Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Supreme Commander

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 6, 2007 7:12:12 PM

Hi friends.
just bought "Supreme Commander" (the best RTS game??) & it really rocks. :twisted:
but...i just uninstalled it after 2 days...guess why??
because i cant play under 10FPS :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry: 
i played it at 1024x768 Max + 4XAA because the performance difference between my configuration & lowest detail possible is only about 0~10 FPS , so i decided to play the game with the best graphic...also the default setting was Max W/O AA.
last night when i played the game (for the last time) with my brother & 1 AI on a medium size map ,my FPS dropped to `1` FPS when i looked at our enemy`s base!!!!!!!! & we decided to exit the game...(don`t even ask about my brother`s Frame rate ,he has a P4 3GHz...)

Quote:

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
3.0 GHz Intel or equivalent AMD processor or better
1 GB RAM or better
8 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


the only place that i can play above 15 FPS is a very very small snow map with only one enemy...
i think my system is better than recommended system but i couldnt complete the single player due to the very very very very ... very low FPS on the last mission... :cry:  :cry:  (lowering the details didnt help at all and the game does not support 800x600)
My question is :
is it something wrong with my system???? or this game is that much heavy???? & how am i suppose to play under 10 FPS????
PS : sorry for my bad English :tongue: :tongue: :oops: 

More about : supreme commander

March 6, 2007 7:44:28 PM

Something's wrong. I'm playing with the system listed in my sig at 1280 with everything maxed and no problems with frames at all. What are you running in the background? Virus scanner maybe?
March 6, 2007 7:45:55 PM

Another thought, could it be your internet connection? Are the frames this slow in a single player campaign game?
Related resources
March 6, 2007 7:51:07 PM

Hi, well to be honest i think there's something amiss with your situation since i play that game since the open beta started (and believe me the code as matured a long way efficiency wise since then) and i still play it using the system in my sig, and unless i play online with more than 3 other player i never experience lag ..at all..!! I play with dual screen enabled (1680x1050 & 1280x1024) with the detail level a bit over medium for all settings, and seriously unless there's like 1000 units on screen at the same time, it runs like a champ. Do you have the latest patches installed?

So from there, you need to check if your directX version is up to par, latest drivers? Also that game is optimized for Nvidia Gfx cards so your problem shouldn't stem from there...

At what settings do you play? also mind that adding lots of Graphic details can help choke your system, but also this game was said to be cpu bound, hence those using Quads Vs Duos should see their FPS increase nicely.
March 6, 2007 7:55:31 PM

You must have something running in the background or something...

I can run Supreme Commander with no problems on my system...try turning the graphics settings down a bit. Your 7800GT may not be able to handle the detail on the 100's of units you can accumulate. I can only do about medium visual settings, myself. If that doesn't help, turn off all programs that are running while you're playing the game (messengers, media center, etc). That should speed things up somewhat.

I really don't know why your computer would be having a problem, though...
March 6, 2007 8:32:59 PM

Yup, you can see my specs below and I run everything on about medium, the only time it gets choppy is when the screen is full of units....explosions.....death.....awesome.... :D 
March 6, 2007 9:11:59 PM

There is nothing wrong with your PC unfortunately. The game is just the most inefficient pile of garbage I've ever seen in a videogame. I am currently running an X1950pro, E6300, and 1GB of memory. I run the game at 1024x768, at the default medium quality setting with shadows off.
Some tips to help performance, and sometimes it helps ALOT:
DO NOT play with the minimap on (takes 20-40% performance hit)
DO NOT play with dual view (again, 20-40% performance hit)
DO NOT play the game over normal speed, if performance becomes increadibly slow, turn the game speed down, this takes alot of load off the cpu
DO NOT play with shadows.
DO NOT play at 1280x1024, instead to get a decent amount a real-estate still, run the game with the minimized UI. You must have the latest patch for this, and to do this, in game, hold down alt and use your arrow keys to scroll through the UI options.
If you have a dual core cpu and are getting really bad performance, try this fix: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/supremecommander/sh... (it helped me alot)


March 6, 2007 9:27:55 PM

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with your PC unfortunately. The game is just the most inefficient pile of garbage I've ever seen in a videogame. I am currently running an X1950pro,


Correction.

There is nothing wrong with the game your video card is a pile of crap.

Like Mcmonopoly said:
Quote:
Also that game is optimized for Nvidia Gfx cards so your problem shouldn't stem from there...
March 6, 2007 9:28:17 PM

There is something wrong with your system or you have programs running in the background that eats the resources.

Defragment your harddisk and make sure you pagefile is set to min 1536 and max 4096.

Check your computer for virus and spyware.

You could try (please don't faint) set your system back to the default settings instead of OC'ing.

I'm playing SC on medium settings and the game starts lagging in single player when I reach about 350 units, I don't know how many units the AI has.

I'm playing on this system:

Athlon XP 2800+ (Barton core)
Asus A7V8X-X
2x 512MB PC2700 Kingston Value RAM
MSI GF6800 GT 256MB
Monitor set to 1280x1024 32bit.
Game set to 1280x1024
SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
Logitech Z5500
Pagefile is set to 1536/4096 on dedicated partition.
Lots of free space on HDDs
Game placed on different harddisk than the OS.
OS is WinXP Pro SP2 with newest patches.
Plays with antivirus (Kaspersky) disabled but leaves my firewall (ZoneAlarm Basic) enabled, else I have no unnecessary programs running
March 6, 2007 10:05:53 PM

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with your PC unfortunately. The game is just the most inefficient pile of garbage I've ever seen in a videogame. I am currently running an X1950pro,


Correction.

