1.07 "Stable" - When should I try again?

[featherwinglove]

First of all, I love the concept, and I love the game - on the increasingly rare occasion that it actually RUNS!! Most recently, it took about twenty attempts to get the game to run for just a few seconds after starting it from the launcher (it usually takes 4-6 on average.) I quickly adopted a "stability test" that indicates whether the game has (probably, it turns out) loaded correctly and is operating, sometimes for up to forty hours because when it was running properly, I was very reluctant to shut it down because of this problem. (The stability test is to load a strategic save, open a load or save menu once in the game, and mouse around for a few seconds. Very rarely (twice out of scores of such crashes), the Geoscape map would disappear except for one or two tiles, and the game would continue running with an otherwise black map until I killed it.) I had a ground combat situation I was attempting to rescue (my heavy gunner Emilie Blanc was exposed accidentally.) This turn cycle would end on an acceptable condition about one out of three attempts. I had three successful attempts, and each time the game crashed. The final crash was after the twenty-attempt startup, successful stability test, and even a successful save of an unacceptable turn cycle outcome. Once I had the final acceptable outcome, it crashed when I attempted to save the game. (The second sorest loser from the perspective of crashing after beating the AI is Homeworld, which is lap traffic compared to Xenonauts!!) By the way, I could never find the crash files; it appears they were never generated.

I just wanted to finish it once, on 2 February 1980 had Wolf and Buzzard armor, Corsairs and Shrikes, laser weapons, and my first cryptology center under construction when I angrily tore this horrific insult to twentieth and twenty-first century computer gaming from my system. Can somebody please tell me when this piece of trash is going to be stable enough to again attempt?

I decided to leave out the f-bombs. Imagine as many as you please.

[Gauddlike]

The game runs first time every time for me.

Have you reported your issues as a bug yet?

It would also be interesting to see the specs of the system you are running the game on and more information on what actually happens when the game doesn't work for you.

[featherwinglove]

Have you reported your issues as a bug yet?

Yes, that's this thread. If there is a bug tracker, you should have directed me to it right now. As it stands, this sounds very silly coming from a moderator, and I'm pissed off enough already, thank you very much.

The system is a Lenovo T61 laptop with a Meron-2M die Core 2 Duo T7300 CPU operating at 2.00GHz and a Crestline die Mobile Express 965 GPU both by Intel. It has 4GB of physical memory with shared GPU memory leaving 3GB available for the software.

If the problem were related to my system, there should be no such thing as a stable instance unaffected by this bug. It should crash every single time I attempt to run it, not run for forty seconds six times in a row followed by forty hours terminated by a normal exit the seventh. When the common crashing bug, which affects about 80% of program launches, Xenonauts is using about 650MB of memory. I've experienced genuine memory-out crashes during ground combat when Xenonauts is using over 1600MB of memory (could someone please explain that to me?? UFO Defense ran perfectly fine on a system with just 32MB of memory, so it seems absolutely ridiculous that a nearly identical game should be melting down a 3GB system even just occasionally.) Don't even think about claiming that it's a memory-out every time; I know how to use taskmgr, especially since I need it to murder most of the crashed instances of Xenonauts.

In developing my stability test, I discovered that save and load menus crash affected instances the fastest, followed by various Geoscape features (the soldier equipment screen is second fastest) and ground combat mode is the slowest, suggesting code used by Geoscape and the menus, but not ground combat (note: save/load menus in ground combat are still effective in triggering this bug to crash the game when the instance is affected. It is usually using about 1100MB during such a crash.)

The "sore loser crash" I described is probably a different bug, since I made sure (i.e. double damned sure) that the Xenonauts launch was not affected by the common crash bug I just described.

[Gauddlike]

There is a recommended process and format for reporting bugs which your initial post does not follow. That was why I did not recognise it as such. I was attempting to assist you get some help solving your issues but found it difficult to tell from your first post if this was the same crash or a series of different crashes which could point to very different problems.

As the game does not have the same problems you describe on the vast majority of systems, including my own, I disagree that your system does not have an influence on the problem. I do not think it unjustified to ask for your system specs in this situation.

The game engine has known problems running on mobile graphics cards for example so knowing that you use a laptop could help immensely in getting to the root of the problem.

I would also suggest validating your downloaded files and ensuring you have the latest graphics drivers but feel that might just irritate you further, despite my not having any way of knowing what you have already tried. I would also suggest trying the later versions once they are available to you as there have been some changes to the tile atlas system that resolve some memory issues on lower spec machines.

