forteh

I use a 3 point ir clip and it's perfect, I think I've read somewhere that glasses can throw off facetrack though. PS3 camera, 640x480 75hz, using opentrack 2.3 rc8, point tracker and accela filter. I found a couple of calibration bugs with opentrack but they are being ironed out and you can always use manual calibration.

I've just run a couple of the benchmarks through, total system ram usage was 4.1-4.4gb. This is with steam, playwith6, opentrack and afterburner running; the base ram usage of the system in this stat is about 1.5-1.6gb so arma3 was using about 2.5-2.8gb, I often see that ram usage go up to 5gb after an hour or so playing but not much more.

You shouldn't be using any page file at all with that much ram, I have 8gb and rarely go above 5gb system ram used whilst playing arma. Try running arma windowed and keep an eye on the task manager to see what is hogging the memory.

Looks to be a smoothing issue, what resolution and framerate are you running the camera at? What tracking method are you using? Have you looked at opentrack? It's being developed more recently than facetrack and 2.3RC8 works perfectly in arma3 for me :) edit: have you got any other controllers bound to the view commands that facetrack is using? Trackir or freetrack input into arma?

Because it's a consistent crash even after rebuilding the machine I would put it down to hardware failure. Run the ram through memtest for a few cycles and see if that highlights any issues. Is the processor stable whilst stress testing? Prime95 blend torture test for 8+ hours should guarantee it stable, keep a check on the cpu temps though as the haswell processors run hot; might not be much of an issue as you're not overclocking. Have you tested a different gpu or older drivers? Make sure you clean out the old nvidia stuff before hand. I would ignore the geforce experience settings, made the game look and run much worse for me. edit: I would pull your view distance down as well, try 2-3000; it's cpu limited and will be dragging your gpu down because your clock speed is pretty low.

Presuming you re-use your existing case & optical drive I would go for the following: - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=BU-001-OG&groupid=2833&catid=2512&subcat=2513 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-026-KS http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-236-AN&groupid=701&catid=123&subcat=2463 Pick up a gpu second hand from ebay, I got my gtx660 for £60 and that runs singleplayer 40-70 fps typically on high/very high @ 1080p with 2500 view distance. The 3.3ghz cpu you have chosen will bottleneck most gpus in arma3, once the mp action kicks off my fps typically drops down to 25-30 at worst, this is completely irrespective of reducing video settings. The motherboard you have chosen also has zero options for overclocking; arma3 really loves fast processors so overclocking to 4ghz+ is the way forwards. I would make a comment on the psu, it's better to go for lower wattage, higher quality than high wattage low quality. Cheaper ones will crap out faster when you start loading them up. I have an 8 year old ocz modstream 550w (reasonable quality but far from top of the range) that is still pushing my i5 750 along at 4.2ghz without any issues; I have absolutely no doubt that a cheap no name 550w psu would have failed long ago. You can install windows7 + arma3 on a 120gb ssd without any issues, simply add in a hard disk for storage when you can afford it. That setup allowing £100 for a reasonable gpu will cost less than £600 and will play arma3 as well as most systems @ 1080p. edit: all of the above is assuming that you're looking to build a desktop machine to play arma3 and not a laptop :)

I have an i5 750 @ 4.2, gtx660, 8gb @1680mhz, arma and windows on sad; I play 1080p with high-very high settings 2.5k view distance. Single player I get 30-80fps with around 50ish being the average. On a 70 player king of the hill server last night I was getting 40-80fps away from the action and 22-30fps in the thick of it. Your current pc spec is much, much faster than the laptop, I reckon you would get as low as half the frame rate. The 4210h is a dual core so really going to be flagging, you would need to go to a quad core really to get close to the performance of the pc. Before I upgraded to the i5 processor I had a i3 530 ( hyperthreading dual core like the 4210) running at 4.62ghz and it had less than half the performance of the i5.

I believe arma generally performs a little better with nvidia, I can't comment on the Radeon but my gtx660 will run high / very high settings @ 1080p no issues :) I bought it a couple of months ago for 60 quid so not an expensive upgrade.

