Supreme Commander beta

[GeorgeTuk]

MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Microsoft(r) Windows(r) 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 • Sound card, speakers or headphones •
56.6 Kbps Internet connection required.

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
3.0 GHz Intel or equivalent AMD processor or better • 1 GB RAM or better • 10 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

They seem pretty reasonable, shall be buying that. Lubbly...as I was getting tired with my current crop!

Looking forward to it now!

[Smokey21]

The specs are very optimistic.

Reccommended specs should read:

AMD X2 or Intel Dual Core CPU, 2GB ram, DX9 video card, 7800/X1800 or better, etc.

[cptwhite_uk]

Ok being in the BETA and having playing various map sizes I can tell you the following are the real Minimum and Recommended Specs:


Minimum - Athlon 64 3500 / 1Gb / 6800GT/X800XT

This will allow reasonable play on of a 2v2 game, with low/medium details at 1280x1024 on a medium map (20x20km) with unit limit of about 500/750

Recommended Minimum - Intel Core2Duo 6300 / Athlon X2 4200 / 1.5Gb / 7800GT/X1800XT

This will allow reasonable play of a 3v3 game with medium details at 1280x1024 with some AA, or 1600x1200 on a medium /large map (20x40km or so) with a unit limit of 750

It is worth pointing out that the maximum map size in the beta is 20 x 20km, and the final game is meant to have maps 80km x 80km in size, so it's hard to judge. Number of units also makes a huge diffence.

My core2duo @3.3Ghz / 2Gb PC6400 / X1950XT 256Mb seems about the minimum I'd want for a 3v3 or 4v4 game on a medimum map, but as always you're limited to the slowest PC playing the game so it becomes hard to judge larger games.

Dual core is a must, as is 1.5Gb RAM absolute minimum and a recent X1800XT or equivalent card if you want to play the game the way it was intended - with large maps and huge armies.

[Spud1]

I'm not so sure on that - remember you have only played a BETA - which will be largely finished but unoptimised code to a large degree..so wait and see for the final build..

[GeorgeTuk]

I agree with Spud1.

I think we will have to see what happens in the final build, after many recent games have tailored back requirements to appeal to a larger market, WH40K: Dawn of War, HL2 and The Movies have all been playable on up to date but otherwise unimpressive systems such as mine, so I think we will have to see.

[cougarslam]

i had the beta a few months back.

played it once and will never play it again.

i also didn't like coh but used to be into red alert etc.

[Smokey21]

I agree with Spud1.

I think we will have to see what happens in the final build, after many recent games have tailored back requirements to appeal to a larger market, WH40K: Dawn of War, HL2 and The Movies have all been playable on up to date but otherwise unimpressive systems such as mine, so I think we will have to see.

What have those games got to do with SC? Dawn of war is nothing like this game.

SC can have 1000's of units, accross maps 100 times as large as the biggest DOW map.

SC has been built with Dual Core in mind. Sure i expect the full version to run better than the beta, but it won't be a substancial difference. You really do need a Dual Core CPU. Id say a 2Ghz AMD X2.

[Russ]

i need to buy a pc that can cope with it first, my 9800pro and 1gb of ram aint up to the task i feel.

[Spud1]

What have those games got to do with SC? Dawn of war is nothing like this game.

SC can have 1000's of units, accross maps 100 times as large as the biggest DOW map.

SC has been built with Dual Core in mind. Sure i expect the full version to run better than the beta, but it won't be a substancial difference. You really do need a Dual Core CPU. Id say a 2Ghz AMD X2.

It doesn't matter what game, what application..it could be 'Little Janes Riding Adventure' and it would still be in the same situation - 9/10 times games get much better in terms of their system requirements when moving from a beta to final code The content of the game is totally irrelavent, in fact the more complex the game the more likely that a small optimisation (such as drawing a unit on the screen 1 nanosecond faster) would have a bigger effect on the overall performance (as the optimisation is re-used multiple times and that combines to make one big improvement)

We'll just have to wait and see - and in fact if it won't run acceptably on my system (p4 3ghz [SINGLE CORE!], X800, 2.5gig ram) then i'll send you £10 cash

[snedger]

decided to go with the Aeon collectors edition, one of my sons likes the Aeon posters best and it suits me better to pick up from a store.
So what are people saying is more important - CPU or graphics?
If my opteron 165; 2Gig RAM; 6800 GT PC can't handle it then I'll get around to that X1950 PRO upgrade I've been putting off.
I'd better check if there are any Win XP 64 issues before I put my preorder in.

