For all those who want supreme commander read this

I was scrolling across this website when i found this

maybe in particular this part might interest people
I thought that it would help give you an idea on how the game (supreme commander) is running..its seems to be a very demanding game...its got a cool feature showing you how good the game looks on different settings etc

i know the graphics cards are for desktops but still...
Anyway hope this helps

*EDIT* Found another article again this time comparing not only graphics cards but also difference processors (Amd athlon x2 and intel core 2 duo desktop processors!) again only desktop but still pretty interesting!

you can check it out here

*EDIT* There is also one for the demo here

 

Dang. Looks like it won't be able to run on my GMA855

 

Well a lot of people have been playing it but having to sacrifice a lot of the things that makes a game more appealing such as the higher resolutions or aa,af or hdr...yeah but i doubt it will perform on an integrated graphics card

 

Wow talk about this becoming a game for major GPU benchmark testing.....

only 21 FPS on high setting/4x AA at 1600x1200 with an x1950XTX + x6800 C2D extreme!?!?!?!

edit: Wow look at those screenshots with high settings though, beautiful but i cant handle it

 

The problem has to do with CPU as much as GPU. To play SupCom, you need at least a Core Duo for smooth performance---it is programmed to take advantage of multiple cores for multiple worker threads. Keeping track of hundreds of units is no small task, and you'll need the parallel processing afforded by multiple cores to appreciate this game.

GPU-wise, my friend with a 7800GTX says he plays on mostly high settings at 1280x1024 with no lag. I'm hoping my X1600 can pull off mediumish settings at 1280x800.

EDIT: That's not to say you can't run it on a single core machine. It's just that when you get over a certain number of units, all the processing required for pathway calculations and unit AI will be a bottleneck, not the actual rendering of the units.

Also, has anybody played this on their laptops with an X1600 or 7600Go yet?

 

This was supposed to be an nvidia optimized game =/
How is the x1650 crushing the 7600gt by that much..

And it uses all four cores, theres finally a difference in gaming between q6700 and x6800....Got to hand it to supreme commanders coders/engine.

 

yeah i think on medium settings the frame rates will pick up more significantly its a shame they didnt show how the top end cards performed on medium settings gator (sorry dont know your name) this dude let a msg saying this:

Ran it a MAX everything. Resolution 1024X768. No problems. Skirmish. Me vs computer. Until after about 35 minutes. When the computer started throwing some mean attacks. Things started getting a bit choppy. I have a 2.6 768MB RAM. Radeon X1600 Pro 512MB AGP. Catalyst 7.2. (just released)

i think you'll be fine

 

Thanks, I guess I was just a bit intimidated when I visited http://www.supremecommander.com/
and it took 30 seconds to load the webpage (go see it, you'll know what I mean)

 

Dude my pc is old school (im too embarrassed to say lol athlon xp 1700+ with a whopping 80gig hard drive 512sdram and not to mention the best feature of them all a cd-rw ) mind you whenever my cousin goes away which is always he gives me his laptops/pcs which brings joy to me..did have a fujitsu siemens m3438g which i loved but sold immediatly cos i wanted to wait a little longer...my dad is so persistant he wanted a pcmcia card for wireless internet for an old brick of a laptop so i got him one...now if told you the specs and its weight of that you'd be shocked..lol

i see what you mean with the loading time lol...

 

confirm: it runs on my X1600. no problem

 

Yea I ran it on the desktop in my sig. It ran fine with everything maxed out @ 1680 x 1050. However, it wasn't running at 60FPS like most of my games will including FEAR. It is most definitely a demanding game.

 

Old school eh? Reminds me about the NEC Versa laptop I had, 120Mhz processor, 24MB of RAM, 100MB HDD. Ran WC2 well though, good times...

Thanks, DL'ing demo right now.

Have you tried the dual monitor setup yet? I hear it's quite an experience.

 

Well i can go back further to when i had a 486 33mhz good knows how much ram and ms-dos and to boot up windows you'd have to type win in the ms-dos screen im hoping though that my new laptop (when it decides to come) will be able to play it with some good high settings...the game certainly looks the part cant wait to try it out...

 

Have you tried the dual monitor setup yet? I hear it's quite an experience.

You know I haven't, I just actually bought my first monitor ever recently (Samsung 226BW). I still have a 19" CRT around and I was thinking about plugging it in just to see what it is like. Sounds pretty cool. I will try it out one of these days.

 

before i chose to buy a laptop i was really considering building and that monitor (the samsung) caught my eye? any good?

anyway whats everyone elses experiences with supreme commander?

 

Supreme Commander?

Hehe, cheesy name. Anyways, I stick to my Medieval times RTS games.

 

Installing demo, will let you know...after some gameplay.

You have to see the game in action to appreciate it. I saw a video demo and I was hooked...the fact that my coworker says he's "absolutely addicted to it" may have biased my opinion though.

