try comparing the output of mem in both cases

mnn wrote:

Kippesoep: I don't know what happened but I was using the same config file (mounting 3 folders) and all games worked fine (streched in fullscreen however) until I started to mess with this stretching thing. I have already written it: I used default config file (renamed old one) (it worked) , I used default config file + mounting 3 folders (doesn't matter if from autoexec or directly in DOSBox) - guess what - it doesn't work

Try a reboot then.

mnn wrote:

t0mme: * Intel Pentium Dual-Core e2180 @ 2Ghz | 3GB Ram | Asus Geforce 9600GT 512MB | Vista Basic *
Intel Pentum Dual-Core - I have real dual core CPU - Core 2 Duo E6550

A Pentium-D is a real dual core CPU. Perhaps you were thinking of that HyperThreading stuff with the old P4. This is not it. This one (E2180) is based on the 64bit Core microarchitecture, not the Netburst architecture.

mnn wrote:

GeForce 9600GT - as all we know DOSBox doesn't use direct3d so even that SiS is fine

Direct3d is available in the unofficial builds. The merits of a graphics card are not limited to D3D either.

mnn wrote:

Vista Basic - describes itself (crappy system)

Yet another person who buys into the "vista is evil" crap. It's nonsense. It's better than XP in many ways. Vista is quite a solid operating system that happens to not live up to the hype that was generated. That it turns out it's not quite the second coming of Christ that people seemed to expect doesn't make it a bad OS, just not as good as it could have been.

Anyway, you're coming across as far too abrasive and insulting. Like t0mme, I think it's time not to bother with you anymore.

Reboot? I rebooted of course, that's the first thing came to my mind. That's not the issue.

OK, my bad about Intel Pentium Dual-Core.

Vista? Try making any kind of folder sharing between XP and Vista - impossible (from my own experience). The only thing that's not keeping me from buying notebook some day, is that Windows 7 might be finally a good one after XP. Btw. why is MS removing features from Vista rather than adding? (try Vista Home Premium/Basic - they both don't have gpedit.msc).

Anyway thanks for everyone help, I'll just keep looking in previous versions where it went wrong and use the best one (which definitely 0.73 is NOT)

As for the scaling issue, I've found that DOSBox doesn't do hardware scaling on high-color images unless output=ddraw is used. This includes emulated high-color video modes, and all output with the machine=vgaonly setting.

mnn wrote:

Vista? Try making any kind of folder sharing between XP and Vista - impossible (from my own experience).

And quite possible from mine. You've probably tried sharing a subfolder of the Desktop or My Documents, which is disallowed for security reasons. Annoying, but hardly something that makes a bad OS. Personally, I think Vista's search is much worse than XP's and I hate the fact that they deprecated MIDI. Other people will love Vista search and not care about MIDI. They're never going to be able to please everybody. Think back to when XP was released. Cries of "omg, it's so bad compared to Win98" (or Win2K) were heard everywhere... people claimed they would never use XP. Ask those people what they're using right now. I'll bet 95% or more of those are using XP or Vista and wouldn't want to go back to 98.

mnn wrote:

The only thing that's not keeping me from buying notebook some day, is that Windows 7 might be finally a good one after XP. Btw. why is MS removing features from Vista rather than adding? (try Vista Home Premium/Basic - they both don't have gpedit.msc).

Neither does XP Home, iirc. (Or if it does, it's seriously reduced compared to the XP Pro version). It's a sysadmin feature available in Pro versions only. I did install it on XP Home and it sorta works, but many settings just don't. They also removed support for formatting 360K floppies. Again, some people will cry murder when features are removed, others (or even the same people) will cry bloatware.

mnn wrote:

Anyway thanks for everyone help, I'll just keep looking in previous versions where it went wrong and use the best one (which definitely 0.73 is NOT)

Proof, please. Submit substantiated and reproducible bug reports about how 0.73 would function worse than 0.72 and you can be sure they will be looked at. So far, you've not provided any. And as wd said: if you do find a bug and are capable of fixing it, by all means submit the patch as long as it doesn't break functionality.

