updated to 2.5.8 to work on 10.8.2 and 10.7.5.

Wineskin 2.5.8 Released!

[Sargiel]

Good news - I had a feeling this issue would be relatively short lived

[Janichsan]

The fixed version of CrossOver is now also officially available.

[Sargiel]

Thanks Janichsan - great news! I have to admit I've been using Crossover less recently as I'm waiting on the BG:EE released rather than continuing with my Tutu Crossover install so I didn't notice until you posted.

[Frost]

I'll have to reinstall Crossover while I still have a trial period left and give it another shot.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Just a quick note here that in wineskin with the crossover games 10.3.0 engine and the latest wineskin updates I can now run FEAR2 at maximum settings with high performance and stability. That was a game that people used to think no computer could handle running.. at least in WINE at anything but reduced settings and have it be stable throughout. The problematic setting I found out through trial and error was the texture setting. If set to maximum it used to affect stability. This I later found out was due to an older MESA (graphics) driver being used in wineskin (and possibly others.. crossover and its ilk). This was fixed earlier this year with newer version of MESA.

I bet you are wondering, "Why CXG10.3.0 and not the latest Crossover engines?" The latter engines introduce rendering errors with the weapons that make them look like glass. So again, at the moment it's still best to keep lithtech jupiter games in CXG10.3.0. Other games are unaffected by that though. Also I'm not sure if it's just unique to ATIAMD or if nvidia is also affected.

FEAR3 doesn't share that behavior because it's not by monolith and it's not a lithtech powered game.

[J'nathus]

Smoke_Tetsu, on 23 September 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Just a quick note here that in wineskin with the crossover games 10.3.0 engine and the latest wineskin updates I can now run FEAR2 at maximum settings with high performance and stability.

I think F.E.A.R. 1 had that distinction. Even now that I have the hardware to run it with everything maxed, it's not particularly 'better' IMO. F.E.A.R. 2 on the other hand, I never managed less than 60 fps in that game at full native resolution on my GeForce 8800 GT 512 MB (in my PC - that is . . . Sorry, PC gamer-ONLY here) - which is what I had when I bought it. I HAVE since upgraded.

Just sayin' F.E.A.R. 1 was the beast... F.E.A.R. 2 (which I rather enjoyed) was pretty universally reviled as a crappy console port. (I'm not sure that's exactly true, as it ran very well for me, but the UI bears the hallmarks of said 'portiness.')

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Had the distinction of what? Being the best installment? Being the most demanding?

Sure it may have been very demanding when it first came out but that's ancient history. It's more dated graphically than FEAR2 and was stable long before it was. FEAR2 has always been more demanding although like I found out.. the crashes had to do with bugs in  the MESA driver exposed by the texture setting in it than anything else. FEAR2 is actually my favorite installment. Never seemed like a crappy console port to me. I saw nothing that reeked of consolitis in it... and I've played through it several times including most recent testing out the latest WINE builds with it with maximum settings to make sure it's totally stable.

I've been to some threads at the offiicial FEAR forums now that seem to indicate that they hate FEAR3 now rather due to story, etc. rather than hating on 2 now though.... if anything 3 reeks of consolitis the most. It has stuff like regenerating health with 2 didn't have. FEAR2 still had health packs and only regenarated if you where below 50% much like FEAR1.. FEAR3 eschewed health packs in favor of total health regeneration as well as limiting the arsenel even further and lacking the monolith touch that previous FEAR games had including 2.

If anything I think FEAR1 is overrated compared to FEAR2. That's not to say I don't like it or that I'm dissing it in any way.... when in fact I do like it. But yeah.

From a technical standpoint the entire FEAR series including the new one are some of the best games to run in WINE at the moment.

[J'nathus]

We can agree to disagree. F.E.A.R. 1 is still not very well optimized... like the massive pauses from when you save to the hiccups of area loads that still happen to this day.  It was considered a benchmark in its time, and while I wouldn't call it that these days, between the 2 I find F.E.A.R. 2 to be the smoother experience.

IDK about F.E.A.R. 3.. like Perseus Mandate, anything not by Monolith, I haven't touched. (Although I'm also leaving Gotham City Imposters alone, having no interest in that 'tagalong' nonsense.)

Also, I am not sure if F.E.A.R. 1 is overrated or not, but given what it was trying to do, I found it pretty groundbreaking in its time. F.E.A.R. 2 was a MUCH easier game to beat than the first one, and that may be considered progress, but that depends on your opinion. Graphically, one being better is a subjective thing. I feel like there are features in the 2nd game that sort of dumb the graphics down, but the bargain basement motion blur hides a lot of it. Sort of like how Crysis 2 is far better optimized than Crysis 1 and to some looks better, from a technical standpoint, the first one was far more beastly and can crank to far higher detail settings (although some argue it was un-optimized).

