1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB? [Archive]

Blackdog_kt

02-16-2010, 02:30 PM

That's understandable and fine really. The difference is that as long as freetrack uses the naturalpoint API, there's not much ground to stand on in order to claim that NP is doing something wrong. Sure, most of us can make the IR LED clip and find a webcam lying around, but not all of us can code an API.

Personally, i have a TrackIR4 that i got almost a couple of years ago, but i don't think competition is a bad thing, to the contrary in fact. The reason i got it was precisely what you mention here. I was between a X52 Pro and TIR4 at that point, but i decided to get TIR4 because of the official support.

The distinction for me in the whole deal is that i wouldn't feel comfortable saying "i won't give you money because i can build it on my own" and then double-back and go "don't change your API that i don't fund in any capacity whatsoever, because my free stuff stops working with it". That's why freetrack NEEDS an API of its own, preferrably something open-source. ;)

Then, if NP is making backroom deals with game developers to stop supporting the freetrack API, you don't only have enough to argue a case of unethical monopoly, you might even have enough to take them to court :cool:

Until there's an open-source API for user-made head trackers however, there's not much anyone can do about NP changing their software as often as they please.

Letum

02-16-2010, 04:05 PM

That's understandable and fine really. The difference is that as long as freetrack uses the naturalpoint API, there's not much ground to stand on in order to claim that NP is doing something wrong.

Freetrack also uses it's own api totally independent from NP (freetrack.dll I believe).
The Freetrack API is free to use by anyone. Bohemia Studios are the latest to adopt the freetrack API.

Blackdog_kt

02-17-2010, 09:28 AM

Ah, so it exists. That's very nice. Competition makes better products and lowers prices ;)

MikkOwl

02-17-2010, 09:56 AM

I would not at all be worried about freetrack and Storm of War. Such a major title needs no special treatment from (comparatively puny) NaturalPoint, rather the opposite.

NaturalPoint tried to make sure (and succeeded) that Freetrack software was made incompatible with the TrackIR hardware. For the consumer (me) that is 100% bad. What can I lose from having more options? Freetrack software has some good stuff (been trying it when helping a friend set up a 'free' tracker to match my TiR5 in IL-2, as we could not go head to head for as long as I had that enormous situational awareness advantage). NaturalPoint need to implement features that are in FreeTrack or let users use Freetrack software. But they have done neither.

Their motive for this (and other things mentioned) I can only speculate on. I think it is that they are trying to prevent people even knowing that any kind of option exists other than buying a TrackIR. Follow this reasoning:

1. Miss Simpilot buys a TrackIR 5 and loves it.

2. Her simmer friends think it's awesome and now want to be able to do the same thing. That 274 dollar cost for a TiR 5 with a CrapClip Pro (I have one and while it delivers great functionality, the durability is atrociously poor, it is disintegrating piece by piece) is expensive.

3. Miss Simpilot had tested an alternative piece of software to control her TrackIR 5 with called Freetrack, and from that she knew that it was actually possible to get head tracking without paying 274 dollars. In fact, a moderately handy person can use parts from around the house costing only a fraction. Yes, performance isn't as instant, smooth and precise as the TiR 5 but at a fraction of the cost it is an agreeable trade-off for many of the expense concerned friends.

_____

I think NaturalPoint want to erase the 3. I wrote above and replace it with this:

3. Miss Simpilot and her friends all think the TiR 5 is awesome but at 274 dollars it is very expensive, and if there was any way around spending this much money for for headset mounted dots and tracking unit hardware they would give it serious thought. However, it seems no other companies offer similar products in any of the online stores they checked. As a result, one third of the friends end up buying the TiR 5 + SnapClip Pro and the others decide that they can't justify that kind of money on gaming periphals.

___

Fortunately a lot of people do know about freetrack alternatives, but not everyone. Certainly not years ago either. Think about the people with less time to spend on googling forums about headtracking options and their friends/coworkers who might know even less.

The whole thing reminds me of how music record companies and gaming companies are trying to force people to give them money to supply a worse product than the freely distributed versions.

julian265

02-17-2010, 10:10 AM

And, does this mean that you can't get freetrack to work in IL-2? I have made some utilities (Multi-Throttle in particular) that use devicelink to connect to IL-2, and I noticed that one of the things one can set through this interface is the headtracking (pitch and yaw, maybe roll as well if using the 6DoF 'versions').

That's good to hear, and what I'd like to see in future games.

BTW freetrack works fine for me in IL2.

julian265

02-17-2010, 10:23 AM

It seems like NaturalPoint have a few exclusivity agreements with publishers.

It does.
from someone from the Eagle Dynamics team (DCS: BS): http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=589080&postcount=40
"Every joystick has standard software interface, that's why every joystick works in every game. For now there is no standard for head tracking devices software interface. We were going to add vendor-independent SDK in English release to allow every head tracking vendor (including FreeTrack) implement support of their devices for BlackShark. SDK has been removed from English release because of NaturalPoint request. Now we make agreement with NaturalPoint and we will release 3DOF version of our head tracking SDK soon."

Limit non NP tracking to 3DOF???? This is anti-competitive practise, without doubt.

S!

Business is tough Untamo, and NaturalPoint uses it's leading position to the full to keep it. But again..resourcefull players have always found a way around obstacles ;) Business is one thing, this is another. Apart from the above example, I have heard/seen other examples of NP pressuring developers/forums to do things like 'moderate' discussions and exclude other trackers, however I don't have any links. They do have the ability to pressure developers, as a flight sim can only be compatible with TIR if NP says so, and a flight sim that can't work with TIR wouldn't be very popular with TIR owners.

That's understandable and fine really. The difference is that as long as freetrack uses the naturalpoint API, there's not much ground to stand on in order to claim that NP is doing something wrong. Sure, most of us can make the IR LED clip and find a webcam lying around, but not all of us can code an API.
Absolutely. They can do what they want with their own software. I only have a problem with the suspiciously slow adoption of generic head-tracking inputs by games.

julian265

02-17-2010, 10:28 AM

Can we have an official response from 1C? Even an indication of their current thoughts on the matter?

Will I have to be "resourceful" again when BoB comes out? Or will logic prevail, and will 6DoF head movement be controlable by existing generic axis controls, involving no special coding and no mandatory encryption?

Do any 1C members read these posts?

GF_Mastiff

02-17-2010, 11:35 AM

I raised this question about six months ago, but got no official reply, so here it is again!

What is 1C's stance on head tracking devices? Will BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position, or will BoB ONLY talk to natural point products?

Has this issue been decided yet?

Is it out of Oleg's hands?

I, and a lot of other people who can either not afford, or do not want natural point products will be very disappointed if BoB ignores generic head-tracking inputs, due to what I regard as unethical business practises.

Heres the official stance! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz1Kb2wkPE

Wolf_Rider

02-17-2010, 12:02 PM

I can't say I blame NaturalPoint really... the Freetrack looks to be a direct rip off.
NaturalPoint put a lot of hard work into a device which greatly benefits those in the world, who, haven't got the ability to use their arms/ hands (if they have them at all) like those amongst can and have...

julian265

02-17-2010, 12:15 PM

Mastiff - sure, BoB can use TIR, but will 1C do the right thing and allow other trackers to communicate head pose?

I can't say I blame NaturalPoint really... the Freetrack looks to be a direct rip off.
NaturalPoint put a lot of hard work into a device which greatly benefits those of us who haven't got the ability to use their arms/ hands (if they have them at all) like those amongst can and have...

It might look like a rip-off to you, because it does the same thing, but that is like saying that car brand A is a rip-off of car brand B because it has wheels and moves things, the same as A.

The maths behind head tracking has been around for some time, and freetrack's algorithms were developed independently.

The legality issues arose because freetrack communicates to games using NP's protocol, which was done because many games don't accept the usual inputs for head movement, like they do for joysticks and mouses. This is a MINOR part of the software, and doesn't really require anyone particularly smart to do it. In fact, we'd all be better off if they had have just used the same input methods that joysticks use, which would have required no special API at all.

This situation is just like logitech, for example, trying to get games to restrict the inputs of non-logitech joysticks, which is clearly not in the interest of the consumer. There is no arguing this fact, read the linked post from the ED forum - in which ED staff mentioned deals being made with NP, to restrict non NP trackers to 3DoF.

Untamo

02-17-2010, 12:49 PM

Wolf_Rider

02-17-2010, 08:48 PM

I wouldn't call it a rip-off, since NP's product is mainly the led lamp camera thingie + cap reflectors. Freetrack offers just the software. One has to build everything else. The NP's product is the saved worktime in a fancy box :)

The TrackIR interface consists of three different interfaces.

The original interface, which FreeTrack is compatible with, is used by most games released before October 2008.

A new version of the interface is used by some, but not all[6], games released after October 2008 with an encrypted data stream that is not backward compatible.[7] FreeTrack is not compatible with this interface, so some games using it must be patched in order for FreeTrack to work with them. [8] Some of the patches change the executable which prevents them from being used in online multi-player mode with games that include anti-cheating protection.[9]

The third interface is a DLL software module called TIRViews developed by NaturalPoint which provides special support for a small number of games. The TIRViews module is distributed as part of the TrackIR software installer[10]. FreeTrack is able to load the TIRViews module and gain view control in the titles it provides access to.[11] However, doing so violates the license under which NaturalPoint distributes the TIRViews module. The license states "The TrackIR software product is composed of...and dll components", ""NaturalPoint...grants...license...to use the TrackIR software ONLY with NaturalPoint TrackIR Hardware"" and "Use of the TrackIR software with...anything which emulates a TrackIR is prohibited"[12]

The list of FreeTrack compatible titles indicates which games use which interface.

The TrackIR interface is proprietary and is closed source.

NaturalPoint Inc., the makers of TrackIR, believe that the use of FreeTrack to gain view control in TrackIR Enhanced software is a violation of their copyright.

FreeTrack is free, open source software. However, a file named "TIRServer.dcu" is only provided in the source repository in a compiled binary format, with no source available.[13]

Most TrackIR Enhanced software need to be provided with text strings which bear notice of "EyeControl Technologies" copyright (former name of NaturalPoint, Inc.) in order to activate the TrackIR Enhanced interface. Software which requires these text strings for interface activation also contain the strings themselves. At NaturalPoint's request, FreeTrack project members removed the strings from the software they provide to end users. FreeTrack then implemented a workaround which creates a local copy of these strings from the client software when used with TrackIR Enhanced titles. FreeTrack project members argue that copyright is not violated in this case since it may fall under the provision of 17 U.S.C. § 117. The text strings are a necessary and functional part of the interface which FreeTrack project members believe makes them exempt from copyright for the purposes of interoperability.[14]

NaturalPoint started using an encrypted data stream in version 4.1.036 of their TrackIR software, this made it more difficult for third party software like FreeTrack to interface with TrackIR Enhanced software titles.[7] The first game to require the new data stream is DCS: Black Shark[15] but a fix is available to make it compatible with FreeTrack.[16]

Wikipedia

its a rip off......

Letum

02-17-2010, 10:39 PM

There where free headtracking systems wayyyy before NaturalPoint.
Cam2Pan started before TIR1.

freetrack interfaces with it's own DLL when it can (i.e. the latest beta of
armaII). when that is not there it uses NP's old interface. NP's new interface
is not used at all by freetrack.

Freetrack is not only free, but the software offers more options than NP's.
Many freetrack setups work better than TIR in sunlight as well.

If anyone wants a freetrack headset made, then PM me.

Wolf_Rider

02-17-2010, 10:51 PM

freetrack interfaces with it's own DLL when it can (i.e. the latest beta of
armaII). when that is not there it uses NP's old interface. NP's new interface
is not used at all by freetrack.

Personally, I don't have a problem where a "camera tracker" set up uses its own software entirely... it is when the tracker software hacks into an existing product's interface (as well as emulating existing hardware technology), that's where the problem is

Like FSX and its "SimConnect", if the game/ sim is set up to run a tracker (the camera, as it comes, out of the box), then great.

Letum

02-18-2010, 12:35 AM

MikkOwl

02-18-2010, 03:11 AM

Wolf Rider, thanks for the excellent large amount of information concerning some of NaturalPoint's positions.

From what I understand from skim/reading through these last posts, NaturalPoint was first objecting that FreeTrack used NP code in it's distribution. That is a fair argument considering today's silly laws.

But then if FreeTrack does not distribute their code, and only uses whatever is available from the softwares installed on a user's computer, I do not think there is any fair claim of foul play. Users can do what they want with their software and hardware as far as I am concerned.

If I write a program that can talk with games that use NaturalPoint-made API's and play games like that with headtracking, it is completely absurd if they said "no, you have to pay us 270 dollars to play the game you bought in that way". It is none of their business. I will supply analogies:

Not allowing people who don't buy Adidas latest shoes to interface with (play) a basketball game - that they bought, because Adidas is a sponsor of that game.
Not allowing people who are of asian ethnicity to play a game, because sponsors of that game don't think asians should be allowed to have fun with that game (that they bought) (yes maybe racist, but it's the concept that counts here, not the other details).
Not allowing someone to go to the bathroom because some 'license' involved in buying a game said so.