I am sorry that a couple of basic questions seems to have offended you so much, good luck finding the cause of your problem.

[featherwinglove]

There is a recommended process and format for reporting bugs which your initial post does not follow.

I did, as near as I can tell (yes, I read all the stickies! I was hoping they could solve the problem.) I'm having trouble getting the game's version information and figure out what the difference between "HF" and non-HF is. The manual and readme files are quite incomplete in such regards, which is quite unusual. The indie games I've played before are infamous for being the other way around: lots of change logs and deep version numbers, but you have to go to the forums or online wiki to figure out what you're supposed to be doing once the game has actually loaded.

That was why I did not recognise it as such. I was attempting to assist you get some help solving your issues but found it difficult to tell from your first post if this was the same crash or a series of different crashes which could point to very different problems.

Hopefully you have figured out by now that I am having three distinct crashing problems:

1. Some sort of glitched initialization that has caused about 100 crashes. I have been attempting to work around it.

2. A memory use problem that I find extremely irritating because this is essentially a twenty year old no-3D game with a really awesome makeover, aside from the details that I'm reporting here.

3. The sore loser bug that insisted that Emilie Blanc must die on her 26th mission or the game crashes. I'm not saying that's what the game is actually thinking, but that is the effect it had on my game.

As the game does not have the same problems you describe on the vast majority of systems, including my own, I disagree that your system does not have an influence on the problem. I do not think it unjustified to ask for your system specs in this situation.

My system might "have an influence", but this is most certainly a bug. As I said, sometimes the game works, and sometimes it doesn't, pointing to some sort of inconsistent API call and not a basic incompatibility.

I would also suggest validating your downloaded files and ensuring you have the latest graphics drivers but feel that might just irritate you further, despite my not having any way of knowing what you have already tried.

You might be right: Did you notice that annotation on the picture that said, "I KSP on this exact type of computer" (emphasis added)? Kerbal Space Program is a high-end Unity game heavy with both 3D graphics and CPU-intensive physics, and has several very good excuses to run like shit on this system. While it is suicidally slow by most gaming standards, it hasn't crashed unmodded on this system in nearly a year. Minecraft quit supporting the Crestline in a snapshot between version 1.7.2 and 1.7.3 (one snapshot after they changed the vendor splash screen.) That is known to be a basic incompatibility with Crestline, probably related to the introduction of a very dubious vendor-specific streaming library (I have since found more serious reasons to hate Twitch, which has become completely unusable for me.) The GPU driver that I have is actually slightly newer than the newest I can find on Intel's website, both from early 2010. The system has quite a lot of performance tuning, and ran considerably better than a 2010-era Acer laptop with twice as much memory and a Core i3 until my friend asked for similar tuning.

I have validated the download file to the extent that I am able (uTorrent and IZArc both said it was okay), and had two different installations behaving the same way.

I would also suggest trying the later versions once they are available to you as there have been some changes to the tile atlas system that resolve some memory issues on lower spec machines.

I am sorry that a couple of basic questions seems to have offended you so much, good luck finding the cause of your problem.

Apology accepted. I only found the question regarding whether I was reporting a bug irritating. It's a bit like if you took your car to a mechanic with a tow truck, described to him your best recollection of how the engine was running just before it exploded, and he responds with "Is that a problem?"

One of the issues is that I don't have very fast connections, both with the internet and with the storage hard drive. The download file is huge. I still have the 1.07 download file that I got originally, and I'm reluctant to do multi-GB downloads with every version change, as much as I'd like to keep up with every version. If there are difference files, I'll give any version you recommend a shot (consistent with the title I gave the thread.)

[Chris]

Your initial post reads far more like a rant than an actual bug report, especially given the title and that bug reports generally also come without the commentary on whether the software in question is an insult to the twentieth century or not. If you just want to rant about how terrible the game is and how many times it has crashed (which accounts for literally 90% of your first post), fine - but don't expect much help with your issues because none of it is useful information. This forum is for bug reports, i.e. posts that actually tell us what is going wrong. Plus, it costs nothing to be polite.

Anyway, let's discuss the issues you highlighted in your second post. Both issue 1 and 2 are almost certainly related to your hardware.

Firstly, make sure you've read this thread, as some of the startup issues may be relevant to you: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/11735-Common-Bugs-Fixes-in-Xenonauts%21

Secondly, I'd actually try the game entirely without the tile atlases as they're usually the issue where performance is concerned on laptops. Please try the solution in 6) of the above thread. It's about a 300mb download.

