Running Fallout2 under XP in 16-bit (problems)

LTD · Post by **LTD** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 3:56 pm

Alright, can anyone help with this? I have Fallout 1 and 2, and I know that these games are supposed to run in 16-bit color depth. I run them, and they automatcially revert to a much lower color depth (256 I think) and the colors like kind of pixelated and low quality It looks ugly, and it is nowhere near the quality of the PC screenshots of the game posted around the web.

I tried everything, from different compatibility modes, to tweaking my hardware acceleration, to setting the colors to 16-bit, etc. No matter what I try, the game seems to "override" my settings and force 256 color settings. The game itself runs fine, nice and fast, no problems, but it just looks terrible. I have an Athlon 2100+ with 512 mb of RAM, an ATI Radeon 8500 128mb videocard, and a Soundblaster Audigy X-gamer.

Fallout 1 and 2 were NOT meant to be played in ugly 256 color mode, and I'm dynig to enjoy these games in 16-bit color.

Any ideas?

Red · Post by **Red** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:55 am

You "know" nothing it seems as they're 256 colours. The whole game was only made in 256 colours.

Even if it DID support 16bit, it'd STILL be in 256colours as all images are in 256colours at the base, using the same palette.

LTD · Post by **LTD** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:58 pm

Well. my mistake . . . apologies. I was thinking in Mac terms, and the option in settings to use "thousands" of colours (on older macs.) I equated that with 16-bit.

For me, the colours in the game look way too grainy and blotchy. I don't know why that is. The image quality I get is nowehere near as smooth as what I "should" get, according to a comparison between what I get on my screen, and PC screenshots of Fallout 2. The screenshots are all over te net, check anv game review site, or just use Google.

I apologize for the double post, but I find this problem quite frustrating. How are you running Fallout 2? Is your setup similar to mine?

I'd appreciate any help you can offer.

Red · Post by **Red** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:58 am

I know very well how the game looks - and very well how it SHOULD look - and it looks perfectly fine on my computer. So please link to somewhere you actually saw those "non-grainy" pics as when I look for them all look similar.

Unless of course you compare them to Fallout Tactics. Which contains 24bit colours (and can be tweeked down to 16 for performance).

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:53 am

Fallout tends to look kinda grainy to begin with so perhaps you should post the images you are using to compare.

Red · Post by **Red** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:00 am

Nah he's experiencing some weird problem (see the FO1 forum) it seems. Dunno what it is though.

Does anyone else around here have a Radeon 8500? Sad thing is my father does. I'll make sure to bring my Fallout CD along and test it on his machine.

LTD · Post by **LTD** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:12 pm

I'll post this in the Fallout 1 forum, too:

I installed Win98 onto a second hard drive, and booted from that. I installed all the Win98 drivers for my Radeon 8500 and soundcard, and I still hve the sme problem. So, this doesn't appear to be a Windows problem. I am left with the possiblity that it is my videoard and maybe the version of DirectX I'm using. I do know that my Radeon required that I install DirectX8 for it to work. Yet, when I tried to see what would happen if I install DirectX 5 from the Fallout 2 CD, the components checklist showed everything "certified", but showed "not supported" under the primary disaply adapter heading. In light of this, it seems that Fallout 2 wants DirectX 5 to run, at least whe it comes to my Radeon 8500.

A friend of mine has an older system with an older videocard, although he is running XP. I'll test Fallout 2 on his system today and see if there is any connection with the DirectX versions and the videocard.

LTD · Post by **LTD** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 4:26 pm

Just as I thought.

I installed and ran Fallout 2 on my friend's PIII 800mhz, 128mb RAM, WinXP system with an Nvidia Aladdin TNTII 16 mb videocard. It looked ALOT better, although there was still a tiny bit of graininess (that did not show on the mac version), but it's negligible, especially considering the huge improvement in looks. By the way, he had DirectX8 installed.

CONCLUSION: The ATI Radeon 8500 will run Fallout 2 (as XP also runs Fallout 2), but the card's compatilbiity with the coding of Fallout 2 is spotty as far as image quality is concerned. In fact, the Radeon 8500 performs poorly imagewise with most pre-XP games (not just Fallout.)

Solution: get an older videocard that meets DirectX 3 or 5 requirements, and which was basically sold around 1998 or 1999. Since the game worked well on an older Nvidia card, I'll recommend that you stick with Nvidia.

I can't really tell whether or not runnning it under Win98 with DirectX 5 only will make a difference. Perhaps it will. Anyway, Radeon 8500's don't like to run older games at their full graphics potential.

LTD · Post by **LTD** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 5:30 pm

What videocard should I get?

I was thinking of a Matrox 8mb PCI card. Will this be enough? I have an ECS K7S5A motherboard (with PCI slots.) The board is about a year old. WIll it recognize the card?? Dunno if there will be any compatibility problems.

LTD · Post by **LTD** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 7:26 pm

By the way,

I also erad somewhwere that Fallout 2 was meant to be played in a DirectX 5 native environment.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 7:32 pm

Uhh...

Well, if you're going to buy a new card, the newer Radeon's are good, and so's the newest GF-FX...

Depends on how much money you want to spend.

I've never seen anyone reply to himself as much as you! =/

Zbyram · Post by **Zbyram** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 8:26 pm

Smiley wrote:I've never seen anyone reply to himself as much as you! =/

Heh, he's having a real conversation here...

Anyway LTD what happens when you make a screenshot

Does it have all the colours? If not plz show it, it's interesting how Fallout looks on Radeon 8500.

I guess that Matrox should work fine for you... these days you can't really be sure before you try.

LTD · Post by **LTD** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:51 pm

Hi LTD, this is LTD . . . how are ya?
Good, good. You?
Fine. Those are some nice pants, LTD.
Thanks, LTD, I like them, too.

LOL.

Anyway guys, no I can't take a screenshot with the normal "print screen" key. I'll need a screen capture utility. Either way, you wouldn't want to see it because it looks like ass. The reason I'm not buying a "new" card is because I want to emulate the typical Windows98 environment of . . . . 1998. So, the matrox card seems to be a suitable choice. I'll have fallout 2 runnnig under directx 5 or 6, and that'll be the end of it. Hopefully.

Check out some of the screesnhots of Fallout 2 around the net at review sites. Just use Google and type in the proper keywords and see how closely your screens match the screens that were taken from systems way back then. Some of you Radeon folks might be in for a surprise.

I hope I can find Win98 drivers for my SoundBlaster Audigy X-gamer card . . . . .

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 11:07 pm

LTD wrote:Anyway guys, no I can't take a screenshot with the normal "print screen" key.

Try F12, iirc.

Check out some of the screesnhots of Fallout 2 around the net at review sites.

How about you find us some, just so we know exactly what you're talking about. We might find something which just happens to be different from what you may be seeing, you know what I mean?