 

The Samsung 226 BW rocks for gaming! I have no regrets with this monitor. No ghosting whatsoever (I play tons of FPS), good color gradients, no dead pixels, amazing brightness levels....I couldn't ask for more! I had the new Gateway 24" monitor for a few days before I decided to return it and go for the Samsung. Gateway had major ghosting issues and terrible colors. Going from a 19" CRT to a 22" WS, I must say I am very pleased!

 

Just got done with the first mission in the Demo. A quick breakdown:

You play as the Cybrans. They're like super advanced revolutionary fighters with Russian accents. Also they have a super cool heavy assault tank/droid that looks like a spider, which can also repair itself.

Anyhow, the game was really fun and the graphical effects were awe inspiring, especially the explosions. My X1600 handled it well on medium settings, although I still detect some mouse lag---will try turning off shadows later. The demo had a few glitches: captured enemy refuel/resupply air depots do not work, they just trap your jets/bombers. Also, the waypoint system for factories can be messed up if you accidentally group in the building with combat units...the newly produced units will try to join up with the grouped units and either get slaughtered in transit or go to some random area on the map where your old units died. Also, the keyboard mappings aren't to be found in the demo, I guess I'll need to look online or dig up an old Total Annihilation manual.

The camera also bothers me a little, as I find myself zooming out most of the time and so can't see my units in action. Your units are represented as icons when zoomed out, and it's not nearly as fun seeing icons blink out as it is to see massive machines of war implode after taking a direct shot from a stationary plasma cannon, orchestrated with just the right mix of bass and treble. I guess I need to focus more on tactics rather than strategy to appreciate the graphics a little more.

Here's a screenshot of me moving my massive army of heavy assault bots, light artillery, and anti-air support to conquer the evil Aeon base to the south of my position.


Quick note: it appears they upgraded the power of the explosion of the commanders. Uh, my army was wiped out the instant after my ultimate triumph over the Aeon commander.

 

If it likes a dual core system, I'm wondering how it will run on my Turion X2 LT-50 with nvidia 6150go. It should be able to run on low settings I imagine.

 

wouldn't count on it. on medium settings as the losews resolution offered I get 25-40 fps after about 15 minuets of gameplay. and thats on a T2400, 7900gs, and 2gb of ram. I am sure the actual game is a bit better than the demo I am playing, but its a system killer. as somebody else said earlier, this will be THE benchmark game for years to come. go to http://www.supremecommander.com/ then to media/ screen shots. thats what it looks like. I seriously doubt a 6150 will be able to play that on even the lowest settings. 1024x768 is the lowest resolution offered in the demo, anyone with the retail game, what the lowest resolution offered?

Gator, I have tried it in dual screen and its the same performance hit as posted in the orgional post, dropped me from 30fps to 10.

 

Glad to see that it worked now time to try it on my radeon 9200 jk

This is what they say on the minimum requirments

* Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2, Vista
* 1.8 GHz processor EDIT: (single core processor:amd athlon 64 or pentium 4)
* 512 MB RAM
* 8GB available hard drive space
* 128MB video RAM or greater, with DirectX 9 Vertex Shader/Pixel Shader 2.0 support
* Sound card, speakers or headphones
* 56.6 Kbps Internet connection required

so i think a lot of people will be able to play it but have to sacrifice a lot of detail...

 

When it says 1.8 Ghz. Does that mean a Turion X2 TL-50 that is clocked at 1.6 Ghz won't be good enough?

 

No, the Turion is a dual core processor. Your processor will be fine; their website cites a 1.8 ghz single core processor, such as an Athlon 64 or Pentium 4.

 

Dual core processors, from what I've heard, are key or else it will chug a bit... also anything under from 7400 is also pretty bad

 

I just played the demo. x1400 can barely run this game at my native resolution (1280x800). On the 'low' setting I average only 30 FPS even with the card overclocked....

Oh and just for everyone's information the game doesn't take much of a performance hit with changing the in-game settings (minus resolution). But just to warn, the main thing I noticed when I turned shadows from 'off' to 'low' my FPS dropped from 30 FPS to 16 FPS. If your on a low end card keep shadows OFF!

 

I was able to play the demo on medium-medium settings, 1024x768 on an old desktop XFX 6800GT. Was playable until there are more than 150+ units in play. Probably because I have an AMD Athlon 2600+ XP. Hey I did say an old desktop.

 

My old pc wouldnt let me play lol...so i guess i'll have to wait a lil longer..

 

How will it run on my 512 Dedicated GeForce Go 7700??

 

it should run great on that

 

check the first msg posted i edited it and added another article...this one is pretty interesting too

*Edit* added a third article link with regards to the demo

 

Just beat the demo campaign. See attached pic

One thing I'm noticing is that, if I tab out while the game is running, my mouse is reeeally laggy when opening any other programs or browsing the web. This hasn't happened with other games. I think this is due to the fact that both cores are being used heavily by SupCom.

