ArmA 3 System Requirements

[PuFu]

Not talking about map sizes. What makes ArmA lag is not just the maps. It can be an increased view distance, or upped graphics settings, or a lot of particle effects going on, like a lot of smoke or something, which is what causes the most lag for me. With BF3 and all the destruction and explosions, and effects heavy stuff that goes on, it still runs better than ArmA. ArmA 2's effects look simple compared to BF3's. And I can run BF3 on the highest setting at 1920x1080 resolution, playing 32x32 player servers. I experience lag with ArmA with less AI than that.

1. you are mistaken LAG for Low FPS
2. have you tried a PvP game on Utes (which is comparable in terms of size to BF3)? That is without ANY AI?

Maybe it's just my system, but that shouldn't be the case.

What is your system?

[Flogger23m]

ArmA's ballistic system is more complex if I am not mistaken. That alone would make it more demanding on the CPU.

Though yes, ArmA 2 is not optimized very well. I think we can all agree on that.

[AJAX420]

ArmA's ballistic system is more complex if I am not mistaken. That alone would make it more demanding on the CPU.

Though yes, ArmA 2 is not optimized very well. I think we can all agree on that.

Yes the bullet system as well as everything Arma2's engine does is more CPU demanding than any other game out there. Period!

What is it with soooo many people complaining about how Arma2 is not optimized... Stupid statement! You just can not say that Arma does not run as smooth as BF3 so there fore it's not optimized?????? What???? Learn about this game a little. Please! Arma2 is a very well optimized game for all its capabilities and massive scope and I think we all can agree on that.

[froggyluv]

Though yes, ArmA 2 is not optimized very well. I think we can all agree on that.

Arma2 is a very well optimized game for all its capabilities and massive scope and I think we all can agree on that.

Mmm, apparently we can't agree on anything

Tho I tend to agree with the 2nd statement.

[antoineflemming]

1. you are mistaken LAG for Low FPS
2. have you tried a PvP game on Utes (which is comparable in terms of size to BF3)? That is without ANY AI?


What is your system?

Ok, you're right. I am mixing up the terms. I meant low FPS. I've got a Dell XPS 17, Win 7 Professional, Intel Core i7-2670QM CPU 2.20 Ghz, 8GB RAM, 64-bit, Nvidia GeForce GT 555M graphics card.

[crazyjake56]

Ok, you're right. I am mixing up the terms. I meant low FPS. I've got a Dell XPS 17, Win 7 Professional, Intel Core i7-2670QM CPU 2.20 Ghz, 8GB RAM, 64-bit, Nvidia GeForce GT 555M graphics card.

A laptop?

[djfluffwug]

Yes, if you have a google of Dell XPS 17, you will see that its a laptop.

I seem to doubt that you were saying that because you didn't know it was a laptop.

[Bee8190]

I think the; not optimized can be translated to extremely demanding as lowering the ingame settings changes rather little and is down to limiting your view distance, which can gain considerable FPS when i keep it to 3-4k, at least on my rig.

Some tweaks like atoc=0, Vram=default or V-high made quite lot of difference so i guess theres something to it.

Since arma is so demanding even for new-ish HW, I guess BIS might have perhaps overshot the demands and their desire(?) to make the game look great for years to come.

Why they didn't take full advantage of two or more CPU cores and utilize them to the fullest; I do not know

[metalcraze]

ArmA's ballistic system is more complex if I am not mistaken. That alone would make it more demanding on the CPU.

Though yes, ArmA 2 is not optimized very well. I think we can all agree on that.

Define "optimized". Preferably with an example of a comparable game with 200 sq. km detailed combat areas where game tracks every single object at all times and has complex AI.

[Rye]

Optimiszed - buying a new graphics card.