SecuRom drops framerate bigtime

[Heinz234]

Even though Selene "Thread Closed" Moonsong states otherwise, it is fairly obvious to anybody that actually tries to do the test him/herself will find that not only SecuRom copy protection does drop framerates significantly it also prevents lots of paying customers from playing the games it is to protect without actually stopping the piracy ofcourse.

Remove the damned protection . it saves your loyal mods from having to spend time here to close threads that might damage Atari's reputation ( or what is left of it, if there is anything left at all)

[Deinbeck]

Where is the proof of this?

I suspected it might be a cause, I mean if reviewers were reviewing a retail copy with the bizarre framerate that many people experience, would it have gotten the rave reviews it got? It struck me as odd, I figure they probably reviewed a prerelease minus the protection, but I haven't been able to prove this. The only thing that comes to mind is removing any and all virtual drives through uninstall and compare framerates, but unless there's some sort of conflict there, I don't see how that would do anything. Aside from using an alternate exe, which I am obviously a little hesitant to do, I don't see how this can be proven.

Again I will state that I noticed a rediculous frame increase inside the toolset http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=549147, a much larger jump than anything happening in game could explain. Someone commented in another forum that all the other things going on in the game could be eating the resources. I don't see what else could be going out side of the graphics that isnt going on in Baldurs gate 2. I wonder how many instances of that game anyone with a modern system can run at once.....

I don't agree with petitioning Atari to remove thier copy protection if there isn't valid proof that the protection is causing the purchased product to malfunction. They have a right to protect thier property, and having a disc spin a little longer at start up isn't killing me or anyone else. Imagine what other methods could pop up.... Like having to go through some sort of online verification everytime you play a game, even offline or some such garbage. It would be nice if Atari looked into this though.

[termathor]

Deinbeck,

You should read all of Gorkk's post here:
http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=542650&page=3

There's *load* of very good facts on why Securom is bad to paying
consumers.

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't agree with petitioning Atari to remove thier copy protection if there isn't valid proof that the protection is causing the purchased product to malfunction.

You should read the forums before you post again, the NWN2 devs have been quoted as saying that Securom is doing exactly that for paying customers.

[Selene Moonsong]

You should read the forums before you post again, the NWN2 devs have been quoted as saying that Securom is doing exactly that for paying customers.

Post links to Developer comments, please...

Heinz234Even though Selene "Thread Closed" Moonsong states otherwise,


If you recall, the thread was closed because the discussion was leaning towards cracking, not because of my opinion about Securom vs. Framerates.

[Ominous Gamer]

Post links to Developer comments, please...


http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8149317&postcount=101
Darren Monahan said:
We created a Windows x64 machine here at Obsidian, and we too were getting the same thing you guys have been seeing where the game just runs in the background.

I copied in unencrypted executables, and as many of you have suspected, the game runs just fine, so we can confirm that the copy protection is the issue here. I know the next question is can I release those, but unfortunately I can't

But, at least we know what it is now. I will keep doing research to see what I can find. One of the guys at Atari suggested this:
Quote:
1) Place the original disc into a local physical drive.
2) Restart the computer.
3) Right-click on the desktop application shortcut, or the application's executable file (which is called nwn2main.exe) and a menu will apear.
4) Choose the "Launch Analysis" option from the list of menu items.
5) A disclaimer window will appear. To proceed, please click on the "Yes" button.
6) The application will now generate an "AnalysisLog.sr0" file in the root of the hard drive.
7) Please "zip" the sr0 file using a program such as WinZip, WinRAR or WinAce and attach it to your e-mail to support@securom.com.


We'll keep working on this to see what we can do, but first I'll create that "depatcher" so you guys can play the game with 1.01.

Thanks,
Darren

------------
Also, we both have not had experiences with and without securom. You may or may not remember that even the beta program had securom in it somehow, and that it delayed several people from being able to test it. Also, the game runs like crap on my machine that was built using flagship parts.

[NedMaxwell]

Thanks for the chuckle OG.

Selene? PWNT!

[dagonslair]

Selène you said : "I think you are kidding yourselves if you think securom affects framerates. From my own knowledge, whether securom is enabled or not, it has no appreciable effect on framerates that I know of."

are you sure of that ?

SeRemoving securom is considered a crack and such discussion can be considered in violation of the TOS. With that in mind, I'm closing this thread to prevent it from going too far.

again, are you sure of that ? The frameloss is a fact. I don't want Atari to remove copy protection, but make it totally transparent, WITHOUT frameloss. That's all. And if Securom is too crappy, use ANOTHER way to protect your game, I don't care which, but I don't want the game to run as an ill slug.