There is nothing wrong with the game your video card is a pile of crap.

Like Mcmonopoly said:
Quote:
Also that game is optimized for Nvidia Gfx cards so your problem shouldn't stem from there...


Really? Link Seems to me it almost mirrors the perfromance of the 7900gs.

And since when is an x1950pro a pile of crap? Is that fanboyism speaking? Or do you have some facts to support that comment?
March 6, 2007 10:06:58 PM

WTF?

My system plays it on 1280x1024 with dual screen setup 8O
My gfx card has dinosaurs living in it :p 

Oh as for that pagefile post. I have mine off ;) 
March 6, 2007 10:22:44 PM

Quote:
WTF?

My system plays it on 1280x1024 with dual screen setup 8O
My gfx card has dinosaurs living in it :p 

Oh as for that pagefile post. I have mine off ;) 


My system plays it on 1280x1024 dual screen, everything max, 6xaaa, 16x haqf. I get horrible frames though.

What is possible, and what is enjoyable are two very different things, and then alot of people will define 'playable' very differently. This is why some people say SupCom runs fine, while others are complaining about it's performance, like me.
March 6, 2007 10:40:17 PM

Its not that cpu bound, I set affinity to my second core (crashes on my first) when playing at 1600x1200, everything max....takes 8 hours worth of nonstop building before I notice any slow down.
March 6, 2007 10:41:48 PM

Quote:
WTF?

My system plays it on 1280x1024 with dual screen setup 8O
My gfx card has dinosaurs living in it :p 

Oh as for that pagefile post. I have mine off ;) 


My system plays it on 1280x1024 dual screen, everything max, 6xaaa, 16x haqf. I get horrible frames though.

What is possible, and what is enjoyable are two very different things, and then alot of people will define 'playable' very differently. This is why some people say SupCom runs fine, while others are complaining about it's performance, like me.

Well playable is when it's not frame lagging all the time. Mine is certainly playable. My point was that my gfx card is archaic in comparison to the OP.
March 6, 2007 10:43:26 PM

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with your PC unfortunately. The game is just the most inefficient pile of garbage I've ever seen in a videogame. I am currently running an X1950pro,


Correction.

There is nothing wrong with the game your video card is a pile of crap.

Like Mcmonopoly said:
Quote:
Also that game is optimized for Nvidia Gfx cards so your problem shouldn't stem from there...


haha, I consider over 45 fps playable... and thats what I get with my 1950 pro.
March 6, 2007 10:45:09 PM

obviously something is wrong. I played the game maxed out (except for AA) on my core 2 duo E5500 + ATI mobility X1600 in 1280x800 (1 GB RAM, later bought second stick, didn't see any improvement with additional RAM). Sure, it's not a smooth framerate but playable (badly chokes when watching battles but works really good in strategic view). I've been playing both campaign and some multiplayer with a friend of mine (server on my side) with 2-3 AI enemies and it wasn't bad

I have noticed a few funny facts over the last couple days:
- some maps are EXTREMELY screwed. Can't remember their exact names but I had a performance hit of some 75% on two different multiplayer maps...
- does not apply to you, but the game pretty much requires a dual core to work correctly
- different map sizes can have huge effect on performance (5x5 up to 20x20 - everything works fine for me, move to 40x40 and it's a pain in the arse)
- setting max unit count to 250 really helps since AI won't create tons of tier 1 units that way
- turning off a few things through the console helps a lot (there are some rendering options that you can work on)

still, if I can play on a far worse PC than you have... I know one factor that can cause such effect but the chances of it occuring are slim. It's called DirectX debug mode and it only applies if you have DirectX SDK (so you write games/3D graphics in D3D yorself), that can take 75-90% of the framerate (I'm studying computer game programming and forgot a few times about turning drivers back to release versions)
March 6, 2007 10:57:29 PM

I will have to agree that the original poster must have some issue. I have...

P4 3.4 H/T
2048 GB
x850xt
run at 1280x1024(LCD)

The game defaulted at high settings and i run with 2x and 16x on the AA and AF. I get normally at least 40+ FPS. The lowest i have seen with what had to have been more than 200 units on the screen was 19 FPS. His 1950pro should get better than my x850xt. That being said i decided not to get a x1950pro because i borrowed a friend of mines and i got about a 5 to 15% increase in FPS. Not enough for near 200 bucks.
March 6, 2007 11:23:33 PM

I find it hard to believe someone people who say the game runs so awesome on there older machines, in comparison to new hardware. I ask anyone who says the game runs 'fine' to benchmark the game. To do this, go to the properties of the shortcut, and in the 'target' box, add "/map Perftest" at the end. Don't forget to remove this when your finished. please run the game at the default high quality setting (this has changed since the new patch, high quality is now 0xaa, look at screenshot for comparison), and 1280x1024.

(I realize screenshot is in 1024x768, it was just before I saved settings)
Here are my stats:
SupComMark score 11861 (again, changed since patch, higher is better now)
FPS ......................................: calls[ 5781] min[ 3.53] max[ 35.63] avg[ 18.977]

EDIT: I used the minimized UI, which does decrease FPS quite a bit since it gives alot more room on the screen. Keep that in mind... I'm going to rerun the test.

EDIT #2: Ok, I redid the benchmark, I got a SupComMark of 13111 and my frames...
FPS ......................................: calls[ 7116] min[ 3.91] max[ 58.21] avg[ 26.813]

It's still looking pretty bad, considering that at least 20-30% of the benchmark is giving me single digit frames.
March 6, 2007 11:52:45 PM

well i'm on an AXP +3000 with 2x1GB DDR-400 @ 2-3-2-5 and a stock setting 7800GS (stupid gfx card resets o/c values every time...)

