waltc

I honestly could care less about achievements... Not an issue for me...I think knowing the engine's console commands is far more important/interesting...but thanks for the info!

Two questions... 1) Console commands...list? 2) Is there a .cfg file (like autoexec.cfg) that I can create that will run when I run the game (so that I can avoid having to manually input into the console in each game session...?) Great game, btw! I wanted to state that quite by accident I discovered that even the very first of the game contains multiple paths in which the characters act very differently. Outstanding. I approach a game like this as a fine wine to be savored at length, in little sips...I am contemplating starting over again, just to see what I've missed....maybe...if I don't get pulled in and *forced* to continue....

What's your monitor's native resolution when running the Windows' desktop?

Yes, it's similar to scaling from 1920x1200 from 640x480 (which is not aspect-correct)...The image you see @ 2560x1080 is an exact duplicate of 1280x720, only each pixel is multiplied (scaled up) a number of times so that the total pixel output equals your 2560x1080 resolution--but the image quality itself is exactly the same as 1280x720. IE, you unfortunately cannot get an aspect-correct native res of 2560x1080, and so you do not get the actual benefit of more image detail through the higher resolution. Hopefully, this makes sense...

You already know that this is a new, largely unsupported resolution to date so I won't repeat... My opinion is that it's really meant for people in offices who want to run several spreadsheets and other kinds of business/document pages side by side without having to go the multimonitor route. What happens if you set your desktop to 2560x1080 and then run the game...? You could try that --but still, I think you are going to have serious aspect ratio problems...as obviously the game (any game, really) is not done @ 21:9 resolution, but @ 16:9, or 16:10 (1920x1200 is my resolution for the game.) I think you are going to have to settle for an aspect-ratio *correct* 1920x1080 resolution, which will mean you'll have sizable black borders to either side of the game screen. But I don't think that can be helped. This is probably the least helpful reply I can imagine. It's great that you don't have any issues - I'm very happy to hear that. Telling people that *do* have issues 'it's your fault for using an ultra-wide monitor' is not at all helpful, and doesn't contribute anything worthwhile. For what it's worth, 2560x1080 resolutions were mentioned as being supported in several places before I bought the game. That's only because you didn't understand my post...it isn't a matter of "supporting 2560x1080"...it's a matter of supporting *the aspect ratio* of 21:9, which I do not think the game supports at all. If you play @ 1920x1080 *at the correct aspect ratio* (so that your characters appear normal, not stretched) the image will *not* fill your screen. Again, 21:9 is a non-standard aspect ratio; it's not 16:9 or 16:10 or 4:3. That's the only comment I wanted to make. The vast majority of games support one or more of those aspect ratios--few, if any that I am aware of, support an aspect-correct 21:9. You should be able to view an aspect-correct image on your monitor with this game, just don't expect it to fill the screen, that's all. Sorry this was not what you wanted to hear...:/ Maybe you read correctly and the game does suppport an aspect-correct 21:9, but if so, then you should be able to display it, correct? Or, perhaps your GPU drivers do not yet support an aspect-correct 21:9. Main thing to deal with is the aspect ratio.

Sorry, but you're overlooking PAE which allows 32-bit OSes to address up to 64GB (though with a 4GB/process limitation) - compare that to the 16GB limitation of 64-bit Win7 Home Premium. In my case, I've got 18GB (not 24GB, my mistake there) of which 8GB is allocated to a ramdisk and 6GB to a caching utility. Most reported vulnerabilities are application issues (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Adobe Flash/Reader) and can be dealt with by removing the software and using an alternative (Opera/Firefox, VLC Player, Sumatra PDF reader). With XP, you can remove IE and WMP completely and be cured of all past and future issues with them. With Win7/8 you can't. The most secure system is a minimal system where you only have the features you need and with XP (plus the software I note above) you can customise XP to reach that ideal far better than with Win7/8. Furthermore, Win7/8 add a great deal more code which means more scope for future problems. Funny, because my hardware (X5650 Xeon, Gigabyte X58 motherboard, 18GB RAM, 2 x Nvidia 580GTX, 6 128GB Samsung SSD's in RAID 0 plus a few 2-3TB hard disks) works just fine, whereas with Win7/8 I'd lose access to some valued peripherals. But then I guess I have the edge in speaking from experience. PAE as a workaround for 32-bit systems really stinks if you haven't noticed... It's not to be compared with flat addressing...obviously, if PAE was "just as good" that's what we'd all be using...but it's not so we aren't. It's a kludgy work-around for 32-bit systems, that's it. That's what it's always been--which is why I'd forgotten about it... "Reported vulnerabilities"... I'm not talking about web browsers...WinXP is Swiss Cheese...you've obviously been smokin' something good lately... THese rationalizations are quite amusing... As of Vista, the entire OS security model in Windows changed...even device driver models (which is why Vista/Win7/ drivers won't run on XP.) It was (is) a from-the-ground-up change--fundamental. XP is obsolete. As far as your devices go, now I *know* you're smokin' something... Guy, those device drivers you speak so highly of are years out of date--you are probably missing a ton of capability that you know nothing about because it's not exposed under XP by your drivers (and never will be.) Either that, or you're simply BS'ing about all of this...(which if you are I have to admit is pretty funny.)

