any asus-w3j supreme commander players? i got a performance question

im planning on buying the w3j over the more powerful A8JS because someone here told me it was better built and i was wondering if it can atleast play supreme commander at a decent frame rate with its x1600 video card. oh and also indicate wether you ran the demo or beta version of the game.

link, if you want to give this wonderful fun game a try
-- demo at fileshack.com

 

Hi,

I think you should be fine. When I had my MacBook Pro (with a 256MB X1600, clocked at 450/450), it handled the Supreme Commander beta just fine...... and that was the beta, which didn't perform as well (I've read that it was because they had a lot of debugging code in there, etc.) as the final should.

The X1600 in the W3J should also do a fine job of handling it.

-Zadillo

 

Hey iiLLLLL (god that's hard to see how many L's), I beta tested Supreme Commander on my W3j, worked great. You can run it on medium settings and even during large battles the game play was smooth.

Even with a slightly more powerful vidoecard, you won't be able to put it on high, at least not with the 7700 (if you plan to have large battles).

 

That eases my mind. I was hoping I could play it on my G1 and I've heard so many different stories on the demo's performance I was getting quite lost among the chatter.

I don't care if it has to be on medium, low, or wire frame I'm playing that game until my fingers can't move anymore. I'll have to download the demo this weekend and give it a shot.

 

Well seeing as my W3J plays Battlefield 2 absolutely perfectly - all optioned turn to their highest - and Supreme Commander is an RTS, not an FPS, I think you should be fine. Originally my bottleneck was RAM but a 2nd gig made things all better.

~ Brett

 

Although Supreme Commander is an RTS, that doesn't mean it isn't necessarily demanding. It is still a full 3D engine, and can still be strained when dealing with the massive number of units in use (one of the notable aspects of Supreme Commander is the huge scope and massive maps and large scale battles compared to a typical RTS). And that isn't even factoring in the AI, which is fairly demanding on the CPU.

-Zadillo

 

i do not know the game you mentioned but i can say this, w3j rocks
i play NFS carbon at full detail and Quake 4 with 1024x768 and good quality Not even a slight frozen screen yet

 

thanks. im glad to hear about what the w3j can do.

trooper: you should check it out, its IMO the best RTS out
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=16254&type=wmv&pl=game

 

I agree... but nonetheless, BF2 is considered one of the more demanding games out there so I was trying to use it as an example of the W3J's abilities.

~ Brett

 

Supreme Commander isn't as visually appealing, but its taxing as hell on the processor. I heard from the mods during the beta that every explosion is calculated in real time including subsequent collateral explosions that are caught in the original explosion =P

It is very very taxing and eats up a ton of ram. But it still runs extremely well on my W3j.

 

Surprisingly enough, if you know about Total Annihilation and how much it taxed computers when it came out way back then, you might have gotten the idea that RTS games are way more taxing than FPS games rather than the other way around. That old game can still cause relatively new computers to slow down, and it's nearly 10 years old. When it came out, some of the maps that came with the game required more than 2 times the RAM most people's computers had (64MB instead of 32MB or even 16MB which was common at the time), and it was able to use high resolutions like 1280 x 1024 when most people were still using 640 x 480. Supreme Commander is the spiritual successor, and if the beta was any indication, it would make even the best rigs today run like molasses when you really start to play it to its potential... an X1600 will be able to play it decently, but don't count on being able to play on the larger maps with more than a few hundred units without slowing down significantly. This is a game that will be able to scale upwards for a couple of years at least, if not for quite as long as its predecessor...

 

old school TA player here and i know what youre talking about but i would really want to hear more from someone whos had extensive sc play. i dont care if i play it all on low settings. i just want to play on 30fps and up.

 

I'm with ill on this one and a non Bobby Fischer AI doesn't frighten me in the least. It would probably take something along the lines of Skynet to make SC's AI work perfectly with a computer the size of a house.

TA's AI was exceedingly stupid and yet people still play it religiously, if you need a truly skilled opponent then you play online and I can't wait for my first crazy tank assault.

 

Running the demo on desktops, I get 10-15 FPS on 'Medium' on my X2 4200+ / 6800GT, and my housemate gets 20-25 on 'Medium' on his Core 2 Duo E6400 (OCed to 2.6) / 7900GT. 1280x1024.

Game runs like crap. Don't expect much. Shoddy coding and it doesn't even look that great. Demo plays a lot like Earth 2150, which was a DX7 game and looked about as good.

I have a feeling it will "magically" run better with a DX10 card + Vista, since it's branded under MSes new "Games for PC" brand name and it may be the first DX10 game out. I'm sure they got a nice kickback to make sure it would run crappy on current systems, just like Halo PC.

Play original TA, it's better. I was so excited about it until I played the demo and realized it's the same gameplay with ****ty "new" graphics and a ton of resource consumption for no good reason.

 

It's specifically marketed as a dx9 game but I wouldn't put it past "them" to dick the gaming community over.

 

I thought I had a driver issue, so I had my housemate try it. Performance is abysmal and it doesn't even look that good.

 

I have been spending time in the beta, but on an X600 for part of the time and also a 7600GS. So my comments are with respect to my experience in Supreme Commander on those cards. 30FPS and up, yes, is attainable, but as I said... not with games that are on larger maps and are in mid to end-game stage. Having a high-end dual core CPU is really, really important though - maybe even more than the graphics card - once the end-game stage is reached and close to a thousand units are running around, so maybe you'll do better on your W3J than I fared on my older Pentium M / Pentium 4HT systems.

As for the graphics, it does look quite a bit different if you go from High to Medium to Low, and you can gain significant framerate. I don't know what the other people are talking about, but I think the graphics are probably some of the best around, especially for an RTS - and especially while it is in motion...

 

I just played through the SC-Demo campaign on a X2 3800+ OCed to 2.7GHz and a 7900GT videocard. I have no idea what Jumper is talking about. The game runs great for me on everything high though again, I recommend you run it on medium if you plan on having large battles.

Of course the game won't look as good as a FPS, but zooming in you can see how much detail is put into this game. The little radar on naval units spin, turrets on one unit target multiple targets. You can't judge the visuals based on what you get in a FPS, there are way more moving parts in SC.

 

My housemate has a Core 2 Duo E6400 OCed to 3.2Ghz and a 7900GT, 2GB DDR800, and he gets 20-25fps on Medium in the demo. I'd like to see FRAPS numbers and system specs from the people who say it "runs ok"...

Completely unacceptable performance for no good reason.... It's an RTS, I don't care about seeing small things on the units spinning.

 

have no fear, I have not had a problem running SC on my w3j... it ran smooth on high everything and max res so have no fear