Tsyu wrote:

As for the scaling issue, I've found that DOSBox doesn't do hardware scaling on high-color images unless output=ddraw is used. This includes emulated high-color video modes, and all output with the machine=vgaonly setting.

Correct, Tsyu. That can't be his problem though, since he <sarcasm>started with a fresh config file which has the machine at a default of svga_s3. The 800x600 mode isn't standard VGA anyway.</sarcasm>.

Kippesoep wrote:

Tsyu wrote:

As for the scaling issue, I've found that DOSBox doesn't do hardware scaling on high-color images unless output=ddraw is used. This includes emulated high-color video modes, and all output with the machine=vgaonly setting.

Correct, Tsyu. That can't be his problem though, since he <sarcasm>started with a fresh config file which has the machine at a default of svga_s3. The 800x600 mode isn't standard VGA anyway.</sarcasm>.

Actually, in the case of Earth 2140, the issue that I described IS the problem, since the game only uses high-color video modes. The video mode doesn't have to be standard VGA. The machine=vgaonly setting also has this problem because all game output is rendered as high-color, and is therefore not hardware-scaled unless output=ddraw is set. And yes, I saw those sarcasm tags, but I'm not being sarcastic.

Tsyu wrote:

Actually, in the case of Earth 2140, the issue that I described IS the problem, since the game only uses high-color video modes. The video mode doesn't have to be standard VGA. The machine=vgaonly setting also has this problem because all game output is rendered as high-color, and is therefore not hardware-scaled unless output=ddraw is set. And yes, I saw those sarcasm tags, but I'm not being sarcastic.

The sarcasm was not directed at you, of course. The use of other output methods was suggested to mnn, but reported not to work. Oh well, I guess 0.73 doesn't suck after all. Guess he didn't try ddraw. I'd think the fact that it has been suggested as a factor would've been cause to try the others, not just opengl. I suppose not everybody picks up on that.

Might be useful to add the info to the description for the scaler.

Kippesoep: vga mode was removed from 0.73. Yes, I've tried ddraw, it solves aspect ratio problem, but doesn't solve the other problem with extended memory.

run mem before and after the mounting and check if something is different.

mnn wrote:

Kippesoep: vga mode was removed from 0.73

Machine type "vga" has been removed, because it wasn't (just) VGA. It was actually SVGA mimicking the S3 chipset. Because of that, it is now named "svga_s3". Several other SVGA emulations have also been added and real VGA emulation has been improved and named "vgaonly".

I use DBGL, set fullresolution to 1440x900 (my screen's native res), double buffering, output ddraw and aspect correction. Scalers work and everything is perfect to me

code120: I declare this problem (aspect ratio) as solved (I wanted to use opengl, but I was forced to use ddraw). My real problem is that memory problem (not related to RAM).

do what qbix said (and just maybe tell us which game is now complaining) and maybe when you report what qbix asked for, you could also attach your current conf file.

i guess we need a "How to be a good betatester the smart way" FAQ ((-:

So the game is Comanche 3 (as well as F-22 Lightning II, which I guess uses same engine so it crashes too). No after mounting there's no change in the memory listing (mem). Config is in attachment

Just out of curiosity... did this happen with the default memsize of 16 as well? DOSBox does give a message that memory sizes above 31MB are not recommended. It even puts "NOT" in caps...
The reason for that message is that some programs actually detect *less* memory (sometimes even negative amounts) when you reach 32MB or more. The games you mention should be recent enough not to have that problem, but it's always best to try at the defaults first.

No I never had problems with these games (I always used 64 MB memsize). 16MB didn't worked (I tried even 8MB).

16MB didn't worked

which game?

F-22 & Comanche 3 complaining about not enough extended memory.

I'm a bit surprised at your mountings. Why not start at C (and why mount a separate drive for each game, for that matter?). Maybe these games actually have a problem with drive letters above G.