New Update (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> Maximum-Football 2.0



Message

Hubbard -> New Update (9/12/2008 4:11:33 AM)

I don't understand. The game plays fine with the version prior to this last update. When I upgraded now i get a white screen in game. I can see slight shadows of the players.

I've never had a problem with patches up to this point. Anyone else having this problem?






Hubbard -> RE: New Update (9/12/2008 4:24:22 AM)

There is no problem with the display on the practice field. I did notice frame rates prior to installing the patch was 30+, now frame rates are in the teens.

Can anyone help me?



22sec -> RE: New Update (9/12/2008 4:29:18 AM)

I had this problem once, and if I remember correctly something got screwed up with the field texture files.



Hubbard -> RE: New Update (9/12/2008 4:42:59 AM)

I uninstalled and installed 2.0 and everything is fine. Any ideas?



long_time_fan -> RE: New Update (9/12/2008 4:12:27 PM)

I noticed somethings that were similar. The game took a downturn in terms of performance on my machine. Framerate makes the game look "jumpy". I might down grade to a lower graphics setting and see if that helps.
LTF



Hubbard -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 12:56:28 AM)

Here is a screen shot. I've waited patiently for a long time for this update. Someone please help!!!


Trying to embed screen shot in post but it says the file is too large. Ive posted screen shots before what is the deal?



Mykal -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 1:13:03 AM)

just make it smaller man
and try again



Hubbard -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 4:54:22 AM)

Okay here is the screen shot. I apologize for being a pain, but I've been waiting on this for a long time and I didn't see where the computer requirements had changed to run this game.

I figure if it ran okay prior to the update it should run fine now. Thanks.



[image]local://upfiles/20019/4831A562AB9340679A7E1B0F0E6C06FF.gif[/image]



Marauders -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 7:14:45 AM)

That's looks like a playoff game in Green Bay.

What graphics settings are you at?

What settings have you tried?

What settings worked before?



Hubbard -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 3:39:28 PM)

I used to play with normal player detail, 1024x768 32 screen size, shadow detail normal, sound on, and show replay off.

I have tried to play it with the new update with everything at it's lowest setting. Attached are screen shots of my system and graphics.



[image]local://upfiles/20019/8E0EE73BE5C5453EAF6E98052F414458.gif[/image]



Hubbard -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 3:40:48 PM)

Graphics

[image]local://upfiles/20019/195ACEE097B64C4A9F2B5C80E56B5131.gif[/image]



Mykal -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 4:25:51 PM)

just off the top of my head Bro,

I would say you need to look at that graphics memory
on the hole you've got a really good system but that graphical memory really isnt on a par with everything else

MaxFootball needs around 128mb minimum
and you've got 96mb max

I would put money on that being the problem



Tullius -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 5:10:58 PM)

I agree. You should have 128 MB of Graphic Memory.

Here the systems requirements (FAQ www.maximum-football.com)

quote:

What are the hardware requirements?

Windows XP(SP2) or Windows Vista
1 GHz CPU (2.0 GHz+ Recommended)
512 MB RAM Minimum. (2 GB for Windows Vista)
128 MB Video Card (Non-integrated Video) . Your video card must support at least Pixel 1.0 and Vertex Shader 1.0. DirectX-compatible Sound Card
300 MB free Hard Drive space
Windows Compatible Mouse
DirectX 9c
As of Version 2.0, versions of Microsoft Windows other than XP(SP2) or Vista are no longer supported.




therhino -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 6:34:21 PM)

Yeah I would say a new computer possibly might be better in the long run. I would suggest building your own it's something I have been doing for a while and it's very cheap compared to buying store bought. I got a 3GB, AMD Phenom, and a Nvidia 6--- series card. It can play any game and I won't have to update it for a long time. The total cost was like $400, but you can get less memory and a lesser graphics card and save about $100.



garysorrell -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 7:06:54 PM)

I think your PC is fine, but a new vid card wouldnt hurt.
I picked up an Nvidia 512 meg PCIe about a year ago, its dropped a bit in price. Im not a big gamer, I play mostly older stuff. It works great for me and runs MaxFB fantastic.


