The Witcher Patch

A new patch for The Witcher is now available to update CD Projekt's action/RPG to version 1.2. The new version does not add any features; bug fixes and tweaks are the order of the day, as outlined in the change log. The download is available from ActionTrip, AtomicGamer, ComputerGames.ro, FanGaming, FileFront, FileShack, Gamer's Hell, The Patches Scrolls, and PixelRage.
View : : :
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
33.
 
Re: lol
Dec 21, 2007, 15:19
33.
Re: lol Dec 21, 2007, 15:19
Dec 21, 2007, 15:19
 
The English translation that made it into the final game was substantially cut down. The hacked translation restores the full translation, but you'll still have the regular VOs so they won't match. This is the main reason why I'm not using the hacked translation.


Here's a link: http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=21845
This comment was edited on Dec 21, 15:36.
Avatar 20715
32.
 
Re: lol
Dec 21, 2007, 14:25
32.
Re: lol Dec 21, 2007, 14:25
Dec 21, 2007, 14:25
 
And after reghacking in the original CDP english translation,

What's this and what does it improve?

Avatar 17249
31.
 
Re: lol
Dec 21, 2007, 07:36
31.
Re: lol Dec 21, 2007, 07:36
Dec 21, 2007, 07:36
 
Maximum pc might have done that test, but thats years ago; the data to be loaded from HD to gpu has grown tremendously. You now need to fill up 256/512 mb of video memory...where do those textures come from? The HDD.
Access times are a bottleneck, even moreso since the HDD is the slowest system in anyone's rig...and due to the way ram/vram are filled, it's something which directly affects load times, especially now with the huge amounts of data which have to be loaded in before the game can start to run.

As for the leuvaarden bug..when the construction kit comes out, that'll be fixable. Me, I'm in Act 4 and having a blast.

And after reghacking in the original CDP english translation, this is definitely RPG of past halfdecade for me.

30.
 
Re: lol
Dec 21, 2007, 03:59
30.
Re: lol Dec 21, 2007, 03:59
Dec 21, 2007, 03:59
 
I think he said 'raid0 raptors'. 10k rpm compared to 7200rpm. I'm sure 15k scsi drives wouldn't double the average 7200 HD, but I think it would be faster. Like anything, it's going to depend on the hardware and application but I don't see how performance could be worse.

Personally I'd go with raid1 just for the peace of mind over the perhaps negligible amount of performance gain. But there's nothing wrong with being on the bleeding edge.

This comment was edited on Dec 21, 04:03.
Avatar 19418
29.
 
Re: lol
Dec 21, 2007, 03:33
29.
Re: lol Dec 21, 2007, 03:33
Dec 21, 2007, 03:33
 
But Overon didn't you read what he wrote?

A 10 to 15 second improvement in load times all from using Raid 0!

Avatar 17249
28.
 
Re: lol
Dec 21, 2007, 03:22
Flo
 
28.
Re: lol Dec 21, 2007, 03:22
Dec 21, 2007, 03:22
 Flo
 
Finally! I picked it up cheap about two days ago. Save/Load times were the only issues that bothered me.
Supporter of the "Chewbacca Defense"
27.
 
Re: lol
Dec 21, 2007, 02:36
27.
Re: lol Dec 21, 2007, 02:36
Dec 21, 2007, 02:36
 
Last time I checked, Raid 0 did virtually nothing for game loading. Proof:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=10
and
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1063/index02.asp

26.
 
Re: lol
Dec 20, 2007, 23:06
26.
Re: lol Dec 20, 2007, 23:06
Dec 20, 2007, 23:06
 
Twice as much HD capacity > quicker load times.

Avatar 20715
25.
 
Re: lol
Dec 20, 2007, 23:00
25.
Re: lol Dec 20, 2007, 23:00
Dec 20, 2007, 23:00
 
"Very little effect" has been as much as cutting the load times in half for me. Not sure about their test but my real world experience with a RAID 0 set-up made me a believer. I mainly made the move to RAID for the quicker loads (and entry) into on-line shooters like BF2 and a few others I was playing back then.

If you have RAID and a good system you will be in game as much as ten to fifteen seconds before the people running regular rigs. Some games now block you from taking advantage of the situation but others don't. I agree the CPU has a big part but I've tested this with others friends who had similar or the same CPUs. I was even getting in first at times compared to a friend with a faster CPU.

When I added the RAID I didn't change anything except adding the additional drive, wiping the single drive, and reinstalling XP. And I timed the loads for several games. It was 1/3 faster for BF2 which is the only one I still remember.

Besides if there wasn't any difference how could the manufactures get away with selling the faster drives at the higher price point? Or the more important question would be what would be the point?

As far as The Witcher patch goes... I am surprised they were able to make such change and not break the previous saves. Great job. And an awesome game which I have been looking forward to replaying since finishing it the first time.

Now that the patch is out I may just restart. Of course I still have a few other games I am trying to get through...


This comment was edited on Dec 20, 23:11.
24.
 