It's all BS nonsense. Licenses try to replace the concept of owning what you buy, to ridiculous levels. If NP are scared someone will make use of software distributed freely, for their own non-commercial purposes, then they should require three different dongles, invasive anti-use malware and require one to be online at all times to do anything with the code they made (constant checking hardware so that no webcam etc is connected) - or just not distribute it at all and keep it to themselves.

julian265

02-18-2010, 03:35 AM

EDIT - Mikk - you beat me to the analogies! but your post wasn't there when I started :)

Here's an analogy of the situation.

Some games would only talk to a tracker that sounds like it's TIR. So freetrack talks to games "like TIR" to get around it.

Whether we think that it's a "rip off" or not is one thing - but this situation would not exist if games accepted normal axis inputs for head tracking.

But of course, NP would rather this situation exist, than compete against a cheap DIY system.... If you apply the same logic to joysticks, people could not make their own sticks (which I do), because games would ignore them.

If games accepted generic head axis inputs, and all head trackers used it, NP would have absolutely no legal avenue for pursuing the other trackers, which is why they don't want this to happen.

It is ethically wrong that games should only accept input from one brand of device. It costs the game developers nothing to allow generic axis inputs, and yet they are often disabled, which we have seen in the case of DCS:BS to be a direct result of NP requests. I suspect that there are more games with similar situations.

You can say "it's just business", which it most certainly is, but some of us actually respect our customers, and have their interests in mind when designing products.

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 03:57 AM

Not a single line of NP's software is distributed with freetrack.

It does make use of NP's old interface, but only in the same way that your
mouse uses microsoft's interface or your joystick uses 1C's interface when
you play IL2.

you see, that is what I was saying... 1c's interface for USB (which by the way, the drivers for which are licensed from a single 3rd party source?) devices and NP's interface... which is for NP TrackIR

Mikkowl, your analogies... 1, 2 and 3 are complete crap. You also seem to agree with your rhetoric on "dongles" that NP is entitled to protect their software and prevent any "unlicensed/ illegal" connecting to it, and you've also made an excellent point; "being online to do anything ~" - regarding pirating.

Is 1c, in your mind, also disallowed from protecting their software? should you it insist it be open architecture, so any punk can just come along and do what the heck they want with it after they've bought (cough not bloody likely cough) a license to it?

Julian265.... would it be fair to say NP doesn't want others hacking into/ taking advantage of their software, in any form?
If the game/ sim developers included their own support for other trackers, there would be no problem except any possible hardware copyright infringements, which is a completely different story.

MikkOwl

02-18-2010, 04:08 AM

Mikkowl, you're analogies... 1, 2 and 3 are complete crap. You also seem to agree with your rhetoric on "dangles" that NP is entitled to protect their software and prevent any "unlicensed/ illegal" connecting to it.
"Dongles", not dangles. Also, you just said that I am analogies! :D

Why are the analogies crap? Doesn't the companies in those examples have a right to protect their software then if NP can refer to the same reasons?

You misunderstand the differences in the rhetoric - they have a right to try to stop people from using it by implementing stopping measures in the software itself. The question then of course is - who would want to use it? And then, I also think it's completely OK if someone managed to use it despite the triple dongle, invasive malware and internet requirement protection. All it says it that they can put in these things, but not trying to use the state police power to forcefully interfere with what people do privately with their own hardware and software.

EDIT (because he edited too):

Is 1c, in your mind, also disallowed from protecting their software? should you it insist it be open architecture, so any punk can just come along and do what the heck they want with it after they've bought (cough not bloody likely cough) a license to it?

Julian265.... would it be fair to say NP doesn't want others hacking into/ taking advantage of their software, in any form?1C can protect their stuff with as much crap they want (to make it hard for people to use it). It then comes to the point of how much people are willing to put up with to pay them money for them to supply a copy of it. This is an ongoing thing with different publishers and developers.

Selling someone elses work is not acceptable however. For example, someone trying to sell and profit copies of Storm of War. Or NaturalPoint's software.

EDIT 2 (Because I forgot to reply to the last bit, oops): It is fair to say they don't want people to do anything than pay them lots of money, but the question is how far they can legally and ethically take it. 'Hacking into' is no different than interfacing with something. Just because they don't want people to do it does not give them a right to stop people from doing it. That is exactly where my analogies 1.2.3. came in, they are no different.

julian265

02-18-2010, 04:18 AM

Julian265.... would it be fair to say NP doesn't want others hacking into/ taking advantage of their software, in any form?
Absolutely.

If the game/ sim developers included their own support for other trackers, there would be no problem except any possible hardware copyright infringements, which is a completely different story.

Yes, but copyright infringements? If the law 'thinks' it can stop people coming up with their own algorithms and maths for multi-point tracking, the law can get stuffed.

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 04:19 AM

you obviously don't understand copyright then ;) because people can write their own... as long as it doesn't replicate any other which has been written. If freetrack did that... and didn't access anything to do with NP, then no problem
even musicians now, are starting to be sued (and winning) for other musos ripping off a couple of bars from someone else's work (Larrakin Music v's Men At Work) let's hope Clemete's estate doesn't get wind of this :) , everyone will end up sued
plagiarism, with regard to books... the same

Software is no different.

You don't own the software, the developer does
You don't own the music, the writer does
You don't own the contents of the book, the author does

MikkOwl

02-18-2010, 04:21 AM

"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."

I don't think there's a case for this being about copyright. Copyright is about 'making copies' rights, not use rights.

Wolf, I think it is 'license' related rather.

julian265

02-18-2010, 04:34 AM

you obviously don't understand copyright then ;) because people can write their own... as long as it doesn't replicate any other which has been written. If freetrack did that... and didn't access anything to do with NP, then no problem
even musicians now, are starting to be sued (and winning) for other musos ripping off a couple of bars from someone else's work (Larrakin Music v's Men At Work)

I probably don't, I've never been interested in legal stuff, but it's good to hear your definition is what I thought it *should* be (as opposed to what I thought it *would* be).

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 05:01 AM

"Dongles", not dangles.

'Hacking into' is no different than interfacing with something. Just because they don't want people to do it does not give them a right to stop people from doing it.

1st point...
"When the argument is lax attack the spelling errors", eh?

2nd point...
you've killed any further credible input you may have had with point 1, but you've further killed off any credible input you may have had with just those two last sentenctes quoted.... It gives them every right to stop someone hacking into their software, whether you like it or not.

Why do you support hacking? :rolleyes:

"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."

I don't think there's a case for this being about copyright. Copyright is about 'making copies' rights, not use rights.

Wolf, I think it is 'license' related rather.

copyright [ kóppi rīt ]

noun (plural copyrights)

Definition:

creative artist's control of original work: the legal right of creative artists or publishers to control the use and reproduction of their original works

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861772210/copyright.html

where did your "definition" come from Mikkowl??

MikkOwl

02-18-2010, 05:23 AM

1st point...
"When the argument is lax attack the spelling errors", eh? [..]you've killed any further credible input you may have had with point 1
True if I avoid your best arguments and argue that your spelling somehow affects your arguments (it does not). But I replied to all your points and did not indicate any evil things. I am a grammar nazi and you wrote some humorous things (you said I was analogies! :D).

2nd point...
[..] you've further killed off any credible input you may have had with just those two last sentenctes quoted.... It gives them every right to stop someone hacking into their software, whether you like it or not.Why does it kill off credibility? Arguments stand by their own merit rather than the person making them. I still want to know why the analogies are BS. And why does it give them every right? Hacking isn't evil by definition.

Why do you support hacking? :rolleyes:If we speak of hacking as in cracking software protection or interfacing with software on our computers without express permission of the original creator (instead of hacking into someone's home network and reading things from their private hard drives): I just don't see anything ethically wrong with it. It's like if I buy a car and then interface with the engine computer unit (ECU?) to alter it's behaviour. Sure, they may void my warranty which is reasonable. But to say I can't do that?

____

Storm of War 'will' support the latest hardware stuff, as they stated. And they do use TrackIR's with it in the videos we have seen. Being such a big player, I do think they can avoid any kind of bad deals like promising not to let anything else do headtracking than TrackIR. Most likely in the form of the native FreeTrack support.

I think the biggest evidence that IC/Maddox Games' policy is to support not just TrackIR, is that ArmA 2, who did special promotion for TrackIR on youtube now has native support for FreeTrack. They are also a major player and they could do it. Surely our Storm of War can too.

EDIT:
Copyright
creative artist's control of original work: the legal right of creative artists or publishers to control the use and reproduction of their original works
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary...copyright.html (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861772210/copyright.html)
where did your "definition" come from Mikkowl??From thefreedictionary.com. I'll look up some others. Wikipedia too.

EDIT 2: The results. I could not find anything different in the wikipedia article than what is stated in the further quotes below

"..the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc."
- Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary

"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"A grant of an exclusive right to produce or sell a book, motion picture, work of art, musical composition, software, or similar product during a specified period of time."
- The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

"The exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright on a work to make and distribute copies, prepare derivative works, and perform and display the work in public"
- The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing

"a person's exclusive right to reproduce, publish, or sell his or her original work of authorship"
- dictionary.com legal entry, featured on numerous websites such as clickandcopyright.com

It is clear that copyright is pertaining to making copies, and profiting from others' works. Common in Asia that companies actually make copies (physical as well as digital) that they sell, exploiting the work of others. Like trying to pass off locally made clothing as expensive brand label clothing, as well as selling DVD movies for profit.

But I think that NaturalPoint might have some support from evil licensing or intellectual property right laws in some countries in this matter.

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 05:45 AM

Hacking isn't evil by definition.

If we speak of hacking as in cracking software protection or interfacing with software on our computers without express permission of the original creator (instead of hacking into someone's home network and reading things from their private hard drives): I just don't see anything ethically wrong with it. It's like if I buy a car and then interface with the engine computer unit (ECU?) to alter it's behaviour. Sure, they may void my warranty which is reasonable. But to say I can't do that?

I think the biggest evidence that IC/Maddox Games' policy is to support not just TrackIR, is that ArmA 2, who did special promotion for TrackIR on youtube now has native support for FreeTrack. They are also a major player and they could do it. Surely our Storm of War can too.

EDIT:
From thefreedictionary.com. I'll look up some others. Wikipedia too.

so you support hacking then, eh?

modding your ECU is illegal in some countries and yeah the vehicle manufacturer is flexing its copyright by voiding the warranty

As I said before, if freetrack (or other) support is totally between freetrack and the game/ sim, then there is no problem, except for maybe on the hardware side of things... the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D - have you got it now Mikkowl??

and yeah... do keep looking it up, there's a good boy

MikkOwl

02-18-2010, 06:01 AM

so you support hacking then, eh?
People doing what they want with the software they have on their computer, as long as it isn't profiting from others' works, yes. Hacking into other people's computers, into NASA or whatever, no.

the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D - have you got it now Mikkowl??Yes I read that in one of your first posts. My response to this was the analogies showing the same reasoning/rights in other situations, to illustrate how unethical and wrong the reasoning is.

modding your ECU is illegal in some countries and yeah the vehicle manufacturer is flexing its copyright by voiding the warrantyThat is not copyright, it is just warranty related. Although I have no idea what those countries use as laws to say that it's illegal. Pollution/safety related maybe.

Bottom line still is that FreeTrack will most likely be supported by Storm of Waaar YEAH!

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 06:10 AM

Quite possibly that may be the case Mikkowl, that it (or others) may be supported... and hopefully it will be without infringing any other companies' copyrights, patents (pending or granted) or license agreements ;)

btw, your analogies were still crap

MikkOwl

02-18-2010, 06:14 AM

Yes you said they were crap, but why? That's not a convincing argument :)

I hate it when I get into other topics and find two (or three) people having these long semantics type "you said this" "you haven't replied to that" debates that tend to drift pretty far off topic. So, uh, FreeTrack probably supported in SoW yay. Uh.. mentioned already. (sneaks into other topics).

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 06:31 AM

well, so far Mikkowl... you seem to be heavily going into the "you didn't reply to that" mindset.

So to prevent any further hassling from you about it

Not allowing people who don't buy Adidas latest shoes to interface with (play) a basketball game - that they bought, because Adidas is a sponsor of that game.

nobody owns the rights to basketball

Not allowing people who are of asian ethnicity to play a game, because sponsors of that game don't think asians should be allowed to have fun with that game (that they bought) (yes maybe racist, but it's the concept that counts here, not the other details).

games are meant to be, to have fun with, though if you want to hack the game, then that just plain warrants every response they get. Hyperlobby barred a whole country - Brazil - because of hackers.. now that must have been fun for the guys there who just wanted to play through it, eh?

Not allowing someone to go to the bathroom because some 'license' involved in buying a game said so.

A game is need to go to the toot? you need to get out some more

as I said... crap analogies

I'm sorry, but it is idiots like you Mikkowl (your mindset that thinks everyone should be able to do whatever they want with a game/ sim/ hardware, regardless of the developer's/ owner's hard work, that will have games/ hardware forced to an online connection just so people can play and have fun... too bad for those who (for whatever reason) don't have a connection.

Untamo

02-18-2010, 07:56 AM

I'm sorry, but it is idiots like you Mikkowl (your mindset that thinks everyone should be able to do whatever they want with a game/ sim/ hardware, regardless of the developer's/ owner's hard work, that will have games/ hardware forced to an online connection just so people can play and have fun... too bad for those who (for whatever reason) don't have a connection.

