Hooray! SupCom doesn't run.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 15 Dec 2006, 14:42

SupCom doesn't work for me. On totally barebones settings, with no frills, i get a framerate of about 2. or maybe 3. Not really sure. And that's just with the commander standing around - a period, during which, the music itself lags.

God forbid I actually start building; the damn nanolathes will almost guarantee that the game will overload my poor 128 megs of GeForceiness and make the damn thing explode.

Sorry, ChrisT. No can do for this one.

iamacup · Post by **iamacup** » 15 Dec 2006, 15:25

works on mine at about 45 fps lulz

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 15 Dec 2006, 15:33

Works at about 20, untill in late game where it drops to 5. The only exception is when a freind is hosting and has a better computer than mine. Then the FPS shoots to 40 or so...

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 15 Dec 2006, 17:19

i get 30fps but the game sucks so liek no loss

hawkki · Post by **hawkki** » 15 Dec 2006, 17:21

How can you even hope that new titles would run on a computer that bad?

I dont see anyone swearing about that ps2 games dont work in ps1...

I would not mind if all new titles from 2007 forward would require dx9 to even start. It really is time for that by now. You cannot make compromises to the game engine so that it will run on ancient computers.

And dont get me wrong, ofcours you should be able to turn down all possible graphical goodies so that it will run with as slow setup a possible. But what i mean is that no compromises should be done in how the game engine is designed nor in how the game itself is designed. Modern hardware allows us to write engines in such a way that they are much faster then if it they were written compatible with older hardware. DX10 is a good example of this.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 15 Dec 2006, 17:36

Runs well enough on my computer and I don't think you'd realistically want to have a gaming rig that's much worse than mine if you want to play any recent games.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 15 Dec 2006, 17:55

How can you even hope that new titles would run on a computer that bad?

In comparision to older titles SupCom does NOT look that much better but demands way too much hardware.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 15 Dec 2006, 18:23

hawkki wrote:How can you even hope that new titles would run on a computer that bad?

I dont see anyone swearing about that ps2 games dont work in ps1...

I would not mind if all new titles from 2007 forward would require dx9 to even start. It really is time for that by now. You cannot make compromises to the game engine so that it will run on ancient computers.

And dont get me wrong, ofcours you should be able to turn down all possible graphical goodies so that it will run with as slow setup a possible. But what i mean is that no compromises should be done in how the game engine is designed nor in how the game itself is designed. Modern hardware allows us to write engines in such a way that they are much faster then if it they were written compatible with older hardware. DX10 is a good example of this.

I know geez, 128MB of video memory is SOOO last year. And as everyone knows, year-old computers are "ancient" and shouldn't even be expected to run Notepad, much less SupCom. Everyone should be required to buy a completely new rig each year with the latest and greatest hardware in it, gaming's only a hobby for white suburban kiddies with rich parents right?

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 15 Dec 2006, 18:59

SUPCOM AIN'T OUT YET.

YOUR STILL PLAYING THE UN-OPTIMISED BETA. THEY ARE STILL GONNA WORK LIKE 3-4 MONTHS ON IT.

Geeze. Sometimes i wonder if it was wise of em to release a beta when pepole continusly forget what the beta is FOR.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 15 Dec 2006, 19:26

Kixxe wrote:SUPCOM AIN'T OUT YET.

YOUR STILL PLAYING THE UN-OPTIMISED BETA. THEY ARE STILL GONNA WORK LIKE 3-4 MONTHS ON IT.

Geeze. Sometimes i wonder if it was wise of em to release a beta when pepole continusly forget what the beta is FOR.

Well, if the beta isn't for examining and finding faults with the rendering, netcode, gameplay, user interface, game balance, or graphics, then what the fuck is it for? I mean, they can run simple bug-finding routines in-house or with professional beta testers who have plenty of experience finding hidden bugs.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 15 Dec 2006, 19:27

the beta is so we get the gaem 4 free!!

hawkki · Post by **hawkki** » 15 Dec 2006, 20:12

Felix the Cat wrote:
hawkki wrote:How can you even hope that new titles would run on a computer that bad?

I dont see anyone swearing about that ps2 games dont work in ps1...

I would not mind if all new titles from 2007 forward would require dx9 to even start. It really is time for that by now. You cannot make compromises to the game engine so that it will run on ancient computers.

And dont get me wrong, ofcours you should be able to turn down all possible graphical goodies so that it will run with as slow setup a possible. But what i mean is that no compromises should be done in how the game engine is designed nor in how the game itself is designed. Modern hardware allows us to write engines in such a way that they are much faster then if it they were written compatible with older hardware. DX10 is a good example of this.
I know geez, 128MB of video memory is SOOO last year. And as everyone knows, year-old computers are "ancient" and shouldn't even be expected to run Notepad, much less SupCom. Everyone should be required to buy a completely new rig each year with the latest and greatest hardware in it, gaming's only a hobby for white suburban kiddies with rich parents right?

A 2-year-old budget-class gf 6600gt 128mb will run supcom fine. I (and the starter of the thread) talked about something like gf4 @ pentium 3.

So no need to play smart here.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 15 Dec 2006, 23:44

hmm, all the OP said about his computer specs was "poor 128 megs of GeForceiness"... not sure where you pulled other stuff from.

jackalope · Post by **jackalope** » 16 Dec 2006, 00:05

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:i get 30fps but the game sucks so liek no loss

he speaks truths.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 16 Dec 2006, 06:26

6600?

I have a Fx 5200 @ 128 megs with 512 megs of regular DDR

Pentium 4 @ 2.8ghz

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 16 Dec 2006, 20:46

FX5200 = you lose.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 16 Dec 2006, 20:49

Si senor. I figured that out firsthand

Edit: oh, and since my next PC investment will be a tablet (im doing engineering at uni), i prolly wont get a real desktop for another three or four years.

Meaning I probably won't play supcom until the community has pretty much passed its peak!

Babax · Post by **Babax** » 21 Dec 2006, 16:06

Hell, SupCom eat very much PC resources! AMD 2,7, 1024, GF6600 256 -> 10-15 fps, I don`t think that it`s playable. Cris, what the hell???

BlackLiger · Post by **BlackLiger** » 21 Dec 2006, 16:17

For shame. And to think, Dungeon Siege was so much fun. Ah well.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 21 Dec 2006, 20:06

Babax wrote:Hell, SupCom eat very much PC resources! AMD 2,7, 1024, GF6600 256 -> 10-15 fps, I don`t think that it`s playable. Cris, what the hell???

Get a new computer. Yours is outdated. Or at least turn the graphics settings down to rock bottom.

Spring RTS Engine

Hooray! SupCom doesn't run.

Hooray! SupCom doesn't run.