MavericK96

This man is correct. It works after getting the FaceAPI. Seems to track really well in the test program even with mediocre lighting. What's the easiest way to get this working in ArmA2? I've never used Freetrack or anything. EDIT: Tried using this in the latest ArmA 2 beta. Doesn't work. Crashes the game immediately on startup. Seems to work with 1.05, but I need to figure out the dead zones, since trying to remap the controls with it on just makes it go nuts. ---------- Post added at 10:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ---------- I can't figure out how to set deadzones with this software. When I get in-game it just freaks out. Also, it seems to take about 10% CPU utilization. I thought at first it was lagging the game down, but actually there's just a delay in the tracking, and it's really jittery in-game. Plus I can't figure out how to calibrate it to be centered at the start.

What are your specs/settings? Just for reference.

It's got a screencap of the software on the site and it didn't trigger any AV alerts when I installed it. I think it's legit, just apparently not working for any of us. :p

Same issue.

Hmm, I'll give this a shot when I get home tonight. I've been wanting to try a TrackIR-like setup but not sure if I would like it, and didn't want to spend the money on TrackIR in case I hated it. :cool:

I, too, have to agree. It wasn't super hard for me to get Six Updater to install ACE, but if for some reason you have to do it manually...god help you. :p Not a rip on ACE at all, I love it, it's a great mod. Just the way the download page(s) are I imagine make it difficult/confusing for new users who may not be as experienced navigating wiki pages.

For me it's mostly been a difference in stutter/minimum framerate, and sometimes texture LOD swapping. In this regard, exThreads=0 has been the best overall.

I've always gotten better performance with exThreads=0, ever since the parameter was applicable, so your results aren't surprising to me.

I thought it was supposed to be June 29th...

I think until (if?) the game can address more than ~2 GB of RAM, texture LOD loading will always be an issue, unfortunately.

They are out there, but not too many from what I've seen. Probably most of the people that have had this game since it came out have played them all a million times and gotten tired of the base missions. :cool:

I know how you feel, I really wanted to push my 920 to 4 GHz, but it just wouldn't do it. It was almost stable with 3.9, but I didn't feel like pushing the voltage any higher so I left it at 3.8. I have a C0 stepping model, which is the first one, and apparently ~3.8 GHz is pretty much the max for these. Also, as far as ArmA2 not liking it, this is a very CPU-intensive game, a lot more so than most other games. The best way to test a CPU overclock for stability is to run something like Prime95 for 30+ minutes to make sure.

Is everything updated? ArmA2 and your video drivers?

Results regarding what? SLI vs. non-SLI? I'm not sure what you're asking for, sorry. From what I hear, hyperthreading doesn't really do anything for 99% of games, including ArmA2. I have it disabled anyway because it allows me to get a massive overclock (which I would argue is more important for ArmA2) without outrageous temperatures. I'm not trying to come off as ungrateful for the advice or argumentative, honestly. I'm just frustrated with the game and I feel like this issue with video memory is an issue with the game, period. Whether or not everyone gets it doesn't really matter, it's an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm not even blaming this on the devs, I'm merely trying to post regularly about the beta progress and my own personal testing in order to make the game better for everyone. :D I know how to set up a computer, so there should not be any issues with incompatibility or settings/drivers, and this is apparent to me because no other games have issues on my rig but ArmA2. Even people who don't have the "Receiving..." issue, but rather the random CTDs, with Out of Memory errors and otherwise, as well as the "minimize to task manager" should benefit from this as well, because I believe these issues to also be related to memory mapping issues. With all that said, maybe I will attempt a dual-boot situation with XP to see how it plays out, but in all honesty I'd much rather just keep 7 for all the other features. Also, regarding ArmA2 being 32-bit...almost every application out there is still built on 32-bit. From what I understand, Windows Vista/7 are not even native 64-bit OSes, but rather have a 64-bit layer on top of the 32-bit base. I don't think ArmA2 being 32-bit on a 64-bit OS has anything to do at all with the issues I've been getting. Performance-wise, XP may be better, but in terms of stability I am not so sure.