So, I must be an idiot for being resourceful and thinking that I can use my hardware (webcam and couple of IR leds) to something other than looking silly on a video chat. Hurr durrrr :(

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 08:43 AM

well, that would depend on how you're going about it... Hurr durrrr :(

maybe you could impress us and come up with an original way of going about it :rolleyes:

Flanker35M

02-18-2010, 08:48 AM

S!

Going to level of personal insult..huh!! IBTL..

sigur_ros

02-18-2010, 09:13 AM

All Freetrack does is exercise the right to participate in a free market. NaturalPoint, like any good business, don't like competition that undermines their exclusive business model. But their response shows little confidence in the technological superiority and slick marketing of their product, treating a webcam with some free software as a serious threat. They have made piracy claims, censored forums, encrypted the interface and influenced developers, only trying to hurt the free market.

Feuerfalke

02-18-2010, 09:16 AM

well, so far Mikkowl... you seem to be heavily going into the "you didn't reply to that" mindset.

So to prevent any further hassling from you about it

Not allowing people who don't buy Adidas latest shoes to interface with (play) a basketball game - that they bought, because Adidas is a sponsor of that game.

nobody owns the rights to basketball

Not allowing people who are of asian ethnicity to play a game, because sponsors of that game don't think asians should be allowed to have fun with that game (that they bought) (yes maybe racist, but it's the concept that counts here, not the other details).

games are meant to be, to have fun with, though if you want to hack the game, then that just plain warrants every response they get. Hyperlobby barred a whole country - Brazil - because of hackers.. now that must have been fun for the guys there who just wanted to play through it, eh?

Not allowing someone to go to the bathroom because some 'license' involved in buying a game said so.

Actually, it's more like somebody wanting to start into racing with his 1960 VW beetle and demanding permission to take part in a F1 race with his old rusty car.

Nobody forces you to use TrackIR. It's an option offered to you, not something you can demand. You can very well just fly without it or come up with an alternative solution (e.g. using freetrack for mouse-control and simulate headtracking this way).

But of course, that requires MUCH more initiative and creativity than just demanding from others do the job or ranting and insulting other people. :rolleyes:

MikkOwl

02-18-2010, 09:42 AM

nobody owns the rights to basketballI mean a game as in console or PC. What would you think if they made such demands?

games are meant to be, to have fun with, though if you want to hack the game, then that just plain warrants every response they get. I mean literally just a publisher or sponsor that says that a certain group are not allowed to play it (Asians in this case). Not that they did anything special to warrant it. What would you think if they made such demands?

A game is need to go to the toot? you need to get out some moreYou misread: It says that the license agreement of the game says that you may not go to the bathroom (when the game is running or whatever, imagine any details). Yes, I know it's silly and could never happen in a million years, but the concept still applies.

Hyperlobby barred a whole country - Brazil - because of hackers.. now that must have been fun for the guys there who just wanted to play through it, eh?Hyperlobby is a stand alone program made by some private individual. It is unethical of whoever controls Hyperlobby to punish (potentially) millions of people due to the actions of perhaps a dozen, or a hundred. This is called collective punishment. Hyperlobby or Maddox Games should have come up with a better solution. Regarding the hacking itself, this case is cheating in a sport. Ruining the experience for others by doing so. And that is unethical.

As you can see, you misunderstood what the analogies were, so I'm sure you will change your opinion about them now (and try to justify them if you wish).

I'm sorry, but it is idiots like you Mikkowl (your mindset that thinks everyone should be able to do whatever they want with a game/ sim/ hardware, regardless of the developer's/ owner's hard work, that will have games/ hardware forced to an online connection just so people can play and have fun... too bad for those who (for whatever reason) don't have a connection.No one is forcing them to do that, not hackers nor pirates, or users of TrackIR dynamic library files. I myself (and other customers) are discouraged rather from buying games that require annoying anti-measures. There's several companies that understand that user made content can be a gold mine for sales, and that anti-stuff is annoying to consumers, and they don't implement them. Bethesda (Morrowind, Fallout 3) and Paradox Games (Hearts of Iron & Europa Universalis), as well as Starbreeze Studios (Chronicles of Riddick) all don't use any anti-copy stuff, and I'm going to buy Hearts of Iron 3 soon largely in part to this.

Flanker35M wrote:
Going to level of personal insult..huh!! IBTL..Shush, we don't need any of that :) and for the record, moderators who lock topics instead of cleaning them are not doing their job properly. I took the responsibility of moderating a forum (Richard Burns Rally, hardcore rally sim) some years ago and I think I did an excellent job. Never locked a topic once due to what some members wrote in it (assuming the topic was valid to begin with). It helped atmosphere and people getting a long a lot too, because people were singled out and held accountable for their misdeeds. :)

sigur_ros wrote:
All Freetrack does is exercise the right to participate in a free market. NaturalPoint, like any good business, don't like competition that undermines their exclusive business model. But their response shows little confidence in the technological superiority and slick marketing of their product, treating a webcam with some free software as a serious threat. They have made piracy claims, censored forums, encrypted the interface and influenced developers, only trying to hurt the free market. I think it is a serious threat. What if almost no one knew of FreeTrack, and/or it barely worked except mouse emulation with most titles, requiring lots of time to set up right and all that. That'd be extremely good for NaturalPoint sales.

I have a TrackIR 5 and I absolutely love it. But it was really extremely expensive for what it probably costs to make, and for what functionality I could make myself with much cheaper ingredients. I don't regret getting it (except that shitty TrackClip Pro) and it surely delivers much better performance than anything much cheaper currently available. I think it is the cost (probably massive profit margains) that they are trying to protect, not so much faith in their good hardware. As good as the hardware is, the cost cannot be justified for everyone, versus a much cheaper home made model.

[...] But of course, that requires MUCH more initiative and creativity than just demanding from others do the job or ranting and insulting other people.
Feuerfalke, I think you might have confused together parts of his post - part of it was my text and part was his reply to it. Since he did not use the quote function it is not entirely apparent who wrote what. Unless it is merely I who is confused by your post :)

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 09:51 AM

Nobody forces you to use TrackIR. It's an option offered to you, not something you can demand. You can very well just fly without it or come up with an alternative solution (e.g. using freetrack for mouse-control and simulate headtracking this way).

But of course, that requires MUCH more initiative and creativity ~

quite true in the first parts and with regard to the second... its much, much easier to just "tap into" somebody else's initiative and creativity, eh?

Sigur_ros...

It has nothing to do with free market access or denial of access

Do you have a problem with a company protecting its property?

Flanker35M...

I reserve the right to treat any punk, who espouses the right to hack, with the contempt they deserve... :cool:

Feuerfalke

02-18-2010, 09:56 AM

I didn't reply directly to him or you. I'm sorry, but there were numerous similar threads before, here and in the zoo. So far, nothing new here either.

So I just quoted what was written, because I wanted to reply to that odd example and the discussion in general. You can't force people to regard a problem from a different side as their own, anyway, so I didn't waste any energy on that. If people want to rant, they rant, no matter what topic.

Flanker35M

02-18-2010, 12:05 PM

S!

Wolf_Rider, going to personal insults and namecalling kind of devalues your arguments, you let emotion come in the way of analytic discussion. One must be capable of discussing the matter, not going down to personal level. You discuss about an issue concerning head tracking in SoW, not MikkOwl as a person, right? Anyways, interesting thread..I just wonder if I am a punk too as I have a FreeTrack device built from a web cam and electronics + I have the TrackIR 4.0Pro + TrackClip..ehum:confused:Have a good day all;)

sigur_ros

02-18-2010, 01:15 PM

brando

02-18-2010, 01:55 PM

Just for the record, Naturalpoint have been around since way before TrackIR. Their original product was called SmartNav and was designed to help people with disabilities to use their computers. It still exists (now at version 4) and is a great product which aided me a lot when I lost my arm. At the time, their technical support and personal back-up was exemplary and I believe it remains so. For me, the development of a head-tracking system for use with flight sims was a great bonus and remains so.

If we are to talk about analogies lets try something a little closer to reality. I was a bricklayer, trained in this ancient art and gained my qualification through practise. Imagine yourself in this position, working away at your trade and earning the rate of pay determined by local usage. Then suppose that another bricklayer comes onto the building site and offers to work for free...how would you react? You both have the tools of the trade and the knowledge ... but you need to put food on the table and otherwise support your family, while the newcomer is miraculously free of these very normal requirements.
I think I can speak for the majority of bricklayers when I say that he'd be taken around the block and seriously dissuaded from his benevolent but deluded stance.

I can see no difference between the 'benevolent' bricklayer's stance and that of those who are promoting Freetrack. Perhaps they should go and play the game on a Linux-based computer where open source is seen as a good thing, and stop trying to wreck the jobs of people who design hardware and software that exist in the money-earning world of computers and computer-gaming. I don't blame Naturalpoint for protecting their interests in this genre - and their actions are infinitely less savage than being taken around the block by a bunch of angry brickies, be sure!

B

MikkOwl

02-18-2010, 02:39 PM

One cannot dictate how others choose to spend their toil (FreeTrack software developers for example). If they want to distribute it freely, that is their choice. Did you consider how people with disabilities could potentially benefit from FreeTrack? What if NP was blocked from doing anything within that field back in the day by another company because of similar practices (perhaps because they made products for disabled that were not as competitive, at rip-off prices)?

No one can force the world to support whatever business model they currently have (record companies are a notable example now). So it was with the French artisans who tried to use violence to bring down a factory (with no concern to the livelyhood of the people who designed, those who built and those who would operate and those who would maintain that factory). They created the word "saboteur".

Wolf_Rider

02-18-2010, 08:03 PM

Wolf, interface is not property, it is communication protocol that anyone can use if they can understand it, this is protected by law and helps free market. Otherwise interfaces would be too powerful and be like a patent, creating guaranteed monopolies without requiring any officially recognized invention. Wings of Prey still uses unencrypted interface but BoB will be encrypted I think. This encrypting business is very dirty.

Who developed the interface?

The proprietary TrackIR interface has become the de facto standard for view control in PC games and simulations and is only intended for use with TrackIR products. As NaturalPoint convinced more developers and games to support it, other devices inspired by the TrackIR have sought to access the same view control and been successful in reverse engineering the interface. This has allowed non-TrackIR devices to be used for view control, including common video devices like webcams.

Early on NaturalPoint updated the interface to require validation using text strings copyrighted by NaturalPoint, and only granted permission for use of the strings to game and simulation developers. This meant other applications wishing to use the interface without approval from NaturalPoint would have to risk potentially violating NaturalPoint's copyright. Proponents of third party head tracking devices which rely on the TrackIR interface for support in many titles believe the text strings are exempt and fall under fair use for the purposes of interoperability.[14][15]

In October 2008 NaturalPoint changed the TrackIR interface and began encrypting the data stream sent to some new titles. Third party devices which had reverse-engineered the previous TrackIR interface were rendered incompatible with these new game titles due to the encryption. The older TrackIR-1 and TrackIR-2 products that use software drivers which are no longer maintained are also incompatible with titles using the new encrypted interface.

wikipedia

One cannot dictate how others choose to spend their toil (FreeTrack software developers for example). If they want to distribute it freely, that is their choice. Did you consider how people with disabilities could potentially benefit from FreeTrack? What if NP was blocked from doing anything within that field back in the day by another company because of similar practices (perhaps because they made products for disabled that were not as competitive, at rip-off prices)?

No one can force the world to support whatever business model they currently have (record companies are a notable example now). So it was with the French artisans who tried to use violence to bring down a factory (with no concern to the livelyhood of the people who designed, those who built and those who would operate and those who would maintain that factory). They created the word "saboteur".

Actually NP have the cheapest and easiest offering going for the handicapped, and if their software had not of been hacked, they would not have had to develop new software with the costs having to be recouped. If you want to point the finger at TIR being expensive and proportion blame for that,mikkowl, point your finger at those who hacked NP software.....

julian265

02-18-2010, 10:51 PM

SNIP quite true in the first parts and with regard to the second... its much, much easier to just "tap into" somebody else's initiative and creativity, eh? SNIP

SNIP Nobody forces you to use TrackIR. It's an option offered to you, not something you can demand. You can very well just fly without it or come up with an alternative solution (e.g. using freetrack for mouse-control and simulate headtracking this way). SNIP

SNIP I can see no difference between the 'benevolent' bricklayer's stance and that of those who are promoting Freetrack. SNIP

Do you guys think head-tracking axis inputs to games should be generic, like keyboards, mouses, joysticks, or not?

If not, why not?

Are you not aware that the protocols are already in place, and it takes EXTRA WORK to prevent games from accepting generic inputs?

Brando, how do you feel about preventing DIYers from writing their own software to interface with games?

At the price TIR pulls, it should have such good performance and support that it can stand on its own feet. After all, freetrack is inferior... isn't it?

WITHOUT reference to freetrack - if you think people should be prevented from coming up with completely original code and distributing it freely, just because someone else is already charging for it, then our world views are incompatible. To me, it's like saying that it's not fair that contractor A charges less than contractor B, or that self employed people are at an unfair advantage because they don't have to pay wages.