 

I've played it on a 7900 GS, t7200 with 2GB RAM, and I was able to run everything on full settings, with minimap up at reasonable FPS, the map movement was a little laggy (the camera movement), but all the unit movements were smooth, I had easily 100+ units plus buildings and enemy units on screen at once. On lower settings I got smooth camera movement.

How can I actually see the fps? I can judge it that its playable, but I don't know the exact value.

 

Use FRAPS thats a good to check it...you can get it to log your min,max,average fps etc...

 

1.) What do we know about running this game on dual monitors? How much of a performance hit will be taken when running on duel mode. What kind of GPU is nessesary.

2.) What kind of settings can I expect to run supreme commander on for a decent experience on the following settings:

--Toshiba Satellite A130--

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 (2.00GHz, 4MB L2 cache, 667MHz FSB)
OS: Windows Vista Premium 32-Bit
Memory: 2048MB PC5300 DDR2 667MHz SDRAM (1024MBx2)
LCD: 15.4" Widescreen XGA TruBrite (1280x800)
Graphics Card: nVIDIA GeForce Go 7600, 256MB dedicated graphics memory
HDD: 80GB HDD (5400rpm, Serial-ATA)
Optical Media: DVD SuperMulti (+/-R double layer) drive

Price Tag= $1,400.00


So...Will my system run SC o.k? What settings? Will it run with duel Monitors?

Thanks

 

I'm not sure if nVidia has released new drivers for Vista yet, but if they haven't then your performance will be less than acceptable for that card. In XP, your configuration will be able to play small to medium sized maps in the game on medium settings (no shadows) at native resolution. Large and huge maps will lag a little from what I hear, mostly due to the CPU.

 

Gator, what about you? Your system specs are about the same as mine. I understand the x1600 is comperable to the 7600....

How do you run the game?

 

The demo runs fine at the settings I posted.

 

I've been playing Supreme Commander on the Aeon storyline with my laptop, and it is certainly playable at around 20-50FPS depending on the time into the battle. I run it at 1920x1200 at medium settings, and I have a CRT plugged in as the secondary screen to get a 1600x1200 overview of the map. The best way to see if it will run is to try the demo. It is certainly a great game and a worthy sequel to TA.

 

I can second this.

Asus F3Jm - 7600Go 512MB, 120GB 5200 RPM HD, Intel Core 2 duo 7200 , 2 GB's 667 RAM (a fast machine let down by a slower HD and small video card but fine for everything else I have ever run on it - eg Prey, HL2, Company of Heroes all run great) (came with XP but I bought Vista Ultimate to check it out)

Supreme Commander is barely playable. Well it is JUST playable at around 15 FPS at native res of 1680x1050 but I have to have all settings to Off and Low. Affinity has the biggest hit on frame rate. To me that's like driving a car with flat tyres in a snow storm - unresponsive and hard to see. I just won't do it.

Sup Com is a real disapointment to me due to it's INCREDIBLY high system requirements.

My desktop XP Pro SP2, AMD 4400+, 7800GT, 10000 RPM raptor HD, 2GB's ram runs it better but I still need to run it with affinity off and shadows off and settings at Medium and Off. Get around 25 FPS at 1920x1200. Resolution has less affect than the settings.

This is a true beast of a game. I'm going to put it on the shelf and when I get my next PC in a year or so I will try playing it then. I wish I hadn't bothered buying it now.

Command and Conquer 3 howver plays like a dream on my notebook and my PC (the demo at least). I'll definitely be playing C & C 3 in the next month when it comes out.

 

I thought the Hard Drive only had to do with how much a computer can store? Does it have an effect on gaming quality or speed? If so could someone explain briefly the role of the HDD?

Thanks

 

Yes, it IS how much a computer can store. But, if you didnt notice, games are much larger than the amount of ram you have installed (unless you have 4gb.. holy crap). When you run ANYTHING in windows, the application stores some memory into your RAM. When a threshold is reached, it starts to store some of the less used memory onto the Hard drive (known as a page file), to keep the most used programs memory access speeds faster (note: Ram has a heck of a lot faster access speed than HDD). Game developers has the power to decide how much memory is loaded from the HDD (from the game directory.. NOT page file) into the RAM. This is usually done when loading a battle map, level, or new characters/models/sounds/whatever. Now, this is where HDD access speed is crucial. The faster the HDD RPM and less fragmented the HDD (see: windows defrag analysis, more red, more fragmentation), the faster things load from the HDD. Rememebr what i said about windows putting memory onto the HDD? It also does this while you play the game, putting unused characters/sounds from RAM and putting it onto the HDD until it detects that you are using it frequently, then it puts it back into the RAM.

In conclusion, Less fragmentation of HDD is great, so is more RAM (windows doesnt have to swap files between RAM and HDD as much). More HDD space on the drive usually lends itself to less fragmentation, but not always. but more total HDD space means the HDD head doesnt has to move as much. so, in order or precedence of amount of performance:

RAM
DEFragmentation
HDD speed
HDD space left
Total HDD space

There you go!