To be clear, I enjoyed both F.E.A.R. 1 and F.E.A.R. 2 and I find 2 to be far more re-playable than the first game. I don't go out for the horror genre, and my devotion to Monolith is what had me play both games. 2 is more like an adventure with some scary bits, whereas 1 is designed to be a constantly horrific / foreboding experience. I really loved "No One Lives Forever" in its day and it's sequel a bit less, Contract J.A.C.K. was pretty terrible, but F.E.A.R. sounded promising. By this point, I've happily moved on, enjoying the snot out of my current favorite FPS du jour . ..  Borderlands 2.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

I get no performance drops in FEAR1.. the only thing that causes pauses is auto-saves... FEAR2 is an improvement in just how long those pauses are when auto-saves happen. I think that has more to do with the auto-save functionalitycode than how demanding the graphics where. I get no other hiccups with either game on my hardware. FEAR2 has higher polygon count on everything, more shader effects, more debrisstuff in the levels and yes.... more post processing effects. However, those only served to enhance not cover up the graphics for me and piling on features makes a game more not less demanding. It's sort of like a generational leap going from 1 to 2 to 3. Graphically speaking 3 also makes 2 look as outdated as 2 makes 1 look. 3 has better lighting and even higher texture resolution, polygon count on weapons, shaders etc. all while maintaining a high performance level on my hardware and no pauses while auto-saving.

Now, whether that makes the latter better games is a matter of opinion but objectively speaking the graphics did climb up and up between the sequels. I don't even see how that could be a debate. The graphics are simpler in FEAR1 one just need to run both of them at max settings and compare to see it. I think it's irrational to look at the graphics in them and  imply that technically speaking the first game looks the best and is the most demanding. Unlike Crysis FEAR1 can NOT be cranked to higher detail levels than FEAR2 no matter how hard you try. The only thing that is equal is the texture resolution when cranked to max but FEAR2 had more variety in its texturing and the size of the installation reflected this.

Also I'm not saying FEAR1 is overrated so much as FEAR2 is underrated comparatively speaking. But if you must have my opinion... I felt FEAR1 to be more sparse feeling with more generic environments than FEAR2 did. It's still great it its own right but I felt the locations and even some of the monsters where most memorable in FEAR2 such as the monster that could ressurect and control replica soldiers like puppets as well as the melody that was played throughout such as on the music boxes, etc. That does NOT mean I don't think FEAR1 was a good or even great game or that I think it didn't break any ground or any such nonsense. Technically speaking the latter games are more optimized and they have to be to carry the weight of the extra graphics they have. But I'll go out on a limb here and say FEAR1 shouldn't have any performance problems on modern hardware barring the pauses that happen with auto-saves.

I have all the entire series installed and play all of it from time to time INCLUDING the stuff not made by Monolith. I replay my favorite games like crazy. So it's not like I'm against any of the installments when you come down to it. I'm a fan, so you are preaching to the choir.  But If I had to choose I'd say FEAR2 is my favorite out of the three. But all that doesn't matter because.. more relevant to what I was talking about in the first place out of the three FEAR2 is the special one that had the problems with crashing at maximum settings that where recently fixed and also is the one that is picky about changes in the wrapper its in causing me to have to create a fresh one every time I upgrade it. You can disagree with that all you want but that doesn't change the reality of it any more than you telling me up is down changes the orientation of my world.

Also I fully intend on playing Borderlands 2.. when Feral ports it and I can get full 5.1 surround sound out of it like their other ports. But that's an entirely different subject altogether. But you go ahead and move on.. please.

[J'nathus]

Smoke_Tetsu, on 24 September 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

Now, whether that makes the latter better games is a matter of opinion but objectively speaking the graphics did climb up and up between the sequels. I don't even see how that could be a debate. The graphics are simpler in FEAR1 one just need to run both of them at max settings and compare to see it. I think it's irrational to look at the graphics in them and  imply that technically speaking the first game looks the best and is the most demanding. Unlike Crysis FEAR1 can NOT be cranked to higher detail levels than FEAR2 no matter how hard you try. The only thing that is equal is the texture resolution when cranked to max but FEAR2 had more variety in its texturing and the size of the installation reflected this.

. . .But all that doesn't matter because.. more relevant to what I was talking about in the first place out of the three FEAR2 is the special one that had the problems with crashing at maximum settings that where recently fixed and also is the one that is picky about changes in the wrapper its in causing me to have to create a fresh one every time I upgrade it. You can disagree with that all you want but that doesn't change the reality of it any more than you telling me up is down changes the orientation of my world.

Perhaps I stated my case incorrectly, so let me rephrase: In it's time... F.E.A.R. was a ballbuster on system hardware. No other way to put it. It put the smackdown on PC gaming hardware, and although it was later ported to consoles, it started its life as a PC exclusive.