Besides, code is vastly different from anything before it, hence it needs to be thought of differently than brick laying. It doesn't cost anything to make thousands of copies of your own code and distribute them, unlike bricks. I make and fix things for my mates at little or no cost to them, but Brando, you think this isn't ok because it is depriving businesses of work? Have you ever helped out your mates or random people for little or no cost?

julian265

02-19-2010, 02:05 AM

I don't blame Naturalpoint for protecting their interests in this genre - and their actions are infinitely less savage than being taken around the block by a bunch of angry brickies, be sure!

B

I posted this guide: http://www.jpfiles.com/hardware/uni_stick.pdf

In this thread (and others): http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3231057376/p/1

18 months ago. It took a fair amount of time to make the stick and do the guide, which I enjoyed. Do you think Logitech/CH/Thrustmaster employees should try to stop me from spreading this information?

What about Leo Bodnar, who's software talks the GENERIC, PREDEFINED USB INTERFACE which enables DIY contraptions to talk to all games? Should they try to stop him from providing such a capable product for such a low price?

Letum

02-19-2010, 02:36 AM

Of course, as long as 1C implement the Freetrack API, there is no controversy at all.

sigur_ros

02-19-2010, 03:55 AM

Letum, in that case there is still controversy, NaturalPoint's greedy actions hurt 1C who now has to implement two interfaces that do the same thing. NaturalPoint is counting on 1C sticking to TrackIR and not bothering with any others, of course this could backfire if 1C abandons the TrackIR altogether. It makes sense that there should be one standard head tracking interface that anyone can use, TrackIR interface is already standard so it is prime candidate, NaturalPoint's efforts to stop others using it is wrong.

Wolf_Rider

02-19-2010, 04:23 AM

S!

I have a FreeTrack device built from a web cam and electronics + I have the TrackIR 4.0Pro + TrackClip..

Does that give you special rights or something?

Do you guys think head-tracking axis inputs to games should be generic, like keyboards, mouses, joysticks, or not?

If not, why not?

Are you not aware that the protocols are already in place, and it takes EXTRA WORK to prevent games from accepting generic inputs?

Brando, how do you feel about preventing DIYers from writing their own software to interface with games?

At the price TIR pulls, it should have such good performance and support that it can stand on its own feet. After all, freetrack is inferior... isn't it?

WITHOUT reference to freetrack - if you think people should be prevented from coming up with completely original code and distributing it freely, just because someone else is already charging for it, then our world views are incompatible. To me, it's like saying that it's not fair that contractor A charges less than contractor B, or that self employed people are at an unfair advantage because they don't have to pay wages.

Besides, code is vastly different from anything before it, hence it needs to be thought of differently than brick laying. It doesn't cost anything to make thousands of copies of your own code and distribute them, unlike bricks. I make and fix things for my mates at little or no cost to them, but Brando, you think this isn't ok because it is depriving businesses of work? Have you ever helped out your mates or random people for little or no cost?

USB drivers are licensed from a single source? at least membership in the USB-IF inc program to develop compliant products with logo use is required.

no-one is preventing anyone from writing their own software... it is when that software interfaces with someone else's software or hardware without authorisation that there is a problem.

TIR is quite cheap, considering the amount of R&D which had to be done to protect their property and considering the cost of games and other computer componets... the cost is a furphy, a red herring.

people writing their own code is to be commended... its when that code taps into someone else's code that there is a problem.

its not "depriving a business of work' at all, as such... it is taking advantage of their work

Letum, in that case there is still controversy, NaturalPoint's greedy actions hurt 1C who now has to implement two interfaces that do the same thing. NaturalPoint is counting on 1C sticking to TrackIR and not bothering with any others, of course this could backfire if 1C abandons the TrackIR altogether. It makes sense that there should be one standard head tracking interface that anyone can use, TrackIR interface is already standard so it is prime candidate, NaturalPoint's efforts to stop others using it is wrong.

err no... freetrack should have done the correct thing in the first place and developed their own interface, instead of tapping into NaturalPoint's.
Now I'm sure NaturalPoint would allow (speaking off my own bat and not in any way for them) freetrack to access their interface - under license (the same mobo makers make mobos using chipsets - under license, or use Dolby in the sound - under license, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum)

Its not wrong for NP to prevent anyone from stealing taking advantage of their creativity, initiative and hard work.

Letum

02-19-2010, 04:27 AM

Letum, in that case there is still controversy, NaturalPoint's greedy actions hurt 1C who now has to implement two interfaces that do the same thing.

The freetrack interface is free for any program to use.
TrackIR included.

Only one interface needed if NP update their software to interface with the
freetrack interface.

Besides, adding an additional interface is a very quick job. It's just one line
of code pointing to the interface .DLL once you have already set up the
headtracking in game.

Wolf_Rider

02-19-2010, 04:33 AM

Why should NP "update" their interface, when their interface is being "tapped into" by freetrack?

freetrack don't have the interface... hence their need to use NP's

Letum

02-19-2010, 04:46 AM

Why should NP "update" their interface, when their interface is being "tapped into" by freetrack?

freetrack don't have the interface... hence their need to use NP's

Freetrack does have it's own interface totally independent of NP.
Recently Bohemia Interactive implemented the Freetrack interface into it's
games.

Freetrack uses it's own interface (freetrack.dll) when ever it is available.
Anyone can use this interface.

When it is not available, freetrack will use NP's old interface if it is there.
Freetrack never uses NP's new interface.

NP should update to use the freetrack interface so that the game Devs don't
need to implement several interfaces, one for each headtracking program.

Wolf_Rider

02-19-2010, 04:53 AM

Freetrack does have it's own interface totally independent of NP.
Recently Bohemia Interactive implemented the Freetrack interface into it's
games.

Freetrack uses it's own interface (freetrack.dll) when ever it is available.
Anyone can use this interface.

When it is not available, freetrack will use NP's old interface if it is there.
Freetrack never uses NP's new interface.

NP should update to use the freetrack interface so that the game Devs don't
need to implement several interfaces, one for each headtracking program.

the .dll recreates NaturalPoint strings, does it not?

err hang on a mo', apparently it does...

"Most TrackIR Enhanced software need to be provided with text strings which bear notice of "EyeControl Technologies" copyright (former name of NaturalPoint, Inc.) in order to activate the TrackIR Enhanced interface. Software which requires these text strings for interface activation also contain the strings themselves.At NaturalPoint's request, FreeTrack project members removed the strings from the software they provide to end users. FreeTrack then implemented a workaround which creates a local copy of these strings from the client software when used with TrackIR Enhanced titles" - wikipedia

Letum

02-19-2010, 04:58 AM

the .dll recreates NaturalPoint strings, does it not?

No. Not so.
Freetrack's own interface does not use, latch on to or in any other way have
anything to do with NP's software. No recreation of strings; nothing.

However, the game must be designed to use the freetrack interface.
Only one mainstream game currently uses the freetrack interface: ARMAII.

When the freetrack interface is not there, then freetrack will use NP's
interface by the creation of strings that match NP's. Hopwever, Freetrack will
only ever use the old NP interface that NP no longer use.
Freetrack never uses the new NP interface.
Freetrack will always use it's own interface whenever it can.

julian265

02-19-2010, 04:59 AM

no-one is preventing anyone from writing their own software... it is when that software interfaces with someone else's software or hardware without authorisation that there is a problem.Indeed, however that's what I read Brando as saying. I also think that there is a problem with preventing more open protocols from developing as they have with sticks and mouses. Do you not have a problem with this?

TIR is quite cheap, considering the amount of R&D which had to be done to protect their property and considering the cost of games and other computer componetes... the cost is a furphy, a red herring.My opinion differs on all points. If you want to pay more for the extra development time required to run things on a special microprocessor, rather than the computers CPU, that's your choice.

err no... freetrack should have done the correct thing in the first place and developed their own interface, instead of tapping into NaturalPoint's.

freetrack don't have the interface... hence their need to use NP's
They always had their own interface. Their "need" was due to games not accepting the usual inputs for use with head pose.

Wolf_Rider

02-19-2010, 05:06 AM

there's is nothing wrong with development, Julian, as long as the application of the development is above board ;)
I would like all the peripherals to run on their own micrprocessor :)
surely that was the case that could have been given to game/ sim developers for incorporation via a patch, yes? with no need to tap into NP's

No. Not so.
Freetrack's own interface does not use, latch on to or in any other way have
anything to do with NP's software. No recreation of strings; nothing.

However, the game must be designed to use the freetrack interface.
Only one mainstream game currently uses the freetrack interface: ARMAII.

When the freetrack interface is not there, then freetrack will use NP's
interface by the creation of strings that match NP's. Hopwever, Freetrack will
only ever use the old NP interface that NP no longer use.
Freetrack never uses the new NP interface.

thanks that says it all... freetrack hacks into NP

Letum

02-19-2010, 05:10 AM

Freetracks own interface has nothing what so ever to do with NP and NP software.
Freetrack contains no copyrighted or illegal code and Freetrack does not operate in any illegal way.

It doesn't get any more clear cut than that.

AndyJWest

02-19-2010, 05:22 AM

Their "need" was due to games not accepting the usual inputs for use with head pose.

Actually, I think that this is the key to the entire issue. Unless somebody can explain why there is a specific reason why a device which detects the position of somebody's head is fundamentally different from any other input device, there is no reason to accept that a particular manufacturer has a monopoly on such devices. Where there are specific breaches of copyright on software, that is an issue for the parties concerned, rather than third parties like games manufacturers. All they need do is to provide a generic interface, or comply with an existing one. In the case of IL-2, i see no particular reason why the existing joystick API wouldn't have been adequate, given the support for multiple devices. There is also the DeviceLink interface, which is more than adequate for stock 2DoF, and would need only limited expansion to support 6DoF. Producing software to interface with this isn't likely to be a major challenge.

Wolf_Rider

02-19-2010, 05:32 AM

sigur_ros

02-19-2010, 12:30 PM

Troll feeding time is over.

GF_Mastiff

02-19-2010, 02:28 PM

:lol:
I think the lawyer's stopped by and started an argument? :lol: I'm amused so far.

TheGrunch

02-19-2010, 09:10 PM

Actually, I think that this is the key to the entire issue. Unless somebody can explain why there is a specific reason why a device which detects the position of somebody's head is fundamentally different from any other input device, there is no reason to accept that a particular manufacturer has a monopoly on such devices. Where there are specific breaches of copyright on software, that is an issue for the parties concerned, rather than third parties like games manufacturers. All they need do is to provide a generic interface, or comply with an existing one. In the case of IL-2, i see no particular reason why the existing joystick API wouldn't have been adequate, given the support for multiple devices. There is also the DeviceLink interface, which is more than adequate for stock 2DoF, and would need only limited expansion to support 6DoF. Producing software to interface with this isn't likely to be a major challenge.

WolfRider...the above post is exactly what people are trying to communicate to you. The reason you are getting into an argument is because you insist on focusing upon the Freetrack software's backup use of the NP API. If NP had not created an unnecessary proprietary interface and given developers 'incentives' to use it and created exclusivity agreements with publishers, this situation would not exist. How would you like it if there was no way to use a joystick except by using a Logitech joystick or using an open-source solution that relied upon hacking Logitech's interface? That is the situation that exists for users in the headtracking market at the moment. There's no room for interpretation there, that is a fact.
Their position is exactly the same legally as Intel's anti-competitive behaviour in laptop markets a few years ago in Asia, requiring suppliers to supply exclusively Intel-equipped laptops or forfeit their right to sell Intel products.

Wolf_Rider

02-19-2010, 10:06 PM

WolfRider...the above post is exactly what people are trying to communicate to you. The reason you are getting into an argument is because you insist on focusing upon the Freetrack software's backup use of the NP API. If NP had not created an unnecessary proprietary interface and given developers 'incentives' to use it and created exclusivity agreements with publishers, this situation would not exist. How would you like it if there was no way to use a joystick except by using a Logitech joystick or using an open-source solution that relied upon hacking Logitech's interface? That is the situation that exists for users in the headtracking market at the moment. There's no room for interpretation there, that is a fact.
Their position is exactly the same legally as Intel's anti-competitive behaviour in laptop markets a few years ago in Asia, requiring suppliers to supply exclusively Intel-equipped laptops or forfeit their right to sell Intel products.

that's a nice try Grunch, but I believe you may have misinterpreted what you quoted.
Logitech? I wouldn't use Logitech if you paid me... though they (JS makers) all use USB drivers licensed from a single source - yes? and each joystick manufacturer has the common courtesy to not tap into another maker's programming software - yes?

Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?

Igo kyu

02-19-2010, 11:28 PM

they (JS makers) all use USB drivers licensed from a single source - yes? and each joystick manufacturer has the common courtesy to not tap into another maker's programming software - yes?
Not from the beginning, no.

Joysticks first ran on a nine pin Atari interface, I'm not sure whether that was released or hacked but it was used on pretty much all 8 bit and a lot of 16 bit computers. It was also used for Atari ST and Amiga mice, with different APIs, so you needed a switch on a third party mouse if the maker wanted users to be able to use it on both the ST and Amiga (I'm not really sure why Atari and Commodore allowed 3rd party mice, perhaps because the originals were shit enough to stop people buying the computers if they couldn't upgrade to something better). Then came sound card based PC joysticks, which were exclusively analogue and used a load more pins. I suspect the API for that belonged to IBM, or maybe Creative, but it was used for most joysticks at that time. USB is an open standard I'm pretty sure, created by the makers of all the devices which were intended to be connected to it, it's certainly not Microsoft's exclusive property.