To be honest, I didn't really appreciate the closing of the thread.

It's much more easier for you to close a thread, than giving useful answer to the problem.

[Selene Moonsong]

Actually, posting about availabilty of cracks or warez or other means of bypassing Securom not provided for by the publisher, which is where the thread seemed to be turning to at points, is the reason I locked that thread down.

Personally, I am also against such security schemes that have a negative effect on hardware and performance and can still remember some of the early schemes that caused a heck of a lot of hardware damage to floppy and hard drives with 'head-banging' back in the mid-80's. I am all for a security system that is invisible to the user for copyright protection as long as it doesn't prevent the authorized used of the software or cause damage or affect performance in a negative manner.

As far as Securom effect on frame rates, the quote by Darren Monahan at http://nwn2forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=516196&forum=116&sp=45 is in regards to the Windows XP Pro X64 edition, not all versions of XP.

Windows XP Pro X64 was stated as not being supported several months ago. So, when I replaced my last computer, I specifically stayed away from Windows X64, and stayed with the 32 bit version.

In Darren's comments related above, the following is what should have also been high-lighted because the context of Darren's comments is around the Windows XP X64 Operating System on 64-bit Dual-core computers:

Darren Monahan said:
"We created a Windows x64 machine here at Obsidian, and we too were getting the same thing you guys have been seeing where the game just runs in the background..."

When taken out of that context, the statement, "so we can confirm that the copy protection is the issue here" can be quite misleading and suggests that all Windows XP may be affected.

Nowhere in the closed thread, nor this one, has anyone made mention of which version of XP they were running.

So, for those who noted the stark differences, which version of XP are you running, 32-bit or 64-bit?

My own is 32 bit, as I stated above...

[dagonslair]

I'm running XP pro 32 Bits.

Seems the 1.2 (french) has been released yesterday, I'll check what's the framerate with it, and I'll post the results here.

I hope the securom thing was upgraded.

[Selene Moonsong]

Nah... Check my post after that as well ;)

Thanks for the chuckle OG.

Selene? PWNT!

[speedydave]

Sure I'll bite, been doing more research myself.... Brand new built system, 512meg video card, AMD 64 3700+ processor, 2 gigs ram, new hard drive. OS: XP Pro (fresh install fully patched 32bit)
Frame rate findings.
For NWN2 I ran the same module and the same area with the same character and listed frame rates are what I'd call "average" during play... sometimes I saw slightly higher, sometimes significantly lower but could count on these numbers often.
FWIW too, I am a professional network engineer so yes I do know what I'm doing and my XP installation is clean and fast with no extra services running. I also am no newbie to NWN, having built and operated a popular PW.
NWN1 (no copy protection) - 60+ fps consistant with highest possible graphics settings (obviously different module but wanted a baseline target)
For the NWN2 tests, I turned off all water effects, shadows at low and terrain texture shadows off.
NWN2 (raw patched SecuRom version - with "stock" ATI drivers) - 15-20fps
NWN2 (SecuRom with AMD NWN exe running) - 17-22 fps
NWN2 (SecuRom with AMD NWN exe and latest ATI drivers) - 20-30 fps
NWN2 (AMD exe without SecuRom and latest ATI drivers) - 50 fps
In my opinion - the AMD exe and secure rom and latest ATI driver are "acceptable" to play the game and that's how I've been playing/testing/building.
But you cannot ignore the vast difference the non-secuRom version shows, in the same area doing the same thing).

Oh I'll add a bit more info... odd and interesting at the same time. If I bump up the graphics settings in NWN2 it doesn't seem to matter which version of the EXE I use I get about the same frame rates (in the 7-12 fps range)

[Cryonosis]

Agreed, I can also add in that I am getting a significant boost to frame rate when securom is removed. Securom is definitely affecting performance, you can think otherwise all you want, but in practice that's the way it is.

[nicnik]

very similar system to speedydave; might be a bit exaggerated to get a boost from 20-30 to 50 fps, but I've done the test last week and I saw a boost of around 15 FPS to max possible FPS. The lowest fps didnt seem to get affected and stayed at a minimal of 25 and no lower. On average i would say there's a maybe 5 fps boost all round when securom isnt used.

I would say this would be magnified allot more on weaker systems; and this is the main concern or us consumers and even atari and obsidian. This could in a way reduce the amount of people that can play their game; hence less money for them. I think the most successful games need a big range of players with even weak systems.