I thought this was already a feature? Maybe only in ACE2, not sure...

My guess is it's a slightly alternate universe, where some events are the same and some aren't, and some that are the same are shifted in time. I mean, based on the names of the countries alone and the fact that it is set in the future, it should be obvious that this is the case.

I keep explaining this, but no one seems to be listening, lol. If I can run the game at my current settings at 30+ FPS, the game *should* be perfectly stable. Instability shouldn't be a symptom of graphical settings being too high, low FPS is the symptom for that. Sure, I can lower my settings (particularly Video Memory) to High or V. High, but I will actually lose a ton of performance, so what's the point? If the game begins to stutter to the point of being unplayable then there is no point. I haven't tried with 4 GB RAM, but this issue seems to be VRAM related, so I'm not sure that would help. I suppose I could try it, though. I am using SLI, and as far as I can tell it works fine (e.g. huge performance boost when in SLI versus not) And I know XP gives better performance, but I'm not going to revert back to a 10 year old OS for one game. Vista and 7 have been out plenty long for this game to run alright using them, like most every other game out there does. Plus I've got 6 GB of RAM, so it'd be like slashing my RAM in half using a 32-bit OS.

No, I know it's not universal, but the symptoms definitely indicate a memory leak, possibly only on Very High settings, or with Video Memory set to Default. It's super annoying to me because I can't play a game for more than an hour or so without a crash, and when I'm online trying to play Domination and fly an A-10 or something it gets real annoying when the screen blacks out and I crash the jet into the ground. I end up just getting frustrated with the game and quitting.

I guess I feel like if it's a game-specific error and not something I've ever gotten anything close to in any other game, it's the game's fault. It shouldn't really matter what settings I choose, and since the settings I use give me 30+ FPS in 99% of situations, I feel like they should be fine. Also, a few other people have posted about the same issues, so it isn't just me.

I always end up saying this too soon, but from initial flying tests this build seems a lot more stable than the last one. The amount of stutter is about the same as in 70644, which overall is worse than 70313. Mostly it's noticeable when making multiple flybys very low over a large city like Chernogorsk. Framerate also drops pretty low when doing this, whereas it seemed like it did not as much in 70313. However, good news is that even with several flybys, where 70644 and below almost certainly would have crashed, this beta did not. So I'm hopeful that the video memory issues are getting sorted. :cool: All of my testing so far with this beta has been done using exThreads=0.

Good to know, thanks. :cool:

I have yet to figure out what changing this value actually does. Anyone have any insight into this? Mine is set at negative 400000 something or some such. :p

That's interesting, I'll try it out. I'm pretty sure I tried altering those values in the past and I didn't see a difference, but maybe with these new betas it will matter more. Thanks for the info. :cool: And yeah, I'm getting overall lower FPS with this new beta, specifically lower minimum FPS, which indicates (both visually and framerate-wise) more stutter. ---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 AM ---------- I tried editing the local and non-local VRAM values in the .cfg (to 1024000000 and 2048000000 respectively) and flew around for awhile. The game seemed fairly stable for longer than before, but as I made several passes on Chernogorsk performance seemed to decrease more and more each time (lower framerate + more stutter each pass), and eventually the game just crashed with an "Out of Memory" error. So I guess maybe this helped, but not fixed the problem. The fact that performance degrades over time and then ends with a memory error says to me that there is a memory leak. I set non-local VRAM to 2 GB because my page file is 6 GB so there really should be no problem there. I might try setting it to 1 GB just to see what happens, but I'm not super hopeful. I think this just needs to be sorted out on the dev end.

What exactly did you set differently? The non-local VRAM in the .cfg? What'd you set it to? :cool:

Thinking about this upcoming (maybe) -maxVRAM parameter, I feel like BIS should just change the Video Memory setting to specific values, such as 256 MB, 512 MB, 1 GB, etc. If they could hard-code the game to never use more than the specified value, I feel like it might help the stability a lot, because currently it seems like the game is incorrectly utilizing VRAM and trying to access memory that is not available or not there at all. Hence all the Out of Memory or v-buffer crashes.