The graphic level doesn't hit performance, but i can't play comfortably vs 1 AI for very long. Maybe about 20 minutes into a game it starts to get laggy and then 45 minutes in, i can't take it anymore.

Playable to me is responsive gameplay. Once things don't respond instantly like they're supposed to, i can't take playing the game. Like when i get a while into the game and it takes 2 seconds to pan when i put the mouse to a side of the screen.

Good thing i'll be getting a quad-core around May :D 
March 7, 2007 12:14:24 AM

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with your PC unfortunately. The game is just the most inefficient pile of garbage I've ever seen in a videogame. I am currently running an X1950pro, E6300, and 1GB of memory. I run the game at 1024x768, at the default medium quality setting with shadows off.
Some tips to help performance, and sometimes it helps ALOT:
DO NOT play with the minimap on (takes 20-40% performance hit)
DO NOT play with dual view (again, 20-40% performance hit)
DO NOT play the game over normal speed, if performance becomes increadibly slow, turn the game speed down, this takes alot of load off the cpu
DO NOT play with shadows.
DO NOT play at 1280x1024, instead to get a decent amount a real-estate still, run the game with the minimized UI. You must have the latest patch for this, and to do this, in game, hold down alt and use your arrow keys to scroll through the UI options.
If you have a dual core cpu and are getting really bad performance, try this fix: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/supremecommander/sh... (it helped me alot)




dude... supreme commander is a heavy as hell game, dont expect it to run at max.. if at nice resolution they can hog a 8800GTX and a quadcore Kentsfield...
your system isnt exactly "super high end"

and even I can play averagely on my X850XT and AMD athlon 64 X2 3800+ oced to 2.5
but yeah game slowdowns to a crawl on these insane fights
(499 units vs 200 air + 50 naval = a WOW in battles )

ps.. UEF battleships kick ass ;) 


Quote:
well i'm on an AXP +3000 with 2x1GB DDR-400 @ 2-3-2-5 and a stock setting 7800GS (stupid gfx card resets o/c values every time...)

The graphic level doesn't hit performance, but i can't play comfortably vs 1 AI for very long. Maybe about 20 minutes into a game it starts to get laggy and then 45 minutes in, i can't take it anymore.

Playable to me is responsive gameplay. Once things don't respond instantly like they're supposed to, i can't take playing the game. Like when i get a while into the game and it takes 2 seconds to pan when i put the mouse to a side of the screen.

Good thing i'll be getting a quad-core around May :D 


heres one tip when the fps drop slow to a crawl..
go to the maximum zoom out ( global map ) with the icons, everything will move fast again but will be hard to control your units trought only icons..
or zoom almost all in... that way it will limit the number of rendered units in screen. I prefer the full screen mode :D 
March 7, 2007 12:40:19 AM

Quote:
dude... supreme commander is a heavy as hell game, dont expect it to run at max.. if at nice resolution they can hog a 8800GTX and a quadcore Kentsfield...
your system isnt exactly "super high end"


Agreed. My system isn't even close to high end. but you shouldn't need 1000$ CPU and 600$ videocard just to play it high quality 1280x1024. It's not like I'm the only one complaining either, this is a very popular topic alot of people are discussing.

I guess this all comes back to the fact that more and more game creators are releasing the games to the public while riddled with bugs and issues. Makes it alot easier to get thousands of people to test the game and fix problems that come up, then to test and find these problems out themselves beforehand.

My argument is that this game isn't even close to as efficient as it should/could be. And to be frank, it p***es me right off. You expect to pay 60$ for a game, not beta software.
March 7, 2007 12:44:32 AM

Quote:
dude... supreme commander is a heavy as hell game, dont expect it to run at max.. if at nice resolution they can hog a 8800GTX and a quadcore Kentsfield...
your system isnt exactly "super high end"


Agreed. My system isn't even close to high end. but you shouldn't need 1000$ CPU and 600$ videocard just to play it high quality 1280x1024. It's not like I'm the only one complaining either, this is a very popular topic alot of people are discussing.

I guess this all comes back to the fact that more and more game creators are releasing the games to the public while riddled with bugs and issues. Makes it alot easier to get thousands of people to test the game and fix problems that come up, then to test and find these problems out themselves beforehand.

My argument is that this game isn't even close to as efficient as it should/could be. And to be frank, it p***es me right off. You expect to pay 60$ for a game, not beta software.

I then recommend you to stay away from the rainbow six games XD
March 7, 2007 12:46:40 AM

Hey another thing you might want to think about is your overclocked card. Try running it at normal speeds and see if that helps.
March 7, 2007 12:58:25 AM

Quote:
dude... supreme commander is a heavy as hell game, dont expect it to run at max.. if at nice resolution they can hog a 8800GTX and a quadcore Kentsfield...
your system isnt exactly "super high end"


Agreed. My system isn't even close to high end. but you shouldn't need 1000$ CPU and 600$ videocard just to play it high quality 1280x1024. It's not like I'm the only one complaining either, this is a very popular topic alot of people are discussing.

I guess this all comes back to the fact that more and more game creators are releasing the games to the public while riddled with bugs and issues. Makes it alot easier to get thousands of people to test the game and fix problems that come up, then to test and find these problems out themselves beforehand.

My argument is that this game isn't even close to as efficient as it should/could be. And to be frank, it p***es me right off. You expect to pay 60$ for a game, not beta software.