Thirdly, I'd definitely get V1.09. It'll most likely fix the crash in 3), although it's difficult to be certain because you haven't provided much information. It'll also rule out the issue of an incomplete download of V1.07 etc.

You can also try combining that tile pack with V1.09 once they're both downloaded. If they together do not work, I think your PC is just too low-spec to play the game. In that case, seek a refund and link them to this reply if they want evidence the developers are fine with it.

[featherwinglove]

Your initial post reads far more like a rant than an actual bug report, especially given the title and that bug reports generally also come without the commentary on whether the software in question is an insult to the twentieth century or not. If you just want to rant about how terrible the game is and how many times it has crashed (which accounts for literally 90% of your first post), fine - but don't expect much help with your issues because none of it is useful information. This forum is for bug reports, i.e. posts that actually tell us what is going wrong. Plus, it costs nothing to be polite.

Maybe you missed the first sentence. I love the game, much as I loved old UFO Defense, when it operates properly. If it's going to be that much of a dick after I've paid good money for it, of course I'm going to be upset. If you want to be rude like your game, get used to it. Certainly Gauddlike has been a lot more polite than you have been so far and seems to have an inkling of why I might be rather upset after I've spent money and quite a bit of time working through these issues in an attempt to enjoy an otherwise really good game. (Kudos to the artists!)

If I were in your shoes, I'd be catastrophically embarrassed to receive a report like this regarding what I've labeled a stable branch release-quality build. It isn't Early Access, In Development, Alpha, or Beta anymore. It has no excuses: It is expected to run, or be quite clear (at least to a techie) about why it's crashing if the system isn't powerful enough or has shoddy drivers.

At this point, I'd rather just have my money back. Why should I be polite at this point? Seriously?

Anyway, let's discuss the issues you highlighted in your second post. Both issue 1 and 2 are almost certainly related to your hardware.

I'm not going to be satisfied with that. If you are, I'd rather have my money back, and will avoid Goldhawk and check the credits for your name on all of my future gaming purchases (like I did with Bruce Balfour after the disaster known as Outpost in 1993.)

That is especially true of the second issue: a game like this should not be using so much memory! The artwork is awesome, but I'm not convinced that it needs nearly two gigs!

Firstly, make sure you've read this thread, as some of the startup issues may be relevant to you: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/11735-Common-Bugs-Fixes-in-Xenonauts%21

I have. I've said that already. Unfortunately, the crashes that I'm reporting don't match up with anything that's there. (Incidentally, I've observed 6 and 5 (both variants) and it generally results from an interrupted connection with the external hard drive I was running Xenonauts on. I've chased that and am not complaining about it.)

Secondly, I'd actually try the game entirely without the tile atlases as they're usually the issue where performance is concerned on laptops. Please try the solution in 6) of the above thread. It's about a 300mb download.

It'll be a while before I get to that since I've been playing other games at the moment (I need to leave such frustrating problems alone for a while.) When I do get into Xenonauts again, should I try it with the latest experimentals or stable? (...or HT, or whatever you call it; I'm still not clear about your terms regarding the stable and development branches and would love to see that in a sticky or readme somewhere. Did I miss it?)

Thirdly, I'd definitely get V1.09. It'll most likely fix the crash in 3), although it's difficult to be certain because you haven't provided much information. It'll also rule out the issue of an incomplete download of V1.07 etc.

Is it somehow possible that an incomplete download would cause Xenonauts to crash a few minutes after launching only 80% of the time and not every single time? Somehow I find that very unlikely. Unlikely enough that I consider an incomplete download to already have been ruled out (that and, as I've mentioned previously, both uTorrent and IZArc cleared it through their error-checking without even minor warnings.)

Regarding the sore loser crash, I don't have a lot of information to begin with. I've observed three possible crashes in that mode, but in only the last one can I conclude 100% that I was running a stable instance. Prior to that, I had no way of distinguishing it from the crashes that occur shortly after launch because they would have happened before I had developed the stable instance test with the load and save menus.

You can also try combining that tile pack with V1.09 once they're both downloaded. If they together do not work, I think your PC is just too low-spec to play the game. In that case, seek a refund and link them to this reply if they want evidence the developers are fine with it.

System requirements is something that I looked for. Where are they? If I had seen a page clearly showing my computer to be inadequate, I would have been quite beside myself. I mean, I wouldn't expect it to run on the old Northwood without looking, but it completely breaking any system capable of running Unity 4 comes as quite a shock either way!

