ArmA 3 System Requirements

[NeMeSiS 11]

You are correct, ArmA does not support a high level of cores and ram. On the other hand VBS 2.0+ does. BIS has down geared ArmA from VBS for the civilian market. But the coding is still there in ArmA to access a high level of cores and ram. It is just being block as one of the community member found out and posted his findings. And when he did. BIS had him band for an year for breaking the gaming agreement. Due to the coding be culculis based (like the Mars Rovers for NASA for example). It take a high level of hardware to run it. Put a "governor" on some of the aspects of the code has helped to control the level of hardware needed to run ArmA on lower level hardware. But not low enough to run smoothly. It takes years to rewrite the code (to compact and make it less lenghty) so that a non military grade computing system can run the code. But due to ArmA being simi open to moding. There are work arounds for some coding heavy handness. As long as someone from the community knows how to do so. Without breaking the game agreement.

This is by far the most interesting post here in months, and by interesting i mean hilarious.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

I aim to please.

[dm 9]

Wow, this is pretty freaking epic levels of lol...

A large porsion of the posters have forgetten, are do not know that the engine code was devopled for military organization

That seems somewhat at odds to the truth, which is that the Military version is developed from the game version. I.e. VBS1 came from OFP, VBS2 came from ArmA1, VBS2 2.0 came from ArmA2... etc.

that have hardware above and be on what the public had/has at the time. 12 - 24 Core CUP's, GPU's that holds up to 8-12 GBs memory

And you're living in a dream world. As you can see in the files here, the minimum operating requirement for VBS2 is a Core 2 Duo T8300, 4GB of DDR2 RAM and a NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M. Hardly a 24 core cpu with 12 gig of ram...

But not until after my sumester in IS 101 Programming did I truely understoud the level of diffecuty to run such a heavy haved program on a civilain rig. What the devs have to do (wittch is not going to happen thank god) is to lower the coding for the rigs that are on the market at present.

Woo, I did an "Intro to Programming" class, and now I know ALL the things.

But my outlook is from a Computing and Information Studied prospective.

Shame its not from a grammatically informed perspective...

You are correct, ArmA does not support a high level of cores and ram. On the other hand VBS 2.0+ does. BIS has down geared ArmA from VBS for the civilian market.

Which is odd, considering VBS is based ON ArmA, and not the other way around...

But the coding is still there in ArmA to access a high level of cores and ram. It is just being block as one of the community member found out and posted his findings.

Yes, because its totally possible to decompile and read the exe file... Unless you're referring to that thread a little while back about the guy that claimed by "enabling the LAA flag in the exe, I made ArmA 64 bit". Which was, frankly, nonsense.

Due to the coding be culculis based (like the Mars Rovers for NASA for example). It take a high level of hardware to run it.

I assume you mean "calculus", which equally doesn't make much sense since its just a math type, and not a programming "type".

It takes years to rewrite the code (to compact and make it less lenghty) so that a non military grade computing system can run the code.

I wont argue that it takes a long time to refine code, but suggesting that the length of the code has a significant effect on the performance of the system in this environment is just lol-tastic.

But due to ArmA being simi open to moding. There are work arounds for some coding heavy handness. As long as someone from the community knows how to do so. Without breaking the game agreement.

I don't even know where to start here... Its just so derpy...

This is by far the most interesting post here in months, and by interesting i mean hilarious.

Amen to that.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Amen to that.

Indeed.

[St. Jimmy 272]

I have read through page one to page sixty-two. And what I'm seeing is that the technology that the engine is build for is at a loss for most of the communty member that have posted their replies to the form. In the begening there was posts speaking about consol platform based games being compaired with ArmA 2-3. A large porsion of the posters have forgetten, are do not know that the engine code was devopled for military organization that have hardware above and be on what the public had/has at the time. 12 - 24 Core CUP's, GPU's that holds up to 8-12 GBs memory. Just starting there puts things into focus. The engine codeing is more for an simulation that BIS tried to pass off as a game. The game would have to be ran on a rig with at less a 6 core cpu, and 4 gb gpu to max out for game play. I, in the past tried to understand the coding aspect of the platform. But not until after my sumester in IS 101 Programming did I truely understoud the level of diffecuty to run such a heavy haved program on a civilain rig. What the devs have to do (wittch is not going to happen thank god) is to lower the coding for the rigs that are on the market at present. Are like me. Plan to spend 6,500.00 to 7,000.00 on a rig with 6 - 12 core cpu , ,gpu with 4 - 8 gb memory, 10000 - 15000 rpm hhd, and ram from 64 - 512 gbs. Not everyone will agree with these. But my outlook is from a Computing and Information Studied prospective.

