"Unable to create Direct3D"

"Mobile Intel(R) 945 Express Chipset Family"

Onboard graphics will never run modern games, they are for text processing at most. 

You'll need to upgrade your whole comp, those old Celeron motherboards don't support a videocard that is anywhere near decent.

You mean I have to use more money to upgrade my computer so that I can run this?

I am running into this issue as well on my laptop. I have the same chipset.. I can run

Sins

WOW

and Warhammer on this machine without an issue. Seems strange that I can not get this to run the Beta.

same issue for me too.it would have been nice is they listed minimum pc requirements to run this.im out 60 bucks

folks, its beta 1, not final release. Lets wait and see before we start turning to "omg I lost monies" I'm in the same boat as you are, at this point, with the 965 chipset but comparing a beta to final release is unrealistic. I fully expect that, by the time of release laptops will be capable of running it without much issue as they have a vested interest in making the game available for as many people with as many different configurations as possible, including the increasing mobile market.

If you want to see if you can get a refund, email [email protected]. I'm pretty sure they'll give you one, seeing as it's on stardock's gamers' bill of rights. I also think they will quite possibly lower the requirements, but intel integrated is pretty terrible and hard to optimize enough for. Sins is a miracle of low spec gaming, so it's more a fluke than a rule. Hopefully this will get better, though, because cards that can quite probably run this game are excluded by lack of SM2 support. The ATI X800 cards are a prime example.

People expecting chipsets without a vertex shader to play modern games makes me sad. Very very sad.

i can play spore no problem,but this game wont even start

Post a DxDiag. A GMA 950 runs Source games, a game known for its excellent scalability, at 15FPS on the lowest esttings. If you have a GMA 950 and claim to play Spore fine, then you don't a GMA 950 or the game has no textures or modern shader technologies.

warhammer and sins use very old graphics tech..

I think it's rather silly to expect a celeron with intel integrated graphics to run this game.

I could understand people with a geforce 6series wanting to run it with the settings down low.. but intel integrated laptop graphics card?  Those aren't worth the silicone they're made with.

The devs might very well add SM2.0 fallbacks.  Can still make decent shaders with SM2.0.  But with that hardware you have i doubt you'd get decent fPS.. I dunno.

And how many people can sit down and play Sins of a Solar Empire and enjoy themselves? Enough said about "glitzy graphics". The only thing silly is requiring folks to spend 200 dollars or more every 9 months they decide a new game is coming out they'd like for the PC.

At what point do you as a consumer say, you know, I'm not buying this game because I'm not willing to spend even more money to play something that arguably isn't that much different from something I can play with a heck of a lot lower system specs? Thats where I'm at, I have absolutely no need of purchasing another computer just to run one game. Not even 5 games. Since most people either buy a lot of games, or just a few a year, its something that needs considered all around, and more than few publishers are noticing it and adjusting strategies to cope with the changing market. As folks incomes are not rising with the rising costs, guess where they are going to start cutting from? Yeah.

I also have this same problem on my Dell Laptop.  I did some search and it seems the same problem exist on Supreme commander which is based on that game's engine.  It is sad to hear since I can play Spore, WoW, and Red Alert3 beta.  I heard they were trying to make this game low requirement based. 

""People expecting chipsets without a vertex shader to play modern games makes me sad.""      I'm no pc expert and have no idea what vertex shader is.  If I can run other latest games, why can't I expect it to run this one. 

As a last resort, I will need to play this on my desktop.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122123506016328389.html

Guess it was sooner than I expected.

I get the same error "Unable to create Direct3d", here's my dxdiag

   Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
       System Model: Latitude D610                  
               BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A06
          Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 2.00GHz
             Memory: 2040MB RAM
          Page File: 452MB used, 3480MB available
        Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
    DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
        Card name: Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family
     Manufacturer: Intel Corporation
        Chip type: Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset
         DAC type: Internal
       Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2592&SUBSYS_01821028&REV_03
   Display Memory: 128.0 MB
     Current Mode: 1024 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)
          Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor
  Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200
      Driver Name: ialmrnt5.dll
   Driver Version: 6.14.0010.4693 (English)
      DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail

Blitz64, you have the same issue as the OP. hopefully within a beta or two there'll be support for SM2.0 (that said, i do believe that 6-Series nVidia chips were the first to include SM3.0 and now they're really really old).

I wanted to point out I have another version of the graphics card.  I have Mobile Intel(R) 915GM which is an older built in card with the same problem.  I don't know anything about SM2 or SM3, i'm assuming it stands for Shader Model with a google search.

