PDA

View Full Version : GeForce 3 and Halo for PC


Buster Hyman
November 8th 03, 02:58 AM
I have installed the demo version of Halo on my sys but I keep getting the
error message " A problem occurred initializing direct3d. Hardware
acceleration may be disabled, run DXDIAG". I ran dxdiag, acceleration is
not disabled. The known issues in the read me file say that "
NVIDIA Video Cards and FSAA Modes: You may experience difficulties running
Halo using NVIDIA video cards in any of the FSAA modes. If you are having a
problem, you should disable the FSAA mode for the NVIDIA video card."

Can anyone tell me how to disable FSAA mode? And do you think this is the
problem. I'd really like to try Halo online, I've had it for XBOX since
day1. Thanks for your help.

Buster Hyman
November 8th 03, 03:46 AM
I found out how to disable AA but the thing still gives me that error
message. Any recommendations? Thanks

"Buster Hyman" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
> I have installed the demo version of Halo on my sys but I keep getting the
> error message " A problem occurred initializing direct3d. Hardware
> acceleration may be disabled, run DXDIAG". I ran dxdiag, acceleration is
> not disabled. The known issues in the read me file say that "
> NVIDIA Video Cards and FSAA Modes: You may experience difficulties running
> Halo using NVIDIA video cards in any of the FSAA modes. If you are having
a
> problem, you should disable the FSAA mode for the NVIDIA video card."
>
> Can anyone tell me how to disable FSAA mode? And do you think this is
the
> problem. I'd really like to try Halo online, I've had it for XBOX since
> day1. Thanks for your help.
>
>

Indiana
November 8th 03, 07:18 AM
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:58:04 GMT, "Buster Hyman" >
wrote:

>I have installed the demo version of Halo on my sys but I keep getting the
>error message " A problem occurred initializing direct3d. Hardware
>acceleration may be disabled, run DXDIAG". I ran dxdiag, acceleration is
>not disabled.

I ran into this particular problem because of the way I had locked out
many of the refresh rates on my system. Halo seems to want to display
it's initial bootup screen in 60Hz no matter what ven though the game
itself can run on higher rates once it's running. Once I put all
those refresh rates back into my registry, Halo was happy. Not sure
if this applies in your particular situation, but it spit out that
exact same error simply due to my personal refresh rate modifactions.
Clearly the game has pretty poor error reporting IMHO.

Athura
November 8th 03, 08:20 AM
I ran into the same problems until i added this switch to the end of the
shortcut properties -vidmode 1027,768,85
This forces the game to use the stated res and refresh rate

Buster Hyman
November 8th 03, 01:03 PM
Thanks for the quick response, I went into my monitor properties and set it
to back to 60, I had it set at 75. I still got the exact same message. Is
there a different way to do what you are describing below?

"Indiana" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:58:04 GMT, "Buster Hyman" >
> wrote:
>
> >I have installed the demo version of Halo on my sys but I keep getting
the
> >error message " A problem occurred initializing direct3d. Hardware
> >acceleration may be disabled, run DXDIAG". I ran dxdiag, acceleration is
> >not disabled.
>
> I ran into this particular problem because of the way I had locked out
> many of the refresh rates on my system. Halo seems to want to display
> it's initial bootup screen in 60Hz no matter what ven though the game
> itself can run on higher rates once it's running. Once I put all
> those refresh rates back into my registry, Halo was happy. Not sure
> if this applies in your particular situation, but it spit out that
> exact same error simply due to my personal refresh rate modifactions.
> Clearly the game has pretty poor error reporting IMHO.
>

Buster Hyman
November 8th 03, 01:04 PM
Thanks for the help, can you tell me how to do what you describe?