I then recommend you to stay away from the rainbow six games XD

Actually R6 vegas runs fine at everything on, medium motion blur, and shadow on very low. At 1024x768 I never go under 30fps, ever. And the game still looks absolutely breathtaking with that quality setting. But when I had my 7800gs, that game just isn't playable no matter what you do. It doesn't scale very well.

Anyways, back to SupCom. I ran the benchmark again with absolutely lowest possible quality settings, and no sound. I got a score of 16456. And my frames?
FPS ......................................: calls[ 24399] min[ 5.51] max[ 93.91] avg[ 60.868]
Not bad, but I don't like how my min frames is 5fps at that low quality. However in the begining of the benchmark, it is loading all the other units and what not, and while it does this my frames do drop alarmingly low. I'm not sure if the benchmark records this part into the FPS calculations. However, I saw my frames go as low as 10fps when the camera was angled and looking over the horizon in the one scene with the UEF experimental long-range artilery.

P.S. The Cybran's experimental long-range mobile artilary is by far the best unit in the game :D 
March 7, 2007 1:27:56 AM

Why rag so much on the game? You have a year-old mid-range video card and an entry-level CPU. If designers spent their time ensuring their games ran at "high" on those systems, game graphics certainly wouldn't advance very fast would they? As I've mentioned before, in some respects this game is very efficient in its coding, you have to realize the sheer amount of things going on at any given time. The flexibly multi-threaded code is certainly unique, and very well done. No other game comes close in this regard. Just because you can't play a brand-new game on a mid-range system with 32XAA + AF don't blame the programmers. It can be a bummer, but hey, that's progress, right?
March 7, 2007 2:37:54 AM

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with your PC unfortunately. The game is just the most inefficient pile of garbage I've ever seen in a videogame. I am currently running an X1950pro,


Correction.

There is nothing wrong with the game your video card is a pile of crap.

Like Mcmonopoly said:
Quote:
Also that game is optimized for Nvidia Gfx cards so your problem shouldn't stem from there...
Since when is the X1950Pro a piece of crap? Also, "The way it's meant to be played" is just a huge piece of marketing BS courtesy of Nvidia. Remember when Oblivion came out? Nvidia cards not only performed much worse, but they didn't support HDR+AA like their ATI competitors.
March 7, 2007 2:44:32 AM

Quote:
Why rag so much on the game?


First, it's not like I don't have a point. Nor am I the only one who thinks that this game needs some definite work in the performance department. Just google "Supreme Commander performance issues" and you'll have endless forums of people complaining, as well as game reviewers praising this game, except that the performance is less then motivating.

Quote:
You have a year-old mid-range video card and an entry-level CPU.


Wow, if the conroe is already considered entry-level? I thought that was left to the Semprons and Celerons. Also, everyone seems to keep attacking my videocard? What the hell is wrong with the x1950pro? year-old midrange card? The x1950pro hasn't been out for 6 months. Man you people need to get your facts straight before you guys keep smashing my system.

Quote:
If designers spent their time ensuring their games ran at "high" on those systems, game graphics certainly wouldn't advance very fast would they?


Once again, what the hell is wrong with the x1950pro and an E6300? The conroe is still the fastest cpu architecture as we speak. Besides all that, look at the benchmarks! E6700 + 8800gtx at max quality 1280x1024 is barely delivering 30fps?... I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound right to me.

Quote:
As I've mentioned before, in some respects this game is very efficient in its coding, you have to realize the sheer amount of things going on at any given time. The flexibly multi-threaded code is certainly unique, and very well done. No other game comes close in this regard. Just because you can't play a brand-new game on a mid-range system with 32XAA + AF don't blame the programmers. It can be a bummer, but hey, that's progress, right?


You should read my posts before you comment. Never ever did I complain about some amazing quality. Just 1280x1024 and high in-game settings. Thats mediocre image quality settings. I have to run it at 1024x768 med without shadows, and it's still not to my liking, but any lower and the games looks much much worse.

And I'm obviously not as technologically inclined as you, please explain to me in layman's terms, the efficiency of it's coding.

EDIT: I'll be sure once I get my 8800, and put my 6300 in a new motherboard and overclock this sucker, to benchmark again, and see if I can get max quality then with my definition of playable frames. (At which point will be 1680x1050 max in-game 0xaa 0xaf).

Also, I honestly don't believe what will come out of arguing about this game. It's not like trading blows with whoever will make the game run better. So I'm going to step back and let this be, it's not like me to argue with people. And my apologies if I sounded insulting.

Now time to go play a real RTS. C&C3 Tiberium Wars.
March 7, 2007 3:30:14 AM

Play it at medium with the AA and shadowing disabled. The shadowing takes a big tool on the video card, so you'll see good increase on that disabled. AA is not so much with these games I think since you view the map overhead far enough not to notice it. :|
March 7, 2007 4:36:15 AM

Seems like this is turning into "what system can run SUPCOM the best"

Well, IMHO, i currently have an Old P4 630 OC'ed to 4.0ghz(1066mhz) 2 GB DDR2 800mhz(running at 533mhz 4-4-4-8 timings and a 1:1) XFX 7900GT and from my experience SUPCOM runs fine.... depending on the situation.

I currently run the game at 1280x1024 with everything on medium detail with no AA/AF or shadows and background is OFF. It runs smooth 60 FPS most the timing, dipping to 30 FPS in some BIG battles. The game really goes to crap for me when i send 80+ bombers to attack then it just really drops to 5FPS.

Though, in a couple of days ill have my 8800GTX and E6600 and i really wanna see how much of a improvement happens.

