edit: removed

What about intro video on Wine?
And, do you change X to 8bit to run game on Wine?

Thank you darktjm, that workes well! Game appears to run well in fullscreen at my native 2560x1440 resolution.

For the others, I used the "HxD" hex editor and attached an image with reference to searching and editing.

Cheers

edit: removed

Hiya,

I would like to make all the users aware of this possibility you can find when reading this site.
I've been playing missionforce for quite some years now on the 1440x900 resolution scaled on a 1080p 27" screen
In this article you will find a couple of solutions.
One of them being to download the game through an abandonware site and apply the patch provided.
You can manually change the resolution in the .bat file included.
There is also a link to a couple of mods
Lets hope GoG will implement at least the wide screen option.
It is sad to realize that a game scales perfectly well ( at least within reasonable parameters ) in this time of big and Super big screens and gog is not providing some coverage

Anyways; here is the link
https://github.com/juanitogan/rbxit/wiki/CyberStorm-1

Have fun

edit: removed

The game IS missing the original configuration program that was able to force a windows 1024x768 mode

Thanks all for your help and suggestions. Unfortunately the none GOG version game looks better, at least for now...

See GeneralConfusionPlays videos on YT, that´s how I though I would see the game on my PC (1980x1920).

Hope GOG fixes this soon as this is a great game.

Yeah... everyone's a critic... me included. Anyhow, on the topic of resolution, in my opinion, GOG really stuck their head in the sand on this one. Why in the world would anyone want to play a game from 1996 at it's minimum resolution for 1996??? Do we all want to be 1996 peasants?

Just because the menus are compatible down to 640x480 doesn't mean that the game was meant to be run at that size. The box art, for example, shows game play at 1024x768. D'oh!

Anyhow, after working with this game for quite a while and testing at all sorts of resolutions on various monitors, anyone who has read my RBXIT headache wiki (thanks, darktjm) knows that I recommend 1360x768 for most users (note: 1360, not 1366... unless you are running in a window that takes the game down to 1360 or some other multiple of 4). This provides the best balance of map view and text readability on most widescreen monitors, in my opinion. This is what I would set as the default if I could distribute the whole game instead of just the patch.

I don't have this GOG copy yet (too busy and too poor at the moment) but it sounds like people who care about resolution (and other missing or broken features) should buy here and then download an ISO of the game instead and apply my RBXIT Win7 patch to it. This option is not for everybody as it requires a dedicated geek to work it out. I don't have time to build and support pretty installers that hold your hand, and don't have rights to distribute prepatched copies like GOG does. Of course, downloading ISOs comes at its own risk and the legality of it all is up to you. I may eventually support patching the GOG copy, but likely not anytime soon, and no promises on that.

[And, just to be clear for the heck of it, in case anyone is wondering, all the code for the tools I write to help me fix games is indeed on my github. At least one other person has succeeded at using some of them when the patch wasn't working as he wanted. But, really, github is just another public place for me to collect and publish my thoughts and work when I have time for it... and I've dumped way too many hours into it already. I would launch an OpenStorm remake project if I could make a living at it or otherwise had the time to spare. And, before anyone asks, I had nothing to do with the original. I'm just some random dude who saw a game he could fix.]

No, Iam not going to download a ISO and use that. Why would I buy this GOG version then? Although this version (GOG) is not expensive, one would expect to at least have the same resolution as seen in the moded/tweaked version of the original working on W10.

If I have to tweak it mayself, then whats the use of buying the GOG version which states it works on W10 or other OS? I mean you would have better res even on a tablet! Changing native screen res among other things is not my Idea of for playing a game. Not sure but even "DosBox" might have made a better difference.

I understand that some people are on older PC builds, but hey we are in 2019 and on i7k chip-sets, even a lower end built-in HD chip-set will work on a higher res then 800x600.

Anyhow, on stndby for a fix from GOG...

edit: removed

I completely agree. GOG should indeed fix/improve what they sell. I just propose the CD or ISO routes for those who care to engage in a different experience while GOG improves their product (assuming they do). As to why buy the GOG version? I see it as gaining legal access to the game files. Whether or not those files come through a CD, an ISO, or GOG download, it is still the same data.