You are correct, ArmA does not support a high level of cores and ram. On the other hand VBS 2.0+ does. BIS has down geared ArmA from VBS for the civilian market. But the coding is still there in ArmA to access a high level of cores and ram. It is just being block as one of the community member found out and posted his findings. And when he did. BIS had him band for an year for breaking the gaming agreement. Due to the coding be culculis based (like the Mars Rovers for NASA for example). It take a high level of hardware to run it. Put a "governor" on some of the aspects of the code has helped to control the level of hardware needed to run ArmA on lower level hardware. But not low enough to run smoothly. It takes years to rewrite the code (to compact and make it less lenghty) so that a non military grade computing system can run the code. But due to ArmA being simi open to moding. There are work arounds for some coding heavy handness. As long as someone from the community knows how to do so. Without breaking the game agreement.

I don't know which one blow my mind more. This or some things in documentary series Through the Wormhole.

[iceman77 18]

Are you guys done being super pricks? LOL

[ProBiscuit 1]

Probably u guys should have i7 and enable all cores to run it on max, same as arma 2

[Tonci87 163]

Are you guys done being super pricks? LOL

No, no I don´t think so.

Bashing someone who pretends to know programming is one of the things where this community really shines. And it´s fucking hillarious :D

[raptor90 1]

I hope that A3 will run all maxed out at 1,920 x 1,080 with flowing rig...

I7 3930K

SSD Samsung 840 pro, 256GB

GTX 680 or 780 ( will go out this march )

Asus Rampage IV Extreme

Corsair 16GB KIT DDR3 2400MHz CL10 Dominator Platinum

If not, well you suck at programing BIS...

Edited January 4, 2013 by raptor90

[maddogx 13]

I hope that A3 will run all maxed out...

It won't.

[raptor90 1]

I mean all maxed out except distance visibility.

Anyway this kind of PC could/should run 2 maxed out games...

[maddogx 13]

I mean all maxed out except distance visibility.

Anyway this kind of PC could/should run 2 maxed out games...

That's more reasonable - perhaps even possible, who knows - but this need to "max out" settings is generally fallacious. Game developers are not obliged to limit their game's video settings in such a way that the maximum setting is achievable with current hardware. It's just something companies like CryTek do to placate hardware manufacturers (*cough* NVidia *cough*).

In theory, BIS could even remove all upper limits on draw distance, shadow draw distance and scene complexity if they wanted to. What would you do then? Maxing out would be impossible. ;)

My point is, the goal should be to find the optimal settings so that the game looks good and runs well on your rig. If the game looks bad and runs badly on a monster rig, then you have my permission to die... ehh, I mean then you can legitimately say it sucks. :D

[iceman77 18]

No, no I don´t think so.

Bashing someone who pretends to know programming is one of the things where this community really shines. And it´s fucking hillarious :D

I see. If you think he's a dumbass, then don't waste time arguing with the guy. I always thought the community shined for other reasons than bashing community members & did a good job at not doing that sort of thing. Regardless of opinions.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Are you guys done being super pricks? LOL

Actually, i think we need a 'hall of fame/shame' for posts like this.

[chortles 263]

Actually, i think we need a 'hall of fame/shame' for posts like this.

Over half of this very forum would probably qualify for the HoS.

Then again, BI's plans keep shifting or remain so vague as to give us little concrete materials (read: last I saw was Gamescom/end of August) to actually talk about...

By the way, MadDogX has a point -- I remember either Jay or Ivan mentioning the possibility of renaming "ultra" settings to "stupid"... the important thing is "what settings can you live with, and what's your priority when it comes to settings?" Because some people in other shooters but also I imagine in Arma even lower their graphics settings for the sake of framerate.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Chortles

[raptor90 1]

Over half of this very forum would probably qualify for the HoS.

Then again, BI's plans keep shifting or remain so vague as to give us little concrete materials (read: last I saw was Gamescom/end of August) to actually talk about...

By the way, MadDogX has a point -- I remember either Jay or Ivan mentioning the possibility of renaming "ultra" settings to "stupid"... the important thing is "what settings can you live with, and what's your priority when it comes to settings?" Because some people in other shooters but also I imagine in Arma even lower their graphics settings for the sake of framerate.