I don't quite get your argument about slow videogames sales.  I think it just happens to be slow in August/Summer time.  The whole videogame market has been growing year over year because of the Wii.  I probably will upgrade this laptop if doesn't play starcraft2/diablo3 but not for demigod.

Even if Demigod gets SM2.0, the GMA 915 has a theoretical fill rate of 1300 million pixels/second. That's at most 1/30th the power of a 8800GT, 1/8th the power of a 8600GTS. The real yield of the 915 series is more like 1/70th a 8800GT because it does not have HT&L and DX8+ shader techonologies. It can't even run Aero so forget about it running Demigod reasonably

For the 950 series, the fillrate is boosted slightly to 1600 million pixels/second. A 8800GT has a theoretical fillrate of 33.6 billion pixels/second. So that's still 1/21th of a 8800GT raw yield. Without DX7 hardware transform and lighting and DX8+ hardware shaders, its real output is also much, much lower.

The problem for the 915/950 integrated chipset isn't that SM3 isn't supported. It's that the things don't even have SM2 hardware capabilities and off load everything onto the CPU.

In essence, the developers will have to strip out all of the textures, shaders, and effects to accomodate for bad purchasing decisions. I remember this happening before....

Oh yeah, they tried to do that with Supreme Commander. All they got was people with shit cards bitching that the game looked bad.

[quote who="cronos23325" reply="8" id="1872031"]i can play spore no problem,but this game wont even start
[/quoSystem Information
------------------
Time of this report: 9/13/2008, 17:59:26
       Machine name: HOME
   Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp.080413-2111)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Dell Inc.               
       System Model: OptiPlex GX520              
               BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A11
          Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz (2 CPUs)
             Memory: 2038MB RAM
          Page File: 455MB used, 2189MB available
        Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
    DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
     DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
  DirectX Files Tab: No problems found.
      Display Tab 1: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
          Music Tab: No problems found.
          Input Tab: No problems found.
        Network Tab: No problems found.

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D:    0/4 (n/a)
DirectDraw:  0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectPlay:  0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow:  0/6 (retail)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
        Card name: Intel(R) 82945G Express Chipset Family
     Manufacturer: Intel Corporation
        Chip type: Intel(R) 82945G Express Chipset Family
         DAC type: Internal
       Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2772&SUBSYS_01AD1028&REV_02
   Display Memory: 224.0 MB
     Current Mode: 1024 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)
          Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor
  Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200
      Driver Name: ialmrnt5.dll
   Driver Version: 6.14.0010.4543 (English)
      DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
 Driver Date/Size: 3/23/2006 20:38:50, 45694 bytes
      WHQL Logo'd: Yes
  WHQL Date Stamp: n/a
              VDD: n/a
         Mini VDD: ialmnt5.sys
    Mini VDD Date: 3/23/2006 20:47:06, 1166972 bytes
Device Identifier: {D7B78E66-6432-11CF-2762-A721A3C2CB35}
        Vendor ID: 0x8086
        Device ID: 0x2772
        SubSys ID: 0x01AD1028
      Revision ID: 0x0002
      Revision ID: 0x0002
      Video Accel:
 Deinterlace Caps: n/a
         Registry: OK
     DDraw Status: Enabled
       D3D Status: Enabled
       AGP Status: Not Available
DDraw Test Result: Not run
 D3D7 Test Result: Not run
 D3D8 Test Result: Not run
 D3D9 Test Result: Not run
te]

Dude, the Intel Integrateds will not run any game in a very full stop fashion. Stuff like Sins, perhaps, because the demo looked poor even on my 8800GT. Even if the game ran, which it won't due to excessively poor quality and out of date hardware (X800s, yeah, I understand you being pissed off. Seriously.) you'd get no FPS whatsoever. You could play games from the 90s on such a card. Source counts.

It's like, seriously. The Intel Integrated is budget budget budget, so much so that you're lucky to use it for Windows. Intel practically pay the motherboard manufacturers to use it. It's the lowest quality possible crap you could buy that calls itself a graphics device. You'd be better off just not buying your system if you can't afford something better.

To be honest, I'm not going to comment on whether or not you can afford it, but $200 every new game is overstating it. Way, way overstating. I bought a computer for (the equivalent of) maybe $1100 dollars three years ago (upgraded a lot just after Christmas) and it ran everything fine. Even Supreme Commander and FA was not too bad, and BioShock too.

