it was so frustrating, my rally points were right BEHIND the enemy aeon base! for about 30 minutes i was wondering why the hell i couldnt build up an army! my tanks would just one by one mosey on over and get annihilated by their turrets.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
supreme commander demo today/tuesaday
- Thread starter wannabeapilot
- Start date
it was so frustrating, my rally points were right BEHIND the enemy aeon base! for about 30 minutes i was wondering why the hell i couldnt build up an army! my tanks would just one by one mosey on over and get annihilated by their turrets.
ThePerformer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 284
Same.
The game is already gold so I'm guessing this flaw will be in the retail version. Well, there's your first big bug! Other than that, it felt very stable, fast, and excellent.
I dont think that problem will be in retail. i havent seen it in any of the beta versions. Its my guess that the demo was created via a seperate code branch then what we have been testing.
Also, by chance did anyone else notice the fact that sometimes enemy units when they crossed from under the fog of war into your explored zone they would sort of "warp" in from off screen? I also havent seen this in the betas, but it seems to happen quite a bit in the demo.
Just started downloading the Demo.
If it's not done by the time I get back from work I am going to be pissed.
Things that are instantly retarded about this:
You must use IE and download and install an activeX control.
You must join the fileplanet/gamespy/spyware network to get access
"Download manager" is probably nothing more than spyware
Meh. I loved TA, but I am less than impressed with the choices CT/GPG have made so far, and I haven't even seen the game yet.
If it's not done by the time I get back from work I am going to be pissed.
Things that are instantly retarded about this:
You must use IE and download and install an activeX control.
You must join the fileplanet/gamespy/spyware network to get access
"Download manager" is probably nothing more than spyware
Meh. I loved TA, but I am less than impressed with the choices CT/GPG have made so far, and I haven't even seen the game yet.
WhyYouLoveMe
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 6,513
I didn't use IE/ActiveX. I didn't join fileplanet. I'm not using a download manager.
I used Firefox. I used gamershell.
I didn't use IE/ActiveX. I didn't join fileplanet. I'm not using a download manager.
I used Firefox. I used gamershell.
yup, gamershell seems to be the go-to place for these kinds of things nowadays.
I didn't use IE/ActiveX. I didn't join fileplanet. I'm not using a download manager.
I used Firefox. I used gamershell.
Good for you.
I can't complain too much, once it actually started downloading, it downloaded at aggregate 520K/sec, which was as fast as the CM could go. Now to get home and play it.
This game is hard on my system...
1680 x 1050, Medium Settings in game, 4x AF, Lowered some image quality settings in ATT... I get about 30 FPS, have not taken part in any huge battles though...
2.7 Venice
2 GIG of RAM
X1950XTX @ 750/1000
You should lower your AF to 2 or 0 it slows down the CPU. Also turn down shadows to the lowest. Run the game with a mix of medium to low settings, you should be fine.
This game is hard on my system...
1680 x 1050, Medium Settings in game, 4x AF, Lowered some image quality settings in ATT... I get about 30 FPS, have not taken part in any huge battles though...
2.7 Venice
2 GIG of RAM
X1950XTX @ 750/1000
Game runs like a dream for me. 16af 4AA, everything high.
Sgraffite
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,405
How are you guys checking your frame rates in this game? I couldn't find any options in game for it. Also what structure can you build on that big lightning bolt symbol? I'm assuming a power plant of some sort but I got to tech 3 and couldn't find anything that I could build on it.
FRAPS will work for just about anything. Some games have in-game counters, but FRAPS allows for many more things than just an FPS counter.
I use FF and I use the Fileplanet downloader too, it isn't spyware
Had it running at 1680x1050 and 1280x1024 and was getting very low FPS, probaby around the 15fps mark (didn't measure it)
Really need SLI support in Vista
The 2nd map is actually quite good for an overall view, if you zoom it right out it does more or less become a sprite based map were you can control whole armies in a few clicks, having that kind of power is helpful in RTS games, especially on that scale.
I didn't really feel any of it was particuarly inspiring, then again it was late and I didn't play it much, I just find it hard to get excited by it thats all, I think the strongest thing it will have going for it will be the really large battles on multiplayer.
Also not including tutorials was a bit of a mistake.
Really need SLI support in Vista
The 2nd map is actually quite good for an overall view, if you zoom it right out it does more or less become a sprite based map were you can control whole armies in a few clicks, having that kind of power is helpful in RTS games, especially on that scale.
