Hi Magic,

Did you try to turn GUS off?

Magic531 wrote:

I have tried the following variations with the .72 as well as .63 (because in googling the problem before I came here I saw a posting in another forum that said it did indeed work for him in .63)

Because 0.63 was current at that time he posted, was it not?

Yep. Something that I forgot to mention that is also relevant, I've tried all the above configs with the music/sound turned off via soundset.exe, as well as it being turned off within D-FendReloaded. So I'm relatively certain that it is not a sound issue. I'm not a DosBox ninja, but I have also tried fiddling with the various memory settings that the reloaded gui lets you play with, but I havn't been as OCD about trying every single setting with every single install configuration. I was kinda hoping to get some guidance here before I went quite that far.

And yes, the posting that I found while googling did seem to come about when .63 was present. I mentioned that fact just in case there was some known bug or something in the later forks that broke this partciular game. I'm getting the same error in both versions of DosBox but eh, I figured it didn't hurt to mention it.

Sooooooo.....anybody have any other ideas:)

Please post your DOSBox configuration and the mountings that you used.
The game works perfectly on my system with default settings, but it's the floppy version, so that might also make a difference.

Ok, well thank goodness for abandonware sites.

So I started thinking that the error I was getting, a hex dump and a hard crash, seemed way more likely to be the programs fault then DosBox. So to test yet something else, I found a site that had an abandonware copy of it. I tried 'that', and it worked fine with the stock settings. I don't know if I just got some bad areas on my old copy or what, (I did get this ages ago) but it works fine now. I.E., wasn't dosbox's fault.

So the only problem now is that I can't get a joystick to work with it. Not a big deal, and I havn't googled the problem yet, but just out of curosity should I be having any problems with that aspect of it?

bump

Stop that or i'll close the thread.

Wow, so a week isn't a long enough time to wait to bump a thread up? Please oh great master, relay your wisdom onto what the timetable should be. I totally understand not making it a daily occurrence or some such. But a full week. Huh?

Wow, so a week isn't a long enough time to wait to bump a thread up?

Right.
There's no reason to "bump" a thread besides annoying people who assume
some relevant info has been added.

Actually, that is incorrect.

Most people use forums in one of two ways. They either A.- are searching for a specific problem of their own, or B - look at the frontpage for any relevant posts worth clicking on.

Once the post was on the second page and I saw that it had been a week, I bumped it back to the front page. Why? Not to "...annoying people who assume some relevant info has been added." but because the most likely way that I am going to get an answer is going to be from someone casually browsing the first page, having this particular game and then clicking on it. The chances that same casual person is going to be clicking into multiple pages is lower.

Anyways, maybe you never thought about it from this frame of reference before, but there it is. Thanks!

Yeah and if everybody does that we got hundreds of bump postings every day so do NOT do that again.

Case B would be stupid people that have already registered on the forum?

Because the non-stupid that have already registered would be case C: Using the "Since last visit" page.

So your target audience would be 1) Stupid people + 2) The few clever people that registered after your post disappeared from the front page.

'sigh'

Not everyone is going to use the 'since last visit' feature. In fact, I think it could be successfully argued that the most likely candidates to use it would be board regulars, who are 'not' my target audience, since most likely the reg's have already seen the topic.

So once again, if you reread my last post a little more carefully, you would see that my target would be the person who either dosn't come here often and might very not have an account, or someone who hasn't ever been here before that is finding the forum through a tangential search.

As to wd:

I haven't done the math on it, but considering after 7 days this post was on the second page, I think it is unlikely that there would be '100's of pump postings every day.' If you figure a small of 7 day intervals for bump postings, take out all of the posts that either have active discussions on them or have already been answered and are no longer current, I think you would find you would have far fewer then that. I'm thinking two or three, but that's a pretty arbitrary number. However, if stupid people continue to debate the obvious, I might actually try to figure it out. I hope I don't have to 😉

Really guys, I don't mind debating, nor do I mind changing my point of view on something if I am incorrect, but being the stereotypical 'forum jerks' might make you feel better, but it doesn't do anything for winning an argument. Cheers!

I think if you had been a bit more polite than writing a plain 'bump' certain neurons wouldn't have fired 😉.

However, if stupid people continue to debate the obvious

Yeah.