Yeah, that's hilarious. Why would you? That was your one valid complaint.

I normally don't bother with people who find free to never be free enough, but here's how I see it:

You want to be the expert disseminator of information, telling people what I do or do not provide:

"Also, even though it's hosted on github, it doesn't appear to include source so it's not possible for anyone other than the author to fix." "your closed, binary installer file" "you don't document what you actually did so I can't fix it. It's not like you're alone in this sort of thing..."

And, yet, you know little about what I provide:

"I couldn't stand to read it long enough"

You complain that I'm too verbose:

"painfully verbose installation instructions"

And, yet, I don't say enough:

"very little actual information I might find useful ... maybe a few lines explaining what the mod actually is/does ... In fact, I'm not sure your wiki page states *anywhere* what all the patch is supposed to do."

"Is there another page that does?"

I make it pretty clear in the first paragraph on the main GitHub page for RBXIT, in the troll-notice footers on GitHub, on the YouTube videos, and on itch.io, that the main site for information on my patches is here:

https://namethattech.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/fixing-up-old-computer-games/

If that is not enough, read the issue threads where I think I explain pretty well what is going on to anyone who asks.

"When I said "no source" I mean that you do not apparently publish all of the materials you used to make your closed, binary installer file that actually contains all the patches."

Closed, binary installer? Most I've talked with don't have trouble figuring out that my EXE is an SFX and they simply unzip it to see how it works. I think the 7Z SFX icon on both the file and in the launch window header gives that away pretty well. The suspiciously-named setup.bat file is there for all to read in plain batch script code. I build this way because I believe the only way to fight all the dangers on the net is through transparency. I also build unfriendly and low-level patchers like this because it is faster, easier to test, and there is less to break over time -- which leaves more time for fixing other stuff.

To understand the other tools that led to the patched files in the SFX, you need to read the documentation in the code of those tools. To understand the binary edits to the DLL, read the blog and other stuff I've written on it and then do a diff on the DLLs -- there's no source code for this because it was all done directly with the bit code. It's all there ready to be audited by anyone who cares. If I haven't made things easy enough for everyone to understand, well, bummer, I'm just one man trying to fix some cool stuff in my spare time.

"Abandonware is not a legal term." I think I make it astoundingly clear that I don't think it is by linknig to the Wikipedia topic on it in the first line of the first install instruction. I then recommend buying the CD and resorting to ISO downloads only when the CD fails (much like my recommendation if the GOG download fails to make someone happy). I think it is pretty obvious that if I felt "abandonware" was legit, I would have saved myself a ton of trouble and work by distributing prepached copies instead of complex and bulky patches and install instructions.

"Downloading the ISOs is not an option if you want to stay legal." I find this to be arguable. If you already own legal rights to the contents of the ISO, then is it illegal to download a backup copy if your copy fails? I've seen debates on this but not a definitive answer yet.

"Sites which host these are also generally untrustworthy." Often true. Hence, my caution with them.

"Emulators as a whole..." Emulators? What does my patch have to do with emulators???

But, yeah, I totally don't expect you to apologize just like to don't expect you to believe that any of my verbose content that is out there is actually out there.

When I had less verbose install instructions, I had to waste much more time answering questions. So, um, try hosting something like this yourself someday and see where it goes -- see what kind of people emerge from the woodwork trying to lord over your work.

@juanitogan - I definitely appreciate your patch and instructions. They work great and I can run cyberstorm at 1920x1200. It's fantastic. This GOG release is such a sub par half ass attempt. It was super disappointing.

I'd love to similar rbxit release for earthsiege. I can get it to run with your patch but would love to see a resolution fix for ES2.

Edit: You're right. I shouldn't argue about something that is completely irrelevant to me. I have removed all my posts in this thread, so as not to accidentally step in one of your piles. I can't remove quoted (or, as in your case, semi-quoted) material, so you'll just have to live with that. Go live in your little world and don't ever talk to me again.