Jump to content
IGNORED

Supreme Commander


hoot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hell no.

To run this you need the PC equivalent of Lexington Steel's cock.

Indeed, I'm looking to upgrade to an 8600GT before I actually buy this, and get the other gig of RAM i left at home by accident.

The beta was really enjoyable, though, and didn't run too badly on my PC. Just not as well as I'd like it to run...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Whats the min specs on this puppy, really wanna play it

currently got A64 3200+, 1gig ram & 6800GT will i be able to play it @ 1280x1024?

you should be fine according to the specs on the gamespot link:

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:

Microsoft® Windows® XP Service Pack 2, Vista

1.8 GHz processor

512 MB RAM

8 GB available hard drive space

128 MB video RAM or greater, with DirectX 9 Vertex Shader / Pixel Shader 2.0

support (Nvidia 6x00 or better)

Sound card, speakers or headphones

Broadband internet connection (DSL/Cable).

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:

3.0 GHz Intel or equivalent AMD processor or better

1 GB RAM or better

8 GB available hard drive space

256 MB video RAM, with DirectX 9 Vertex Shader / Pixel Shader 2.0 support

(Nvidia 6800 or better)

Internet connection with Cable/DSL speeds

Note: recommended specifications provide optimal experience for single player

and up to 4 player/medium size map multiplayer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Gamespot link is pointlessly slow, by the way.

I got 600+ k/bps from it, but I've got a paid Gamespot account :)

Initial reports are that it's definitely a lot more polished since the beta. Creating 5 fighters didn't stack them all on top of each other when they came out of the factory, the quick energy/mass usage reports look a lot nicer etc, all the little annoying beta bugs seemed to have been ironed out.

Still runs like a dog though and I've got a P4 @ 3.2 with a Radeon X850xt and 2gb ram. My system is getting a little bit old now I admit but I had to knock it down to medium settings, high wasn't quite smooth enough. I predict about 15/20fps on medium settings and about 10fps on high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how do you find out if your card has pixel shader 2.0 support?

I have a Radeon 9800XT installed but no idea what drivers it has or what its meant to be capable of doing.

The Radeon 9800 pro definitely has PS2.0 support, I don't know about cards before it. All Radeon's after the x850 series have PS3.0 support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh sweet, another game that reinforces my loathing of 'current gen' PC gaming. Only develop for the dual core, 2GB Ram, duel graphics card wielding monster PCs....

Playing PC games nowadays is like going back in time. To get a game to run anywhere near decent on my machine I seem to have to knock the details down to medium or below and some how the game manages to look worse than pretty much any game that was released about 5 years ago... Why on Earth do developers insist on doing this?! Why not just use some optimised shader effects that give a similar look at a minimal strain to the system? Instead it's always; 'turn everything off and Woo! It looks like Half Life 1 And still runs pretty shit'.

I remember back in the day I had trouble running UT2003 at max detail. I wasn't too fussed though as medium still looked great and the textures where still pretty detailed. I guess that's why the source engine looks and runs so well on many systems. It doesn't rely on system intensive (and lets face it, most of the time, shit looking) mapping effects for it's detail.

TA Spring looks better than this, and runs faster too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what gets me annoyed is the fact developers feel the need to use all of these high-end per-pixel whatever whatever effects on pretty much everything and as a result my machine struggles to run a scene containing a green grass texture, 1 tree maybe some sea (plain grey texture) and a robot (singular).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's worse is that they still haven't fixed the fucking sound/speed/game stutter when you start to get a few units on screen, after 40 minutes of play the game is stuttering so much I have to keep it at the fully zoomed out view to get any sort of steady fps and all I had was 200-300 level 1 units and for a game that is supposed to allow thousands of units on screen at the same time, it's appalling to get that sort of performance. Even the mission updates stutter and my machine isn't exactly shite.

In fact, I reckon the performance now is even worse now than it was in beta. Shameful IMO.

Pre-Order cancelled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished playing the Cybran campaign mission in the demo and I'm incredibly impressed, the scale of the game is like no other RTS I've experienced before. Yes it's an incredible system hog, but it's worth it for the experience of waging war on this scale.

My system specs:

Athlon 64 3200+

Geforce 6600 GT 256MB

2 Gigs DDR RAM

It ran pretty well at 1024 by 768 on medium detail, that was until the scale of the battle became so immense with such a huge battlefield and a massive number of units on screen that my poor PC was reduced to running it in a slide show. :lol:

Time for that big upgrade I've been putting off for the last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.