High clock speed dual core is a lot slower than a lower clock quad core. My i3 520 @ 4.62ghz got 36fps on the benchmark, my current i5 750 @ 4.2ghz got 51fps with higher settings :)

The only thing you can do to increase performance in arma is upgrade the gpu, currently it will be bottlenecking the cpu. A gtx 660 is plenty fast enough to play at 1080p on high / very high but going newer/faster will give more scope on other games. Increasing cpu speed always helps, however you can't overclock yours (as it's a non K model) and I would guess that your motherboard won't support overclocking even if you did get a K chip.

Not sure if the poll entirely makes sense, but typically core0 is 80-90% with core1-3 is 25-30%. This is both on the altis benchmark and on sp campaign missions.

You want the fastest intel cpu you can afford, needs to be a quadcore really so any i5 quad should see you right. That said, just buying the cpu with the fastest stock clock speed isn't necessarily the best bet as you will be spending more money for exponetially less gains - far better to buy a k series intel chip and learn how to overclock it. That then involves making sure you buy parts that are well suited to each other; a lot of research will get you a long way forwards. I have a 1st gen i5 750 at 4.2ghz, 8gb ram and a gtx660, on the altis benchmark I get 51fps average on @1080p with all settings on high/very high and a 2500 view distance 2000 object distance. Once you start factoring in a lot of AI the fps drops down to 25-30fps; essentially the cpu bottlenecks the gpu with that level of AI calculation. Arma3 thrives on very high cpu clock speeds so the faster it is the higher your minimum fps will be on average. I would imagine that pcpartpicker will just bundle it all into a cardboard box and ship it to you. Places like www.overclockers.co.uk do pre-built, pre-overclocked gaming systems and something along the lines of this will run arma3 as well as 95% of systems if you factor in the addition of an ssd to run windows and arma from; you're well outside your budget now though. There is nothing stopping you picking up a second hand i5 2500k / i7 2600k with a suitable motherboard and ram, overclocking it to similar speeds and you will have the same result in arma3 for £300-400. It all depends on how confident you are with you hardware.

I'm surprised at that, it's a very active forum and attached to one of, if not the best hardware shops (overclockers.co.uk) in the UK. Might be worth seeing if you can ping an email to them :)

Post a question in here: - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18618052 They should be able to get it running properly :) If you don't have any luck, the 1366 x58 boards are worth a fortune on ebay right now, I've seen broken ones sold for £60-70 so you should be able to resell without much issue.

I was having issues with facetrack not picking up in game so downloaded opentrack to test it out. The ui is more polished than facetrack although it took a while to figure out all the camera settings so it would track properly. Set up the curves no issues and it worked really well in-game, the only issue I have with it is that it puts loads of Z translation input on when yawing - you turn your head and it zooms, I couldn't get it to isolate the axis like freetrack and facetrack do :( The issue with facetrack seems to be is that arma doesn't recognise inputs from it unless you start it up once you're in-game. Not a major issue though :)

I set the output from facetrack to be trackir, hiding the freetrack option and it picks up as trackir perfectly :) I used the freetrack 3point tracking system as it works perfectly with the IR led clip I made. edit: sneaky ninja post! I don't know of a way to import them, although I found the facetrack curves to be easier to understand/set up for limits and ratio of movements, I use linear for most of my axis, the only exception being z and x translation (zoom view and lean in arma3). I do wish there was a way to increase the smoothing when the z translation rises, worked perfectly with freetrack as well!

Curiously I had this last night, I just got an ssd so did a fresh install of windows + arma, set up freetrack and copied my profile over (which was working perfectly) and got exactly the same issue you have - no freetrack showing up in controllers and no response from the trackir option. I haven't installed any saitek hardware, I have a thrustmaster warthog and a logitech driving force wheel that I ripped the guts out of and used to convert my thrustmaster rcs pedals to usb, both of which are using windows default drivers. I gave up in the end and installed FacetrackNoIR which uses a lot of the freetrack setup/system but I believe is kept up to date. Once you figure out your settings it actually works better than freetrack, I find it a little smoother and responsive; it can also output correctly as a trackir controller so that is what is enabled and bound in arma. Sucks that I have spent months and months perfecting the freetrack profile to have to change but it really is better and once you know what you're doing only takes a few minutes to set up a new profile :)

