What do you think of supreme commander?
- Thread starter smiley
- Start date
i love the fact that people are complaining that graphicaly its not that great. GOOD! personaly i find they are fine but its nice to see that a developer has the nads to make a game for its playability instead of its looks. regardless, the game till looks good. i put it on my 17" 1280 screen and it looks great with all the detail up. Add to the fast that the game is so vast and that you need to command a full scale war instead of just a large scuffle with handbags.
Dont get me wrong, i loved starcraft and C&C games but i never played TA. The scope of SupCom for me is that vast that it doesnt matter that the units only have x amount of polys instead of Y. its nice to see for once in a while a game that needs a decent cpu instead of a top end graphics card.
you dont need to spend a fortune, a cpu/mobo/ram/gpu to play the game really well can be had for 500 notes. once again someone has made a game that will be puching the limits in 6 months instead of playing really well on 12 month old kit.
Dont get me wrong, i loved starcraft and C&C games but i never played TA. The scope of SupCom for me is that vast that it doesnt matter that the units only have x amount of polys instead of Y. its nice to see for once in a while a game that needs a decent cpu instead of a top end graphics card.
you dont need to spend a fortune, a cpu/mobo/ram/gpu to play the game really well can be had for 500 notes. once again someone has made a game that will be puching the limits in 6 months instead of playing really well on 12 month old kit.
It really chugs when i just had around 80 siege bots, 60 planes, 3 fat boys and some other random units on a 20k x 20k map with 3 other cpu
Galactic Colossus are pussies, 5 in a row were sent by the computer and they didnt last long. Dont know what there called but the giant flying saucers got a beating aswell. Then i sent my army and nailed them easily
How do you get the menu screen to the side like ive seen on some shots?
oh and im not bothered about graphics either, i play on 1024x768 in lowest
Galactic Colossus are pussies, 5 in a row were sent by the computer and they didnt last long. Dont know what there called but the giant flying saucers got a beating aswell. Then i sent my army and nailed them easily
How do you get the menu screen to the side like ive seen on some shots?
oh and im not bothered about graphics either, i play on 1024x768 in lowest
geeza said:
The Insert & Delete keys swivel the map, Home & End put two maps on one display. Galactic Colossus ain't pussies (ask windle
). 5 would equal 1.2 million hitpoints, you may mean the secondary ACU's.Fitted an ati 1950pro last night and what a difference to the game, its lusher now with everythin on full
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 1,440
- Location
- Nottingham
Rincewind said:
i think it can also be done by holding alt + up or down arrow? (i think it's alt, it says it on the back of the manual)
geeza said:how can i make it faster other than buying duel core (which i might do anyway) wasnt there something about putting /nosound or something which leaves the sound on but gives extra fps.
good coding there!
im in the same boat. mine runs quite slow but its probably due to the fact i have an old 7800gtx and a 148 opteron standard.
geeza said:how can i make it faster other than buying duel core (which i might do anyway) wasnt there something about putting /nosound or something which leaves the sound on but gives extra fps.
good coding there!
Err, but of course switching sound off will help the frame rate.
Same with most games. Besides, that switch was only needed because of a bug with Audigy sound cards.-Tauren- said:
If its not running great, esp with loads of units, get a better CPU as i reckon thats the bottleneck rather than your GFX card.
(Advice please!)
I've been hunting around for how much of a difference switching to dual core will actually make. I'm pretty poor at the moment but really love this game
Can anyone find some cpu-based benchmarks? (The only ones google seems to give are based on changing the graphics cards around.)
I have an:
Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester core), slightly clocked.
1GB ddr400
Asus A8V mobo (Socket 939, AGP)
256MB, 6800GT graphics.
At the moment it cant handle 3 cpus - if I play against more than two on skirmish it grinds to a halt! And it doesnt like the big maps either Can anyone tell me what difference (say) an X2 3800+ will make? Or is there a batter option you'd recommend?
I've been hunting around for how much of a difference switching to dual core will actually make. I'm pretty poor at the moment but really love this game
Can anyone find some cpu-based benchmarks? (The only ones google seems to give are based on changing the graphics cards around.)I have an:
Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester core), slightly clocked.
