Bug v1.00: Custom defined zoom miswrite OPTIONS.TXT

[MarkShot]

The ability to custom define the zoom level doesn't work, since a "newline" character isn't properly inserted into the OPTIONS.TXT file to separate lines. However, if you edit the file manually, then this feature works fine.

[LarryP]

You are correct. I added three more zoom levels from the game and then went to the file and it was all fouled up. I fixed it with Notepad.

10 minutes later:
I just went back into the game and the zoom doesn't work any different from original. So adding zoom levels is useless as far as I can tell.

[MarkShot]

It seems to be working fine for me. I suspect you changed some other option which cause the file to get rewritten incorrectly again.

[LarryP]

No, I added some numbers and the sum of them are 1,1.5,2,3,4,5,6 and then fixed it all. Back in the game it zooms like it did before I changed anything. Just 3 levels. Am I missing something about what this does?

Here is a copy and paste:
[map options]
mapscrollspeed = 2
constrainmapaspectratio = 0
zoom1 = 1
zoom2 = 1.5
zoom3 = 2
zoom4 = 3
zoom5 = 4
zoom6 = 5
zoom7 = 6

[MarkShot]

Here is mine. It works fine, but note it seems to increase the loading and memory footprint of the game.

[Map Options]
MapScrollSpeed = 2
ConstrainMapAspectRatio = 0
zoom1 = 1
zoom2 = 2
zoom3 = 3
zoom4 = 4
zoom5 = 5
zoom6 = 6
zoom7 = 7
zoom8 = 8
zoom9 = 9

[MarkShot]

I mean loading of scenarios "loading map terrain" and not the game itself "main menu".

Here is what my max zoom looks like running windowed 1024x768.

[LarryP]

Wow, that's really zoomed more than mine! I left the "zoom2 = 1.5 " that was already there and the game added the rest, I just corrected them being on one line. I will try your way and let you know what happens.

Thank you!

[LarryP]

I changed it to yours but also added a tenth one. It zooms in now! The game does take longer to load now, noticeably so.

[MarkShot]

I believe that the maps pre-render each zoom level in memory. Thus, the more zoom, the more memory used. The zoom levels I posted result in a memory footprint of about 1.4Gb versus the default options which result in a memory footprint of 150Mb. That's a very substantial difference. Of course, I have 4Gb of memory, but trying to run this game with those zoom levels on a 512Mb laptop or a 1024Mb desktop would probably cripple it. (Perhaps, that explains when I tried 32bit color depth my machine ground to a halt. Maybe the memory footprint swelled to something like 40-50Gb of storage.)

Regarding your 10X zoom, I think you should look at it more closely. I believe that zoom level is bugged. Grab a map name or a clound bank at 10X and try to drag the map, you will find that the name and/or cloud bank drags and not the map. I think 9X is the best that can be supported.

Glad I was able to help.

[LarryP]

I found that after zoom5 it's worthless. At zoom6 and beyond, the clouds and names move but the earth doesn't. I went with zoom1-zoom5.

My PC is a 2gb RAM, 3.6mhz CPU. The video is a pair of NVIDIA 6800's running in SLI. Monitor is an LCD 20". I am always amazed at how slow things can still be even though it is a somewhat top end PC. I haven't used 16bit color in years, it's 32bit here and 1600x1200.

You using 4gb RAM, what else you running?

[MarkShot]

Larry,

You are right. There is a bug in the last zoom level with the cloud name layer. The following edit fixes that if you still want your high zoom level.

[Map Options]
MapScrollSpeed = 2
ConstrainMapAspectRatio = 0
zoom1 = 1
zoom2 = 2
zoom3 = 3
zoom4 = 4
zoom5 = 5
zoom6 = 6
zoom7 = 7
zoom8 = 8
zoom9 = 9
zoom10 = 1

Don't ask me why, but it does!

I am not sure I understand your question regarding what else I am running. Do you mean what other games I am playing or what do I run concurrent with this game?

Other games ... this machine new (QX6700-4CPU @ 3.2GHz, 8800GTX, 4Gb RAM, 21.3" LCD and 20" CRT) exceeds the requirements of anything I am playing. In fact, I play quite a few old games under DOSBOX like AOD, RTD, and 1830. All pre-1995 games. My last desktop was from 2002 and this one is a gift from wife after my heart attack. Something to enjoy instead of eternal slumber.

I am running CAW at 1024x768 on my CRT in a window with the CRT at 1152x854. Concurrent with the game, I am running email, acrobat, and Opera (web surfing). I generally, dedicate CPU #4 to games and run other regular applications on CPU #2.

[LarryP]

I just meant what machine parts are you running, and you told me well. Wow! A quad CPU! Now that's a nice toy. Good job, but I am sorry to hear what it cost you (heart attack). Hey, your alive. I broke my neck in 1984. How are you now, health wise?

That's a great video card, the 8800GTX. I use to use Opera but I am now using Mozilla for email and Internet. Internet Explorer 6 is so full of bugs that I went to Mozilla Navigator and it has been excellent, except for some web sites don't like it. They write the HTML specifically for IE.

I will now try your other configuration above for the options.txt file. Good job on experimenting and finding this out.

[MarkShot]

Not so good, but still enjoying life.

It's a pity that neither XP nor Vista really does anything with multiple CPU's. I did some load balancing myself. The OC was done with water cooling from 2.9->3.2GHz.

The only issue with my zoom is that the first mouse zoom level will give you two clicks. Otherwise, it works fine. But, at least, you can really recognize Hawaii on the map.

[MarkShot]

So, did that zoom trick work for you to give you more than 5 levels?

[MarkShot]

Larry,

After more looking at this, you are right any zoom factor beyond 5X causes the game problems.

[LarryP]

Mark;

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. We have had a bad ant problem here outside and last night just before dark we were spraying again.

I changed options.txt back to just 5 levels, it does cause weird things to happen. We tried though!

I have seen the water cooling for cpu's in PCGamer magazine and some day I will own one with that feature. That is amazing that we are now using water cooling for electronics.

I have been wanting to ask you about your beta testing. How did you like AACW? I have that as well as BoA. I also have Forge Of Freedom, but still wonder your thoughts on AACW?

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Not so good, but still enjoying life.

It's a pity that neither XP nor Vista really does anything with multiple CPU's. I did some load balancing myself. The OC was done with water cooling from 2.9->3.2GHz.

How not so good, unless you don't want to talk about it? Most males don't talk about health issues, I realize that, but I'm different that way. If I know a person has a certain problem, I can pray for them in that area. Really!

That's strange that XP and Vista do not cater to multiple CPU's. I read and hear so much about dual core but that's one cpu. Do you feel that having four cpu's is better than a single dual core?

[MarkShot]

Well, actually I don't think I want to get into my health in a public support forum.

I'll be happy to talk to you about A-ACW. PM me with an email address.

At the moment, the most important determinant for game performance is CPU speed and not number of processors. Yes, I can do a few cool things with my multi-CPUs, but it is largely useless at this current juncture with XP/Vista and the gaming industry.

I can run two games on separate processors with both getting as much CPU as they want. Example, I can run AOD under DOSBOX in a window on my LCD making a long transit back to my base in France (stuck at TC 64X due to a bug) while playing a game of 1830 under DOSBOX on my CRT in a window, since my u-boat's transit will take a couple of hours. Both running on separate processors and not impacting each other. It helps to have multiple display too.

[LarryP]

PM it is! Although it's still in the A.M. here... that was a joke. [:D]

[alexs]

Hi Guys,
    I'll add this to my list to investigate for a patch.