[GeorgeTuk]

What have those games got to do with SC? Dawn of war is nothing like this game.

SC can have 1000's of units, accross maps 100 times as large as the biggest DOW map.

SC has been built with Dual Core in mind. Sure i expect the full version to run better than the beta, but it won't be a substancial difference. You really do need a Dual Core CPU. Id say a 2Ghz AMD X2.

Hang on a minute I didn't comment on either the game type, the size or anything specific. However I do realise there is different calculations involved in the textures, pathfinding, phsyics (and more) for different games.

I was saying in general it seems the industry as a whole are moving towards having a larger customer base by having the games run acceptably on a larger range of systems.

I would have thought that Supreme Commander would have been built with Dual Core as option to improve performance but it will not be optimised as the majority of the market will not yet have Dual Core machines.

[redsky009]

Found some vouchers for Blah! as well

£5 off £30 spends - http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/redire...yurl.com/6xutw
£2 off £10 spends -
http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/redire...yurl.com/3ul29

so that brings the price down to £16, woo hoo

I think if you have already preordered you can cancel your order and reorder using the coupon

[Smokey21]

LOL, you said those games, were tailored back to let more people play them, which has nothing to do with talking about going from Beta to final version.

Seeing as DOW and HL2 are 2 years old as well, it really means nothing. This is what i was commenting on.

Spud1, what resolution and settings do you plan on using? You might as well send me that 10quid now, if you plan to play the game on the rig you listed, with lots and lots of units on screen.

[cptwhite_uk]

You owe Smokey21 £10.... Try play 3v3, 1000 unit limit ona 20km x 20km map. Your PC will beg for mercy.

It's like this. You need a decent CPU (read dual core) to play a 2v2 or more game on a decent scale (20kmx20km 1000 units each), same with RAM. 1.5Ghz minimum.

Videocard if you set details to low is acceptable to be fairly low these days. A X800XT would suffice on low details with shadows off. It would still be a slide show during large battle though.

A slow CPU slows the game down, ie game time 5 minnutes, real world time 25 minutes. Like everything's moving in glue.

A slow Graphics Card and fast CPU, the game runs more or less real time, but the FPS will be low during intense scenes (although I think a graphics card is more negociable than a CPU and Ram in this game as far as I'm concerned).

A major increase in performance was implemented in the latest beta build and I doubt it'll increase much more I sense that was the optimisation mostly completed. My specs outlined above are based on this more improved version.

Before no network of super dooper PCs could run a 4v4 acceptably.

[Spud1]

Spud1, what resolution and settings do you plan on using? You might as well send me that 10quid now, if you plan to play the game on the rig you listed, with lots and lots of units on screen.

I'll be running at 1600x1200, graphics settings will be medium, with things like AA and AF disabled as they have a negligable effect when used at that resolution, and i'm not a graphics whore anyway.

I'll wait and see, but I will be shocked if i cant play the game at those settings with this machine - and that doesn't mean just multiplayer btw - thats only one aspect of the game. If single player works fine and the multiplayer mode that i will use the most (1v1v1 assuming thats in the game..should be) then i'll be happy But i'll hold true to my word, if it doesnt work then you'll get your cash

no-one can seriously believe that its designed only for the select few that have a dual core processor and that it won't work for the rest of us who don't have dual core...that would be suicidal for them, they would sell no copies..

[kalniel]

I seriously doubt a dual core computer would have more than a 10-20% increase in performance over an identically spec'd single core. And I'd have thought that increasing the speed of that single core will have just as much if not more of an improvment on performance if the game is CPU limited.