Slowdown

[:1]This is one of the things IMO gpg should focus a lot on in the development in KnC. By any possble means prevent the supcom late game slowdown. This was my biggest issue with supcom and it IMO made the game completly unplayable many times. I do not know much about how this works, but they should really, really focus on preventing this kind of slowdown, it will ruin the entire epicness of the game.|||They pretty much sorted this in SC2, and it's using the same engine.|||Hazza616|||My old laptop with a 3.4 ghz p4 never had problems lagging in sc1/fa. We lanned it extensively. even games that lasted 7 + hours never lagged. I am still at awe at how many people wanted to castrate sc2 because sc1 ran slow. If a laptop from 2003 runs it well (never getting below -3) i dont know what you guys want. Well sc2, we all know how that ended up.
Hopefully KnC will cater to the epic side again, and it looks like it is going in that direction. We will see.|||By the time this game comes out (This is years, incidentally guys - Just feel everyone needs reminding), PC's will have advanced sufficiently that honestly we won't need significant improvements as compared to supcom 2 (Though obviously it is preferable if there isn't a decrease in performance)|||chosan|||pkc|||scotchtape622|||Hazza616|||Not true, if you are getting bad slowdown online, someone else has to have a crappy computer, because AI do take a much bigger toll, period.
And saying "if KnC has as bad performance as FA, it will ruin the game," is like saying, "if the Dark Knight has the same special effects as the 1966 Batman, it will ruin the movie."
Well duh, but it obviously won't because special effects have improved so much.
It is the same with KnC, sure FA had bad slowdown, but SupCom2 sure didn't, and KnC is evolving from SupCom2, not FA. GPG isn't going backwards.
EDIT:
Spooky, that hasn't been my experience at all. Even with the unit caps maxed, I've always had a higher simspeed in SupCom2.|||in my experience the slow down in supcom2 will come faster than in supcom fa. this may be related to the pathfinding system or the graphics or anything, but if you play the same size of map and the same amount of units, forged alliance will be faster.|||scotchtape622|||chosan|||Chosan, short of a new breakthrough in game engine programming (flowfield is pretty dang close IMO), there's not a whole lot they can do to prevent the dreaded slowdown in long, drawn out battles short of taking away some of the scale. Every unit and every structure has a performance cost, and there's no getting around that other than reducing the number of units or structures.
I don't know about you guys, but I seem to get slightly better performance in Supcom 2 compared to FA. And yes, these are 6000+ unit games I'm talking about here. Flowfield seems to be the biggest contributor that I can imagine. In FA you could tell when someone ordered their army to move just by the sudden lag spikes, but not in Supcom 2.|||i've gotten slowdowns on supcom2 with stupid amounts of air armies and 5 ai's, but nothing compared to the stupid -10 slowdowns with occasional freezes from FA. Units stop responding for a good 10-50 seconds real time.|||And, for the record, the maps in SupCom2 are actually many times bigger than most FA maps, but the playable area is much smaller.|||You're talking about the mesh that you look at; yes, that is bigger than the maps, but FA included that giant world-border instead.
Talking about the pretty stuff that isn't actually part of the map is folly, vanilla SupCom beats both; it had a picture of an entire planet.|||scotchtape622|||I did on my old computer
And I'm pretty sure I'm right on the maps, but I was always confused with the SupCom map sizes (4012x4012 or whatever)|||scotchtape622|||viewtopic.php?f=50&t=46526&p=809244&hilit=map#p809244
This is where my info is coming from. I don't know what the scale is versus FA, but if they were directly proportional, that 5500x5500 would be much bigger than most FA maps, yes?|||scotchtape622|||scotchtape622|||chosan|||scotchtape622