"Athura" > wrote in message
...
> I ran into the same problems until i added this switch to the end of the
> shortcut properties -vidmode 1027,768,85
> This forces the game to use the stated res and refresh rate
>
>

Athura
November 8th 03, 09:47 PM
Find the Halo shortcut in the start menu or on the desktop, right click on
it and click properties. In the 'target' field, leave a space after the last
character thats in there already, then type in -vidmode then 1024,768,85 (as
an example) or what res and refresh rate you want it to run in.

ntl: Victim
November 10th 03, 02:27 AM
"Buster Hyman" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
> I have installed the demo version of Halo on my sys but I keep getting the
> error message " A problem occurred initializing direct3d. Hardware
> acceleration may be disabled, run DXDIAG". I ran dxdiag, acceleration is
> not disabled. The known issues in the read me file say that "
> NVIDIA Video Cards and FSAA Modes: You may experience difficulties running
> Halo using NVIDIA video cards in any of the FSAA modes. If you are having
a
> problem, you should disable the FSAA mode for the NVIDIA video card."
>
> Can anyone tell me how to disable FSAA mode? And do you think this is
the
> problem. I'd really like to try Halo online, I've had it for XBOX since
> day1. Thanks for your help.
>
>

Is it just me but I thought this game was a DirectX 9 game therefore you
wouldn't be able to run it on a GF3 in hardware accelerated mode???

ntl: Victim
November 10th 03, 10:14 AM
"ras2" > wrote in message
...
> On 2003-11-10 01:27:07 GMT, ntl: Victim >
> wrote in >:
> >
> > Is it just me but I thought this game was a DirectX 9 game therefore you
> > wouldn't be able to run it on a GF3 in hardware accelerated mode???
>
> I'm running it on a GF2 MX. Of course, it doesn't look much like
> the screenshots you see, but it's not bad (though I think it's
> a bit pathetic that I don't get shadows even as an option).
>
> The game has renderers for DX9, DX8, DX7 (IIRC) and basic T&L cards,
> so it doesn't require DX9 hardware.
>
>
> -R.

I'm just slightly confused since the reviews I have read recently state that
the game was optimised for use with DirectX 9 and they didn't bother doing
and optimizations for the previous DirectX version meaning it would run like
a bag of ****e on anything less than a DirectX 9 compatible card e.g. Radeon
9800 etc...

I can only imagine that on you card it must look basically ****e, since it
is bloody awful on a FX5900U and a Radeon 9800Pro (Graphically even UT2003
looks so much better) to be honest I haven't even tried it on my lowly
backup PC's (P3-800 with GF4 Ti4600 or the P2-450 with GF2 GTS)

But hey if I'm wrong then I'm wrong....
NV

John Lewis
November 10th 03, 07:50 PM
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:14:26 -0000, "ntl: Victim"
> wrote:

>"ras2" > wrote in message
...

>I'm just slightly confused since the reviews I have read recently state that
>the game was optimised for use with DirectX 9 and they didn't bother doing
>and optimizations for the previous DirectX version meaning it would run like
>a bag of ****e on anything less than a DirectX 9 compatible card e.g. Radeon
>9800 etc...
>
>I can only imagine that on you card it must look basically ****e, since it
>is bloody awful on a FX5900U and a Radeon 9800Pro (Graphically even UT2003
>looks so much better) to be honest I haven't even tried it on my lowly
>backup PC's (P3-800 with GF4 Ti4600 or the P2-450 with GF2 GTS)
>

Bloody awful...... in what way ?

John Lewis

Lebowski
November 11th 03, 04:52 AM
"ntl: Victim" > wrote in message
...
> "ras2" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2003-11-10 01:27:07 GMT, ntl: Victim >
> > wrote in >:
> > >
> > > Is it just me but I thought this game was a DirectX 9 game therefore
you
> > > wouldn't be able to run it on a GF3 in hardware accelerated mode???
> >
> > I'm running it on a GF2 MX. Of course, it doesn't look much like
> > the screenshots you see, but it's not bad (though I think it's
> > a bit pathetic that I don't get shadows even as an option).
> >
> > The game has renderers for DX9, DX8, DX7 (IIRC) and basic T&L cards,
> > so it doesn't require DX9 hardware.
> >
> >
> > -R.
>
> I'm just slightly confused since the reviews I have read recently state
that
> the game was optimised for use with DirectX 9 and they didn't bother doing
> and optimizations for the previous DirectX version meaning it would run
like
> a bag of ****e on anything less than a DirectX 9 compatible card e.g.
Radeon
> 9800 etc...
>
> I can only imagine that on you card it must look basically ****e, since it
> is bloody awful on a FX5900U and a Radeon 9800Pro (Graphically even UT2003
> looks so much better) to be honest I haven't even tried it on my lowly
> backup PC's (P3-800 with GF4 Ti4600 or the P2-450 with GF2 GTS)
>
> But hey if I'm wrong then I'm wrong....
> NV
>
>