Quite yes...

But did you ever heard something about optimization ?

If the game can`t use 6 core CPU ( which Sim`s must do, because they are CPU based games not GPU ) for its needs and use just 2 or 4 max its just stupid and poor optimized shit...

Nothing new in Arma series is it... :rolleyes:

[dm 9]

But did you ever heard something about optimization ?

If the game can`t use 6 core CPU ( which Sim`s must do, because they are CPU based games not GPU ) for its needs and use just 2 or 4 max its just stupid and poor optimized shit...

Nothing new in Arma series is it... :rolleyes:

[Covert_Death 11]

optimization arguments yayyy!!!

as has always been the case, optimization costs time and money. yes BI NEEDS to support more cores they reallllly do, and they totally could, but it would delay the game more and cost them more money. BI is not the size of EA, they can't write arma3 as quickly and efficiently as say BF3 (not comparing the games just the code and use of multi-core support) EA has the luxury of money and many employees to accomplish these tasks, BI on the other hand makes a damn fine game with a fraction of the luxury.

[chortles 263]

It's just one of those things where "optimization" would help with brand name -- it's nice not having a reputation for "high system requirements, then runs with a low frame rate at best anyway".

[raptor90 1]

optimization arguments yayyy!!!

as has always been the case, optimization costs time and money. yes BI NEEDS to support more cores they reallllly do, and they totally could, but it would delay the game more and cost them more money. BI is not the size of EA, they can't write arma3 as quickly and efficiently as say BF3 (not comparing the games just the code and use of multi-core support) EA has the luxury of money and many employees to accomplish these tasks, BI on the other hand makes a damn fine game with a fraction of the luxury.

They have whole year 2013 though...

No-where is announced Q1-2-3-4 of 2013

Still it would be better have well optimized A3 then half done lagshit.

And about money ?

They have about 1 300 000 A2OA sales mostly because DayZ, so i see no problems with money.

They even own MOCAP studio and some other things.

Edited January 6, 2013 by raptor90

[Dr_feelgood 1]

They have whole year 2013 though...

No-where is announced Q1-2-3-4 of 2013

Still it would be better have well optimized A3 then half done lagshit.

And about money ?

They have about 1 300 000 A2OA sales mostly because DayZ, so i see no problems with money.

They even own MOCAP studio and some other things.

+1 ! i would defiantly want them to do this, arma 2 is one of the poorly optimized games ive ever played. i have a amd quad core running a 3.8ghz 6gbs of ram and a geforce gtx 2gb card overclocked and still get lag. and thats for a game without even dx 10! dont get me wrong i love arma 2! its probly the game i play most on my pc, and when it does run well its a blast but the lag really holds the game back. and the game doesnt really look as good as it should either. just my 2 cents.

[chortles 263]

Pretty much... though I personally believe that what a bunch of us mean by "optimized" is that it should hold a framerate consistent with other shooters on the same hardware despite having more going on under the hood.

[smnzer 1]

Hey guys, can I have some advice?

i5 3470 @3.2GHz 3.6GHz Quad Core with cooler

8GB 1600MHz RAM

1TB SATA 3 HDD

500W PSU:

http://www.priceme.co.nz/Cooler-Master-Gladiator-600-Mid-Tower-Case-With-500W-PSU/p-883743274.aspx

Graphics card: ?

I need advice, what graphics card would I need to run Arma 3 at 1080p averaging 30-60FPS on highest settings? I don't know much about this stuff, and how Arma 3 might run, I have played only OFP and A2F.

I am looking at the 660, 7850, 7850 GHz Edition, 7870 GHz Edition, or even the 7900 series, but try to keep it cheap.

Atm I have a 1600x900 res monitor, what monitor would you guys recommend?

This would be the first BI game my computer would hopefully be able to run on release, so any help would be appreciated :bounce3:

[papanowel 120]

It's hard to tell you how Arma 3 will run on your future rig.

For the GC, I recommend the 660 or 7870 if you do not have that much money.

[maddogx 13]

I can't really say much about AMD, but as far as NVidia cards go, yeah you will want at least a GTX660. Depending on how much you manage to save up, you could also go with a 670 or 680, each giving you some additional performance. (Or the equivalent AMD cards of course.) :)

It is also possible that NVidia will be releasing the 7xx series some time soon, though the current info seems to be limited to rumors.