Minimum System Requirements

Post by **George Geczy** » Aug 09 2002

We're working on keeping the minimums for SR2010 quite low, using a 'scaling' process where the graphics quality (and speed) gets better when you have more horsepower and memory.

However, it has just come on to the agenda on whether we should support Windows 95 or not. So far, we had intended to run on W95, but there would be some benefits to use DirectX version 8.1 instead of 8.0, and that means Windows 98 would be the minimum.

So, anyone out there still use Windows 95, or have friends that do?

-- George.
<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Aug 09 2002

I use willcrash 98,so I quess I'm safe for another year.

Micro$$oft really has dev companies by the privates dont they ?
Has anyone ever kept track of the problems caused by dx and compared them against the "improvements" of the newer versions to see if it actaully was worth using the new "improved" dx version,vs the old and possibly working right now (finally) older versions ?

Post by **George Geczy** » Aug 14 2002

Actually, the development track of DirectX has been one of the better plans that Microsoft has had - they have no qualms about going off in an entirely new direction with each new version if the benefits of speed and new features are there. But often that means certain elements - such as Windows95 compatibility - get left behind.

But after some consideration and discussion, we've made the decision to go with DX 8.1 as our minimum spec, which means that Windows98 is the minimum operating system supported.

Outside of that, we still intend to support a wide range of hardware by use of 'scalable code', which means that faster hardware will result in better graphics quality, and older hardware will still run with more basic graphics.

-- George.

Reddemon · Post by **Reddemon** » Aug 14 2002

So I guess i wont have to be doing anymore upgrade huh BG:)

Post by **BattleGoat** » Aug 14 2002

Yup... So much for our Intel kickbacks

Hindmost · Post by **Hindmost** » Nov 02 2002

Even though this thread looks dead...a good example of a scalable system is Windward Studio's Enemy Nations.Which although it uses win95, on max settings can still slow down my 1.2 gig machine.

Reddemon · Post by **Reddemon** » Nov 02 2002

Well talking about requriments i just finished another upgrade on my system. this time i went with a P4 1.7 gig cpu and got me a new video card a TI4600 that has 128 meg vid ram. Now i did all this for one game in mind that should be out on the 1Q of 2003. that game is Battlecruiser Generations. I dont know if you have been following Derek Smart with his first game Battlecruiser but he has come along ways. But like everyone else he has gotten on that bandwagon of needing more specs on your machine to play the game. Im just hoping that this game wont go in that direction. Why cant we just get a great strategy game without all that fancy graphics. I know what most of those units look like for i have spent many years in the military. I understand everyone wants realizism but i think most (IMHO) strategy gamers perfers a game with depth and not fancy graphics but then I CAN BE WRONG.

DEMON OUT

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Nov 03 2002

NO you are right Reddemon!
Most strategygamers (at least the hardcore) would prefer deep gameplay above graphics.
I know that my tolerance for crappy gameplay is A LOT lower than my tolerance for crappy graphics.
And low system specs are a nice bonus if you choose to not promote the graphics too much.That also means more potential customers

Well as far I can tell this game is already going in the right direction

No really....this IS the game of my dreams.

And Reddemon its nice to have you back!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2002-11-03 10:21 ]</font>

XeroMan · Post by **XeroMan** » Nov 03 2002

<rant>
The worst has to be Activision. I hate them with a passion. Good game concepts, but damn it, you'd need a P4 clocked at 2Ghz just to play WarCraft II if they had programmed it. They are the worst kind of idiots. Thier games never work like thier supposed to, and they demand a lot more resources than they should. They have to be trying to screw it up. Idiots.
</rant>

Reddemon · Post by **Reddemon** » Nov 03 2002

Thank you Juergen is great to be back

!

DEMON OUT

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 04 2002

I agree .Game play far excedes graphics where a game is concerned.
But I would like to see those oil rigs burning in game P.Just something so that I can tell at a glance what rigs Ive hit and which I havent.Nothing fancy.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Nov 04 2002

Well id like to see some really nice mushroom clouds

And what kind of mushroom cloud (+explosion) would depend on how strong your nuclear attack was.
I wonder how these MIRVs impacts will look like.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2002-11-04 02:19 ]</font>

Post by **George Geczy** » Nov 13 2002

One thing that Chris and I have done over the past few months is re-rendered the game graphics at much higher resolution. Why? Because we could. And, I like to hear Chris whine and complain when he has to re-render hundreds of 3D objects.

But this does give us a "best of both worlds" result - on high performance systems, the higher-rez graphics look pretty, and will likely attract more interest in the game. Scale back the graphics and you get OK results with 1/8th the memory footprint.

Up until a month ago my system was a PII-300, and it did a fine job running the game. Mind you, I had lots of RAM, and memory is the biggest plus for being able to run SR2010 smoothly. But if you're low on RAM (ie <128 MB), then scale back the graphics and you'll be OK.

I'm quite picky about the performance issues, and I regularly monitor the different parts of the engine (graphics, AI, and network bandwidth) looking for performance bottlenecks, so I think we'll be able to meet our "low spec" requirement without much trouble.

And it turns out that it's a good thing we dumped Win95 from our supported list, since it's a bucket of compatibility problems, especially for the multiplayer networking. Even Win98 is giving me headaches.

-- George.