and you blast me for not stating i am quoting something when we both the samething except i actually looked something up and put the whole thing in this thread

point defense is the defense of a ship or unit from what ever maybe coming in air sea or land usually refering to small targets ie persons, aircraft of all kinds, pt boats, and small patrol boats

That IS a very naive assumption.

About the point of Supreme Commander, again, you made quite a naive assumption about the game and the people who are playing it. I don't see the reason why one should be upset about the level of enjoyment is proportion to the strenght of your machine, tell me it's not so for just about "any" game out there. Regular RTS you barely make 200 units, and then, if you have a system below recommended you can play the game with 4 or so players, if you meet the spec then it's full detail at 8 players. Tell me that's not the case with Galciv2. Your game will run as fast as your computer allow it. Plus, Support Dual Core doesn't mean single core got canned (I actually beta Supremem Commander on a single core AMD you know), dual core allow multi threading to be done more efficiently but that doesn't mean a single core can do it. If you don't have a dual core, then I would presume you should have a fair decent single core with Hyper Thread technology. Because if you don't, then by gaming standarad you have a built that is about 3 years old, and there is no excuse.





But, that's as far as I would go on the matter. I love PDS and from my technical point of view, it can be done without taxing the system, and we'll see how Ironclad will go about that.

I hope you guys are planning on being progressive and supporting multi-core systems; like say... mine!!! I did not buy the QX6700 just to heat my house.

Moreover with the new release date being next year, a lack of multicore and DX10 functionality may be a marketing draw back - food for thought.

Now this is a surprise. From my understanding the scales and details of Sins then with or without PDS, it certainly benefit from multi-cores. DX10 I can understand since it's relative new and no doubt it will need at least a year or so to be standarlizing. But dual core is already in process of being standalizing. So without multi cores, not only the detail and feature what would be come the AI and such on a large scale.

Again, this comes with quite a surprise.

Since DirectX 10 is only ever planned to be available to Windows Vista users, it's not something we're going to require or build toward at this time. Talk about limiting your potential market, yeesh.

Multi-core support is being looked into, but no decision's been made. I believe Supreme Commander only offloads audio and, I think, physics threads onto the second core, so it doesn't have a huge impact on performance.

to the moon alice to the moon

well im not saying that it should require dx10 or multi-core systems.
But supported features that would be great.
This year i think there will be 2 or 3 titles with dx10, and "maybe" supcom will have it too. But in 2008 im sure there will be alot more.

But what i dont get is why not enable the multicore option, in a way like when a core has reached its maximum, the game/program should ask for another core to do some calculations. Instead of just telling the game/program to split the calculation between the cores, like supcom does.

I know a few games that will support Vista natively by the end of the year, I don't think any of them will be Vista exclusive. PC games have been about backward compatibility, but it's always a good point to take advantage of what there is to offer. Although in Vista and DX10 case, it's still very new.



But multi-core, one gotta admit, have become more and more accepted as a standard, it's no longer a "new" thing, at least, not that new. If it's not in right now then I hope it's somewhere down the path, like in a patch or an expansion pack (we know there will be one right ) because ... well, it hurts thinking about all the possibilities that can be lost without it. Heh, in light of this I'm more worry about how the AI gonna be handle in the game since a game of this game really need sophisticated AI.

At least the game while is not built for dual core in mind, should be able to take advantage if one exists. Like how Galciv2's AI CPU intensive option that was added in the later patch.


About supcom, well, that's what I said about the physic calculation. But Supcom aims for battles that have thousands of units in combat, I played it both on dual core and single core and there is a difference.





Eh ... that's not how multicore programming work. The whole point of having dual core is to do something like supcom does, and in term of multi-threading programming, it's the much more efficient way with dual core. The way you put it, we would actually be much better off with a big single core instead of split it into two smaller cores, but that's the wrong logic.

That's why a 1.6Ghz dual core is not the equivalent to a single 3.2Ghz core.

i see.
Ive made a few test with my quad, in supcom. and i cant seem to get it to run at 100% on one core. When watching a large replay on 10+ speed.
I see something like
core0 90%
core1 40%
core2 15%
core3 10%

But if it were to reach the 100% on one core (i wasnt able to reach that limit), im guessing the game would just slow down. Thats why i think it would be a smart idea for it to ask another core to help out.
I know supcom was/is one of the first games that supports multicore systems. And it might be better in the future. But it just seems like a waste of resources when the game just wants more power, but it cant get it.

