Words cannot express everything I want to say here.

 

I feel like logic and communication have failed on a grand scale, not only here but everywhere. 

 

Thank you everyone who posted on this thread. Even you Volt. I do believe it is dead now.

 

 

This kind of thing is just expected out of corporations these days, especially in the gaming industry, which is well known for being terrible. I fear you've only touched the tip of the iceberg of the lazy/bad that infests these companies, and from hereon your travel will only be all the more depressing. Pray you don't ever see as much as I have seen.

I too have seen a lot of the laziness; another dev team I'm on had some really bad issues with that earlier this year while working on our action-RPG.

The fact is, a lot of blood, sweat, and tears goes into programming and debugging a game and even moreso an engine.  The aforementioned team I'm on built its own engine (I was working on different components at the time, so I don't have more than a couple lines of code in the engine).  Whenever those of us writing that game's equivalent of entity files requested an engine change, you could see the exasperation as a little part of the lead engine programmer would die with each request.

I don't blame the devs for refusing to multi-thread Sins I.  I'm fine with it honestly.  Obviously I'd prefer it but having seen the other side of things, I hold nothing against them for it.  I hope they have a great time working on Sins of a Dark Age and get rejuvenated enough from that to come back for a 64x, multi-threaded Sins II.

 

Sometimes you need to take a break if you are burning yourself out in that case, Volt. Passion is a requirement, not just an option, for making quality content. If people are finding they don't have the passion to work with something down to the finest details, and they are finding that the work is becoming more of a chore than living a dream, it's time to part ways - at least temporarily.

Agreed.

For example what IskasuMesk said is exactly what happened to me with SoA 2. I just lost passion, and interest in the project. It became a chore to loath instead of the hobby i once enjoyed. So of course my best work would not be there if i continued. Which is why i stepped down from the project.

TSOP on the other hand i have a ton of passion for. Things are being found that were not seen before, and probably would never have been seen, or given a damn about if the passion was not there. This passion also has a domino effect, because the Dev's see this, and it renews their passion for the game as well.

Agreed and that's what happened.  We wrapped up the game we were working on and are sticking it in IGF so we'll have to see how it goes.

It's mainly speculation based on the past and current success of the most recent incarnation of the IP.

ok you guys say Give it a rest

 

Beside the game gets VERY slow when u reach half the fleet capacity in a 3vs3 battle with small fleet size and pirates disabled) past a certain time, the game crashs and generate a .dmp file that weights 50Mo of spam battle logs.

with rebellion i have a few savegames that if i launch my fleet of 16 capitals into battle, the game crashs to desktop, pretty random tho, sometimes i kill enough ennemies and the games accelerate from 2 FPS to 30 every single fleets i destroy sometimes the whoknowswhat buffer stack overflows reminds you its not worth trying to play.

Ive tried once a LAN battle with my friend because that's the only thing enjoyable i guess, Ive set Large fleet size 1v1. thinking itd be ok with just 2 players. 4 hours fighting when we've both reached max fleet capacity the game crashed when it was getting slow, again.

would have been the best game ever with C&C 3 menus and Supreme Commander 2 engine which support 2 millions units on your screen without any tiny lags.

Sins is old but releasing this in 2012 with the same engine for this price. That's one epic leech of your fans and a massive loss of karma towards gamers and me in particular. Good one guys. May the force be with you.

Do what I did in my mod over a year and half ago:
1.  Stage the fleet supply to 1000.
2.  Stage the max cap. ship crew at 10.
3.  Adjust the fleet slot and ship costs.
4.  Use TSOP.
5.  Don't play on huge maps (100+).

Problem solved.

If the indy game done by a small dev. team isn't up the standards of your triple A games done by large dev. teams, don't play it.

That's a fucking lie.  The game lags under the same stress as the original does.  It just can handle some more before is shits out.

 

Actually Supreme Commander 2 plays on a far smaller scale then Supreme Commander 1, henceforth requiring less processing power.

 

It is irony of destiny that Sup Com 2 optimized engine isnt actually needed for the scale of the game that happens in Sup Com 2.

 

Or to say it bluntly.... the largest possible game in Sup Com 2 would run just fine in Sup Com 1 engine.