1GB ddr400
Asus A8V mobo (Socket 939, AGP)
256MB, 6800GT graphics.
At the moment it cant handle 3 cpus - if I play against more than two on skirmish it grinds to a halt! And it doesnt like the big maps either
Can anyone tell me what difference (say) an X2 3800+ will make? Or is there a batter option you'd recommend?i run it on a x2 3800 but only played 2 skirmishs in total so far. Not had any slow down yet. I'll try against 3 AI and let you know.
x2 3800
2gb mushkin
x1800xt
but in general i found upgrading to a x2 made a big all round difference
if you multitask at all the multiple cores is a must and a lot more games support it now so you would be better off.
x2 3800
2gb mushkin
x1800xt
but in general i found upgrading to a x2 made a big all round difference
if you multitask at all the multiple cores is a must and a lot more games support it now so you would be better off.
Last edited:
Thanks bones, could you let me know how it manages? Say on a 4-way skirmish on a medium map. At the moment it goes down to about half a frame-per-second once everyone gets close to their build limits!
If I was going to get one it would be *just* for SC - my current system does everything else perfectly! So want to know what sort of difference it'll make.
If I was going to get one it would be *just* for SC - my current system does everything else perfectly! So want to know what sort of difference it'll make.
Caustic said:Err, but of course switching sound off will help the frame rate.
If its not running great, esp with loads of units, get a better CPU as i reckon thats the bottleneck rather than your GFX card.
yeh, im gonna do that. all i need to do now is sell my current cpu
or i'll send it to the waste disposal place.calnen said:(Advice please!)
I've been hunting around for how much of a difference switching to dual core will actually make. I'm pretty poor at the moment but really love this game
I have an:
Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester core), slightly clocked.
1GB ddr400
Asus A8V mobo (Socket 939, AGP)
256MB, 6800GT graphics.
At the moment it cant handle 3 cpus - if I play against more than two on skirmish it grinds to a halt! And it doesnt like the big maps either
i cant help with those specifics but i currently run a intel D 820 and just ordered my e6300. they are different to your AMDs obviosuly but i can post a few benchies if only so you can compare them to your own and to other like for like processors.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 3,955
- Location
- guildford, surrey
just played the skirmish in the demo and its a very good game, a little complicated at first, and i was confused at why the AI built 5 Land Structures, when i only had one, with about 150 units.
Graphicly its ok, i dont why its so demanding, it dosent exactly look good, i suppose its the scale, it ran flawlessly maxed out, although im not sure if my computer could take 6-8 player battles.
Graphicly its ok, i dont why its so demanding, it dosent exactly look good, i suppose its the scale, it ran flawlessly maxed out, although im not sure if my computer could take 6-8 player battles.
ok. I have the option to buy a socket 939 X2 3800. Its toledo 512, stepping is JH-E6. Mate is currently running it at 2654mhz but on a crappy motherboard and memory.
Under a DFI - Ultra D, Gskill HZ memory and arctic cooler 64 pro would it reach 2.8ghz?
If so i might buy it for supreme commander and a bit of future proof.
Its £65 btw
edit - would it be better than my current opteron [email protected]?
Under a DFI - Ultra D, Gskill HZ memory and arctic cooler 64 pro would it reach 2.8ghz?
If so i might buy it for supreme commander and a bit of future proof.
Its £65 btw
edit - would it be better than my current opteron [email protected]?
The graphics have to be fairly low detail, otherwise no card will be able to run it when you have a all out war in process.
Remember that in theory you could have 8000 units all firing at each other at the same time, that's a hell of a lot of calculations for accurate weapons trajectorys! If you then think that the graphics card has to try and render all of this you'll soon accept that the graphics can't be as detailed as say CoH.
Yes having the dual core even if it couldn't clock further will be a large boost over the single core in this game.
Remember that in theory you could have 8000 units all firing at each other at the same time, that's a hell of a lot of calculations for accurate weapons trajectorys! If you then think that the graphics card has to try and render all of this you'll soon accept that the graphics can't be as detailed as say CoH.
Yes having the dual core even if it couldn't clock further will be a large boost over the single core in this game.