I didn't really feel any of it was particuarly inspiring, then again it was late and I didn't play it much, I just find it hard to get excited by it thats all, I think the strongest thing it will have going for it will be the really large battles on multiplayer.
Also not including tutorials was a bit of a mistake.
HaMMerHeD
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 10,397
My gripe is the performance hit that it takes. I like the fully zoomed out view, but the performance impact is too much. I know it could have been done in 2d with less of a performance hit.
ChronoReverse
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 1,231
You need a Tech 1 Constructor to build a hydrocarbon energy plant on top of it.
Beat the first level in 48 minutes. Let's see what happens in the second...
And this game runs like molasses in the Arctic on my bottom end 9600se. At least my CPU and RAM is up to snuff =/
SLI is not recommended because you wont be able to use dual screen gaming and the game isnt as graphic intensive as it is CPU intensive. I would get a nice single video card, like a 7900gs or x1900 and better. Dual core is highly recommended to run the game smooth as silk.
How big of difference does dual core make? And, is there any guides or tutorials for this game, its taking me a while to figure everything out...
ThePerformer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 284
I love my new system As I stated above, I'm running this at 4xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 and it never slows down for a second. Interesting that it's CPU intensive....maybe I'll get a quad core in a few months if the multiplayer is slow.
As I stated above, I'm running this at 4xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 and it never slows down for a second. Interesting that it's CPU intensive....maybe I'll get a quad core in a few months if the multiplayer is slow.I would say anywhere between 40% to over 100% increase in performance depending on the situation.
Ex. 1v1 500 Unit Cap Small Map, dual core will only hold a slight edge in the start of the game but progressing through the game dual core will more then likely hold a 45% increase in performance on average. Single Core would have around 20 FPS and the Dual Core would have over 30 FPS.
EX. 2v2 1000 Unit Cap Large Map, dual core will hold a significant edge in the start of the game progressing through it would be over 100% increase due to the single core bottlenecking and causing major lag. FPS would be like 3-5 FPS for the single core and 20-40 FPS for the dual core.
I wouldn't mind seeing a [H] benchmark on it.
Sgraffite
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,405
I'm running it on an Opty 175 but it's kind of choppy, most likely because I have a 6800gs for video.
Yeah would be nice to get offical results but from my own observations running 3 different rigs in beta. A C2D e6600 as main 2gigs ram 8800GTS, Core Duo laptop with 1gig ram ati x1600, A64 socket754 venice @ 2.6ghz 1gig ram 6800GT. I have a good idea across the board what each performs at.
evanisthecoastie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,708
Downloaded game, maxed everything at 1680 x 1050, didnt use a fps tool, wanted to see if I could notice any hits, there was only one occasion i noticed when it slowed down a bit, but it was more due to the waypoint bug than my fault.
I built 4 ground unit buildings, selected them all and built the hunter guys (30 from each building) then went to the bathroom. came back not being able to find any of them, until i searched near the bottom of my screen, OMG thats alot of freakin dust and units piled in one small location. Other than that it ran extremely smooth.
I built 4 ground unit buildings, selected them all and built the hunter guys (30 from each building) then went to the bathroom. came back not being able to find any of them, until i searched near the bottom of my screen, OMG thats alot of freakin dust and units piled in one small location. Other than that it ran extremely smooth.
Game wont even play for me I have a pretty nice system check signature......
I downloaded the zip from Gamer'sHell, then installed it, took like forever to go through the install process, then I click on the game icon to start the game and it says some error missing file ? So I uninstall and reinstall once more and same issue ?
I have a pretty nice system check signature......I downloaded the zip from Gamer'sHell, then installed it, took like forever to go through the install process, then I click on the game icon to start the game and it says some error missing file ? So I uninstall and reinstall once more and same issue ?
evanisthecoastie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,708
what error are you receiving?
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,833
I love my new system
Very nice, I'm running it at 4xAA, 16xAF, 1680x1050, maxed ingame settings, and it runs incredibly well without any slowdowns either. I'm on a similar rig to yours... mine's an E6600 @ 3.42ghz, 8800GTS @ 621(core)/1460(shader/sp)2000(ram), 2GB RAM, on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe... all crammed into a modded X-Qpack. Runs like a dream
! I'm on Vista, to boot !Game wont even play for me
I downloaded the zip from Gamer'sHell, then installed it, took like forever to go through the install process, then I click on the game icon to start the game and it says some error missing file ? So I uninstall and reinstall once more and same issue ?
