After Apex release, even if we don't get an official requirements 'Splendid' update, I must recognize that the released "aggiornamento" is welcome. Even if no move has been made for minimum CPUs level and some inconsistencies persist it is a good new.
Here are the updated official requirements for Arma3 :
OS Windows 7 SP1 64-bit PROCESSOR Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz / AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz GRAPHICS NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT/ AMD Radeon HD 5670 / Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM DirectX® 10 RAM 4 GB HARD DRIVE 20 GB free space AUDIO DirectX® compatible on-board OTHER Internet connection and free Steam account to activate Dual Layer compatible when installing from DVD
OS Windows 7 / 8 / 10 64-bit PROCESSOR Intel Core i5-4460 / AMD FX 4300 GRAPHICS NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 / AMD Radeon HD 7800 Series with 2 GB VRAM DirectX® 11 RAM 6 GB HARD DRIVE 25 GB free space, SSD / Hybrid HDD / SSHD storage AUDIO DirectX® compatible soundcard OTHER Internet connection and free Steam account to activate
* Even if disabling the sexiest "Visual Update" parameters in order to gain some performances is possible, it's still NOT possible to play with a Core2 Duo E6600 or un Athlon II x2 250 based rig even if I must admit the game is running with such CPUs. * The "Intel Core i5-4460 / AMD FX 4300" part is the kind of inconsistency I am speaking of. The Intel Core i5-4460 is a rather good CPU, the kind "you must have" in order to play. The AMD FX 4300 is more or less on par with an i3 2120 for general purpose usage, it can be a rather good candidate for "playable minimum", but here Arma3 gaming wise, it's out of place.
Korneel van 't Land has informed us that Bohemia Interactive has announced to day, during the PC Gaming Show at E3 2016 that Arma 3 Apex is to be released on July 11th, a Sneak Preview access video is now available.
Prague, Czech Republic, June 13th 2016
Alongside a brand new trailer, which premiered during the PC Gaming Show at E3 2016, Bohemia Interactive today announced the release date for the much-anticipated Arma 3 Apex expansion. Launching worldwide on July 11th this year, Arma 3 Apex will bring players to the 100 km² South Pacific archipelago Tanoa, with a new arsenal of weapons and vehicles at their disposal, as well as additional armed forces, a co-op campaign, and more.
Calling all troops to the front lines, Bohemia Interactive also announced that, as of today (almost one month before release), everyone who pre-ordered Arma 3 Apex has Sneak Preview Access to all of the expansion’s content, except for the co-op campaign. To install the Apex Sneak Preview build, you simply need to right-click on Arma 3 in your Steam Library, go to 'Properties', visit the 'BETAS' tab, and use the drop-down menu to select and install the Apex Sneak Preview build. This build represents a work-in-progress version and is not yet fully representative of the final Arma 3 Apex release.
With its distinct geographical features and varied locations, Apex's South Pacific island archipelago of Tanoa introduces fresh opportunities for all types of combat operations. Making use of 13 new weapons (providing a mix of classic and near-future firearms), and 10 new vehicles (including new vehicle classes such as VTOL aircraft and LSVs), players can engage in authentic combat on a massive scale, where movement, shooting, and teamwork truly matter. The new 1-4 player co-op campaign sees players take on the role of NATO CTRG special operators, who are sent to Tanoa in order to prevent a humanitarian disaster, but quickly find themselves facing a far bigger threat than they bargained for.
Arma 3 Apex is now available for pre-order with a 20% discount for 23.99 EUR / 19.99 GBP / 27.99 USD (regular price: 29.99 EUR / 24.99 GBP / 34.99 USD) on Steam and the Bohemia Store. Those who are new to Arma 3, but want to enlist for the complete experience at the best price, can choose to pick up the Arma 3 Apex Edition for 59.99 EUR / 44.99 GBP / 69.99 USD.
For more information about the Apex expansion, please visit the official web page at www.arma3.com/apex – where you find a complete overview of its content and features – and take a look at the latest developer diary video. To keep track of all the latest news and updates, be sure to follow Arma 3 on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Steam.
At Arma3 launch, "Minimum" and "Recommended" configuration requirements have been released. As far as we know players playing with a rig at the "Minimum" requirements level are still having issues with Campaign on Altis and while playing MP. And it's so, despite the considerable progress done in terms of optimization since Alpha release in March 2013. Today, as specifications for computers supporting A3 ports to Linux and MacOS have been released and some changes have been made in "Minimum" requirements for Windows, it's time to have a look at Arma3 configuration requirements.
Here are my comments on hardware configurations for playing Arma3 and about the minimum to get in order to enjoy the game.
