Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout General Modding' started by killap, Jan 6, 2013.
Actually this was quite a simple question
Yes, you only have to take the same precautions you'd take with Win 7. At least, that's my experience running on Win 8.
Anyway, for your other post, all of the other answers are for running on Win 95, which another user aksed help to do.
F2 Package version(from CD) crashing too.
same situation. original not crashing but crashing on RP.
i don't know what can i do for that. how can i solve the problem?
reinstall in other drive(physical other) after uninstall RP and F2(steam) and wipe folder, cleaning reg and turn off steam; but still have problem.
Ok I used the files in that download and now it says "could not load DirectX" when I try to launch the exe...
I tried my other games they all work I also tried reinstalling DX8 on the off chance it would help and nothing.. none of the DX9 options are selected in the ini's...
I always did remember Win 95 could be a pain but I still love it lol
Have you tried disabling the hi-res patch? Since the bundled hi-res patch 4.0.2 also requires DX9 dlls to work. If disabling it (by using f2_res_Config.exe) works, you can try using an older version of hi-res patch (3.0.6), which doesn't need DX9.
Sorry I forgot to say that I did.. But the same error came up then too
Really I tried all 3 options (basic, Direct Draw 7 and Disable) and still no joy
Will RP 2.2 be completed around first week of July?
I was just replying to his inquiry by quoting you. No stress.
@Matthews & crazy_typ3r
That's the hope. And while we're at it, a little poke towards Timeslip to see where things stand with a new sfall release.
Is the new sfall necessary for 2.2 module completion?
In my eyes, yes. At the very least, Timeslip has one crash fix ready but it isn't yet part of the public build. Another fix for super stim crashes is still in the research phase, so it probably doesn't make sense to wait on that or make Timeslip rush.
Bottom line, because this is the last major* RP release, I want to make it as perfect as possible.
*And by major I mean inevitably there will be a minor update soon after to fix any issues that crept through.
OK, I've set up a Win95 OSR2 environment today and got the same error.
It looks like sfall just doesn't play nice with Win95. Honestly I don't have any clue on how to solve it, sorry.
What about the manual install of the RP, where you have to copy over sfall for Win 9x. Is that version of sfall failing for Win 95?
I didn't install RP, only try to set up a simple FO2+sfall game in Win95.
I tried both the included 1.47b and an even older 1.37 (from Web Archive), and none of them work for Win95. Guess sfall never supports Win95.
I did some probing and found this on a sfall FAQ
"Where is the windows 9x version of sfall?
There is no longer an official build for windows 9x. This is nothing to do with the move to sourceforge, but rather due to the switch from visual studio 2005 to 2008. (And later, to 2010) Building win9x compatible binaries is not supported with vs2008. It's worth noting that vs2005 didn't support win9x either, and a large amount of messy hacks (see win9x.cpp in svn) were required to get it to build. The resulting version lacked some of the features of full sfall, and since 1.46 had ceased working completely. Building a win9x version by now requires fairly substantial code changes as well as switching to a far older compiler, but is probably still possible. "
The FAQ is for 2.x version or later, and Win9x sfall was before that. In Win98SE the old sfall works fine (mostly).
I feel old XP
looks like it must have always needed Dx 9 since Win 98se could use it, So 95 with its max of Dx 8a is SOL oh well it was worth a shot. I'll just have to start hitting up the "vintage" computer forums and see how to get 98 to play nice with this old girl...
P.S. having to go to "vintage" forums for my 'High School' laptop.... not a good reminder of my age lol
Re: I feel old XP
Actually the issue is how it was compiled, specifically the version of Visual Studio. As mentioned in the sfall readme you found, Visual Studio 2005 was the last version to support Win 9x, which should encompass Win 95. However, I've read that this may not have been the case and that some tweaking needed to be done to ensure Win 95 compatibility with VS 2005. So I believe directX is a red herring here.
Oh well, it's a bit of a shame I don't support the original OS, though Win 98 was out by that time and the RP does work on that. NovaRain, you say it "mostly" works on Win 98. What do you mean exactly?
Heh, I wonder how many programmers are still talking about Win 9x support. I guess I just care too much.
Re: I feel old XP
If it's open source I may build it with MinGW for you
EDIT: I already checked out the repo, and will make a CMakeLists. When I'm done, I'll offer this to TimeSlip.
EDIT 2: It seems GCC works with inline assembly in a very different way than MSVC. I might still try to achieve compatibility, but A) I'd prefer to ask permission from Timeslip (if she doesn't want it, and since I'm not willing to fork her work, it might be a better option to just not do it) and B) it will be in a few weeks from now, or probably after the next release, but for sure in a few weeks since I've got to study.
I have no idea what the last version of visual studio to properly support win 95 was, but quite possibly it was v6. 2005 certainly didn't, and building the win 95 version required ifdefing out all of the graphical code, a few other bits of code, and not linking with any of the standard libraries and instead providing my own implementations of memcpy, memset, etc. svn commit #3 removed all of those ifdefs, so in trying to build a new win95 version svn revision 2 will give you a starting point for looking at the code that needs to be stripped out/added.
I use vs2010 these days, and even my messy hacks aren't enough to get a win9x version out any more. It's hard enough building a win2k version.
GCC, as you noticed already, uses a completely different syntax for inline assembly. It is possible to add extra psudoinstructions to tell the assembler to flip from at&t to intel syntax and back again, but it still wont work because (iirc) GCC doesn't support using local variables inside asm blocks when using intel syntax.
Win95/98 also doesn't fall for the name-a-dll-after-a-system-dll-and-put-it-in-the-app-folder trick, so using sfall requires renaming the dll to sfall.dll and hexediting fallout2.exe to match.