That is a misconception. It looks great on my ti4200, and apparently it
looks arguably better on a GeForce4 than on an FX card (as screwed up as
that sounds)..just the way they optimised and ported the thing...they really
screwed it up somewhat!

John Lewis
November 11th 03, 05:18 AM
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:52:23 +1300, "Lebowski"
> wrote:

>
>"ntl: Victim" > wrote in message
...
>> "ras2" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 2003-11-10 01:27:07 GMT, ntl: Victim >
>> > wrote in >:
>> > >
>> > > Is it just me but I thought this game was a DirectX 9 game therefore
>you
>> > > wouldn't be able to run it on a GF3 in hardware accelerated mode???
>> >
>> > I'm running it on a GF2 MX. Of course, it doesn't look much like
>> > the screenshots you see, but it's not bad (though I think it's
>> > a bit pathetic that I don't get shadows even as an option).
>> >
>> > The game has renderers for DX9, DX8, DX7 (IIRC) and basic T&L cards,
>> > so it doesn't require DX9 hardware.
>> >
>> >
>> > -R.
>>
>> I'm just slightly confused since the reviews I have read recently state
>that
>> the game was optimised for use with DirectX 9 and they didn't bother doing
>> and optimizations for the previous DirectX version meaning it would run
>like
>> a bag of ****e on anything less than a DirectX 9 compatible card e.g.
>Radeon
>> 9800 etc...
>>
>> I can only imagine that on you card it must look basically ****e, since it
>> is bloody awful on a FX5900U and a Radeon 9800Pro (Graphically even UT2003
>> looks so much better) to be honest I haven't even tried it on my lowly
>> backup PC's (P3-800 with GF4 Ti4600 or the P2-450 with GF2 GTS)
>>
>> But hey if I'm wrong then I'm wrong....
>> NV
>>
>>
>
>That is a misconception. It looks great on my ti4200, and apparently it
>looks arguably better on a GeForce4 than on an FX card (as screwed up as
>that sounds)..just the way they optimised and ported the thing...they really
>screwed it up somewhat!
>

I have a FX 5900/ 52.16 driver and a GF4 4400 45.23 driver. Looks
super on my FX5900, all video bells and whistles on. Have to run the
4400 at lower res and some options turned down for reasonable speed.

Can you put on your glasses and tell me exactly what you have seen,
or are you just replaying hear-say........ ?