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 01:21 AM

that's a nice try Grunch, but I believe you may have misinterpreted what you quoted.
Logitech? I wouldn't use Logitech if you paid me... though they (JS makers) all use USB drivers licensed from a single source - yes? and each joystick manufacturer has the common courtesy to not tap into another maker's programming software - yes?

I don't think I've misinterpreted it at all. Andy said that the central problem with NP's behaviour was in creating a closed interface instead of using the standard Windows joystick interface for the axes for head position. How a device assigns the current position on these axes is still up to the device. This should be the area in which firms compete, not by denying each other the chance to compete.
By saying "I wouldn't use Logitech if you paid me" you've just confirmed exactly what I'm saying. If Logitech had a closed interface which the majority of publishers supported exclusively you would have to use a Logitech joystick, a hacked interface or no joystick at all. That was my point. Would you be satisfied with that situation? I highly doubt it. Given your reaction to my use of Logitech - which was a random choice, I could have said Saitek or CH or Thrustmaster, pick whatever you want - the only reason that you're satisfied with NaturalPoint's practises is because NaturalPoint's product is very good. I'm not arguing against that. Please try to separate your loyalty to or appreciation of a product from its creators' business practises. Intel make good processors, but no one would argue that their business practises (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/235&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en) have always been good for the consumer.
Why should head-tracking interfaces be treated so differently from joystick interfaces? USB is an open standard. TrackIR uses a USB connection. There's no reason that it couldn't communicate the head position as a position on a joystick-style axis using the Windows joystick interface (also an open standard), but NP decided not to do that when they convinced firms to support their product because it would allow them to sustain a monopoly position once their standard was in place.
That's got nothing to do with programming software or keyboard/mouse emulation. The analogue to those in TrackIR's case is its interpretation of the head position from the reflective surfaces and the programming of the curves on the axes. NaturalPoint are preventing other firms from even interfacing with the game by dealing with publishers and developers, never mind minor tweaking like programming software.
CH manage to use an open standard (USB, HID-joystick) and still provide significantly more programming functionality than any other programming software other than perhaps Foxy for the Cougar HOTAS. They're not recoiling in fear and resorting to anti-competitive practises because there is free joystick-programming software available. Their insurance is to make sure that their programming software is only usable by CH devices. THIS is behaviour that is entirely reasonable because it doesn't affect competitors' ability to enter the market. It also shows quite adequately the confidence gap between NaturalPoint and CH Products. If NaturalPoint wanted to deal with this competition they would have to improve their software to offer all of the functionality that Freetrack provides, and price more competitively. What they're doing instead reminds me of Microsoft's petty attempts to sabotage OpenXML, which they participated in under the guise of interoperability with Linux and MacOS and then proceeded to treat with as much contempt as they could muster.
If we had had this discussion on the Ubisoft forums I would have been banned after an initial warning for mentioning Freetrack several times...never mind speaking about my views on NaturalPoint's practises. Do you think that is a reasonable business practise, buying away people's right to discuss their competitors on a forum for a game publisher? It really sounds rather desperate to me.

Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?
Intimidation? Where's the intimidation? I find the above practises by NaturalPoint to evoke the term 'intimidation' far more readily than Freetrack's behaviour as a group. If a company creates a monopoly which is against the consumer's interest then consumers will try to find a way around it. That's all that Freetrack has proven. Freetrack have complied with NP's requests...they removed support for the use of TrackIR devices with the Freetrack software, for example. If you ask me they've been very reasonable about it. They could quite reasonably have become involved in filing an anti-trust suit instead. Perhaps this is why NaturalPoint have decided to refrain from shutting down Freetrack altogether, despite their use of the NaturalPoint API.
Unfortunately, the European Commission seems to be the only legal body that dares to become involved in cases like this, particularly where computer hardware and software are concerned.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 01:25 AM

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 01:56 AM

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 02:07 AM

err no, you've missed the second part completely grunch....

so... where is this monopoly, you mention exactly and is the 'riddle me this', too hard?

and yes, they removed the strings as requested but went to a workaround to drag the stings out of the NP software
The monopoly was created by using a proprietary interface and making deals with publishers and developers to support the NP API exclusively for head-tracking.
The only exception to this so far has been Arma II.
Regardless of Freetrack's behaviour, NaturalPoint's practises do not support a competitive environment. That's why it's important that developers and publishers support setting head position as a joystick axis position. That's got nothing to do with Freetrack at all, maybe you should try seeing the big picture. I don't care if developers support Freetrack, I've got no stake in it myself, I've never tried it. In fact I have a TrackIR 3 with the Vector Expansion. It's NaturalPoint's recent behaviour that I object to.
Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem.
So, what is it that I've failed to address in your little riddle? Maybe you should explain it better instead of making the above response, since I see you've resorted to baiting instead of addressing my points, which is quite a predictable troll tactic. Unless you start actually arguing my points you'll get no more responses from me. I don't object to a discussion if you can actually make a decent argument without resorting to questioning my intelligence and failing to explain where you think I'm wrong other than "you've missed the second part" and "nice try, but you've misinterpreted what you're quoted", both blatantly incorrect.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 02:16 AM

A simple question, Wolf_Rider: Would you be in favour of PC games supporting generic 6DOF devices by allowing the existing MS Joystick API to be used as an alternative?

Another one: Would you object if 1C:Maddox/TD incorperated 6DOF into the existing DeviceLink interface?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, I'd like to see your reasoning.

read some of my earlier comments, and you may see your questions are redundant

The monopoly was created by using a proprietary interface and making deals with publishers and developers to support the NP API exclusively for head-tracking.
The only exception to this so far has been Arma II.
Regardless of Freetrack's behaviour, NaturalPoint's practises do not support a competitive environment. That's why it's important that developers and publishers support setting head position as a joystick axis position. That's got nothing to do with Freetrack at all, maybe you should try seeing the big picture. I don't care if developers support Freetrack, I've got no stake in it myself, I've never tried it. In fact I have a TrackIR 3 with the Vector Expansion. It's NaturalPoint's recent behaviour that I object to.
Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem.
So, what is it that I've failed to address in your little riddle? Maybe you should explain it better instead of making the above response, since I see you've resorted to baiting instead of addressing my points, which is quite a predictable troll tactic. Unless you start actually arguing my points you'll get no more responses from me. I don't object to a discussion if you can actually make a decent argument without resorting to questioning my intelligence and failing to explain where you think I'm wrong other than "you've missed the second part" and "nice try, but you've misinterpreted what you're quoted", both blatantly incorrect.

propriety software isn't illegal grunch... look at Apple, or Dell, or Compaq ;) Do you have some proof of the allegations you make, regarding payments, etc?

as for the rest of your post (and I don't particular give a toss if it is a format which you understand or not), it reeks of 1, trollish beviour yourself and 2. gives full support for hacking. You say "Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem., yet others say the means to do so has been around for way longer than NP, ... so who's right there?
Is there some reason FT can't send a "kit" over to game developer's for evaluation?

NP went and approached many developers to include their product, why can't freetrack do that, instead of just hacking their way in?
BIS went through a great deal of turmoil until they told the FT footsoldiers to cease and desist in their behaviour and for FT to actually make the approach. At this point, FT was considered and a poll held, which was favourable to FT for inclusion in a patch (I've mentioned patch before, yeah?)

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 02:57 AM

propriety software isn't illegal grunch... look at Apple, or Dell, or Compaq ;) Do you have some proof of the allegations you make, regarding payments, etc?

Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?
I'm aware that proprietary software isn't illegal, but this isn't just about software in general, this is about software interfaces with a whole class of input device. Abusing a leading position to make games exclusively compatible with their products is, however, illegal.

as for the rest of your post (and I don't particular give a toss if it is a format which you understand or not), it reeks of 1, trollish beviour yourself and 2. gives full support for hacking. You say "Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem., yet others say the means to do so has been around for way longer than NP, ... so who's right there?
Is there some reason FT can't send a "kit" over to game developer's for evaluation?

Care to explain where I've been trollish? I've explained my position in detail and I have not attacked you personally unless you count observing the fact that your responses are quite often devoid of detail and responses to people's actual points.
Freetrack can't send a kit in because they're a free, open-source solution worked on by people in their spare time. You're right, though, a commercial competitor could do that if they could get big publishers to abandon exclusivity deals.
The question is whether publishers should decide on which products are compatible by how much the respective product developers are willing to pay them for an exclusive? I don't believe so.
The reason that open standards exist is to prevent situations like that. My argument is simply that there is no reason that head-tracking should not use an open standard and that it would only benefit US if it did. That's not support for hacking, that's support for competition. I don't think that should be hard to understand.
Cam2Pan WAS around before TrackIR, they are right, but Cam2Pan relies upon mouse emulation, which is not a good solution.

NP went and approached many developers to include their product, why can't freetrack do that, instead of just hacking their way in?
BIS went through a great deal of turmoil until they told the FT footsoldiers to cease and desist in their behaviour and for FT to actually make the approach. At this point, FT was considered and a poll held, which was favourable to FT for inclusion in a patch (I've mentioned patch before, yeah?)
See above. Like I say, this is the only occasion on which this has worked.

See, it's much easier to have a discussion when both people are actually participating.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 03:05 AM

Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?

I'm aware that proprietary software isn't illegal,

err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

okay... so you agree propriety software isn't illegal - good....I have asked: why should any developer/ publisher deal with any outfit which promotes hacking?

Why can't NP have propriety software for their own product?

Freetrack can't send a kit in because they're a free, open-source solution worked on by people in their spare time. You're right, though, a commercial competitor could do that if they could get big publishers to abandon exclusivity deals.

The reason that open standards exist is to prevent situations like that. My argument is simply that there is no reason that head-tracking should not use an open standard and that it would only benefit US if it did. That's not support for hacking, that's support for competition. I don't think that should be hard to understand.
Cam2Pan WAS around before TrackIR, they are right, but Cam2Pan relies upon mouse emulation, which is not a good solution.

NP went and approached many developers to include their product, why can't freetrack do that, instead of just hacking their way in?
BIS went through a great deal of turmoil until they told the FT footsoldiers to cease and desist in their behaviour and for FT to actually make the approach. At this point, FT was considered and a poll held, which was favourable to FT for inclusion in a patch (I've mentioned patch before, yeah?)

See above. Like I say, this is the only occasion on which this has worked.

you speak of 'detail', yet contradict yourself in the above

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 03:08 AM

err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?
Yes, it is an allegation. What's your alternative explanation?

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 03:13 AM

you've made the allegation, where is your proof?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 03:15 AM

where is your proof?
So, your position is that unless I am privy to information which WOULD only be available to those involved in such a deal made behind closed doors, I am unable to conclude what I have, even if there are no other sensible explanations?
Well then, we will never agree. Have fun! :)

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 03:24 AM

So, your position is that unless I am privy to information which WOULD only be available to those involved in such a deal made behind closed doors, I am unable to conclude what I have, even if there are no other sensible explanations?
Well then, we will never agree. Have fun! :)

so you choose to slander a company, actually a few them, by making allegation without proof?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 03:27 AM

so you choose to slander a company by making allegation without proof?
If you want. I still invite you to provide an alternative explanation. Personally I'd consider that since I can't imagine a plausible alternative explanation, this is the most reasonable explanation. There is no other position that I can take around anything I haven't directly experienced. If you can provide an alternative explanation I'd be quite happy to consider it.

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 03:32 AM

Wolf_Rider, I asked these questions because I was unclear from yor earlier postings where you stood:A simple question, Wolf_Rider: Would you be in favour of PC games supporting generic 6DOF devices by allowing the existing MS Joystick API to be used as an alternative?

Another one: Would you object if 1C:Maddox/TD incorperated 6DOF into the existing DeviceLink interface?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, I'd like to see your reasoning.

I'd have thought that a simple yes or no would clarify things more than a suggestion to read your earlier posts. Is there a particular reason why you don't consider an answer appropriate?

If you accept that generic 6DOF interfaces are acceptable, then the particulars of this case are irrelevant to PC sims in general, and the legal issue is between the parties involved, and need not concern 1C:Maddox etc. If you don't, then justify it.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 03:35 AM

If you want. I still invite you to provide an alternative explanation. Personally I'd consider that since I can't imagine a plausible alternative explanation, this is the most reasonable explanation. There is no other position that I can take around anything I haven't directly experienced. If you can provide an alternative explanation I'd be quite happy to consider it.

and you lable me a 'troll' lolol

from post #71

Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?

andyjwest... do you not read a thread through or choose to just jump in and reply to what is on the last page? go back and read... post #35 looks interesting and seems quite clear

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 03:37 AM

Wow, I'm a troll for applying basic logic to a situation. Brilliant.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 03:44 AM

if you call contradiction and slander, with a pinch of evasion 'logic', then yes... you've succeeded

here... let me show you how logic works;

Are you over there (points in that direction)? - No

Are you over here (points in another direction)? - No

If you aren't over there or over here (the directions pointed in), then logically you must be somewhere else? - Yes

If you are somewhere else, you can't be at your screen typing, can you? - err

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 03:46 AM

if you call contradiction and slander, with a pinch of evasion 'logic', then yes... you've succeeded
Well, I see that determining explanations by a process of elimination has eluded you.