Since that time, F.E.A.R. 2 was a console-focused title, which has a dubious distinction of goodness. The current gen of consoles dragged developers kicking and screaming into multi-core optimized titles, and what ran well on a console could easily be made to run well on a PC (given a talented PC developer - which Monolith was).  Given the time between F.E.A.R. 1 and 2 I can't imagine that graphics quality went down, and my point was not thus. MY point is moreso the reality that on the same hardware it took to run the first game perfectly, the 2nd game ran a perfect 60fps with no hiccups to speak of.  I'm not sure what I was running when the first game came out, but I want to say it was a Radeon 9700 or 9800-something, so I'll gladly admit that my hardware has definitely taken a leap in power since those days.

In either case, F.E.A.R. 2 doesn't feel as demanding these days as F.E.A.R. 1. I'm not saying the results produced are better, but that as far as 'smoothness' goes 2 has it, and 1 doesn't. The 'autosaves' are a perfect example, but not a defining one. The shadows / lighting in 1 are clunky (and that's being generous), but if you crank those settings to max it sort of achieves a level of 'ugly' to match the system resource impact. But, as I've said, much of that is negated by today's hardware.

About the comparison between the games, IDK I'm so far past it now. After playing Call of Duty, Battlefield 3 and now Borderlands 2, games with weapons with personality, differentiation, and 'feel,' I find it hard to enjoy either F.E.A.R. title these days. That is IMHO where the 'mediocre' review / rating comes from on F.E.A.R. 2. Compared to 1 it's very good step forward. Compared to it's contemporaries, it's a bit more 'also-ran.'

As a complete side note, I really would like Monolith to develop an action-oriented title not unlike what F.E.A.R. includes, however minus the horror elements and also including some more life / color in the environments as well as maybe some comedy. I think the "Austin Powers" inspired No One Lives Forever was incredible .. .  maybe a "Kill Bill" inspired pulpy shooter. By and large, I'm a big scaredy cat and don't go out for horror, but my love of what Monolith has done is what made me play the F.E.A.R. titles. Sort of like how my love of Borderlands is why I played the zombie expansion . . . when the whole 'zombie' trope is something I simply abhor.

As far as addressing Crossover . . .  I don't game on a Mac (anymore), and thus can't speak to that. What I'm bringing to the table is 'what it was like on the PC-side.' I'm not telling you 'up is down,' but rather my experience has been the reverse in MY realm o' gaming.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Yeah, like I said how it was when it first came out is ancient history. The second game believe it or not runs on an updated version of the same engine that ran the first one.... and it still has pauses when auto-saving. Not as long but it's still there as I've said. They even share the same bugs in WINE with newer versions of WINE making the weapons look like they are made of glass forcing me to keep them on Crossover Games 10.3.0 engine. Even now after having it fixed I almost feel like FEAR2 could crash at any moment from having its settings up to max... which was never a problem with FEAR1.

I have fresh experience with them having done my own amateur "ports" of them recenlty.. doing playthroughs and keeping them up to date. Again, like I said.. FEAR2 is has the distinction of having graphical settings that used to be too demanding for WINE for one reason or another and FEAR1 and its expansions used to be more stable up until earlier this year when the MESA drivers in WINE got upgraded fixing it. The only thing that makes FEAR1 feel slow these days comparatively speaking is lack of sprint function. But again, these days they both run equally apart from the auto-saves which again I highly doubt has much to do with the graphics engine. I can actually run FEAR1 at higher resolution settings than FEAR2.

I'm not sure I'd classify scores in the high 70's as mediocre for FEAR2. FEAR1 only got 10 points more than it. But I don't tend to go by reviews when choosing my games anyway and I still like FEAR2 more... I like both games though so once again it's not like I'm against either of them. But when all is said and done you say you are so past those games now why even try to make an argument out of all this in the first place? Except for picking a fight with me someone who is more of a die-hard fan of those games than you are... You have a funny way of showing you don't care about those games any more.

What you say about those games that you say have weapons with more "personality" is personal preference on your part. Those games you mention are completely different almost to the point of being in a different genre. It's not like I play the FEAR games to the exclusion of anything else. Personally I don't tend to like miltiary shooters especially those too grounded in reality... but that's my personal preference... and yeah, I enjoyed Borderlands 1 and am going to get 2 when I get the chance. I'd like a new Blood game from Monolith personally as I quite like horror games.

[Tacohead]

I've been updating my wrappers to version 2.5.8 and I've run into a problem with Neverwinter Nights 2 the Steam Platinum Edition. The engine version is 1.3.19. The game looks like it's going to start up but then I get this message:

http://snappy-app.co...8ee3412dfe5770a

Here are my wrapper settings is that will be any help:

http://snappy-app.co...f4eeb8fe88bc657

Thanks in advance for any help.

-PN

[doh123]

I don't run Steam NWN2, but I upgraded mine to Wineskin 2.5.8, and switched to WS9Wine1.5.13AMDSpeedHack and the game still runs fine.