For the record, according to the Arma3 official website, the config were initially: MINIMUM OS: Windows Vista SP2 / Windows 7 SP1 (Apple OS not supported) PROCESSOR: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz / AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon HD 3830 / Intel HD Graphics 4000 GPU MEMORY: 512 MB DirectX 10 RAM: 2 GB HARD DRIVE: 15 GB free space AUDIO: DirectX -compatible on-board OTHER: Internet connection and free Steam account to activate
RECOMMENDED OS: Windows 7/8 (Apple OS not supported) PROCESSOR: Intel Core i5-2300 / AMD Phenom II X4 940 GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 / Radeon HD 7750 GPU AMD MEMORY: 1 GB DirectX 11 RAM: 4 GB HARD DRIVE: 25 GB free space AUDIO: DirectX-compatible soundcard OTHER: Internet connection and free Steam account to activate
There has been a first change late 2014 about the "Recommended" OS config from “Windows 7/8” to "Windows 7/8 64-bit." With the release of ports on Linux and MacOS, two versions of the specifications have been published. The hardware specs for the Apple OS are very specific, we will leave them aside yet. Let's have a look at "Minimum" and "Recommended" configuration requirements for Linux :
MINIMUM OS: any current 64bit Linux distribution (tested on Fedora 22, Ubuntu 14.04 and Mint 17.01) PROCESSOR: Quad core CPU (Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz or better) GRAPHICS: OpenGL 4.1 compliant GPU (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 440 or AMD HD 7470 or better) GPU MEMORY: 1 GB RAM: 8 GB HARD DRIVE: 20 GB free space
RECOMMENDED OS: any current 64bit Linux distribution (tested on Fedora 22, Ubuntu 14.04 and Mint 17.01) PROCESSOR: Intel Core i7 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 4 GHz GRAPHICS: OpenGL 4.1 compliant GPU (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon HD 7850 or better) GPU MEMORY: 2 GB RAM: 8 GB HARD DRIVE: 25 GB free space
Several elements in "Minimum" requirements are obviously going in the direction of increasing the level of minimum required specifications: - Using a 64bit OS - Using a quad core 2.4 GHz in the form of an Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz or better - Using 8GB RAM
For the graphics card, the specifications are a bit difficult to understand, the GTX 440 does not exist and the HD 7470 is a card with lower performances than cards previously suggested. These lower specifications regarding graphics cards are more difficult to understand as in the same time in the "Minimum" requirements for Windows, 2 GPUs were added :
Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 / AMD Radeon HD 7750
These cards were already displayed as the specification "Recommended" for GPU! Does it mean a Linux based rig must get more processing power but can afford less graphic computing? Weird.
Based on my own experience, on the tests I made myself and as well on reports made by players on various forums, I can say that even if a "Minimum" configuration based rig allowed Arma3 to "run", it does not allowed a satisfactory gaming experience in SP and MP as well.
My project is to outline what I call "Minimum Recommended" requirements for Windows, in order to allow players to enjoy Arma3 in SP and MP. It could be something like:
MINIMUM RECOMMENDED OS: any current Windows 64bit (Windows 7 / 8.1 / 10) PROCESSOR: Quad core CPU (Intel Core i5 2.4 GHz or better) or Intel Dual-Core i3 4000 (2cores / 4threads - 3.1 GHz or better) GRAPHICS: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (DX12 + Maxwell) or Radeon R7 250 (DX12 + GCN 1.0) or better GPU MEMORY: 1 GB RAM or better DirectX® 12 RAM: 8 GB HARD DRIVE: 20 GB free space [SSHD or SSD / HD combo recommended]
Arma3 'Minimum' specifications or … is Arma 3 going to be playable on my Athlon II x2 250 / GTS 450 DDR3 ?
I read that kind of question again and again well before Arma3 Alpha release, and that kind of question is asked not only by people have extra low end configurations but also by people having high-end rigs.
Minimum OS : Windows Vista SP2 /Windows 7 SP1 CPU : Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz / AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz GPU : Nvidia GeForce 8800GT / ATI Radeon HD 3830 / Intel HD Graphics 4000 - 512 MB DirectX® : 10 RAM : 2 GB
A rig for the test :
It happens that I own a PC having more or less this configuration. It has been built to host my work in progress as a Map-Maker as well as a repository for backups. Based upon an Athlon II x2 250 / 4 Go de DDR3, a 500 Go HDD for the OS and a pair of 2 To HDD for data. Later a GTS 450 /1 Go DDR3 had been added so I could watch series while my main rig was dealing with Visitor3.
The release of the first episode of the ArmA 3 campaign : “Survive”; was the signal I needed to start making some tests on Arma3 with this rig. So I got a spare old Intel 80 Go SSD inside in order to host Steam files and there we go !
Some settings, some tests and results :
1° Playing Singleplayer : I have played in SP : Missions I created in the Editor, Showcases, “Survive” and Arma3Mark Stratis unofficial Benchmark.
I did many attempts with various tweaks and settings but I started the tests playing with the settings given by the Autodetect function.
Autodetect set all options on “Low” in the video quality section, set global “Visibility” at 1000 m and totally disabled the AA&PP section. On the GUI the FPS rate jumped to 50.
