That's really disappointing. I used to love lightsaber dueling online with the Jedi Knight games and was really looking forward to doing the same in the force unleashed. It's still a must buy game for me, but not even having that option there is a real blow to its appeal IMO.
When I first got SupCom, I was running on Windows XP SP2 with an AMD 64 2.2 Ghz, 1.5 Gigs PC3200 RAM, Geforce 7600GT, Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, and I was not happy with the performance at all. I was lucky if I got an average of 15 FPS even on small maps. I then decided to upgrade my CPU to an AMD 64 X2 4400+ rated at 2.2 Ghz, as well as increased the amount of RAM I had to 2 Gigs. There was a definate performance increase, but I still wasn't happy with it. So I finally snagged a copy of Vista Business from work and installed it and, to be honest, it runs significantly better. I've tried out a few of the larger maps and there is still a bit of slowdown, but nowhere near as bad as it was before. I don't think I have had it drop below 15 FPS since upgrading to Vista.
[QUOTE="Malitious85"] Dont call Supreme Commander SC. That's blasphemy! SC is STARCRAFT! IBEX333
Supreme Commander - SupCom.
Hahahaha, sorry about that, didn't even occur to me. Anyways, thanks for the responses guys, I was hoping to pick up SUPCOM at release but, after playing the demo, it looks like i'm going to be doing some upgrading first.
Its your cpu. Dual core or core 2 duo is really where u wanna be to get a good fps. After 100 units SC will take its toll on one CPU.
try putting the settings all on low see if that helps but a core 2 duo E6400 or E6600 if u wnat ot spend the extra cash will make this game run alot smoother.
But update your drivers first that will help abit then put the settings on low see how that goes
Well, if it is my CPU, then I have two choices. The mobo that I have is a socket 939, so would it be better to just get a 939 AMD 64 X2 for maybe a little over $100 and do a complete overhaul later, or go all out, get a new mobo, core2-duo, and ddr2 ram, but spend $500 - $600 now?
I prefered gears. But I played gears before RS. Am I right in beleiving you played RS and GRAW before gears? Usuauly whichever you played first will always be in your mind, as the best.death1505921
I did play GRAW before I played Gears, but I didn't play R6 until a few weeks after I beat it. I do agree that playing GRAW first may have had an influence, but there is still the issue of having unwanted actions taking place when what I really wanted to do was take cover, which was never an issue in either GRAW or R6.
Everyone made such a big deal about the covering system in Gears of War, but am I the only one who preferred the way games such as GRAW or R6V approached thier covering systems? Don't get me wrong, I thought Gears was a great game, but hitting the A button to take cover seemed very clunky to me and it often resulted in doing something completely different than what I wanted to do. GRAW and R6 both made taking cover seem very natural and effective, either by just by running up to cover and holding the directional pad towards the object (GRAW), or by holding down the left trigger for as long as you wanted to ramain behind said cover (R6).
Log in to comment