The bottom line is, diminishing returns goes the other way in hardware. Recently with new mainstream cards like ATI's cards newer than the HD2x series, and the 8800 GT, it's not so much the case. But for computers bought before that, the more you spend, the more you get for your money. You might say that my current machine, about $1400, was a lot more expensive than yours. Yes, but it's a massive factor more than that more powerful. You get better performance per price if you buy the best hardware available than the worst (peak is pretty inclined towards better).

Not overstated. Lets take a quick jaunt down memory lane shall we?

2004, Far Cry.

2005, F.E.A.R.

2006, Oblivion.

2007, Assassin's Creed.

You can't tell me that it is overstated. Its fact. If you buy a single game every year, that is exactly what you deal with as a low end computer user. I can tell you flat out my home machine was considerably better priced and runs Demigod fine. However, my laptop is the primary computer I spend the majority of my time using. You can easily argue you get what you pay for, after all that is why you paid top dollar so you would have top graphics. I don't care about "top graphics" so much as I care about fun gameplay that is PLAYABLE on my computer. That means not hampering my fun.

I played Supreme Commander with a FX5200 card and it ran good enough to play on with the graphics down. Sure, people complain about it. Don't you complain when something doesn't work as you thought it would? Check forums sometimes for technical help, folks scream just as loudly when they threw down $1400 as they do when they threw down $800 two years ago. No one likes a game to "not work" regardless of the money spent on a computer. In Supreme Commander's case specifically just because you saw people complaining didn't mean people weren't happy with the results they got. I played on GPG a few times, but I rarely have access to the blocks of time my games would often run, when your trying to keep your son out of stuff you rarely can sit for long periods of time. (Got beat everytime too, I might add, when I did have the time. :D)

On the link with the article; What I was pointing out on that article wasn't about the sales going down so much as that when folks are pressed for money, they will cut from entertainment budget first, if you don't believe it, ask your family where the easiest place to cut stuff out from is. Vacation money and entertainment are up there, if it means affording gas to bring home the paychecks. (just hit $4.15 here in the midwest)

Firstly, I'm in the UK, your gas prices are still far below ours.

Secondly, that is completely overstated. If instead of buying a $600 dollar computer you bought a $1200 dollar computer, you would then not have to spend the $200 every 9 months. Alternatively, you could have paid $400 or $600 the first time (instead of $200), and saved $800.

You fail to realize that your low end hardware is the reason you pay more. If you buy now a budget card you'll just have to upgrade again, and again, and again (which seems to be what you describe). Looking at those games, I just ask the question: You upgraded for EVERY ONE of those? No wonder you're feeling poor value for money. If you had bought a best at the time card for F.E.A.R., it would run SupCom and Demigod and all the other games on the list just fine. It's massively cheaper to buy a strong card and then not upgrade. It's not about cost, it's about doing your research on price per performance and minimum DirectX levels. Do some research on the price per performance of an 8800 GT vs the 8400, 8200 or even 8600, and you'll see what I mean.

For example, the HD4870X2 is currently the most expensive card to buy, but it'll last you maybe four years and costs less than $200 per year for four years. Not by very much, but then, that's probably the worst "top-end" card of the type I am talking about for price/perf, unless you have a gigantic screen, in which case it absolutely owns everything else.

So, your rational is, if you spend 1200 dollars at once and then don't upgrade a few years it makes more sense than spending 600, and upgrading as you need. It makes great sense on paper saving money and getting better hardware, but again, your missing the point. People pay more money in the long run all the time. You don't go out and buy a brand new car when your car's tire goes flat do you? That is in fact what most folks do with the PC's they own. They upgrade as needed saying "but I don't want to buy a new computer, I can't afford it." Its far easier to spend 200 dollars on an upgrade once a year, than come up with 1200 dollars every 4. Not everyone gets paid really well for what they do, and gaming doesn't HAVE to be expensive to be fun. (See popularity: Wii)

Why do you have to have full graphics for everything? I was running a nVidia 5700LE (First released in 2003, cost me $100 when I bought it.) up 'til February with few problems.

The difference is that your car's tire will go flat anyway. Your computers hardware has a warranty on it, and if you buy better hardware, it's going to prevent the need for you to spend money.

However, an Intel Integrated chip is not your car's tire gone flat. More like, your car got hit by a nuclear warhead.

I was getting the same "unable to create Direct3D" message, but now all I see is my enemy's stronghold falling under my hammer smite. This is all due to my upgrade from my Intel chipset family, to an Nvidia Geforce 8800GT.

It's all in the graphics card people, trust me.