You already know that this is a new, largely unsupported resolution to date so I won't repeat... My opinion is that it's really meant for people in offices who want to run several spreadsheets and other kinds of business/document pages side by side without having to go the multimonitor route. What happens if you set your desktop to 2560x1080 and then run the game...? You could try that --but still, I think you are going to have serious aspect ratio problems...as obviously the game (any game, really) is not done @ 21:9 resolution, but @ 16:9, or 16:10 (1920x1200 is my resolution for the game.) I think you are going to have to settle for an aspect-ratio *correct* 1920x1080 resolution, which will mean you'll have sizable black borders to either side of the game screen. But I don't think that can be helped.

Thanks for the update - I run WinXP on my gaming system (Core i7 920, 24GB RAM, 2 x 580GTX graphics) and was concerned at its omission from the system requirements. As for those wondering why I and others are sticking with WinXP: Lower memory/CPU usage (typically 200-500MB less than Win7); More configurable thanks to XPLite and nLite - Win7 has 7Lite, 8 has nowt; Windows Product Activation can be more easily "managed"; Easier to secure (using software like Process Guard and System Safety Monitor - neither available now but no equivalent exists for Win 7+, nor likely to due to MS' restrictions on kernel modification on 64-bit systems); No GUI disasters like TIFKAM - XP's UI changes are generally a downside compared to Win2K but are almost all optional; Supports old hardware (the Microsoft Force Feedback 2 joystick and Microsoft Strategic Commander gamepad won't work on 64-bit systems); No 64-bit stupidity like requiring separate Program Files folders for 32 and 64 bit applications or storing 64-bit code in Windows\System32 while having 32-bit code in Windows\SysWOW64 Some issues are due to (Microsoft's kludgy implementation of) a 64-bit OS, but running (and paying for) a 32-bit version of Win8 seems to be asking for insult on top of injury. A switch to Linux would make more sense but there's very little in the way of application-aware firewall software which I would consider essential for online security (the closest would be TuxGuardian which has not been updated since 2006 and doesn't really offer the security options available from Windows products like Outpost or Look'n'Stop). Uh, I hate to point out what should be obvious, but with 24GBs of ram you don't need to worry about it... The most I'm aware of any game in history requiring is 8GB's at the absolute. 98% of computer games in existence use < 4GBs of ram. Besides, if you are running 32-bit Windows XP you can only address 3GBs of it--so you are *wasting* 21GBs of ram, if you are being honest and not just "cute" with your remarks. Seriously, guy, with hardware like yours running XP makes as much sense as you telling me you are booting up from MS-DOS every day... (Run DOSbox--that makes much more sense than sticking with XP.) Get real, guy. There are *no* "advantages" to running XP as your primary OS. Hang it up--that's a losing sentiment. Compared to Win8.x/10 today (and Win10 would be *free* for you had you been sensible and updated to Win7 years ago!), Win XP is a Swiss-cheese smorgasboard of security holes, exploits and malware...and Microsoft is no longer doing security patches for it. WinXP is Dead, guy... Go ahead, here's a hanky, have a good cry--and grab yourself a cheap copy of Win8.1 Pro (I paid Microsoft $40 direct for mine) so that you can upgrade to Win10 x64 later this year when it ships, for free...! I bought Win 8.0 for $39.99 from Microsoft, and because I did I got Win8.1 for free, and I'll get Win10x64 for free, too. Look, this *game* cost me more than Win8 Pro cost me, and Win10 will cost nothing if you are smart enough to upgrade. Frankly, if you don't upgrade your OS you might as well just pitch out most of your hardware because it's useless.