I have an 880GS and a core 2 duo 2.4Ghz, and it runs at a fien fps untill I see a commander go bang where it jitters.
Also i noticed that ym hordes of units took a while to follow there orders.
*command issued*
10 seconds later
*units start moving*
Supreme Commander demo release ...
Moderator: Moderators
The more and more I see and hear about it the less I think Im even gonna bother trying the demo, nevermind paying money to buy the game.
It seems blatantly obvious that multiplayer is gonna end up and lagfest in jerkovision,
That nuclear sub can hold 200 aircraft godsakes, imagine that on a huge map with 2 or 3 other players spamming away, no thanks.
Maybe it'll be good in a year or two when its been modded and there might be some machines that will actually handle it properly, but I'll still be playing spring or the command engine anyway so... meh
It seems blatantly obvious that multiplayer is gonna end up and lagfest in jerkovision,
That nuclear sub can hold 200 aircraft godsakes, imagine that on a huge map with 2 or 3 other players spamming away, no thanks.
Maybe it'll be good in a year or two when its been modded and there might be some machines that will actually handle it properly, but I'll still be playing spring or the command engine anyway so... meh
some people tested and said vista will increase your fps in supcom :)
on my system the singleplayer has crappier performance than the multiplayer
test it and you will love it :p, best expample is drone fragger he said it was crap and played it some more times and now he likes it *g
i first disliked it too because it was different style, but i gave it some runs :)
@1v0ry_k1ng
on a normal map you can t win if you porc or you must be a lot better than your opponent.
and i don t think it s a techrace.... just because you tech up after some time... if you tech eary you loose map control and loose the game...
they added some nice features to gpgnet here is one :)
http://gpgnet.gaspowered.com/scStats/Pl ... yerID=3207
on my system the singleplayer has crappier performance than the multiplayer
test it and you will love it :p, best expample is drone fragger he said it was crap and played it some more times and now he likes it *g
i first disliked it too because it was different style, but i gave it some runs :)
@1v0ry_k1ng
on a normal map you can t win if you porc or you must be a lot better than your opponent.
and i don t think it s a techrace.... just because you tech up after some time... if you tech eary you loose map control and loose the game...
they added some nice features to gpgnet here is one :)
http://gpgnet.gaspowered.com/scStats/Pl ... yerID=3207
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/Bhaal wrote:some people tested and said vista will increase your fps in supcom :)
on my system the singleplayer has crappier performance than the multiplayer
test it and you will love it :p, best expample is drone fragger he said it was crap and played it some more times and now he likes it *g
i first disliked it too because it was different style, but i gave it some runs :)
@1v0ry_k1ng
on a normal map you can t win if you porc or you must be a lot better than your opponent.
and i don t think it s a techrace.... just because you tech up after some time... if you tech eary you loose map control and loose the game...
they added some nice features to gpgnet here is one :)
http://gpgnet.gaspowered.com/scStats/Pl ... yerID=3207
That doesn't say anything about Supreme Commander at all now does it? It also has other flaws which makes it rather irrelevant to this discussion, stop linking to random articles :/
Last edited by ZellSF on 08 Feb 2007, 11:13, edited 1 time in total.
@AF
I said, that the singleplayer(demo) runs slower than the multiplayer beta for me
@Muzic
what has this article to do with how supcom performs on vista?
they tested old games performance with vista.
and i didn t say that vista in general is faster for games or something, i just heard from some people who run vista that it s faster for supcom than win xp.
sry, maybe it s my bad english because you don t understand me :/
I said, that the singleplayer(demo) runs slower than the multiplayer beta for me
@Muzic
what has this article to do with how supcom performs on vista?
they tested old games performance with vista.
and i didn t say that vista in general is faster for games or something, i just heard from some people who run vista that it s faster for supcom than win xp.
sry, maybe it s my bad english because you don t understand me :/
I think they misjudged how powerful PCs would be when the game was to come out. For example, the GUI is designed for something like a 1600x1200 resolution, and by far not all players have that now. It's the same thing with scripting: it's great, because it allows super-modability. Of course, it's ultimately useless when you can't play the game reasonably with existing systems.jcnossen wrote:I'll leave the gameplay discussion to others, but the engine sucks. Pretty lame to claim it is massive combat when it will run at 1 fps at a decent pc. Doing all game simulation including projectiles in lua... what where they thinking when they implemented that?
So I guess the engine will be great in two years from now, when everyone can support it, and on a LAN, where having that many units won't cause lag (or if we get around to finally replacing TCP/IP with something better equipped for time-critial applications). Until then, I'll just keep playing Spring.
I surprisingly enjoyed the demo despite my dislike of the beta. The first mission turned into a spam-fest due to the poor selection of units, but the second mission was good. I still think the defence units are way too powerful. That is going to encourage a lot porcing and speed metal style tactics among noive players online. One thing that was striking that I did not notice during the beta was the great pathing of unit movements (overlooked by many but can be very important)
-
Lindir The Green
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09
I think they wanted to encourage pretty bases and stuff, instead of the huge sprawled out ones found in TA.
That probably means that it will take less micromanagement and tactical skill, tipping the balance to the long term strategic stuff. The huge amount of small units would also do that, making which small units you build more important than where they are or what you do with them.
I believe making long term strategy more important was CT's intent with Supreme Commander. It's definitely different from other games, but I don't know whether it's more fun.
I'll try it and see.
That probably means that it will take less micromanagement and tactical skill, tipping the balance to the long term strategic stuff. The huge amount of small units would also do that, making which small units you build more important than where they are or what you do with them.
I believe making long term strategy more important was CT's intent with Supreme Commander. It's definitely different from other games, but I don't know whether it's more fun.
I'll try it and see.
In its time TA was to C&C, KKND and the like what SupCom is to CoH now.
C&C was all about few units ONE or TWO harvesters ONLY, while TA had these massive metal meat-grinder feature.
Today, CoH has a few infantry squads, and only a dozen ressource points, while SuPCom puts its focus on the spamming of small units once again.
The core gameplay has not changed, it was just accomodated to the next generation of games and hardware.
C&C was all about few units ONE or TWO harvesters ONLY, while TA had these massive metal meat-grinder feature.
Today, CoH has a few infantry squads, and only a dozen ressource points, while SuPCom puts its focus on the spamming of small units once again.
The core gameplay has not changed, it was just accomodated to the next generation of games and hardware.