In game, I was getting a stable 30 FPS, and Arma3Mark was around 32/34 FPS. It was playable but without grass or clutters on the ground, trees looking like candyfloss, buildings blank textured; no other words for it : the game was ugly. However the superb lights effects were there helping me to bear the overall ugliness.
So, as I was finishing the tests, playing some mission out of Camp Maxwell, I couldn't stand it anymore. So I decided to change the settings in order to find a better balance between playability and visual quality and after some tweaking I made the choice to set all the “Quality“ parameters on “Standard”. All the following pictures and the benching results in the SP part were done with those settings.
ArmA3Mark : of course, with these settings the bench results were a bit lower, around 23/27 FPS. Starting at a low 17 FPS but with a nice finish at 23 FPS !
Showcase Infantry : good start and ending around 30 FPS. Slight slips under 20 FPS during the fight in Girna. In the same place, low quality for mid-range building textures but quite playable and enjoyable.
Campaign : Camp Maxwell - Mission Blackfoot : good visual quality in the forest, the FPS frame rate falls down a bit to 18 FPS during Miller briefing but overall it's playable and enjoyable.
2° Playing Multi-Player : I have done many tests on various servers having a low ping and playing well built missions.
On a heavy populated server with a ping of 45 in “Low” with 900 m global visibility I have been getting 8/15FPS = it's ugly AND unplayable. Quite a shame, really.
On a un-populated server with a ping of 35 in “Standard” with 2000 m global visibility I have been getting 10/15FPS = again, quite unplayable with an image quality which appeared less good than in SP.
So we are getting at a quick conclusion : At the moment, it's not possible to play in MultiPlayer with such a config. But the weirdest thing is that I have been getting lower visual quality ingame and at the same time a very low GPU load (around 30% for the test on the 1st server and around 50% for the test on the 2nd one.)
Before I conclude this 1st tests row, I will say I can see the limits in them : the subjective side and some bias. - Limits : I'm not a specialist, just a dedicated Arma veteran player. - Subjective side : I have done a “choice” by throwing aside playable but ugly settings in order to play a visually better game at the price of some FPS drop in Single Player. - Bias : the main one being I had to connect 2 screens on the GPU in order to get hardware result while playing getting a large 2704x1050 total screen. But in fact I am getting a 100% CPU load on GUI only, as soon as I am in-game, the GPU load is falling! On the other side, I have tested the game with only the 1680x1050 gaming screen connected and it shows no difference FPS wise.
So to conclude, I can tell that Arma3 is quite playable and enjoyable in Single player in Missions and Campaign as well on a configuration nearing the “Minimum” official specs. But at the moment, I'll repeat myself but only to make it clear : this configuration does not allow playing in Multi-Player. From my point of view, the “Recommended” official specs configuration seems to be in fact the minimum configuration to play and enjoy MultiPlayer.
In the future, I will have a look at what can be done from my side to enhance performances, dealing with better RAM, better GPU ... so, to be continued !
Note1 : I am quite fond of ArmA3Mark, you can find it here. Note 2 : were used in these tests HWiNFO64, TechPowerUp GPU-Z, Drives Meter, Fraps. Note 3 : most of my interrogations about the minimum specs concern were raised while answering questions on JV.com French forums here. (Careful : French Language - Click at your own risks) Note 4 : I have used GamerCentral.de server as a test base too often, thanks guys !
Here at games.on.net, we're big fans of ArmA - so when we found Senior Developers Ivan Buchta and Jay Crowe wandering lost in our corridors, we immediately called them in for a chat. Read on for their thoughts on map size, mods, and what they think of DayZ, as well as revised minimum specs for ArmA III. ... GON: Many people felt that ArmA II was somewhat unoptimised and ran slowly on machines that should have been able to handle it. Do you feel that ArmA III will address these issues?
Ivan: Hopefully yes. Of course, we have added new rendering techniques into the engine, which makes it more demanding, but with the computing power an average gaming PC has these days, ArmA III should both look and run well.
Jay: In terms of the video options, too, we give a lot of power to the players, and - in that sense - invest some trust in them, also.
If they want to play with everything on very high – completely max it out – well, that's up to them. It’s a PC game. Naturally, it is up to us to optimise as much as we can; it’s not an excuse to do a half-assed job. Ultimately, though, it’s about giving players the choices. Our video settings provide the option to throttle things back to find a balance for how you want to play on your hardware.
GON: On that note, can you tell us a bit more about what sort of system spec you're aiming for with ArmA III, and whether or not our readers should begin pricing some system upgrades?
Jay: Sure, at E3 we're releasing a newly revised set of minimum hardware specifications, but I’d be happy to share them with you now.
Minimum Specifications: - OS: Windows Vista SP2, Windows 7 SP1 - CPU: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz - GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or ATI Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 3000 with Shader Model 4 and 512 MB VRAM - RAM: 2 GB - HDD: 15 GB free space - DirectX®: 10 ... Read the full interview on games.on.net