All their maps are basically all the same size, but claiming it can support 2 million units on the screen without lag is very far fetched.  I've been in several games where it's lagged by mid game and far from anything even a fraction of 1%  close to that number.  At least with the original supcom, I have more control over things.

Exxagerating about 2 million units doesnt mean its actually bullshit. Do not dodge the main subject which is, Sins engine.

I just meant that I run sup com 2 4vs4 with a retarded ammount of units on both side, yet i run @ 60 fps no problems or no slowing down. I did this comparaison because i want Sins to run the same way but its not gonna happen right.

If SupCom2 have a bad engine, then i want a bad engine for Sins please, oh c..... already beaten.

Sadly no. The one downside of this otherwise lovely game.

Just like Ferraris without clutch, first gear only, you gunna love the first mile for sure.

Actually, it is.  Don't make claims for a game engine that isn't true  As I said before, both suffer the same ambition problem.  Both games imply that you can wage large scale war across the whole of the map, while in actuality, you can't.  Granted, I've found fixes to both SupComs and Sins, and I'm fine with it, but too many people will just bitch and ragequit.



The game is, in part, better, but you won't be getting what you want out of it.  The modding community is still existent in FA, but barely alive in SupCom 2.  Proper mod support greatly extends out the life of the game.  Mods don't really work in MP with SupCom 2.  This is why many people still enjoy a game of Forged Alliance over SupCom 2.



You can't have the same number of players in SupCom 2 that you can in 1.  On top of that, I've played 16 player maps (modded lobby) on tiny maps, before.  You set the unit cap at a decent number and run the damn thing with Sorian AIs.  Those were damn good fun games.  I can't do that in SupCom 2.

It should be noted that Sup Com 1 suffers from poor multi core programming.

 

That was indeed adressed with Sup Com 2, but as mentioned before, the far smaller scale of sup com 2 ruins most of th point.

 

Largest Map size in Sup Com 2: Arround 13X13 KM

 

Largest Map size in sup Com 1: 81X81

 

 

So for all of you people wishing for multi core support for Sins... wish for good multi core support instead. Because the performance increase on bad implementatations is most unimpressivly compared to the work it requires.

I usually play on 10x10 maps on SupCom.  Sometimes 20x20.  Oh,a and the game was developed the same kind as Sins was.  It has no support for more than one core.  There are only tools to aid in the thread processing.

 

Actually that is not true. I participated in the BETA for Sup Com 1. They demanded a dual core system back then.

 

The issue with Sup Com 1 is that it was their first multi core game... and that the main engine (that needs it most) doesnt scale well... on the additional core. So most of the speed increase comes from the music and some background threads running on the second core.

 

Sup Com 1 will run better on an 3 Ghz Dual Core than on an 2.8 Ghz Quad Core. Sup Com does profit a good way from any turbo function as the main engine is the thing that makes one core sweat while the others are more or less idling.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1296114.html

Never knew that, and the last part is obvious.  Same thing applies to Sins.

dont you want sins to run like that

three mini-freezes caused by FRAPS so far, can't record @ 60 fps, it is 30. yet the gaming isnt affected, no crawling in the mood feelings like sins can cause. its always smooth and i can make a more epic one if needed you will see that the game never slows down or get on your nerves. CPU aggressivity will, meh i should have disabled nukes.

Why do you care?  It's on a different, modern game engine with different potentials, even then, all the games I play against involve at least 3 humans and use mods.  I know your playing against at least 1 AI.  That game also hasn't been artillery and shield spammed to hell (like all my games end up being).  Do that, and get 3+ hours into the game, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

i play against 7 AI. im the only human there. Spam is fair enough already to show you that the game remains smooth and fast.... but ok i will try again without nukes and 40 Giant Saucers. brb.

why do i care, because i want this game but with spaceships...

http://bitsum.com/prolasso.php

 

Here is aporgram ive been playing around with lately,  i havent tried sins with it as im waiting for a SOA2 rebellion port.

I have no idea if it works or not (usually i bet that it wont work...but im just skeptical like that)

It won't make any significant difference.  If it does, we'll implode.  We've already had many "game booster" suggestions, before.

well just let me know, imnot planning playing sins much till SOA2 is rdy.

 

but that program really isn't made as a game booster per SE... its much more then that, its basically task manager on steroids. 

keep in mind though, like y'all i am very skeptical of any "automagical" programs