But is the ram running at that speed? Check the bios and adjust the ram multiplier to get it as fast as possible, however I believe the maximum multiplier you should have is 12x which would give a ram speed of just under 1600mhz given you're using the default bclk of 133mhz. In order to make proper use of the ram you need to be overclocking the bclk. Sort out a good cooler if you don't have one already and get the processor up to 4ghz, you should see good increase in speed. You would only be able to stream some of the files from a ram disk, it smoothes out the game and makes loading very quick but won't necessarily increase fps unless your hdd is bottlenecking. Overclock you cpu to maximum before spending lots of cash on a motherboard/cpu, you might find it provides the performance you need :)

Just overclock the cpu, I have a lower spec machine of similar age and get 50 fps on the benchmark (i5 750@4.2, 8gb @ 1680, gtx660 7200 hdd - SSD on the way!). Push the cpu to 4ghz ish and you will get a healthy boost, try to run your ram as fast as possible as well. As you have plenty of ram you could set up a ram disk to stream the largest .pbo files to mitigate the lack of SSD, it makes it a lot smoother. edit: if you want more info on setting up the ram disk let us know and I'll dig out the info :)

What fps do you get on the altis benchmark? What view distance/object distance do you use? If you're not overclocking the processor and your motherboard will support it then you need to! Arma3 loves high cpu clock speeds and memory frequencies, push it up to 4+ghz and you should see a good healthy boost to minimum fps. If you have a slow hard disk then it could be related to streaming issues - the engine needs to load files off the disk and will bottleneck the whole lot whilst it's doing so. My system isn't a million miles off yours and I get mid 50s fps on the benchmark with 1080p, very high settings and 3k view distance. i5 750@4.16ghz 8gb 1600mhz overclocked to 1752mhz GTX660 standard The gpu is typically loaded to 50-60% at these settings, the view distance is cpu limited so reducing that will increase your base fps and allow a higher maximum.

The arma launcher states the maximum supported is around 3.2gig (the limit for 32bit I believe) and I regularly see ram usage above 5-6gig when playing arma. The only extra software running is afterburner, play with six and freetrack which doesn't equate to gigabytes of ram. To the original question, 8gb is more than enough presently for arma. Although if they do manage to switch it over to 64bit then I can see the ram requirement expanding massively.

That's why I've pushed my bclk up from 133 to 221 and turned the cpu multiplier down in order to clock the tits out of the ram! I could have left it at 20x200bclk for 4ghz but then the ram is only running at 1600mhz (200x8), at 19x221bclk I get 4.2ghz and a healthy ram overclock at 1768mhz (221*8) as well as the additional 200mhz core speed increase. Even going from 1600-1768 gave a good fps increase :)

I believe the biggest jump is going from 1600-2100, the increase then from 2100-2400 seems to be significantly less. I guess the bottleneck is mostly overcome by 2100, feel free to go buy some 3000mhz ram and send me the 2400 sticks :D

Out of interest regarding ram speeds vs fps. I have been tweaking the overclock on this i5 750 (£40 upgrade from my i3 530 :D) and got a decent overclock on the ram, it is now running at 1768 from 1600 (bog standard 2x4gb crucial ddr3 1600) an I saw an increase in fps from 43 to 51 on the benchmark. Loading into the editor in the centre of pyrgos I get a solid 60-70fps (the old i3 would get 35!) with vanilla arma3. 1920x1080 very high texture/objects/terrain ultra shadows high particles/clouds standard pip/hdr high dynamic lights 3000 view and object distance 100 shadows all blurs and ao turned off caustics enabled 8x fsaa atoc all trees ultra fxaa ultra anisotropic

You will need to set it below that, I believe the maxmem command sets the maximum amount of ram that can be allocated to arma3 rather than the current installed system ram. You have 4gb total, windows will use nominally 1.5gb which leaves you with a pool of 2.5gb left before you start to need the pagefile (although I think windows will normally start paging before you completely run out of ram). Try setting arma to 1.5gb and see if the hard disk is thrashing and dropping fps, if it doesn't then up the maxmem a little at a time (say 0.25gb at a time) until you start running out of ram and then back the maxmem down a touch to allow you some headroom.