Re: lol
Dec 20, 2007, 22:38
24.
Re: lol Dec 20, 2007, 22:38
Dec 20, 2007, 22:38
 
Maximum PC did a test a few years back showing that hard drive speed had very little effect on game load times, even using your specific configuration (2x74GB Raptors) vs a standard single 7200RPM drive. The bottleneck is almost entirely CPU-related, as most of the work is decompressing various assets into memory. Of course, a dead-slow 5400RPM drive with a small cache will hinder performance, as will slow system memory, but a faster CPU definitively improves performance everywhere, in-game and out.

Also, you'll get the biggest bump from this patch if you're running 2GB+ of RAM. Load times improved on my X2 3800+/1GB/RAID0 setup, but even more so on my Core 2 Duo 2.2/2GB/5400RPM laptop. Seems like they've basically added/fixed asset allocation, for example, entering a house and then backing out to the area map has seen the biggest improvement, along with loading save games in the same map.

I'll get back into this game at some point, but I ran into a random game-stopping bug (Leuvaarden didn't sell me the sephirot, and another quest killed the dialog...checked inventories and the monolith, no love, so I'm stuck). I was getting a bit bored with it anyways, so it'll be collecting dust for a while. This is why I think every RPG needs a console, as it would save me here and has saved me before, in Morrowind and other games.

Avatar 19465
23.
 
lol
Dec 20, 2007, 22:05
23.
lol Dec 20, 2007, 22:05
Dec 20, 2007, 22:05
 
Everyone drops tons of money on their rigs but they neglect to get the fast drives.

Its called RAID 0 raptors people!!!!

My load times with this game have always been good now it's blistering

22.
 
Re: More clarification on load times....
Dec 20, 2007, 19:41
22.
Re: More clarification on load times.... Dec 20, 2007, 19:41
Dec 20, 2007, 19:41
 
After some time in, load times are a lot faster. My system is well what you listed.

Guess my cache needed to fill or something as I had just set it back to system managed (or whatever)

Thanks.

This comment was edited on Dec 20, 19:47.
21.
 
Will do...
Dec 20, 2007, 19:34
21.
Will do... Dec 20, 2007, 19:34
Dec 20, 2007, 19:34
 
The load times made a significant impact on this game's sales, so it is extremely unfortunate that they didn't take the time to fix this problem before release. I am sure they are kicking themselves over it.

However, a few people are going to be aware of the patch and buy the game, such as myself. Looking forward to playing it...

20.
 
Re: More clarification on load times....
Dec 20, 2007, 19:31
20.
Re: More clarification on load times.... Dec 20, 2007, 19:31
Dec 20, 2007, 19:31
 
My machine is a beast and it used to take forever to load and save games... Now it takes about 3 seconds at the most!

Avatar 17249
19.
 
Re: More clarification on load times....
Dec 20, 2007, 18:59
19.
Re: More clarification on load times.... Dec 20, 2007, 18:59
Dec 20, 2007, 18:59
 
Didn't do much for my load times though. A bit but not much, which sucks because the loads really take away from the flow.

Load times still suck if your system is underpowered.

Not picking on you, but the official forums are full of posts from people with 2.0 GHz proc, 1 GB RAM, and 128 MB video cards that still complain their system runs slow. If you fall in this category, you need to upgrade your system as the patch will have minimal effect.

On the other hand if you have a decent system and the patch didn't help, check out the Witcher forums. There are a number of helpful people that may help you tweak the game and/or OS.

Avatar 23550
18.
 
Re: More clarification on load times....
Dec 20, 2007, 18:19
18.
Re: More clarification on load times.... Dec 20, 2007, 18:19
Dec 20, 2007, 18:19
 
By load times, does that mean "loading a saved game" or "loading between areas"?

m19

Avatar 11406
17.
 
Re: More clarification on load times....
Dec 20, 2007, 17:21
17.
Re: More clarification on load times.... Dec 20, 2007, 17:21
Dec 20, 2007, 17:21
 
I think the load times and their improvement are equipment related. My near minimum requirement machine has gotten a better than 50% speed-up from the patch, which is great.
I know the amplitude of time.
16.
 
Re: More clarification on load times....
Dec 20, 2007, 17:15
16.
Re: More clarification on load times.... Dec 20, 2007, 17:15
Dec 20, 2007, 17:15
 
Didn't do much for my load times though. A bit but not much, which sucks because the loads really take away from the flow.

15.
 
No subject
Dec 20, 2007, 17:09
15.
No subject Dec 20, 2007, 17:09
Dec 20, 2007, 17:09
 
Holy shit the load times are much improved...

I can play again! Huzzah!

Avatar 17249
14.
 
Re: GREAT RPG
Dec 20, 2007, 16:50
14.
Re: GREAT RPG Dec 20, 2007, 16:50
Dec 20, 2007, 16:50
 
IT'S AN ACTION-RPG, YOU SONS OF BITCHES.

Avatar 20715
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older