Anyway, as Andy says, I'd hope that head position can be controlled by a standard joystick device in SoW to provide an opportunity for other solutions to be used.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 03:55 AM

...and still you evade my honest question - good onya :rolleyes:

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 03:57 AM

...post #35 looks interesting and seems quite clear
Post 35:
Originally Posted by MikkOwl

Hacking isn't evil by definition.

If we speak of hacking as in cracking software protection or interfacing with software on our computers without express permission of the original creator (instead of hacking into someone's home network and reading things from their private hard drives): I just don't see anything ethically wrong with it. It's like if I buy a car and then interface with the engine computer unit (ECU?) to alter it's behaviour. Sure, they may void my warranty which is reasonable. But to say I can't do that?

I think the biggest evidence that IC/Maddox Games' policy is to support not just TrackIR, is that ArmA 2, who did special promotion for TrackIR on youtube now has native support for FreeTrack. They are also a major player and they could do it. Surely our Storm of War can too.

EDIT:
From thefreedictionary.com. I'll look up some others. Wikipedia too.

so you support hacking then, eh?

modding your ECU is illegal in some countries and yeah the vehicle manufacturer is flexing its copyright by voiding the warranty

As I said before, if freetrack (or other) support is totally between freetrack and the game/ sim, then there is no problem, except for maybe on the hardware side of things... the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D - have you got it now Mikkowl??

and yeah... do keep looking it up, there's a good boy

Interesting, yes. Clear, no. I have no idea what 'flexing it's copyright by voiding the warranty' could mean - they are two entirely different legal issues. As for 'R&D', if you think that NP were the first in the field, can you explain why they haven't taken on MicroSoft over the issue, given that they have had a 6DOF inteface in their flight sims for some time?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 04:04 AM

...and still you evade my honest question - good onya :rolleyes:
Your honest question? In a situation where it is impossible for me to know for sure, you want me to ignore by far the most probable explanation? I know there is some kind of agreement between Ubisoft and NaturalPoint. I know that it is against the rules to speak about Freetrack on the Ubi forums. Therefore, I believe that it is very likely that there is an exclusivity agreement between NaturalPoint and Ubisoft. It's a completely reasonable conclusion to make given the circumstances.
Either way, the current situation where developers support only the closed standard provides the opportunity for abuse, and that is why developers should support joystick view positioning by axis.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 04:16 AM

andyjwest...

you must have read this "As I said before, if freetrack (or other) support is totally between freetrack and the game/ sim, then there is no problem, except for maybe on the hardware side of things... the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D - have you got it now Mikkowl??", which answers your question. You must have read it seeing as you quoted it in your post.... you do read, don't you?

grunch, that is all purely allegation. now seriously, we're not really going to go 400 posts of this crap from you are we?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 04:18 AM

grunch, that is all purely allegation. now seriously, we're not really going to go 400 posts of this crap from you are we?
Okay, but answer me two questions. Do you think my allegation is unlikely, and why?

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 04:27 AM

after you answer mine grunch... they were asked first

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 04:28 AM

...the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D
Is this where you think the issue really lies, Wolf_Rider? As far as I'm aware, the only protection against taking advantage of someone else's 'R&D' are patents (which NP doesn't have), and copyright (which is only relevant where NPs proprietry interface is concerned). Can I assume form this that provided 'other' doesn't use NPs interface, they will be in the wrong if they try to prevent this? You seem strangely reluctant to answer this...

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 04:31 AM

after you answer mine grunch... they were asked first
I've already answered yours and said that I have no proof. I've already said that I made my conclusion because I believe it is the most likely and reasonable explanation. Have you been reading my posts?
If you seriously believe that it's practical to live by a theory of absolute positivism, there's no point in having arguments or opinions about anything you haven't directly experienced, so I don't see why you became involved in this argument to begin with.
So, will you answer my questions?

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 04:33 AM

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 04:41 AM

grunch... post #71 might refresh your memory
Wow, that post is supremely relevant to my above questions. :rolleyes:
Unless you're referring to the fact that I haven't answered your question as to why developers should support Freetrack, and the answer is that you've made another major logical mistake. Freetrack head-tracking does not equal ALL open head-tracking. To say that an open interface for head-tracking supports hackers because Freetrack hacked NP's interface is like saying that giving people free emergency medical attention is supporting murderers because some of the people who will receive emergency treatment will be murderers.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 04:48 AM

it will do you no good to twist things around grunch... refer your post # 73

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 04:56 AM

it will do you no good to twist things around grunch... refer your post # 73
Wow, you're really reluctant to answer simple questions, aren't you? What is it about my post #73 that you'd like me to refer back to? That's what I think. NP created the situation themselves, and they'll have to deal with it. My position is that if they had thought ahead they ought to have anticipated that this would happen when they made sure their interface was closed. The error they made was in assuming that only commercial competitors would attempt to create a head-tracking solution. It's practical for them to prosecute competitors that violate their interface. It's not practical for them to prosecute everyone who uses Freetrack.
Either way allowing the use of an open standard for head-tracking doesn't directly support Freetrack any more than emergency medical attention supports murderers. Is there a logical error there? Please explain it to me.
And as long as we're playing the 30-odd posts ago game, care to explain when Freetrack developers used intimidation tactics?

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 04:59 AM

Wolf_Rider, would you mind answering another couple of questions that as far as I'm aware, haven't been asked yet, but sem relevant to this debate:

(A) Are you employed by anyone who has a financial interest in NP maintaining a share of the 6DOF sim software/hardware market?

(B) do you yourself have a financial interest in NP maintaining a share of the 6DOF sim software/hardware market?

I hesitate to ask such questions, but I have difficulty in otherwise explaining your attitude.

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 05:02 AM

I hesitate to ask such questions, but I have difficulty in otherwise explaining your attitude.
I've wanted to ask the same myself for quite some time, but I thought it was a little bit invasive.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 05:04 AM

Hmmm.... I've been waiting for that questioning andyjwest... no I'm not, is that clear enough for you?

why won't you give a genuine reply to my question grunch (are you one of the FT team?)? you seem to be doing all you can to avoid it, including inserting rhetoric I did not make

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 05:05 AM

Seems like it's just "argument on the Internet" syndrome, then. In answer to your question, I'm not. I've never been involved in software development of any kind. When did I "insert rhetoric that you did not make"?

And now what question is it that you've decided I haven't answered?

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 05:27 AM

"Seems like it's just "argument on the Internet" syndrome, then. you could apply that to yourself, with or wthout your own logic.

Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies? -from #71 did you miss this?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 05:31 AM

Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies? -from #71 did you miss this?
There's no need for them to. But how is that relevant to what I'm talking about? I'm not talking about Freetrack, I'm talking about the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers. That's not support of Freetrack, that's a feature request and because I think that it is a more sound system from the point of view of competition. Anyway, this is just more evasion from you as usual, akin to your previous habits of referring to distant posts by number and making vague references to previous points instead of making your posts clear.

Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely?
2) Why is that?
3) Where do you see Freetrack developers supporting intimidation tactics?

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 05:35 AM

There's no need for them to. But how is that relevant to what I'm talking about? I'm not talking about Freetrack, I'm talking about the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers.

Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely?
2) Why is that?
3) Where do you see Freetrack developers supporting intimidation tactics?

there's no need for them to.... good, and see my response to andjwest then , grunch... it sort of makes your intimidations irrelevant, eh

Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely? yes, you've answered this one in the above
2) Why is that? see 1.
3) Where do you see [S]Freetrack developers[strikethrough and insert ->] outfit supporting intimidation tactics? on their and others sites

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 05:39 AM

see my resonse to andjwest then , grunch... it sort of makes your intimidations irrelevant, eh
Well, I'm bored now, I was arguing this because it was interesting, but if you're so evasive that you can't answer simple questions I'm going to be bored again. I haven't intimidated you as you posted above (unless you meant to write intimations), you won't answer simple questions, don't recognise basic logic, have some kind of unnatural attachment to NaturalPoint and TrackIR. It was interesting for a while. :rolleyes:

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 05:52 AM

...the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers.
Yup. The same question I asked earlier. The same question that was 'answered' by a reference to an earlier posting that confused software, hardware, copyright, R&D, and who knows what else.

Let me make my position perfectly clear. If specific copyright infringements have occured, they should be dealt with appropriately. Vague assertions are not relevent to the question, however. Neither is an assumption that 'we did it first, so we have a monopoly', particularly in a case like this where it is self-evidently untrue (military aircraft have had position-senseing equipment for helmets for at least 30 years). I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface, Unless this is incorrect, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be able to claim any legal protection from others.

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 05:56 AM

3) Where do you see [S]Freetrack developers[strikethrough and insert ->] outfit supporting intimidation tactics? on their and others sites
Nothing I have said has made my belief about NaturalPoint's behaviour any less likely, but if you honestly can't make that connection then I can't help you. I think it's wiser to believe that a firm operates for profit than for their customers.
Now, do you have any proof of YOUR allegation about Freetrack developers? Care to provide a link?

I agree with Andy, your inability to separate Freetrack from an open standard for headtracking is very perplexing.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 06:00 AM

I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface,

which is what NP are being stomped for by trying to protect it.

Well, I'm bored now, I was arguing this because it was interesting, but if you're so evasive that you can't answer simple questions I'm going to be bored again. I haven't intimidated you as you posted above (unless you meant to write intimations), you won't answer simple questions, don't recognise basic logic, have some kind of unnatural attachment to NaturalPoint and TrackIR. It was interesting for a while. :rolleyes:

oh, I'm sorry, did you require the answers in a particular format? 'cause to me it definitely looks like there is a clear answer to each of your three questions

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 06:09 AM

oh, I'm sorry, did you require the answers in a particular format? 'cause to me it definitely looks like there is a clear answer to each of your three questions
Nice one champ, why don't you take a look at the time I responded to your post, and the last time you edited your post? :)

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface,
which is what NP are being stomped for by trying to protect it.

Trying to protect what? An unoriginal interface. They invented nothing significant. All they did was create a way for their hardware to interact with other people's software. they are entitled to do this. So is anyone else. What about this is so difficult to grasp?

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 06:18 AM

which post, is that?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 06:22 AM

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 06:23 AM

I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface,

Trying to protect what? An unoriginal interface. They invented nothing significant. All they did was create a way for their hardware to interact with other people's software. they are entitled to do this. So is anyone else. What about this is so difficult to grasp?

its nothing difficult to grasp at all if you maintain your original "creating an particular interface" line of your first quote, which you seem to have changed to 'unoriginal interface' in your second quote.

no wonder you don't understand anyone, when you don't seem to be able to follow your own train of thought.....

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 06:25 AM

There is an 18 minute interval between when you posted #108 and when you last edited it to add the whole second section. If you're going to respond to people who posted in between that time, you have to take into account when you made your edits. I posted #109 14 minutes before your last edit of #108. Now can we get back to the discussion?

is that all you have left grunch? talk about hardpressed

lets see what we've got so far....

allegations without proof
an agreeance that developers/ publishers don't need to cater to hackers
an agreeance that there should be some sort of interface that software writers can use for headtracking, without hacking into someone else's
an admonishment of one company for wanting and endeavouring to protect its software access, without affecting any other
a freesource team, who won't approach developers for inclusion in the product but would rather hack and support hacking

interesting

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 06:26 AM

is that all you have left grunch? talk about hardpressed
No, I've asked you a question. You answered a post I made between edits of one of your earlier posts, for some reason. Would you care to answer my question as to whether you can provide a link that proves your allegations about the Freetrack developers? All this evasion you're trying is very boring.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 06:37 AM

keep trying grunch, you're the troll you've acused others of being ;)

as for a link?, yes there are many links

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 06:42 AM

keep trying grunch, you're the troll you've acused others of being ;)

as for a link?, yes there are many links
Is that so? Why is it this time?

If it's due to what I've said about post #108, why don't you look at the times on the posts? They're very visible. The time at the top is the time the post was made. There is a piece of text which appears at the bottom of a post after an edit that displays the last time the post was edited. That usually solves most of my questions as to why some posts don't seem to take account of the previous ones. It's because I don't have a time machine.

Once that misunderstanding is done with, it's apparent that I'm just asking you a question, not trolling.
Would you care to provide a link? That was my question. Are you tired? Is your reading comprehension suffering?

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 06:45 AM

Quote... Ok, don't bother this is getting convoluted enough as it is.

no wonder you don't understand anyone, when you don't seem to be to follow your own train of thought.....

To explain it as simply as possible: NP invented a new interface for their hardware. This was unnecessary, as the existing interface was perfectly capable of handling the inputs. They have since tried to claim that they 'invented' the interface for 6DOF, rather than implementing (badly) a particular instance of such an interface. They are probably entitled to stop other hardware manufactures from using their interface, IF they accept that it isn't original, protected by any particular copyright etc beyond being an instance of an implementation of a particular solution to a generic problem. I've little doubt that a better interface could be arrived at with a little consultation between interested parties, though why they'd need to do more than state that the existing MS joystick interface was suitable for 6DOF input is beyond me.

It is noticeable that NP seem to wish to remain ambiguous as to what exactly they are claiming 'intellectual property rights' on. If it is the general principle of 6DOF input, they clearly aren't the first, and if it is their interface, it is open to others to provide alternatives.