By this logic, then there isn't any difference between having a shield and an extra layer of armor, or hell, just double the ship HP. After all, its purpose is to increase the ship endurance and how many damage it can absorb before it goes boom boom. And yes, PDS is also a defense system, at least its mechanic is different. Shield and armor decide how much impact a ship can withstand, PDS helps to reduce the ship from actually taking the impact.


Like I said, the difference are fairly obvious in most respects. You may not like the idea due to performance reason, and on this thread it's an idea you are not favor. But without thinking too hard one can easily list what is the difference between PDS and shield, it has its place. They're both defense, but work under different mechanic, PDS and shield have their own places. In fact, this gotta be the first time I ever see PDS and shield are considered ... comparable.







Isn't the same thing can be said for shield? One of the reason we have a half decent armor and a shield rather then just double the armor and no shield because you gotta admit, having a shield is just cooler right? Looking at a shot disperse when impact the shield certainly has its cool. And yes, so I'll say, part of the reason I like PDS because it's cool, like I stated for me it adds a good deal of immersion.

You missed the point and too over simplified the system, the only time they're the same is following your relative bare logic. And what you means by physical differences?

Ever played a Startrek simulation games? There is shield, and that regenerate, there is armor, and those can be repaired. To an extend, they work the same right, both can take hit and be regenerated. The same? No.


Actually I can simplify it even further than you, basically they're all defense system which only serve one purpose: control the amount of damage a ship can and will take. So we can come up with a bunch of things like: ECM, shield, anti-beam depth charge, armor plating, point defense ...etc... techniques the something, although all of them work differently, since they serve the same purpose they're the same right? No.


Avoid an impact and absorb the impact are never the same. Your example like I said, too oversimplified the system. The variable can be varied from the point a shield will take enough damage that it eventually goes down, with sufficient PDS then against certain target it might be sufficient not taking a hit. And again, the model I don't think a shield can take 10000 units of damage and a PDS that can intercept 10000 units of damage is the same. Again, by that logic then there is no difference between a PDS that can intercept 10000 units of damage and an armor that can absorb and addition 10000 units of damage.






Well, basically I'm not in agreement with him with the course stardock and ironclad is taking with this game, he has credential and I believe him, doesn't mean I agree with what he said (no disrespect means).


Depend on what you're asking. Since right now I separate the argument whether a shield is a replacement for a PDS system, one that I will argue not. Or you mean the point about system performance. The former, I still have things to say, the latter, want it or not I think it has been said enough. But it appears you're mixing those two which kinda hard to follow.


And please note that I'm not really that aggressive and consider PDS is a must have system (coming with a "Geez OMG you don't have it what wrong with you!!!). It's a feature that I believe very nice to have provided the cost in return is fair. It's never my point to make a system get to a crawl just to have an addition cool feature, so no need to come at me with an aggressive stand (sorry if I got the wrong impression). Do bear in mind that I started this thread with the assumption Sins will support multi cores at least if one is available (like some other games do).


From what I gather about the game then the level detail and especially the scale of this game, it's almost nature to me the game is built with multi cores supported (and emphasize again, a multi core supported game is NOT a multi cores exclusive game, none of them is. Just in case you want to raise the " just for a few elite" again). I would not be surprise if C&C3 is not multicore supported despite it has very nice and flashy feature because the scale of the game doesn't need that, but Sins does. Like I said, with or without PDS at this point is no longer matter, the game at this scale still need to process a large amount of data. Heck, I can tell you that in light of the new information I no longer concern about a PDS system, but more worry about other features that I think you will agree will have more impact on the game, example like the AI. Well, I hope there is enough room to have a sophisticates AI in the game, we'll see.

Primarily I'd like to be able to play this game, so if hte PD system is too heavy a load I say scrap it. Let's just imagine that good PD systems are developed in the Sins2...

Than again a PD system could (should?) be an upgrade for the capitals, others don't need it anyway. If the capitals are made far more rare it wouldn't present a huge load.