Heck, im a couple years now SUPCOM, will be the least demanding game.....
March 7, 2007 5:09:31 AM

this has nothing to do with the graphics card. it's entirely CPU bound because of the hundreds and thousands of controls the game needs to perform on all those units, especially to dynamic AI, nevermind all the pathing issues. It's a big problem. It could've been done better for sure i think.
March 7, 2007 5:22:23 AM

First of all ,Thanks for all of your replies friends.
ok , i dont have any anti virus program ,no program runs in the back ground...
and i couldnt complete the Cybran`s Campaign because on the last level the Frame rate was under 15 even at the start of the mission (lowering the details to the lowest helped A LITTLE (about 5~10Frame) but turned the graphic of the game to Star Craft... :oops:  )
one more thing is : if something is wrong ,why i can play Dawn Of War Dark Crusade above 500Frame??

every time that i played the game ,i heard some strange voices from my computer that said :
hey you a**h*** ,dont play this game ,you are breaking my back !!!!

about multi player ,i played the game with my brother on LAN against a hard AI & on some maps (Desert 10x10) the frame rate dropped to 2 or even 1 when i looked at the enemy base... :cry:  :cry:  even at the start of the game the Frame rate didnt go above 30 :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry: 

aaaaahhhhhh...any way ,i think i better play Red Alert 1 instead of Supreme Commander... :cry: 
thanks again friends :D 
March 7, 2007 5:23:13 AM

Well pal, I was with you all the way, but I must say you f*cked up pretty bad at the end. C&C TW is not even worthy of a console release let alone as a premier PC title. A shallower game than this I've never had the misfortune to see.

Back to the subject, I think you really check your settings, registry etc m8. I tried the demo and I've got a paltry 4200+ (I know, my previous comp blew out just b4 C2D came out) and a 7600GS, not exactly top of the range, but it runs more or less smoothly at 1024x768 with everything full except shadows. It only begins to chug when the screen is filling up with units, at which point the game is pretty of much on autopilot anyway. If I were you I'd try running some dual-core benchmarks, SiSoft Sandra is a good start I think. Hope I was of help as other were to me.
March 7, 2007 6:53:20 AM

Quote:
I will have to agree that the original poster must have some issue. I have...

P4 3.4 H/T
2048 GB 8O
x850xt
run at 1280x1024(LCD)



I didn't know that computers were available with 2 terabytes of RAM.

What year is this? :?

:wink:
March 7, 2007 8:26:13 AM

You really don't have a great point, that's what I'm getting at. You're crying shennanigans over a game that you can't run at high settings at 1280X1024. You don't have a top-end system, and even if you did, you'd still be wrong to complain. Think of the demanding requirements of the game as "future proofing."

There's nothing wrong with your setup at all. The X1950 pro is a year-old mid-range card. It's more powerful than mid-range cards of the past, but it's no G80. I call the 6300 entry-level due to its niche in the overall conroe family- at a sub-200 price point. Pretty much anyone buying a computer to game is going to get a conroe, so the X68 would be high-end, the E66 mid-range, and the E63 and E43 low-end. It's still a great cpu, and perfectly capable of gaming. Overclocking would definately yield you some gains, but I haven't yet seen how well the game scales to clock speed. Dropping in another gig of ram would help substantially too, now that vista has been out prices are tumbling, you can get a good gig for less than 100.

I'm not really trying to argue either, it's just that I find it funny that everyone wants to blame inefficient code for their inability to run a game right. It's just like when oblivion came out, though I shudder to make the comparision, cuz the game WAS poorly coded. But the bottom line is, in most cases, when a new game comes out and brings even the best computers to their knees, we should be glad.
March 7, 2007 8:59:13 AM

IMHO the thing that most people keep forgetting is that the game doesn't calculate damage dealt like the other RTSs. Others calculate damage like the games that are played in real life, with dice, damage multipliers, damage types etc. etc. In SUPCOM each and every projectile has its ballistic trajectory calculated and I think that calls for a lot more CPU cycles, which increases exponentially with the amount of units on-screen. It may look more 'inefficient' than other RTSs in the sense that at face value the results seem the same, but on looking deeper it sure is a hell of a lot more realistic. Just look at BFME2 for example and see what I mean. I used to play that game a lot b4 I really got fed up with EA, can anybody for example explain to me why a hero should do more SIEGE damage on foot than on horse? Or why archers should do less normal damage but more fire damage once upgraded to fire arrows? Does the arrow's point melt in the fire or what?

What I'm trying to get at is that the system SUPCOM uses results in much more intuitive gameplay and more realism, which are the two things that matter in the end in my book even if I DO have to shell out some extra $$$ for a beefier CPU. And anyway, that's what demos are for, so you can try out the game before you shell out your cash. It just happens that SUPCOM is THE best RTS to come out for quite a long time (bar Company of heroes). And they are two completely different games, COH is much more tactical while SUPCOM is much more strategic.
March 7, 2007 9:40:40 AM

I can play with all settings except for shadows on max while having 750(?) (+ same amount for the computer) units before I start noticing some drops in FPS. This is with 1680x1050.

And my system is nowhere near as fast as others in this post.

P4 820D
1GB DDR2 667
WD74 10 000rpm
7800GTX in SLi

Somehow I think the shadow part has very much todo with performance hits.. cause the only thing I need to lower for me to almost have no lagg at all are the shadow settings.
March 7, 2007 10:19:58 AM

I also play Supcom, did you get the latest patch, 3220? if you can't find it, login to GPGnet, patches automatically download.