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 06:47 AM

It's lines of code, Andy. The code is copyrighted.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 06:49 AM

tired? nah, I'm fine thanks.....

yes, I can provide a link

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 06:50 AM

yes, I can provide a link
Would you care to do so within the next few minutes?

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 06:53 AM

They have since tried to claim that they 'invented' the interface for 6DOF, rather than implementing (badly) a particular instance of such an interface. They are probably entitled to stop other hardware manufactures from using their interface, IF they accept that it isn't original, protected by any particular copyright etc beyond being an instance of an implementation of a particular solution to a generic problem.

NP developed an interface for their hardware...do you have something which can prove NP only implemented (badly) a particular instance of such an interface?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 06:59 AM

The Freetrack code is public. It's published here (https://camil.dyndns.org/svn/freetrack/tags/V2.2/). If NaturalPoint had any copyright claims against the code, they were dealt with several releases ago. They have access to read the code as often as anyone else. There is not a lot of code and NaturalPoint have made requests for lines to be removed before, which were complied with. So it would appear that there's no longer any code that's original to TrackIR in there anyway. And in any case, infringing copyright would be essentially impossible given that the TrackIR programs and drivers are supplied as binaries. To say that they've "hacked" the interface is just to say that they've worked out how to provide the correct input to the game. There's certainly nothing illegal about that. Sani's FOV Changer is more of a hack than that, it changes data in memory to change the FOV in Il-2.

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 07:04 AM

The standard MS joystick interface is perfectly adequate, as I've already said. An axis is an axis, whether it is derived from head movement or a joystick pot. It is a digital input derived from a sensor. I don't have to 'prove' anything. If NP want to claim propritary rights, it is down to them to offer proof. what exactly are NP claiming rights to? Unless they can offer an explanation as to why the existing interface was unsuitable, any claim to 'originality' should be treated with suspicion. Intellectual property rights are only supposed to be enforced to encourage new developments, not to support a monopoly of the obvious.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 07:06 AM

It's lines of code, Andy. The code is copyrighted.
full circle and back to the beginning

exactly right and it is only licensed to be used with TIR

The license states "The TrackIR software product is composed of...and dll components", ""NaturalPoint...grants...license...to use the TrackIR software ONLY with NaturalPoint TrackIR Hardware"" and "Use of the TrackIR software with...anything which emulates a TrackIR is prohibited"[12]

Most TrackIR Enhanced software need to be provided with text strings which bear notice of "EyeControl Technologies" copyright (former name of NaturalPoint, Inc.) in order to activate the TrackIR Enhanced interface. Software which requires these text strings for interface activation also contain the strings themselves. At NaturalPoint's request, FreeTrack project members removed the strings from the software they provide to end users. FreeTrack then implemented a workaround which creates a local copy of these strings from the client software when used with TrackIR Enhanced titles. - wikipedia

here's your link... http://www.bing.com/search?q=bis+freetrack+abuse&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 07:09 AM

I think the processing of the image is done by the software and ergo the CPU of the consumer's PC, not by the device itself, so it couldn't be passed straight to the HID interface, but still, there would have been no obstacle to creating a virtual joystick as part of the device's software like PPJoy does.
Anyway, what Andy is saying, W_R, as I have been, is that there is no adequate reason to create the proprietary interface EXCEPT if you consider the creation of the device as an attempt to create a monopoly.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 07:17 AM

Anyway, what Andy is saying, W_R, as I have been, is that there is no adequate reason to create the proprietary interface EXCEPT if you consider the creation of the device as an attempt to create a monopoly.

I don't think that to be the case grunch and you know it, else you would be whinging that you couldn't use ATI drivers/ control panel on an nVidia card and visa versa, or any driver with similar product those drivers were developed for, or any joystick programmer with any joystick, interswap Intel and AMD cpus, etc..... you've made allegations without proof, admit to having no proof and agree that developers/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 07:27 AM

I don't think that to be the case grunch and you know it... you've made allegations without proof, admit to having no proof and agree that developers/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.
Yeah, but I also understand the principle of reasonable doubt. I don't see how your link supports your allegations about the Freetrack developers, either. How could a bunch of free software developers "intimidate" a game developer? I thought you were going to bring up something more substantial than people bitching in a forum thread. I thought game developers had thicker skins than that.
I understand enough about the way that joystick devices work to know that there was no need to create the proprietary interface. They could have even kept their software as it is, all they had to do is pass the output to a virtual joystick instead of via an encrypted datastream as it is most recently. They wouldn't even have to make the virtual joystick device themselves, they could just use the freely available PPJoy, although they would likely be wise to make their own solution to avoid infringing copyright themselves.
The other benefit to this is that developers wouldn't even have to code in support for TrackIR specifically, they would just have to make view position accessible to a joystick device, so it would even make developers' lives easier.
Incidentally, I didn't know that NP broke older TrackIR hardware in newer games just to break Freetrack, so that at least was informative. I wonder if my TrackIR 3 would work with Arma II?

EDIT: In fact, it seems like the cause of the controversy in that thread was the developers' insistence on ignoring the fact that Freetrack has its own API that developers are free to use.

AndyJWest

02-20-2010, 07:32 AM

Round and round we go...

Tesll us what it is that you think NP have intellectual property rights over. Is it:

(A) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer.

(B) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer using the particular protocol they developed.

(C) something else entirely.

If it is (A) they were not original. If it is (B) then anyone can develop an alternative - or use the existing standards.

If it is (C) then for god's sake tell us what it is.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 07:37 AM

Yeah, but I also understand the principle of reasonable doubt. I don't see how your link supports your allegations about the Freetrack developers, either. How could a bunch of free software developers "intimidate" a game developer? I thought you were going to bring up something more substantial than people bitching in a forum thread. I thought game developers had thicker skins than that.
I understand enough about the way that joystick devices work to know that there was no need to create the proprietary interface. They could have even kept their software as it is, all they had to do is pass the output to a virtual joystick instead of via an encrypted datastream as it is most recently. They wouldn't even have to make the virtual joystick device themselves, they could just use the freely available PPJoy, although they would likely be wise to make their own solution to avoid infringing copyright themselves.
The other benefit to this is that developers wouldn't even have to code in support for TrackIR specifically, they would just have to make view position accessible to a joystick device, so it would even make developers' lives easier.
Incidentally, I didn't know that NP broke older TrackIR hardware in newer games just to break Freetrack, so that at least was informative. I wonder if my TrackIR 3 would work with Arma II?

EDIT: In fact, it seems like the cause of the controversy in that thread was the developers' insistence on ignoring the fact that Freetrack has its own API that developers are free to use.

NP are just protecting their code and the product's good name in quality.

I've basically said before there is nothing wrong with someone developing their own interface, its just when the hack into someone else's that there is a problem. So why all your hoo har?

for your edit... perhaps the developers have never been approached to include the api via a patch. You've already said earlier that the first was BIS and you've agreed that developer/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.

Round and round we go...

Tesll us what it is that you think NP have intellectual property rights over. Is it:

(A) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer.

(B) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer using the particular protocol they developed.

(C) something else entirely.

If it is (A) they were not original. If it is (B) then anyone can develop an alternative - or use the existing standards.

If it is (C) then for god's sake tell us what it is.

yes well tell us about it, you've been running a right merry-go-round.

what is it exactly, you don't understand now?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 07:38 AM

You'd understand why it's possible if you understood a bit more about computer hardware. ATI and NVidia make their own proprietary drivers because their drivers are a direct interface between hardware and software, their drivers communicate directly with the card. TrackIR's software communicates with the TrackIR device via USB, which first of all does a lot of the interfacing itself, and secondly is too slow a protocol for the speeds required by a 3D engine. It's then passed to the game via their encrypted datastream. The TrackIR software can recognise the head position on its own, so it would be quite possible to pass that information from the TrackIR software to a virtual joystick instead of encrypting it and sending it to the game. In fact, the TrackIR software has to be running for the device to work anyway so I don't see how that could ever be a problem.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 07:45 AM

which means?

TheGrunch

02-20-2010, 07:49 AM

which means?
That there was no good reason to create the interface in the first place except to cause other implementations difficulty once theirs was in use. It made developers' lives harder as well since they had to add TrackIR support specifically.

As to BIS, given what's written in that thread it seems like the Freetrack developers were tearing their hair out about showing their API to BIS and BIS saying that they couldn't implement it because it used the NP API. Which it didn't. Sounds like a misunderstanding, but it looks like it got pretty out of hand.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm off out, talk to you guys later.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 07:59 AM

err did sim connect or devicelink exist when TIR first came out?

Following your "logic" why couldn't other people interested in headtracking write their own and approach developers for inclusion, or take advanatge of what was available? its what I've said before.. its between the developer and the particular tracker people... nothing to do with NP

Why hammer NP?

The BIS biz didn't read like you were suggesting at all... they say quite clearly; no-one approached them about inclusion... quite clearly the FT does use the TIR side of things (if nothing else is available) and that goes against NP licensing and copyright.

Perhaps FT should just get rid of anything NP, in any form and go about taking an honest approach?

sigur_ros

02-20-2010, 09:52 AM

quite clearly the FT does use the TIR side of things (if nothing else is available) and that goes against NP licensing and copyright.

BIS set a precedent by supporting both TrackIR and Freetrack so it is clear there is no license problem or legal issue with Freetrack. The only unclear thing is your motivation for spending a 14 page thread slandering Freetrack.

Wolf_Rider

02-20-2010, 09:43 PM

I don't believe anyone has said there is any issue with FT (or any other) and TIR running side by side Sigur... where did this come from?
Also pointed out were the means of having a camera run as tracker, without having to hack into NP software.

julian265

02-21-2010, 12:27 AM

Wow.... I go out for the day and the thread doubles in length!

Wolf_Rider, you'd make a great politician or lawyer.

Neither AndyJWest or TheGrunch have an issue with NP developing their own interface.

We all have a problem with games not accepting standard axis inputs for head tracking, for the nth time. We also have a problem with businesses which lobby game devs, to get them to not accept standard axis inputs.

You seem to avoid making comments directly about the above issue, instead changing the question, or choosing to comment about businesses protecting their interests instead, or a completely unrelated issue, regarding NP dealing with "hackers".

Also, Wolf_Rider, you asked for proof of NP being in a financial arrangement with Ubi, in order for them to "moderate" discussion of freetrack. I'll accept that this is not proof, however I have read it on the Ubi forum that there is a "sponsorship" arrangement between Ubi and NP which causes the issue to be "moderated". I'm looking for the post now, but it's a bit hard when the search terms needed have all been "moderated" out.

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 12:53 AM

Wow.... I go out for the day and the thread doubles in length!

Wolf_Rider, you'd make a great politician or lawyer.

thank you for your kind words, but neither take my fancy

Neither AndyJWest or TheGrunch have an issue with NP developing their own interface.

I have noticed that, and I don't believe anyone has indicated otherwise

We all have a problem with games not accepting standard axis inputs for head tracking, for the nth time.

PPJoy and TIR2joy does this, doesn't it?

We also have a problem with businesses which lobby game devs, to get them to not accept standard axis inputs.

why would NP have both PPJoy and TIR2joy listed on their site, for download, if this was truly the case?

You seem to avoid making comments directly about the above issue, instead changing the question, or choosing to comment about businesses protecting their interests instead, or a completely unrelated issue, regarding NP dealing with "hackers".

The true point of the matter is exactly that of NP dealing with hackers... and please don't go twisting things around

Also, Wolf_Rider, you asked for proof of NP being in a financial arrangement with Ubi, in order for them to "moderate" discussion of freetrack. I'll accept that this is not proof, however I have read it on the Ubi forum that there is a "sponsorship" arrangement between Ubi and NP which causes the issue to be "moderated". I'm looking for the post now, but it's a bit hard when the search terms needed have all been "moderated" out.

err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly. grunch stated he had no proof, yet continues to make allegation... please don't alter the issue there.

regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 01:01 AM

....intimidation of other companies
That is a pretty serious allegation, Wolf_Rider. I don't suppose for one minute you are going to back it up with evidence?

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 01:04 AM

check the link supplied to grunch yesterday...

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 01:15 AM

check the link supplied to grunch yesterday...
You can't mean this one, surely: http://www.bing.com/search?q=bis+freetrack+abuse&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

That is a link to Bing, with the search string 'bis freetrack abuse'. What is that supposed to prove?

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 01:17 AM

oh do keep trying andyjwest... haven't you shot enough holes in your own foot yet? :)

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 01:20 AM

oh do keep trying andyjwest... haven't you shot enough holes in your own foot yet? :)
A simple yes or no question. Was that the link you were referring to?

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 01:22 AM

that's the only link I've given to grunch yesterday andyjwest... is there something you don't understand again?

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 01:28 AM

that's the only link I've given to grunch yesterday andyjwest... is there something you don't understand again?

