Quote Originally Posted by RTKLamorak
peoples idea of "running like a dream" varies massively
I agree Lamorak that 27-50 fps is not “smooth as silk”. The high rate or the average rate is meaningless if you want good looking performance at all times. It’s the low troughs in the frame rate that tell the story. If things dip into the 20s then things are slowing up noticeably.

Games are playable at less than optimal fps and the fact that they are still acceptable to so many people in this state is good news for the industry. I envy guys who can happily live with scaled back features because I can’t stand to turn down graphics or to use small units.

My Athlon XP 2000 with 512ram and a 9800 pro is doing a better job with 20 on 20 battles than I expected at max sttings even with antialiasing turned up. It is certainly playable. There is no gross slide show effect jerkyness but rotating the camera in the midst of a battle does deliver a kind of sluggish variable speed appearance that is annoying. The largest units sizes will no doubt deteriorate this situation further. We also have yet to see what buildings will do to frame rates. I have ordered an Athlon 2800 that ought to help me out as it is about 25% faster than the 2000.

All in all, the demo indicates that CA did a better job getting the game to run with so many 3D soldiers marching about than I thought they could. They are a right clever bunch. Now it remains to be seen if the finished product will run perfectly on any machine.