[image]local://upfiles/15334/FCF19F9023064BAE82CED0AED2AFC008.jpg[/image]



therhino -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 7:18:59 PM)

Yeah if you only play old games and don't use your computer much then a grpahics card might work.



quixian -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 7:20:35 PM)

While I am not seeing the severe glitches described above, the latest patch did cause a substantial framerate drop for me as well, and it's not like I'm seeing a commensurate change in graphical details to warrant such a drop.  I've tried re-installing it from scratch and I'm still seing about a 10-15 frames per second degredation in performance with this latest patch.

Gary, you mentioned in another thread using a fresh full install of 2270 prior to installing the patch, but I cannot find a full install for 2270 anywhere in registered downloads or elsewhere.  The only version available of 2270 is an upgrade patch version from 2.0 only - if installed on its own, it will not create the necessary directories or verify the serial number.  If indeed a complete install was distributed at some point, can Matrix please make this full install available to registered users?



garysorrell -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 8:05:11 PM)

If you have 2.0, then 2.2.70 upgrade is what you should have. The 2.2.70 complete is something that was on the beta testers server. Maybe that one is something they distributed to new buyers at the time. Or not. I dont know. If you have 2.0 and 2.2.70 upgrade, you already have the equivalent of the complete, so having it wouldnt be necessary. I always downloaded and tested whatever they posted, so I can vouch for it being the same.

I noticed a bit of a framerate drop. Not sure why, and unless we hear from David on this, or maybe Marauders or Erik might know, it may be something we have to live with.

I guess it would be a good idea for anyone having issues, to try an install of 2.0/2.2.70/2.2.90
If that doesnt work try 2.0/2.2.90

Never know what might be causing a problem.








Mykal -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 9:07:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: therhino

Yeah I would say a new computer possibly might be better in the long run. I would suggest building your own it's something I have been doing for a while and it's very cheap compared to buying store bought. I got a 3GB, AMD Phenom, and a Nvidia 6--- series card. It can play any game and I won't have to update it for a long time. The total cost was like $400, but you can get less memory and a lesser graphics card and save about $100.


400 USD............. man I need to move to america
I've just paid for my beast machine, now yer its a monster but cos me 933 british pounds (you can almost double that for Dollars)
still waiting for it to be built, I went the same as you Rhino, off the shelf just dont cut it, built to my own spec I cant go wrong.



therhino -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 9:38:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mykal


quote:

ORIGINAL: therhino

Yeah I would say a new computer possibly might be better in the long run. I would suggest building your own it's something I have been doing for a while and it's very cheap compared to buying store bought. I got a 3GB, AMD Phenom, and a Nvidia 6--- series card. It can play any game and I won't have to update it for a long time. The total cost was like $400, but you can get less memory and a lesser graphics card and save about $100.


400 USD............. man I need to move to america
I've just paid for my beast machine, now yer its a monster but cos me 933 british pounds (you can almost double that for Dollars)
still waiting for it to be built, I went the same as you Rhino, off the shelf just dont cut it, built to my own spec I cant go wrong.


Wait Mykal I mean build it yourself not let someone else build it to you specs. When I say build it I mean like put it together with yourself.



Mykal -> RE: New Update (9/13/2008 10:04:00 PM)

Yer, I knew what ya meant man

but I cant build my own anymore,
I was kicked in head and it left me with a funny twitch in my right hand
which happens when ever it feel like doing it, so building something like a pc aint a good idea

Kick in the head - nothing to stress over, kinda self inflicted
I left my concentration drop for a moment while sparring with the European Kick Boxing Champion
(well he was at that time, retired now and a very good friend of mine)

lesson learnt - dont take ya' kids with ya to the gym [:-]




quixian -> RE: New Update (9/14/2008 2:53:13 AM)

Gary - thanks for reassuring me on the two things I was concerned about:

1. That I wasn't missing any release package that had more updated files than what was previously available; and

2. That I'm not the only one seeing the framerate issues.

It's not a huge problem (my 2 desktop PCs play the game fine regardless), but I figured I would ask as my laptop needs every extra frame it can get to play MaxFB 2.0. I can play 1.0 on the laptop perfectly, but 2.0 is SO much better, it's hard.

Playing the most updated version of 1.0 is like playing a totally different game - it runs really smoothly, but constantly seeing a 6 yard out completion going the distance for a 80 yard TD several times a game gets a little tiring with 1.0. The poor downfield coverage and pursuers falling on their faces even when they get good angles is a bit frustrating. Wish I could tweak the constants.dat file with 1.0 to get it to play a little better, then I can enjoy 1.0 on the laptop and 2.0 on my desktops...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.390625