Page 4 of 4
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:44 pm
by WSGrundy
I saw an interview with the creator of the game and he was saying that there aren't any PC's on the market right now that can run the game with the largest maps and max number of players going at it.
I'm sure some of that is bragging but from the looks of it there some truth there also.
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:16 pm
by Vince
Not sure if I'd call that a bragging point. Not saying he didn't see it as that, but... "Our code's so bloated and inefficient that you can't run it!"
Way to go!
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:17 am
by Leisher
So are quad core CPU's out, yet?
Yes.
I just spec'd out a Dell with a quad core CPU. I think I had the final price somewhere around $12500.
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:28 am
by Cakedaddy
Quad CPU prices
Not sure about motherboard/mem and stuff. Didnt' research at all.
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:31 pm
by GORDON
Goddammit.
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:42 pm
by WSGrundy
Vince wrote:Not sure if I'd call that a bragging point. Not saying he didn't see it as that, but... "Our code's so bloated and inefficient that you can't run it!"
Way to go!
I think it was more of "Our game maps are so large and massive and beautiful that PCs don't have to power to run them at the highest level yet."
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:58 pm
by Vince
distinction without a difference, really.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:01 am
by GORDON
I DO remember TA, when it came out, pushed my then-midrange-PC to it's limits and beyond... but TA is one of the immortal great games, so I will give SC a chance, and build a new machine to suit the software.
Just like I've been doing for pretty much 15 years.
IT COULD be the software requires so many cycles because the AI is so clever.... maybe?
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:59 pm
by Vince
GORDON wrote:IT COULD be the software requires so many cycles because the AI is so clever.... maybe?
True, but if the PROGRAMMERS were really clever they could get the same (or near the same) results with fewer cycles.
Edited By Vince on 1172861963
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:31 pm
by Malcolm
Vince wrote:GORDON wrote:IT COULD be the software requires so many cycles because the AI is so clever.... maybe?
True, but if the PROGRAMMERS were really clever they could get the same (or near the same) results with fewer cycles.
That sort of programming is expensive.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:49 pm
by GORDON
Ok, played mission 2 of the UEF last night, and when assaulting the Aeon base with max units the game slowed down to about 1 frame per second. This is with just 1 monitor. So. K.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:06 am
by Leisher
I haven't suffered any sort of slowdown yet. Although I haven't reached unit max either.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:11 am
by Cakedaddy
I'm doing mostly skirmishes now. Beat my first supreme AI. The only slow down I noticed was when my tech 2 radar came online. I froze for 1/4 when it was gathering intel. Ran fine otherwise. Biggest 'army' I've used so far has been about 40 units. Enemy has had alot more than that, but normally attacks with smaller groups. So there have been no large scale engagements yet.
I play on two monitors and have not had any slow downs during skirmish play. Will beat the supreme AI a couple more times, and then will be doing multiple medium AIs. Should increase unit count. . . My CPU is normally pegged at 100% the entire game.