forteh

I use the x axis to lean left/right and use logitech setpoint to bind my mouse's (logitech g5) tilt wheel to ctrl+a and ctrl+d when arma3.exe is running, that way I can set the side stance on the mousewheel and still lean using opentrack. A side effect of this is if you do a fast double left/right tilt on the wheel it only registers the ctrl input so acts as a weapon down/up control; not incredibly usefull but allows you to do so if your left hand is busy elsewhere :) edit: one possible problem with using headtracking to control the sidestep stance is that it's a toggled control and not self centering, I guess BI would need to add the option to have it as a held control in the options.

At 1080p I think the single 780 is plenty powerful enough which is why you're only getting minor increases. Try increasing the sampling to 150% and see if there is still only a small difference between the two. I believe that sli in arma only starts to become useful when running multiple monitors, higher resolution or higher sampling :)

Grab the 2.3rc8 file that I linked to, that's what I'm using and it works spot on. I've not used 2.2 so not sure what the problem is. There isn't an install routine yet, I just dump it on the desktop and shortcut to opentrack.exe.

That's odd, works perfectly for me; start it up, the camera led lights up and I get three points + the reference and all tracks without issue. Try uninstalling freetrack, it might be that windows is getting crossed wires somewhere and trying to use the old freetrack protocols instead of the opentrack ones.

I'll upload my profile so you can try it out, I also use pointracker and freetrack protocols. Have you set up the model dimensions and run through the auto calibration routine? Once you've done that you should be getting some raw input data on the main screen, along with three green crosses and one red cross. The red cross signifies centre of rotation and for me appears in the wrong place (at the top of my head instead of base of skull) but it works perfectly with the auto calibration results. Set the output to trackir only and hide the freetrack option. The mapping graph horizontal axes is the physical input movement of your head and the vertical axes is the output movement in game. So setting the horizontal value to 30 and vertical value to 90 will result in a 90° in game motion with 30° head movement. edit: here's a link to my opentrack profile, you will need to setup and calibrate your own model dimenions as I use a non-standard model; it's a 3 lamp ir led clip that I made, driven directly off a usb port. I also use a ps3 eye camera, 640x480 @ 75hz with a piece of floppy disk cut and positioned between the lens and the camera sensor to act as a visible light filter.

I'm not on my computer right now but I'll post up a guide on setting up 2.3 rc8 later on :)

Second thread today about this problem :) Don't know what causes it, I had it late last year and switched to opentrack, it's much better.

From what I understand, dx12 is going to be backwards compatible with nvidia gpus as far back as the gtx460, not sure on amd gpus though.

It stopped working for me a few months back, no real rhyme or reason as to why, I started using opentrack and it is honestly a much better headtracker. Grab 2.3 RC8 from here, it is actively being developed (unlike freetrack) and works exeptionally well in arma once you have figured your curves :)

If you're looking to upgrade the motherboard as well and go for a later generation cpu then you need to be looking for a k suffix processor (4xxxk), the k denotes an unlocked clock ratio that will allow you to overclock.

No, not at all as you would need a new motherboard to run it. You have a socket 1156 motherboard which will only accept the first generation i5 processors, these are now 5+ years old and long out of production, you can pick them up on ebay for cheap though; search for i5 750 or i5 760. If your motherboard is not particularly good at overclocking you will have limited success, also you will need to make sure you have sufficient cooling capacity - the stock cooler is not going to cut it overclocking. The later generation intel core chips are faster but use a different motherboard socket (2nd generation are 2xxx code, 3rd generation are 3xxx code, 4th generation are 4xxx code), however for playing arma you want the fastest processor clock speed you can achieve, this invariably means overclocking whatever processor you get (unless you are willing to fork out 7-800 for the very latest intel chip with a motherboard and ram to use with it).

It's a good start assuming you have the capability to overclock the processor, it's probably the best bang for buck upgrade without having to change motherboard and socket. Do you know what motherboard you have? Do make sure you get an i5 quad core (750 or 760) or get an i7 (860, 870, 875k or 880). I get comparable fps to people with significantly newer, faster machines; essentially up to a point arma is so cpu bound that you're not going to get much more until BI can manage to improve the efficiency of the engine (rumour has it that dx12 will potentially make it much faster if it can be incorporated into the game). Single player I get 40-80 fps on very high/ultra settings, multiplayer I get 20-80 with the typical being about 25 in a firefight.

I had an i3 530 but running at 4.6ghz, I swapped the cpu for an i5 750, overclocked it to 4.2ghz and doubled framerates. Cost me 40 quid for the cpu. Also worth investing in more ram, get 2x4gb sticks in there as by the time you clock a lynnfield chip up to the speeds arma likes (4ghz+) the memory controller doesn't really like driving all 4 ram slots.

