Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hobostryke

ArmA 3 System Requirements

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by AJAX420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Optimiszed - buying a new graphics card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the game is fairly well "optimized" at this point, given the demands on the CPU.

But the game just wasn't designed for less powerful PCs. It doesn't skip out on detail and visual quality in out-of-the-way areas the way many games do. Everything is a high poly model and the artists just didn't care about slimming down assets or being efficient in some ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this game is more complex than BF3 or any other good looking game out there, I can't call it optimised until it makes use of a 64bit system and 4gbs of ram and my hex core cpu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I have already mentioned this before, but I will give 2 examples of better optimising the game:

Balancing textures in the game so that they are only high-resolution when needed. Why do roads have typically low resolution and leaves in the back yard of someones house have pretty high resolution?

Having proper occlusion culling which takes depth into account drastically reducing the number of calls to the GPU to render. I have used occlusion culling in some of the games I have created and the difference of framerates is much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this game is more complex than BF3 or any other good looking game out there, I can't call it optimised until it makes use of a 64bit system and 4gbs of ram and my hex core cpu.

How about my 12threads cpu and my 24GB of ram then?

avatar_6feb8634e3d0_128.png

Anyways, can you point towards another's game executable that is 64-bit? Because i can't...

anyways, i do hope for some better culling tech to be implemented, i am sure that this would improve the frame rate considerably

Edited by PuFu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, can you point towards another's game executable that is 64-bit? Because i can't

Im not an expert and dont want to start a debate, but arma is one of the few games loyal to pc so it should make use of these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways, can you point towards another's game executable that is 64-bit? Because i can't...

Crysis

do I get a cookie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Rise of Flight.

ArmA 2 is poorly optimized because a few trees (no AI, only 1 unit, the player) can take your frame rates from 60 down to 23. And various other things. To say the game is optimized is just being naive. Compared to RoF, the performance is very consistent. Another example of a poorly optimized game/engine is Lock On FC2 and DCS Black Shark. No matter what PC you seem to have, there are always some stutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arma uses cpu heavily even when you are alone and nothing is happening. if that's not wrong I don't know what is. What is it simulating? Tree swaying? grass growing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rise of Flight.

I have to say Rise of Flight is not a good comparison though. Sure, it has many trees, buildings and other object in the world. But since it is a pure flight sim those objects can be quite simple compared to the objects ArmA needs, because the player rarely sees them up close. If a player would walk around on the landscape of Rise of Flight as an infantryman it would feel rather dull because of the lack of details.

Its not only the huge maps and thousands of objects ArmA has to bring, it also has to deliver them with relatively high details. Most other games do either one or the other. Doing both at the same time is much more difficult (and ArmA packs AI, ballistic simulation et cetera on top of that). I'm not saying "ArmA is as good optimized as humanly possible". But since there seems no game around that does the same things ArmA does and runs better, a statement like "it is poorly optimized" is somewhat baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say Rise of Flight is not a good comparison though. Sure, it has many trees, buildings and other object in the world. But since it is a pure flight sim those objects can be quite simple compared to the objects ArmA needs, because the player rarely sees them up close. If a player would walk around on the landscape of Rise of Flight as an infantryman it would feel rather dull because of the lack of details.

Its not only the huge maps and thousands of objects ArmA has to bring, it also has to deliver them with relatively high details. Most other games do either one or the other. Doing both at the same time is much more difficult (and ArmA packs AI, ballistic simulation et cetera on top of that). I'm not saying "ArmA is as good optimized as humanly possible". But since there seems no game around that does the same things ArmA does and runs better, a statement like "it is poorly optimized" is somewhat baseless.

... and RoF also models an advanced flight and damage model, all of which are very taxing on a CPU. Flight sims are about as CPU demanding as a game can get. With a mission running, AI vehicles, planes, and constant shelling the frame rates never start dropping by more than half because one particular object came on screen.

I realize ArmA is a demanding game, but to say it is perfectly optimized is just naive. I hope ArmA 3 is an improvement in this aspect. Even if it is optimized, I am sure we will need to wait a few years until we can turn the graphic settings up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SideBar

Someone out there a data visualization / spread-sheet / dashboard sorta programmer with a bit of time?

Summary: To create a web page that will allow folk to work through a list of likely / plausible components to create a shopping list for a good game box as bottom line.

Inspiration: Last night in TS a very good player announced that he'd scrabbled together enough cash to build a really good box, with A3 in mind. Thing is, he's non-tech. So when his buddy suggested 2 large SDDs, he added that to his list. He also included the sorta CPU a video studio would be happy with. He just didn't have criteria for choices.

My thinking: there's a finite list of components needed, and for each item there's a finite number of candidates. Taken together it's enough to give my buddy a headache. Broken down into an interactive table c/w suggestions, recommendations, and warnings (My fave? Don't cut any corners on things that are hard to swap out e.g. MoBo.) someone with a good idea of what's required (e.g. ArmA 3 specs ... I bet BIS would gladly be as specific as necessary.) could work through this thing and end up with a bottom line plug figure.

I'm sure a lot of us have seen sites that allow us to "build our own box", customizing from a pre-stuffed menu. Something like that.

I don't want to fork this thread, so please reply by PM if you're interested. I code, but I'm no programmer.

^5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tell your friend to visit TechReport to read the latest system guide. There's no way BIS knows what the system requirements for A3 is going to be at this point, but if you built the best computer you can at this point you might be close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×