doveman

This is great but I find it gets very washed out by sunlight and I have to look up in the sky to read it, like this: IRL I guess I'd use my other hand to shield it or hold it closer to my body but we obviously can't do that in ArmA, so is there anyway you could make it less affected or completely unaffected by the sun?

This would be a great alternative to the tiny compass in vanilla ArmA3 but for some reason it looks like this and is unreadable for me: Is there a fix in the works?

I would like to see ships used for naval combat, launching missiles and planes, etc in ArmA and I don't think it necessarily requires a huge crew, just a few important stations like navigation, weapons, radar but I'm not sure that ArmA3 is ready for this and maybe it's something that needs to be postponed till ArmA4. It would be great to have proper full-scale battles simulated though.

Is this client-side only, so it will only affect the player using it on an MP server? Obviously if he's carrying other players in his chopper, they'll be affected insofar as it moves differently from vanilaa but I presume players in vehicles are just treated as part of the vehicle and the vehicle position is sent to the server by the pilot client and then sent out to all the other clients from there?

It would also be good to benchmark your RAM @1600, @1800 with the CPU at stock clocks and again with the CPU overclocked, as then we might see that overclocking the CPU does increase the RAM benchmark and that might be responsible for any improvements in ArmA rather than the actual CPU speed. http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/downloads/maxxmemsup2---preview.php Having said that, I'm new to Intel but maybe it's like AMD and you'll need to overclock the NB, not the CPU as such, to improve the RAM benchmarks so you could try that (with and without the CPU overclocked) to see what makes the most difference to the RAM speed and then check if that correlates to improvements in ArmA.

Interesting, thanks for the info. I recall when benchmarking my RAM and comparing to other people's results, that Intel users got much higher MB/s (even at the same RAM speeds I think), so I guess that would explain why Intel users get better performance out of ArmA then, rather than because Intel CPUs have better single-threaded performance.

The server is running the old version still maybe?

I don't think ArmA3 runs on one specific core though does it? I was discussing X-Plane with someone, which is single-threaded and so benefits from Intel processors with their better single-threaded performance just like Arma. They explained why I couldn't expect to see a single core fully (or nearly) loaded, as the scheduler pauses threads and then can resume them on a different core and because the monitoring software measures over a fixed period of time, the thread might only run for 300ms out of 1s on a particular core, so that core would be shown as only 30% loaded, even if it was 100% loaded for that 300ms before the thread jumped to a different core. So what I'm trying to say is that ArmA's thread will move around the cores, so if you only overclock one of them you're not doing yourself any favours.

Great, thanks :cheers:

Hi nkey I see in RC2 of the Arma2 version you've "- fixed «stuck» SW transmitting if you release the tangent while holding any of the modifier keys (shift, ctrl, alt) without those modifiers enabled" which is great, as we've had a lot of issues with that. Will you be releasing an ArmA3 update soon with this fix, as it will be great to not have the problem in that either?

I'm not suggesting vehicles should be fully simulated at all. Just that the interiors should look realistic to enhance immersion and that ships/planes, etc should have realistic looking and usable stations. I don't expect DCS level helos and so on, which would be impractical.

With the Pentium G3258 at just over £50, it's about a third of the cost of the 4670k and apparently overclocks easily to 4.5Ghz. The 4670k seems to reach 4.2Ghz quite easily with a decent air cooler, maybe 4.4Ghz but it seems you have to be lucky or using water-cooling to get much higher than that. It's only a dual-core but as ArmA doesn't use multi-core fully, I wonder if it will be just as good?

Less infantry sim, more full war sim. So ships/subs/planes with multiple fully detailed and operational stations (comms, radar, missiles, deck guns, navigator/skipper). Real looking vehicle interiors and aforementioned stations. Surely photos of the real things can be used to achieve this?

OK, if you use RAID 0 you'll have 2x120GB with the data striped across both drives, although you might find there are issues with maintenance (i.e. if one drive fails or gets wiped, the data on the other drive will be useless as well) that make it not worth the trouble as opposed to just using them as separate drives. In RAID 1, it mirrors the data onto both drives, so you'll still only have 120GB.

Depends what else you use the PC for but for ArmA, I don't think there's any benefit with the i7 over the i5 so you could sell the 4770k and get a 4960k or even 4760k if it's much cheaper, as the 4960k isn't going to be amazingly better. If you need more space, buying another 520 series and putting it in raid isn't going to help you at all.

No, I wasn't using the MPU 6050 code with the GY-85. Two separate boards and separate code.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Use another what? What are these modifications intended to achieve? I certainly don't want to use the spring_reset, as that forces the view back to centre when trying to look around, which I found very annoying. ---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:03 ---------- Got my Pro Micro and GY-85 working nicely for Pitch and Yaw now, thanks to Sebastian. There's seems to be quite a bit of Roll when Yawing however, so I left the Roll axis disabled to prevent that but no significant interaction between Pitch and Yaw :)

Thanks SnowSky but this isn't working too well for me I'm afraid. It seems to do strange things, like swap the Pitch and Roll axis whilst I'm playing and even after stopping and restarting (after closing the game and looking at FTNoIR) they were swapped, until I Centered and then they swapped back! I'm also having very bad, what I guess is drift, as whenever I look around, it ends up with the view very off centre when I look straight ahead, so I'm constantly having to Centre. Hopefully it'll be usable one day but for me right now it's just not.

Has anyone tried using this with Bluetooth yet? I imagine the firmware on the Arduino will need to be adapted to drive the transmitter and I'm not sure if the FTNoIR plugin will work with the receiver, as it needs the input to be on COMx, so maybe that will need adapting as well?

So is the situation currently that the GY-80 and -85 are working fine, with no drift or spring reset dragging the view back to center but that the MPU-6050 has to use spring reset to fix the drift problem?

Ah thanks, maybe that's why it didn't work, although the sketch he posted already has that edit, so I'm not sure the (wrong) edit I did as well would be causing it to pull back to centre. I'll try it without my edit anyway.

Why do you want your trees to sway? It looks ridiculous and is something I wish bus would fix.

Thanks for the tip, I'll get that then. Any suggestions for receivers? ---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ---------- Doesn't help here I'm afraid. Yaw still returns itself to where it was before I turn the device. That sketch you posted hasn't got the edit by the way and still has hat.gyro[2]=angle_z; but I edited it myself, so I did test it.

Is this all I need to run the device wirelessly over Bluetooth, or will the code need to be modified as well? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Slave-HC-06-Wireless-Bluetooth-Transceiver-RF-Master-Module-Serial-For-Arduino-/290932857308?pt=UK_BOI_Electrical_Components_Supplies_ET&hash=item43bcf319dc Obviously I'll need a BT receiver for the PC, so can anyone recommend a decent cheap one? Ultimately, I don't know if I'll end up using the device wirelessly or not, so I don't want to spend loads on it.

Pretty sure it did. See this ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9221 I think it's always worked for the Missions folder, just not MPMissions.