Likewise, 4.2 is about the stable limit for this chip without going silly with voltage; I've 'upgraded' to a 5 year old cpu and can't really afford more so want to keep this chip alive as long as possible. Even so, it demonstrates that a 1st gen i5 quad core is almost comparable in speed to a 3rd gen i7 running 500mhz faster! Essentially arma3 doesn't need latest, greatest hardware; it runs just as quickly on 5 year old equipment :D

I get 14fps maxed out 1080p with 100% sampling and 12fps with 150% sampling. Obviously the cpu is the bottleneck and the gpu doesn't really struggle to render a 150% at those framerates.

Just set up a firefight in the editor. 8x 8 man blufor rifle squad 8x 8 man opfor rifle squad 6x 8 man ind rifle squad me as a civilian spectator in a littlebird All in the centre of pyrgos with seek and destroy waypoints meeting at a crossroads. Fps started at 50, almost instantly dropped to 20 and dipped to 17 in places, as ai started to die it went back up to 30, that's with 176 infantry ai with a radius of 2-300m and video settings on very high default as a benchmark :) Without the 48 indepdant riflemen the fps didn't drop below 20 fps. Stupidly enough I never noted what cpu usage was :(

Empty altis is 60+ fps although it drops in cities as expected. @Jake, overclocking it to 4+ghz should make a massive difference, it will let your gpu push more frames at higher view distances. I would echo about the gpu doesn't need to be upgraded for arma, it won't help bar being able to increase resolution/sampling. If the 660ti copes with all your other games then leave it as is :)

To be honest I've not compared fps on sp, as long as it's above 30 I'm really not that bothered. The altis benchmark is minimal to no increase in average performance, but I have far from a powerful system compared to most on here. KOTH on a UK 50 man server gives 40-80fps until in a city when it drops to 25-30, I think there might have been a 5fps or so increase since the update but that might be placebo. For me that is really quite playable, even occasional dips down to 20fps don't bother me. edit: I'll have a play in the editor later and see what happens to fps with 100 or so ai fighting.

Glad you didn't invest in the hardware for arma :D Unfortunately I had to upgrade to get arma running well (going from an i3 530@ 4.62 + gtx260 216 to an i5 750 @ 4.2 + gtx660 made a world of difference and doubled fps) but it was less than £100 to do the upgrade and it also helps massively with running solidworks at home :) Maxed out kills my machine, I tried it ages ago and I think I get something like 18fps on altis! However you make a perfect example for Jake34 above who is talking about upgrading his rig for arma, assuming he has overclocked his cpu to decent limits (4ghz+) then he generally won't see much increase in performance in arma for either of the major upgrades he was considering. He could try some super fast ddr3 and make sure it is running at full speed, that has shown to increse performance quite dramatically when coupled with a fast cpu. I like the arma3 engine, it's a great leveller for those with new super fast computers and drags them down to the performance level of my entry level rig from 5+ years ago :D

I believe fred's malloc still works fine, it's just the large page address registry tweak that doesn't :)

Have you checked the other multitude of threads about arma not starting after the patch? If you had activated fred41s large page address registry tweak ( gimme moar frames) then that stops 1.38 from working. Simple undo the mod by setting the dword from 1 to 0 or check through fred's thread for instructions.

Is it just me or has arma started using more of the additional cores? I've always had 90%+ on core 0 and 15-25% on the remaining 3. The last few days I've noticed that cores 1-3 have been utilised 50-60% with core 0 still mostly maxed out. Obviously it's still not using it all 100% but any improvement is good, has anyone else noticed similar behaviour? Using stable branch so whether it changed around 1.36 and I've only just noticed I don't know?

I wouldn't upgrade for the sake of trying to get more performance in arma because I think you will see minimal gains for a lot of expenditure. Until the time the cpu bottleneck is removed from the engine the gpu isn't being pushed. You could add a second gpu in sli and push the resolution up but I doubt you will see and actual increase in real life performance. My gtx660 pushes it along @ 30-80 fps single player on very high/ultra with 2.5k view distance, the same on mp until it gets chaotic in cities when it drops to around 25. That's with an i5 750 @ 4.2ghz. Is your cpu overclocked? If not get that pushed as far as you can before considering a major upgrade for arma :) edit: case in point... I get 32fps on ultra settings @ 1080p on altis with my machine, a first gen i5 running a good deal slower than a 3rd gen i7. In reality get the cpu clock speed up to 4.5+ghz and this is likely to be your result. Just re-run the benchmark with my optimised settings (mixture of ultra+very high with 2500 view distance and 2000 objects) and got 46fps.

In all honesty I would reinstall windows on the ssd and sack vista off, it's got to be a few year old install by now. 128gb ssd is plenty big enough for windows 7 and arma3. I load into the editor in a few seconds, it sounds as though there is an underlying issue with windows that is causing the issue.

Woop! :)