Originally Posted by yakyb re. the dual screen modes i have two sceens that run in dual mode on my x1950pro however one monitor runs at 1680x1050 and the other at 1280x1024 im guessing this shouldnt cause me any difficulties however ive only seen dual screen running on two of the same monitor Any chance of testing this
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854 I find that the description of the hardware needed wasn't really accurate. I'm running a 7900GS and an E6300 and it supports 2 screens, one at 1440x900 (19" wide) and the other at 1024 x 768 (15", max res) with everything on full, except AA since I don't see a difference with or without it and I get between 30 to 50 fps, albeit it slows down a tad when 60 artillery guns fire off with the 20+ point defense batteries and the enemy start impacting the shield with some 50 laser units, it doesn't go under 25.
I'm finding the Easy and Normal AI to be relatively easy to bully and destroy
Originally Posted by Mother-Gooser On a sub note: I would not say that Tim is a FPS whore for wanting rates between 20 and 40, this is on the limits of what is acceptable in my mind and most of my mates as well.
i think i would agree with him, but only in FPS games (Thats first person shooter not frames per second :p) RTS is not nearly as reliant as FPS on the FPS of you game
Originally Posted by sl1xx the game looks good but not as good as c&c3 imo.
i doubt it tbh
I expect EA will screw up C&C3 somehow, i mean it is EA after all, Ive found THQ to be a very nice developer recently, i quite like their business and games
Originally Posted by zero0ne This article seems pretty misinformed to me... <snip>
Thanks for your comprehensive reply dude. Unfortunately, if I went into detail about all those things in the review, it would be 50 pages, not 5. You'd be happy and everyone else would be bored :D
As for the hardware bottlenecks and characteristics, I think building on the feedback we're seeing in this thread is perhaps more useful than making blanket statements. I take your points, but please also accept that we can't try the game on hundreds of different PC combinations, we'd never get the review finished! What we can do is give our guidance based on our experience. If you want to go and write a review based on yours, I'd be excited to read it!
For what its worth the demo seems to run TONS better on my system than the beta.
My specs are as follows:
A64 FX-57
2GB OCZ DDR 500 (clocked at 400 ATM).
EVGA 7900 GS Clocked at 550/740 (effectively 1480)
as well as the usual odds and ends.
Anyways back in the days of the Beta my system would run ok with medium settings at 1280x1024 but if I ran it at anything higher and I would notice framerate drops once the game got going (400+ units each player in a four way battle).
With the demo I can run it at 1920x1200 with everything maxed (minus AA, don't see a need for it). And it runs just fine, not even a slight stutter.
All in all I am very excited for this game and I can't wait to get my hands on the retail copy. I didn't play the last few versions of the beta so I am interested as to what they have done with the Czars (in case any of you might have played me I was the guy who pumped out a czar every 50 seconds and then sent a swarm of them towards your ACU).
For people reading this with lower end systems. I have a 3.7ghz a64, 1gig of ram, and a 6800 Ultra happily running the game on lowish settings on dual monitors (1280 and 1680 odd) The fps is in the highs and have no slowdown whatsoever (and this is me on VISTA where gig of ram should limit everything).
Playing on low settings is a bit poo, but atleast the game is still playable and you can enjoy the gameplay rather than the visuals. I'm sure if I tinkered with the settings i could make a few things medium, though moving back to winXP later on so I will wait till then and have more ram available for it all)
Originally Posted by Leitchy For people reading this with lower end systems. I have a 3.7ghz a64, 1gig of ram, and a 6800 Ultra happily running the game on lowish settings on dual monitors (1280 and 1680 odd) The fps is in the highs and have no slowdown whatsoever (and this is me on VISTA where gig of ram should limit everything).
Playing on low settings is a bit poo, but atleast the game is still playable and you can enjoy the gameplay rather than the visuals. I'm sure if I tinkered with the settings i could make a few things medium, though moving back to winXP later on so I will wait till then and have more ram available for it all)
What did you use to measure FPS? Fraps counter just won't appear in Sup Com for me. :|
i find it quite amusing that sup comm was up on your favorite download sites the day before it was released
(p.s. i certainly don't condone downloading it, if you like it you should buy it)
It was up a week before, one of my friends called me to ask if I had bought it, but I told him it wasn't even out yet and he told me he had already grabbed it a week beforehand. Damn pirates >.<
For those complaining of slow frame rates whilst running on semi-decent hardware, what OS are you running? Obviously Nvidia (and many others) haven't got their act together regarding drivers for Windows Vista. A poor frame rate is to be expected when you're running medicore drivers on a brand new OS.