Are you running an Audigy, or other hardware sound card, there's been a problem with x-fi audios, audigys, etc. Alot of people had to switch to mobo sound, or lowering sound acceleration in dxdiag to basic.


http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewforum.php?f=10&sid=410...

I have a crappier system, with a 7800gs oc, try patching the game, I had the same problems before, now I run it smooth as butter with 6 ppl sometimes.
March 7, 2007 11:05:50 AM

i can't wait to play this game. ever since i got a new pc 4 months ago, ive been playing Eve online and a little bit of bf2142, as i have been waiting for ati to release their new card. Now that im just gunna buy an 8800gtx instead, I can finaly play something exciting (if it actually works).

Ive also been pondering over C&C 3. When i first saw it i thought it looked cool, but after really thinking about it, i realised that it won't be very good. When Tiberian sun came out, it felt so outdated compared with TA, and Tib sun was hyped just like this C&C 3 is due to how successful the original c&c's were. But anyway, im going with company of heroes and sup come as my first games for my new 8800gtx, and then Stalker when its released
March 7, 2007 11:45:21 AM

Quote:
i can't wait to play this game. ever since i got a new pc 4 months ago, ive been playing Eve online and a little bit of bf2142, as i have been waiting for ati to release their new card. Now that im just gunna buy an 8800gtx instead, I can finaly play something exciting (if it actually works).

Ive also been pondering over C&C 3. When i first saw it i thought it looked cool, but after really thinking about it, i realised that it won't be very good. When Tiberian sun came out, it felt so outdated compared with TA, and Tib sun was hyped just like this C&C 3 is due to how successful the original c&c's were. But anyway, im going with company of heroes and sup come as my first games for my new 8800gtx, and then Stalker when its released


M8, ru my shadow or what? :wink: The only differences in your statement above and what I'm doing or just did is instead of Eve online i'm playing star wars empire at war, and I'm getting a gtx instead of a gts. I'm already playing company of heroes on my 7600gs and it rocks, I can't wait to see how it looks on my gts. :) 
March 7, 2007 12:04:05 PM

Quote:
Why rag so much on the game?


First, it's not like I don't have a point. Nor am I the only one who thinks that this game needs some definite work in the performance department. Just google "Supreme Commander performance issues" and you'll have endless forums of people complaining, as well as game reviewers praising this game, except that the performance is less then motivating.

Quote:
You have a year-old mid-range video card and an entry-level CPU.


Wow, if the conroe is already considered entry-level? I thought that was left to the Semprons and Celerons. Also, everyone seems to keep attacking my videocard? What the hell is wrong with the x1950pro? year-old midrange card? The x1950pro hasn't been out for 6 months. Man you people need to get your facts straight before you guys keep smashing my system.

Quote:
If designers spent their time ensuring their games ran at "high" on those systems, game graphics certainly wouldn't advance very fast would they?


Once again, what the hell is wrong with the x1950pro and an E6300? The conroe is still the fastest cpu architecture as we speak. Besides all that, look at the benchmarks! E6700 + 8800gtx at max quality 1280x1024 is barely delivering 30fps?... I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound right to me.

Quote:
As I've mentioned before, in some respects this game is very efficient in its coding, you have to realize the sheer amount of things going on at any given time. The flexibly multi-threaded code is certainly unique, and very well done. No other game comes close in this regard. Just because you can't play a brand-new game on a mid-range system with 32XAA + AF don't blame the programmers. It can be a bummer, but hey, that's progress, right?


You should read my posts before you comment. Never ever did I complain about some amazing quality. Just 1280x1024 and high in-game settings. Thats mediocre image quality settings. I have to run it at 1024x768 med without shadows, and it's still not to my liking, but any lower and the games looks much much worse.

And I'm obviously not as technologically inclined as you, please explain to me in layman's terms, the efficiency of it's coding.

EDIT: I'll be sure once I get my 8800, and put my 6300 in a new motherboard and overclock this sucker, to benchmark again, and see if I can get max quality then with my definition of playable frames. (At which point will be 1680x1050 max in-game 0xaa 0xaf).

Also, I honestly don't believe what will come out of arguing about this game. It's not like trading blows with whoever will make the game run better. So I'm going to step back and let this be, it's not like me to argue with people. And my apologies if I sounded insulting.

Now time to go play a real RTS. C&C3 Tiberium Wars.If the game can barely run on an X1950Pro and E6300 at the minimum settings, then it must be programmed like shit.
March 7, 2007 12:04:30 PM

Quote:
Why rag so much on the game?


First, it's not like I don't have a point. Nor am I the only one who thinks that this game needs some definite work in the performance department. Just google "Supreme Commander performance issues" and you'll have endless forums of people complaining, as well as game reviewers praising this game, except that the performance is less then motivating.

Quote:
You have a year-old mid-range video card and an entry-level CPU.


Wow, if the conroe is already considered entry-level? I thought that was left to the Semprons and Celerons. Also, everyone seems to keep attacking my videocard? What the hell is wrong with the x1950pro? year-old midrange card? The x1950pro hasn't been out for 6 months. Man you people need to get your facts straight before you guys keep smashing my system.

Quote:
If designers spent their time ensuring their games ran at "high" on those systems, game graphics certainly wouldn't advance very fast would they?


Once again, what the hell is wrong with the x1950pro and an E6300? The conroe is still the fastest cpu architecture as we speak. Besides all that, look at the benchmarks! E6700 + 8800gtx at max quality 1280x1024 is barely delivering 30fps?... I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound right to me.

