Results 1 to 5 of 5
Hello there.
I am running Fedora Core 5 x86_64 with an Nvidia Geforce 7950GX2 which has been playing UT2004 brilliantly until I decided to patch it.
I installed the game ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 08-07-2006 #1Just Joined!
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Posts
- 11
UT2004 won't run after installing patch 3369.1 (FC5 x86_64)
Hello there.
I am running Fedora Core 5 x86_64 with an Nvidia Geforce 7950GX2 which has been playing UT2004 brilliantly until I decided to patch it.
I installed the game to /usr/local/games/ut2004 and played it once. I had a bot match in Antalus in Average mode. I won because I am teh pwnage.
OK, so when it comes to patching it to v3369 Hotfix 1 (available from www.ut2004files.com), the game just doesn't start. If I go to the terminal and enter this:
It comes back with this:Code:sh /usr/local/games/ut2004/ut2004
Is it because I'm using 64-bit Fedora? Could this be another prime example of big names refusing to develop for new technologies? Please let me know if there is anything I can do... I swear it was running better than my Windows version!Code:./ut2004-bin: error while loading shared libraries: ./libSDL-1.2.so.0: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64
- 08-08-2006 #2More than likely, yes.
Originally Posted by azcn2503
More than likely, no. The problems you're having are likely due to problems with 64-bit Linux and not problems with the UT2004 code, based on my personal experience. 32-bit applications have the potential to fall flat on their face in a 64-bit Linux environment because a lot of them rely on specific 32-bit libraries that must be in specific spots, not all of which are installed in some 64-bit Linux distributions. For reliability's (and sanity's) sake I recommend you install a 32-bit distribution. You won't notice any performance difference right now running 32-bit or 64-bit Linux anyway.Could this be another prime example of big names refusing to develop for new technologies?Registered Linux user #270181
TechieMoe's Tech Rants
- 08-08-2006 #3Just Joined!
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Posts
- 11
Sounds like a good idea, albeit long-winded.
- 08-08-2006 #4Haha. Why use a word when 10 will do?
Originally Posted by azcn2503
Registered Linux user #270181
TechieMoe's Tech Rants
- 11-03-2006 #5Just Joined!
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Posts
- 1
64-bit ut2004 patch fix
There's nothing wrong with 64-bit linux or the ut2004 patch. Basically the 64-bit binaries got renamed. The binaries are located under the 'System' subfolder of the ut2004 directory.
ut2004-bin (32-bit)
ut2004-bin-linux-amd64 (64-bit)
I edited my ut2004 script and replaced all ut2004-bin instances with ut2004-bin-linux-amd64. (2 total)
(/usr/local/ut2004/ut2004)
See this page for a few extra details:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/archive/...hp/t-9536.html


Reply With Quote