John Lewis


>

Lebowski
November 12th 03, 05:20 AM
"John Lewis" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:52:23 +1300, "Lebowski"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"ntl: Victim" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "ras2" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On 2003-11-10 01:27:07 GMT, ntl: Victim >
> >> > wrote in >:
> >> > >
> >> > > Is it just me but I thought this game was a DirectX 9 game
therefore
> >you
> >> > > wouldn't be able to run it on a GF3 in hardware accelerated mode???
> >> >
> >> > I'm running it on a GF2 MX. Of course, it doesn't look much like
> >> > the screenshots you see, but it's not bad (though I think it's
> >> > a bit pathetic that I don't get shadows even as an option).
> >> >
> >> > The game has renderers for DX9, DX8, DX7 (IIRC) and basic T&L cards,
> >> > so it doesn't require DX9 hardware.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -R.
> >>
> >> I'm just slightly confused since the reviews I have read recently state
> >that
> >> the game was optimised for use with DirectX 9 and they didn't bother
doing
> >> and optimizations for the previous DirectX version meaning it would run
> >like
> >> a bag of ****e on anything less than a DirectX 9 compatible card e.g.
> >Radeon
> >> 9800 etc...
> >>
> >> I can only imagine that on you card it must look basically ****e, since
it
> >> is bloody awful on a FX5900U and a Radeon 9800Pro (Graphically even
UT2003
> >> looks so much better) to be honest I haven't even tried it on my lowly
> >> backup PC's (P3-800 with GF4 Ti4600 or the P2-450 with GF2 GTS)
> >>
> >> But hey if I'm wrong then I'm wrong....
> >> NV
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That is a misconception. It looks great on my ti4200, and apparently it
> >looks arguably better on a GeForce4 than on an FX card (as screwed up as
> >that sounds)..just the way they optimised and ported the thing...they
really
> >screwed it up somewhat!
> >
>
> I have a FX 5900/ 52.16 driver and a GF4 4400 45.23 driver. Looks
> super on my FX5900, all video bells and whistles on. Have to run the
> 4400 at lower res and some options turned down for reasonable speed.
>
> Can you put on your glasses and tell me exactly what you have seen,
> or are you just replaying hear-say........ ?
>
> John Lewis
>
>
Are you responding to me? :) If yes, then yes, I was just repeating hearsay,
but if it looks great on your card, then fabulous :) Hmmm...one person says
it looks bloody awful, then another guy says he runs it ok on a GeForce 2.
Runs fine on my ti4200. Guess it depends on who you talk to (and how easy
some people are to please) :)

Darthy
November 12th 03, 10:59 AM
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:14:26 -0000, "ntl: Victim"
> wrote:

>> The game has renderers for DX9, DX8, DX7 (IIRC) and basic T&L cards,
>> so it doesn't require DX9 hardware.
>
>I'm just slightly confused since the reviews I have read recently state that
>the game was optimised for use with DirectX 9 and they didn't bother doing

Halo is a DX8 Quality game requiring DX9 to be installed, but will RUN
on a DX7 card (playable - er no) but runs just fine on my Ti4200.

NOBODY makes a non DX9 compatible games, very few people have such
cards.

>and optimizations for the previous DirectX version meaning it would run like
>a bag of ****e on anything less than a DirectX 9 compatible card e.g. Radeon
>9800 etc...

Trust me, HALO runs far better on my Ti4200 than the on a 5200... the
games looks slightly different with the "glass" effects on some
weapons and such... but looks fine on both, just look different.

>I can only imagine that on you card it must look basically ****e, since it
>is bloody awful on a FX5900U and a Radeon 9800Pro (Graphically even UT2003
>looks so much better)

UT2003 and Unreal 2 play very well on my TI4200/AMD XP2500 @ AMD
XP2900 speed. As does HALO... Running junkware and crap can cause
performance slowdown on any system,

> to be honest I haven't even tried it on my lowly
>backup PC's (P3-800 with GF4 Ti4600 or the P2-450 with GF2 GTS)

Need some new CPUs upgrades... Even a GF3 Ti200 chokes on a
PIII-800Mhz system.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
November 12th 03, 11:02 AM
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:18:00 GMT, (John Lewis)
wrote:
>>That is a misconception. It looks great on my ti4200, and apparently it
>>looks arguably better on a GeForce4 than on an FX card (as screwed up as
>>that sounds)..just the way they optimised and ported the thing...they really
>>screwed it up somewhat!
>>
>
>I have a FX 5900/ 52.16 driver and a GF4 4400 45.23 driver. Looks
>super on my FX5900, all video bells and whistles on. Have to run the
>4400 at lower res and some options turned down for reasonable speed.
>
>Can you put on your glasses and tell me exactly what you have seen,
>or are you just replaying hear-say........ ?
>
>John Lewis

On my Ti4200 - I have all details on MAX, but res at 1024x768 - some
jerkyness at times, Sloppy work on M$/etc for the PC port. Unreal2
has far better graphic detail - but plays a lot smoother.



--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!