Quote:
As I've mentioned before, in some respects this game is very efficient in its coding, you have to realize the sheer amount of things going on at any given time. The flexibly multi-threaded code is certainly unique, and very well done. No other game comes close in this regard. Just because you can't play a brand-new game on a mid-range system with 32XAA + AF don't blame the programmers. It can be a bummer, but hey, that's progress, right?


You should read my posts before you comment. Never ever did I complain about some amazing quality. Just 1280x1024 and high in-game settings. Thats mediocre image quality settings. I have to run it at 1024x768 med without shadows, and it's still not to my liking, but any lower and the games looks much much worse.

And I'm obviously not as technologically inclined as you, please explain to me in layman's terms, the efficiency of it's coding.

EDIT: I'll be sure once I get my 8800, and put my 6300 in a new motherboard and overclock this sucker, to benchmark again, and see if I can get max quality then with my definition of playable frames. (At which point will be 1680x1050 max in-game 0xaa 0xaf).

Also, I honestly don't believe what will come out of arguing about this game. It's not like trading blows with whoever will make the game run better. So I'm going to step back and let this be, it's not like me to argue with people. And my apologies if I sounded insulting.

Now time to go play a real RTS. C&C3 Tiberium Wars.If the game can barely run on an X1950Pro and E6300 at the minimum settings, then it must be programmed like shit, because the screenshots certainly don't look that good.
March 7, 2007 12:30:38 PM

Quote:

Correction.
There is nothing wrong with the game your video card is a pile of crap.


Even the most loyal fanboy should have enough judgement and objectivity to know that the 1950pro is a good mid-range video card.
I'm a NVidia owner by the way...
March 7, 2007 12:50:27 PM

Who cares...stop complaining....just format. try reinstalling everything, get all the latest drivers...or upgrade.

u shouldve seen my pc in one of the early beta versions....lag!

the retail version is so much better, hardly any lag.

i love the game, it was cheap too :) 

there is definitely something wrong with your rig...adware?virus? something using up resources...

P.S. if ur going to buy a game....try the demo first... (the supcom demo encouraged me to buy the game because it was smoother than the beta versions)
March 7, 2007 1:08:18 PM

Quote:
dude... supreme commander is a heavy as hell game, dont expect it to run at max.. if at nice resolution they can hog a 8800GTX and a quadcore Kentsfield...
your system isnt exactly "super high end"


Agreed. My system isn't even close to high end. but you shouldn't need 1000$ CPU and 600$ videocard just to play it high quality 1280x1024. It's not like I'm the only one complaining either, this is a very popular topic alot of people are discussing.

I guess this all comes back to the fact that more and more game creators are releasing the games to the public while riddled with bugs and issues. Makes it alot easier to get thousands of people to test the game and fix problems that come up, then to test and find these problems out themselves beforehand.

My argument is that this game isn't even close to as efficient as it should/could be. And to be frank, it p***es me right off. You expect to pay 60$ for a game, not beta software.

I dont even know what you're talking about, the beta was 10x worse than the full game, and just because your PC is a POS and can't run it right don't bash the game. I spent 320$ on my X2 4800, and 350$ on my X1900XTX, and I play with everything except AA and shadows maxed out at 1680x1050, and it runs great, even with the minimap on. If you think they didn't improve anythign formt he beta then you're just being completely ignorant. I played from the start of the closed beta, and performance has improved a ton.
March 7, 2007 1:10:46 PM

Quote:

Correction.
There is nothing wrong with the game your video card is a pile of crap.


Even the most loyal fanboy should have enough judgement and objectivity to know that the 1950pro is a good mid-range video card.
I'm a NVidia owner by the way...

I would not call it mid range it is more like a low to mid range. 7900GT would be more like mid range. x1950 Pro was maybe mid range like a year ago.

x1950pro is not meant to play SupCom on. C&C3 rather than SupCom. Unless you like to play the game at like 20 fps. By the way if my opinion makes me az Nvidia fan boy than so be it but i am not sure how come you are such a big expert on ATI cards and you own and Nvidia video card :roll:
March 7, 2007 1:39:48 PM

Quote:
dude... supreme commander is a heavy as hell game, dont expect it to run at max.. if at nice resolution they can hog a 8800GTX and a quadcore Kentsfield...
your system isnt exactly "super high end"


Agreed. My system isn't even close to high end. but you shouldn't need 1000$ CPU and 600$ videocard just to play it high quality 1280x1024. It's not like I'm the only one complaining either, this is a very popular topic alot of people are discussing.

I guess this all comes back to the fact that more and more game creators are releasing the games to the public while riddled with bugs and issues. Makes it alot easier to get thousands of people to test the game and fix problems that come up, then to test and find these problems out themselves beforehand.

My argument is that this game isn't even close to as efficient as it should/could be. And to be frank, it p***es me right off. You expect to pay 60$ for a game, not beta software.

I then recommend you to stay away from the rainbow six games XD

Actually R6 vegas runs fine at everything on, medium motion blur, and shadow on very low. At 1024x768 I never go under 30fps, ever. And the game still looks absolutely breathtaking with that quality setting. But when I had my 7800gs, that game just isn't playable no matter what you do. It doesn't scale very well.

Anyways, back to SupCom. I ran the benchmark again with absolutely lowest possible quality settings, and no sound. I got a score of 16456. And my frames?
FPS ......................................: calls[ 24399] min[ 5.51] max[ 93.91] avg[ 60.868]
Not bad, but I don't like how my min frames is 5fps at that low quality. However in the begining of the benchmark, it is loading all the other units and what not, and while it does this my frames do drop alarmingly low. I'm not sure if the benchmark records this part into the FPS calculations. However, I saw my frames go as low as 10fps when the camera was angled and looking over the horizon in the one scene with the UEF experimental long-range artilery.