Turn-based, no 3D, based on a twenty-year-old classic? That sounds like the sort of characteristics that I would market in a game intended to run on netbooks and iPads, airplane mode and battery, especially since the computer can idle and cool down while you're thinking about the next move. Single-core Atom 1GB or 2GB x86 systems and their Mac/Apple equivalents. I'm pretty sure there'd be lots of sales in that segment if this game fit in the niche. I can imagine people who grew up with UFO Defense wanting to enjoy it while they fly for business and/or pleasure in coach class. Names even come to mind!

[vcgetdown]

I have validated the download file to the extent that I am able (uTorrent and IZArc both said it was okay), and had two different installations behaving the same way.

I'm reluctant to do multi-GB downloads with every version change, as much as I'd like to keep up with every version. If there are difference files, I'll give any version you recommend a shot (consistent with the title I gave the thread.)

Those two responses make it seem pretty likely you pirated the game. The way Chris responded, with the refund option, makes me believe he feels the same way. It's one thing to come here and be rude to people, who are trying to help you, for not reading your mind. It's another thing to do that while expecting support for something you acquired illegally, circumventing payment.

[Chris]

If you've bought the game because you couldn't find system requirements and it doesn't work on your PC, then I've already said I'm happy for you to get a refund. I've also suggested a way you can mitigate it, and advised you to get the latest version of the game. That will either get it running or it will not, and if it does not then I fully support you getting your money back.

The fact that these are hardware issues is a statement of fact, not an attempt to blame you for having a bad PC. Whether your PC is terrible or Xenonauts is overly demanding doesn't matter; either would still mean your PC doesn't have the power to run Xenonauts.

[Chris]

@vcgetdown - Humble Store also provides torrent downloads for the game, so there's legitimate ways of downloading it via torrent. I just don't understand why people ask for help on the internet by being as rude as possible, when they almost certainly wouldn't do so in person.

The fact that I provided the solutions featherwinglove was looking for and he still took the opportunity to post up a wall of text complaint in response without actually trying the solution proposed depresses me.

Yes, the game's poorly optimised because we used a bad engine we don't have the source code to. There's nothing we can do about it now. Take the refund if you feel misled.

[ntalas]

@featherwinglove

Probably you've tried this already, but just in case, did you try running the game from the internal HDD (C:\) and not from an external one?

Edit: You are lucky that you are offered a full refund. You are typically not offered a refund when you buy computer software, regardless of the public specs and your own specs

Edited August 4, 2014 by ntalas

[featherwinglove]

The fact that I provided the solutions featherwinglove was looking for and he still took the opportunity to post up a wall of text complaint in response without actually trying the solution proposed depresses me.

Yes, the game's poorly optimised because we used a bad engine we don't have the source code to. There's nothing we can do about it now. Take the refund if you feel misled.

First, I have only a finite amount of patience and time. It was nearly as high with X-COM: Interceptor as it was with Xenonauts. Both games ran it out. Case in point: you obviously haven't read that wall of text, Chris. Please get around to that last paragraph some day. Some day I'll get around to trying Xenonauts again with the latest version. There will be a downside from a troubleshooting perspective though: I'll have a better computer

I thought you had your own engine, to be honest. I thought that's why it had no 3D. I thought that's why it took five years of development to get to this point (CMIIR, but I think I got that from ground combat loading tips.) There is something you can do about that lousy engine: Use a different one for your next game.

[Gauddlike]

The game engine was used because it was free which is a big incentive for a small indie team.

It has no 3D because the original design spec didn't specify a 3D engine (2D sprites for a retro look) so one of the original coders picked something they thought was suitable, turns out they were wrong. By the time that was discovered though the team had put too much work and money into the game and assets to be able to start over.

The engine was Playground which was used for stellar first rate strategy titles like Diner Dash... Goldhawk do not have rights to the source code so could not make any alterations to add support for features like fighting across multiple map levels. They were limited to working around the engine as much as possible. The engine developers did not respond to any requests for information or support and eventually discontinued the engine completely.

If the options are ditch the project or continue with a sub par engine and make the best of it then there is only one real choice when your own money is on the line. The development time would likely have been shorter if Goldhawk had made their own engine. At least it is a mistake they won't make again.

[Chris]

There is something you can do about that lousy engine: Use a different one for your next game.

Heh. That much at least we can definitely agree on