Try downloading from FIleShack... sounds like your download's corrupt.
Game wont even play for me
I downloaded the zip from Gamer'sHell, then installed it, took like forever to go through the install process, then I click on the game icon to start the game and it says some error missing file ? So I uninstall and reinstall once more and same issue ?
Pretty sure your download is corrupt. As much fun as it sounds you'll probably have to download it again.
Note that SupCom requires Win XP or Vista. On win2k, you can install the demo ok, but you'll get an error about a missing entry point in ws2_32.dll when you try to run it. So sad for us Win2k holdouts.
Looks like its time to move to vista. Look at the bright side if you move to vista you will gain the DX10 features in the game if you have a DX10 video card.
HaMMerHeD
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 10,397
I'm loving the demo. The monstrous explosion of the enemy ACU is quite gratifying.
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
Has anyone found a way to make units build faster? My ground units don't take anytime, but trying to build a massive army of bombers (57 seconds each!) with 4 Air Factories is taking forever! Otherwise, damn i love this! I was so sick of WC3 and it's micro, it's nice to just macro on a larger scale and unleash destruction!
Ph and since this is the [H], opty [email protected], 8800gts stock and 2gbs of 2.5-3-3-6 ram 1:1 and running incredible! 2 screens too, so killer.
Anyone know if theres a way I can click on my secondary monitor and have it zoom to that place on my primary monitor?
Ph and since this is the [H], opty [email protected], 8800gts stock and 2gbs of 2.5-3-3-6 ram 1:1 and running incredible! 2 screens too, so killer.
Anyone know if theres a way I can click on my secondary monitor and have it zoom to that place on my primary monitor?
I did this simple comparison for anybody interested. If my maths are correct then using
2 cores = 49.95 Average FPS.
1 core = 44.25 Average FPS
Difference between them is 12.88%. The benchmark is taken from the demo, i played a skirmish map and had about 150+ vechicles and lots of buildings. I loaded the saved game and took the benchmark, i then set the core affinity to 1 core for supreme commander and reloaded the saved game and again benchmarked. Before anybody flames, yes i know its not 100% accurate. I know the second core, would still be helping windows other tasks (something a real single core wouldnt be able to do) and i realise the skirmish saved game is not going to play out the same for each 3 minutes (the time i benchmarked).
The system was a E6600@default speed, 2GB ram, 7800GT, XP. The game was running at the lowest resolution i could choose 1024x768 (i think) all graphics options were set to off or lowest and Vsync off.
Dang I was really liking my fresh Win2k install from a few month's ago......May have to go out and buy Vista now when Supreme Commander release ? So there is no way SupCom will work in Win2k at all?? I mean XP and 2K are not that different for installation of game's
Get your tech workers or your commander to help build them. Normally i get a few of them tech engineers (using the quantum gate), upgrade them so they build faster and then set them working on lvl 3 battleships, with 3-4 of them the build time gets reduced significantly. But you can use them for anything, even the lvl3 bombers that take forever
. The more you have the quicker stuff builds, but the more resources they take during build time (as more people are working on it)brycejones
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,372
Does the dual monitor support require Vista?
I did this simple comparison for anybody interested. If my maths are correct then using
2 cores = 49.95 Average FPS.
1 core = 44.25 Average FPS
Difference between them is 12.88%. The benchmark is taken from the demo, i played a skirmish map and had about 150+ vechicles and lots of buildings. I loaded the saved game and took the benchmark, i then set the core affinity to 1 core for supreme commander and reloaded the saved game and again benchmarked. Before anybody flames, yes i know its not 100% accurate. I know the second core, would still be helping windows other tasks (something a real single core wouldnt be able to do) and i realise the skirmish saved game is not going to play out the same for each 3 minutes (the time i benchmarked).
The system was a E6600@default speed, 2GB ram, 7800GT, XP. The game was running at the lowest resolution i could choose 1024x768 (i think) all graphics options were set to off or lowest and Vsync off.
Would be interesting to see it turned to highest settings. The demo stresses pretty well but doesnt stress enough to critical levels where the second core would make the biggest difference.