P.S. The Cybran's experimental long-range mobile artilary is by far the best unit in the game :D 

well not sure you, but I've played rainbow six raven shield, and I suffered its buginess, then went to the forum of vegas to be prepared when I buy a new videocard ( My x850XT doesnt support shader3) andI see like.. 20 daily new posts of complaints about horrible programmings, bugs , errors, terrible performance..etc..etc..
Ie, lousy port.

I supose you went lucky with RSVegas but unlucky in supreme commander XD

Quote:
Why rag so much on the game? You have a year-old mid-range video card and an entry-level CPU. If designers spent their time ensuring their games ran at "high" on those systems, game graphics certainly wouldn't advance very fast would they? As I've mentioned before, in some respects this game is very efficient in its coding, you have to realize the sheer amount of things going on at any given time. The flexibly multi-threaded code is certainly unique, and very well done. No other game comes close in this regard. Just because you can't play a brand-new game on a mid-range system with 32XAA + AF don't blame the programmers. It can be a bummer, but hey, that's progress, right?


entry level cpu + extreme overclock = most your asses kicked ;) 

Quote:
First of all ,Thanks for all of your replies friends.
ok , i dont have any anti virus program ,no program runs in the back ground...
and i couldnt complete the Cybran`s Campaign because on the last level the Frame rate was under 15 even at the start of the mission (lowering the details to the lowest helped A LITTLE (about 5~10Frame) but turned the graphic of the game to Star Craft... :oops:  )
one more thing is : if something is wrong ,why i can play Dawn Of War Dark Crusade above 500Frame??

every time that i played the game ,i heard some strange voices from my computer that said :
hey you a**h*** ,dont play this game ,you are breaking my back !!!!

about multi player ,i played the game with my brother on LAN against a hard AI & on some maps (Desert 10x10) the frame rate dropped to 2 or even 1 when i looked at the enemy base... :cry:  :cry:  even at the start of the game the Frame rate didnt go above 30 :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  :cry: 

aaaaahhhhhh...any way ,i think i better play Red Alert 1 instead of Supreme Commander... :cry: 
thanks again friends :D 


Must be because the game dawn of war dark crusade ( I play it ) as no "bullet detection engine" , Ie, all shots DO HIT, (except artillery)
while in suprme commander, it all depends on speed, quality, angle..etc..
and yeah even with my lousy system I can run dark crusade at medium-high settings with no problem :o 
March 7, 2007 2:19:37 PM

AA? I play without any anti-aliasing, don't see the need to do so. I have a X1900XT with dual-screen setup, 2GB of RAM and an OC'ed AMD 4200, and on high settings, I get decent enough gameplay to keep me happy. Only gets choppy when I load the game, and that goes on for a couple of seconds, and also when things get funky (nukes, huge amounts of explosions and gunfire/missiles, etc). Apart from that, everything's just fine with me. Could be a program running in the background or something in your PC that's not running quite right. Have you memtest'ed or done a scandisk so to check for any problems? Could be your card acting up (My X800GTO crapped up on me once, started to give me poor performance, then crashes, and then major graphical glitches).


Oh and that game is AWESOME, reminds me so much of Total Annihilation. Thank you Chris Taylor for resurrecting my favourite game of all time!

(And those who say ATI are crud cards, all I have to say is... Nvidia FX series... *sigh*)
March 7, 2007 2:41:20 PM

Quote:

Correction.
There is nothing wrong with the game your video card is a pile of crap.


Even the most loyal fanboy should have enough judgement and objectivity to know that the 1950pro is a good mid-range video card.
I'm a NVidia owner by the way...

I would not call it mid range it is more like a low to mid range. 7900GT would be more like mid range. x1950 Pro was maybe mid range like a year ago.


right....considering it was released 5 or so months ago. last time i check the performance between a x1950pro and 7900 GT was fairly similar.

Oh well...gets me through all my games so cant complain.

Quote:

but i am not sure how come you are such a big expert on ATI cards and you own and Nvidia video card :roll:


so basically ur saying that if someone has an nvidia card they are experts on that card and dont know anything about ati cards? lol....okay.....whatever floats your boat.
March 7, 2007 2:49:58 PM

Quote:
You have a year-old mid-range video card and an entry-level CPU.


8O

Since when is an overclocked e6600 entry level? I'd say it's more like top-end. At the clocks he's got it at there isn't a chip on the market that could even hope to come within a mile of its performance.

On that point, I dont think anybody's mentioned this so I'm just speculating, but do you think the CPU/graphics card is throttling back due to overheating? Thats some serious overclockage, after all.
March 7, 2007 3:02:58 PM

Quote:

Correction.
There is nothing wrong with the game your video card is a pile of crap.


Even the most loyal fanboy should have enough judgement and objectivity to know that the 1950pro is a good mid-range video card.
I'm a NVidia owner by the way...

I would not call it mid range it is more like a low to mid range. 7900GT would be more like mid range. x1950 Pro was maybe mid range like a year ago.

x1950pro is not meant to play SupCom on. C&C3 rather than SupCom. Unless you like to play the game at like 20 fps. By the way if my opinion makes me az Nvidia fan boy than so be it but i am not sure how come you are such a big expert on ATI cards and you own and Nvidia video card :roll:

I never claimed I was a big expert on ATI cards... where do you see that?

I have enough judgement and objectivity to know that the 1950pro is not a pile of crap as you claim it is.
!