For me, I'll be playing Supcom on Win XP sp1, with my brand spankin' new E6600 & 8800gts.
i played it for like 2 hours this evening and it worked fine
and even on mostly max settings (AA off, everything high) i couldn't notice any lack of frame rate (although i don't know how you measure it)
Still don't know if i actually like it though
Originally Posted by randosome i doubt it tbh
I expect EA will screw up C&C3 somehow, i mean it is EA after all, Ive found THQ to be a very nice developer recently, i quite like their business and games
They will not screw up C&C3. Why? Due to it being one of there most protected game of all time, they couldn't afford to screw up C&C3, you read or hear any of the public who went to play the BETA for C&C3, and everyone was happy with it, and it wasn't even a finished Alpha stage yet.
More info on the game (look at my sig), Feel free to stop by and ask anything. ;)
yeah but i don't really trust "peoples" opinion on this
I mean, look at how many people liked generals, and that was possibly the worst C&C game ever made (Except maybe renegade - but that wasn't RTS)
And i bet most of the people who went to test C&C3 were people who liked generals
some of the download sites for the demo carried warnings that it wouldn't run well unless you had duel core, since then almost all of the people I've seen saying they've struggled to run it smoothly have had single core machines, while most of those saying they are getting by fine have had duel core, graphics card undoubtedly doesn't hurt, but hasn't seemed to be the major problem for anyone I've seen?.
Personally 1680*1050 + 1280*1024 + High was playable but most of the time didn't quite feel as smooth as I might have liked.
Originally Posted by randosome yeah but i don't really trust "peoples" opinion on this
I mean, look at how many people liked generals, and that was possibly the worst C&C game ever made (Except maybe renegade - but that wasn't RTS)
And i bet most of the people who went to test C&C3 were people who liked generals
I loved generals, it was a good RTS, it wasn't a proper C&C game but it was still fun.
Comments 26 to 50 of 66
;)
Damn, nVidia should get their page sorted, Vista32 drivers page down again?
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_100.64.html
Or if you want to take a look at the specs: (as long as the d/l page is not availible)
http://www.tweakpc.de/news/11051/forceware-100-64/rdf/
I expect EA will screw up C&C3 somehow, i mean it is EA after all, Ive found THQ to be a very nice developer recently, i quite like their business and games
CNC3 has one prob
ea :P
and it will probably have artillery that fires 1 square more than the tanks
also randosome thq is the publisher the dev is gas powered games
BTW I hate all you europeans at this time :P
and on the 20th i will hate all the americans as well
and on the 22nd i will forgive you all because i will be sitting at home playing SC :)
Thanks for your comprehensive reply dude. Unfortunately, if I went into detail about all those things in the review, it would be 50 pages, not 5. You'd be happy and everyone else would be bored :D
As for the hardware bottlenecks and characteristics, I think building on the feedback we're seeing in this thread is perhaps more useful than making blanket statements. I take your points, but please also accept that we can't try the game on hundreds of different PC combinations, we'd never get the review finished! What we can do is give our guidance based on our experience. If you want to go and write a review based on yours, I'd be excited to read it!
My specs are as follows:
A64 FX-57
2GB OCZ DDR 500 (clocked at 400 ATM).
EVGA 7900 GS Clocked at 550/740 (effectively 1480)
as well as the usual odds and ends.
Anyways back in the days of the Beta my system would run ok with medium settings at 1280x1024 but if I ran it at anything higher and I would notice framerate drops once the game got going (400+ units each player in a four way battle).
With the demo I can run it at 1920x1200 with everything maxed (minus AA, don't see a need for it). And it runs just fine, not even a slight stutter.
All in all I am very excited for this game and I can't wait to get my hands on the retail copy. I didn't play the last few versions of the beta so I am interested as to what they have done with the Czars (in case any of you might have played me I was the guy who pumped out a czar every 50 seconds and then sent a swarm of them towards your ACU).
how much does micromanagement factor into this? switching strategies? all that good stuff that makes watching pro starcrafters exciting...
Playing on low settings is a bit poo, but atleast the game is still playable and you can enjoy the gameplay rather than the visuals. I'm sure if I tinkered with the settings i could make a few things medium, though moving back to winXP later on so I will wait till then and have more ram available for it all)
(p.s. i certainly don't condone downloading it, if you like it you should buy it)
For me, I'll be playing Supcom on Win XP sp1, with my brand spankin' new E6600 & 8800gts.
and even on mostly max settings (AA off, everything high) i couldn't notice any lack of frame rate (although i don't know how you measure it)
Still don't know if i actually like it though
They will not screw up C&C3. Why? Due to it being one of there most protected game of all time, they couldn't afford to screw up C&C3, you read or hear any of the public who went to play the BETA for C&C3, and everyone was happy with it, and it wasn't even a finished Alpha stage yet.
More info on the game (look at my sig), Feel free to stop by and ask anything. ;)
I mean, look at how many people liked generals, and that was possibly the worst C&C game ever made (Except maybe renegade - but that wasn't RTS)
And i bet most of the people who went to test C&C3 were people who liked generals
Personally 1680*1050 + 1280*1024 + High was playable but most of the time didn't quite feel as smooth as I might have liked.
I loved generals, it was a good RTS, it wasn't a proper C&C game but it was still fun.