Yes, I don't understand what the heck this has to do with intimidation. Do yo not understand how a search engine works? Just because it found articles with the words you entered in it, doesn't indicate that they are even referring to what you are, never mind 'proving it. When I looked, this was the first article on the list: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=403616782&blogId=439120001

It is in German:Freetrack von SWISS bei PLATZ 1 bis Donnerstag !!!
So leute es geht wieder ab , SWISS und ich haben geschrieben und es ist dazu gekomm das er gesagt hat wenn wir bis Donnerstag SWISS auf PLATZ 1 bei MTV ROOKIE kriegen , wird es einen FREETRACK geben !!! also was heißt das ??? genau VOTEN VOTEN VOTEN !!! aber das kriegen wir hin !!! Der FREETRACK wird HAMMER werden !!!! das kann ich schonmal sagen !!!

Or from Google Translate:
Freetrack of SWISS in TABLE 1 through Thursday!
So people go off again, SWISS and I have written and it is this which he has been told if we get to Thursday SWISS TABLE 1 at MTV ROOKIE, there will be a FREE TRACK! So what does that mean?? just VOTE VOTE VOTE! but we get out! The FREE TRACK will HAMMER!! I can tell schonmal!

Now provide proof of 'intimidation'.

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 01:31 AM

now you're just being deliberately silly and predictable, andyjwest... grunch didn't have any problem

linking directly would, in my opinion, put me in breach of the stated guidelines for this forum... or is that what you are hoping for?

julian265

02-21-2010, 01:38 AM

PPJoy and TIR2joy does this, doesn't it?It's a workaround, for sure, but there are still no generic head tracking inputs, when it's obvious that there should be. Some games also limit what you can input to head pose without TIR - eg limited to 2DoF when you emulate mouse movement.

why would NP have both PPJoy and TIR2joy listed on their site, for download, if this was truly the case?Out of interest, can you post a link? Head trackers don't pop up in the "game controllers" control panel, and games do not communicate with them like almost all other gaming hardware. So it is truly not the case. Also, without seeing the context in which the links you mentioned are posted, I'm guessing that it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3 (which cannot communicate in encrypted form like TIR 4+ does)

The true point of the matter is exactly that of NP dealing with hackers... and please don't go twisting things around[/COLOR] Actually, the point at any one time is the question or statement that you choose to respond to.

[I]err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly... please don't alter the issue there.

See:
Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?

And your response:
err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

But if you want proof of the locking out, see my link from early (post 15) in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=589080&postcount=40

The entire thread is at : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=589080#post589080

regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?[/COLOR]
They should not support a "hacking outfit". IMO they should allow discussion. What intimidation?

julian265

02-21-2010, 01:42 AM

BTW I interpret the allowing of unmoderated discussion of this topic, on this forum, as a good sign. 8)

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 01:42 AM

now you're just being deliberately silly and predictable, andyjwest...

linking directly would, in my opinion, put me in breach of the stated guidelines for this forum... or is that what you are hoping for?

I'm not being 'deliberately silly', I'm asking you to provide proof. You claimed that you had posted a link to such proof. You didn't. You provided a link to a search engine.

And no, I'm not 'hoping' to get you to breach forum guidelines. Since I don't have a clue as to what it is you are alleging, there is no way I could know whether such a breach was a possibility. Once again you seem incapable of providing straight answers to simple questions, but instead have to add another layer of complexity and confusion.

Now, I'll ask again, where is the proof of 'intimidation'. If you can't provide a link, at least provide a search string that doesn't come up with random irrelevance. If you are struggling with this, PM me, and I'll show you the easiest way to do it. Come to that, why not just PM me the link...

julian265

02-21-2010, 01:49 AM

Or maybe an indication of the name of the link to be clicked from your search?

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 01:57 AM

It's a workaround, for sure, but there are still no generic head tracking inputs, when it's obvious that there should be. Some games also limit what you can input to head pose without TIR - eg limited to 2DoF when you emulate mouse movement.

as mentioned before, all that is between the developer and the various headtracking people... and so it seems that FT need not violate NP copyright at all then

Out of interest, can you post a link? Head trackers don't pop up in the "game controllers" control panel, and games do not communicate with them like almost all other gaming hardware. So it is truly not the case. Also, without seeing the context in which the links you mentioned are posted, I'm guessing that it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3 (which cannot communicate in encrypted form like TIR 4+ does)

I'm sorry but you'll need to do your own homework there...

Actually, the point at any one time is the question or statement that you choose to respond to.

Things would OT rather quickly in that regard... better to just stick to the topic at hand

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly... please don't alter the issue there.

See:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrunch
Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?

And your response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

But if you want proof of the locking out, see my link from early (post 15) in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The entire thread is at : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...080#post589080

[I]you should have mentioned the post above that one, which mentions an NDA.... also in your linked post, take note of the last sentence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?[/COLOR]

They should not support a "hacking outfit". IMO they should allow discussion.

why should they do that?... its the product which quite often gets hacked

What intimidation?

we could go around in circles for page after page on that one.....

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 02:10 AM

another layer of complexity and confusion.

Now, I'll ask again, where is the proof of 'intimidation'. If you can't provide a link, at least provide a search string that doesn't come up with random irrelevance. If you are struggling with this, PM me, and I'll show you the easiest way to do it. Come to that, why not just PM me the link...

err, grunch had no trouble andyjwest and rest assured, the confusion is of your own making.

You've got your link, so have a read

BTW I interpret the allowing of unmoderated discussion of this topic, on this forum, as a good sign. 8)

yes, that is good :)

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 02:51 AM

You've got your link, so have a read
Read what?

Grunch, if you are still bothering to follow this nonsense, can I ask whether you know what the heck Wolf_Rider is referring to?

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 03:25 AM

Read what?

Grunch, if you are still bothering to follow this nonsense, can I ask whether you know what the heck Wolf_Rider is referring to?

How about you start playing the ball, instead of the player??... there's a good boy

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 03:32 AM

Ok, I'll take a wild guess, since Wolf_Rider isn't being very helpful, and assume that I'm supposed to be looking at the forum the search finds that actually refers to FreeTrack. Now what am I supposed to do? Read every posting to look for evidence of 'intimidation'? Why the heck should I? He made the accusation, so it is up to him to provide the evidence. He need not provide a link to the site if he provides a reasonable length quote from the relevant postings - I can search for them myself (though quoting from them shouldn't breach forum rules anyway).

I've had this sort of internet 'debate' before. First, the 'evidence' is supposedly so obvious that a link isn't needed, but I ask for it anyway. And surprise surprise, it isn't obvious at all, but is to be found somewhere or other, and if I can't find it, it is clearly my fault. The punchline in such 'debates' usually turns out to be that there is no 'evidence', just the unverifiable interpretation of some minor bit of text posted by no-one of consequence.

The only real mystery in the is why Wolf_Rider is so concerned with NPs 'property rights', given his assurances that he has no involvement with them.

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 03:33 AM

How about you start playing the ball, instead of the player??... there's a good boy

Is this supposed to mean something?

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 02:05 PM

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 02:53 PM

Right, Wolf_Rider, now you have proved totally incapable of actually providing any direct evidence of 'intimidation', I'm going to have to assume it is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

I'd suggest everyone else does the same, and ignores him.

Can we get back to the subject now. Is there any reason why 6DoF input devices can't use the standard MS joystick API? And if not, why don't games publishers just do the sensible thing and use them? Problem solved.

Wolf_Rider

02-21-2010, 03:01 PM

Right, Wolf_Rider, now you have proved totally incapable of actually providing any direct evidence of 'intimidation', I'm going to have to assume it is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

Right, andyjwest... well, you've not understood anything in the past, so I wouldn't hold much hope for you understanding anything in the future... even with the use of crayon and butcher's paper. (you've really sunk yourself on that one, eh?)

I'd suggest everyone else does the same, and ignores him.

Your problem seems to be that some just don't agree with you that anybodies' software should just be opened up for anyone to use willy nilly, regardless of copyright and it has gotten you into a tiz. Making calls to ignore people, andyjwest, says more about you than anyone else.

Can we get back to the subject now. Is there any reason why 6DoF input devices can't use the standard MS joystick API? And if not, why don't games publishers just do the sensible thing and use them?

suggestion along those lines was made way earlier in the thread, andyjwest, before your rants started. Clear discussion on some programs which allow exactly that, without the use of anything copyrighted by NP, occurred only a few posts ago, programs which even allowed for NP's TIR to be used... did you miss that?

Problem solved.

sticking to the thread topic usually does that

sigur_ros

02-21-2010, 04:56 PM

Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks?

BIS would never have supported Freetrack interface in Arma if there was license problem or legal issue with any part of Freetrack software or it's use. They are in good position to judge, they make software and work with software licenses, copyright and patent law. They would never support, by your description, 'outfit' of 'punk hackers' that 'promote hacking' 'deserve contempt' use 'intimidation' do not respect copyright and break the law.

I just now notice you never directly say Freetrack break the law, but imply it over and over, seems you are too afraid to directly say it because you know it is not true.

Because BIS use TrackIR they follow NaturalPoint licenses, so if NaturalPoint do not like Freetrack interface they could have stopped BIS from using it. But not so.

So to conclude, there is professional respected game studio BIS who have supported Freetrack and there is NaturalPoint TrackIR developer licenses that permit support of Freetrack interface. Evidence is clear that Freetrack is 100% legitimate.

sigur_ros

02-21-2010, 05:19 PM

Only way to dispute Freetrack being 100% legitimate is to say BIS is corrupt, unprofessional and support breaking law and NaturalPoint TrackIR licenses don't care about other software illegally using TrackIR interface.

AndyJWest

02-21-2010, 06:13 PM

Wolf_Rider wrote (amongst his other ramblings):
Your problem seems to be that some just don't agree with you that anybodies' software should just be opened up for anyone to use willy nilly, regardless of copyright and it has gotten you into a tiz....

This is an outright falsehood. I never suggested anything of the sort. That he can come out with such drivel indicates how little concern for facts he has, and why my suggestion that he is best ignored should be taken seriously.

julian265

02-21-2010, 10:48 PM

as mentioned before, all that is between the developer and the various headtracking people... and so it seems that FT need not violate NP copyright at all then
If you think it's acceptable that NP coerces developers into restricting non-NP trackers to 2/3DoF, then yes. I don't.

I'm sorry but you'll need to do your own homework there...I found the links, and some NP forum posts. "it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3" and also for games that don't accept non-mouse head tracking at all.

Things would OT rather quickly in that regard... better to just stick to the topic at handNeither you, nor anyone else in this thread has stuck to the thread topic, including myself.

you should have mentioned the post above that one, which mentions an NDA.... also in your linked post, take note of the last sentenceWhy? I'm aware that freetrack's emulating, or "hacking" as you call it, of TIR is possibly illegal, and I'm not defending it.

why should they do that?... its the product which quite often gets hackedYour ideals are clearly different to mine, we'll leave it at that.

we could go around in circles for page after page on that one.....We could. Lets do another one:

YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"? Note that the question is independent of freetrack and it's developers practises. The outcome of 1C's decision will affect non-NP, non-freetrack trackers. How about it, yes or no?

Wolf_Rider

02-22-2010, 01:49 AM

Sigur_Ros, your #164... rspectfully, you don't have a clue do you?
NP doesn't want its copyrighted software violated, as would anyone else

and with your #165... "Only way to dispute Freetrack being 100% legitimate is to say BIS is corrupt, unprofessional and support breaking law and NaturalPoint TrackIR licenses don't care about other software illegally using TrackIR interface." Actually, I believe NP are taking a very dim view on other software using NP's software illegally.

#166...
andyjwest, it isn't a falsehood, your actions speak reams. You insist on 'playing the player', instead of playing the ball and in doing have missed several facts.
(eg you ask; where? - I answer; here, here and there - you respond with; I don't understand)

#167...
Julian 265

If you think it's acceptable that NP coerces developers into restricting non-NP trackers to 2/3DoF, then yes. I don't.

If what they do violates NP NDA or software copyright, then there is a problem... there is however, no reason why a third do as you've suggested and write something to tap into MS joystick API, and not accessing NP software in any shape or form... is there?

I found the links, and some NP forum posts. "it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3" and also for games that don't accept non-mouse head tracking at all.

If the NP software wasn't being hacked, there would be no need to attempt to protect their property... if it is possible to use PPjoy, MS joystick API etc, why does the rhetoric continue in the vein of forcing NP to delete their copyright?

Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread has stuck to the thread topic, including myself.

yet I get slammed for not adressing all points?

Why? I'm aware that freetrack's emulating, or "hacking" as you call it, of TIR is possibly illegal, and I'm not defending it.

Thank you.
The 'hacking' is though infringing NP copyright

Your ideals are clearly different to mine, we'll leave it at that.

I don't seek to force people to my opinion, like some in this thread seem want to do. DIversity of opinion is to be lauded. Some support hacking, some don't

YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"? Note that the question is independent of freetrack and it's developers practises. The outcome of 1C's decision will affect non-NP, non-freetrack trackers. How about it, yes or no?

I've already said several times, what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party. I've also already said, there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect. devicelink, joystick api, or similar. The problem lies with a third party infringing another company's copyright.
Why do people keep on "forgetting" what was said earlier?

AndyJWest

02-22-2010, 02:04 AM

Wolf_Rider continues:

#166...
andyjwest, it isn't a falsehood, your actions speak reams. You insist on 'playing the player', instead of playing the ball and in doing have missed several facts.
(eg you ask; where? - I answer; here, here and there - you respond with; I don't understand)

You will note that yet again he offers no evidence at all to back up his statements about what I am supposed to have said. This leaves me no choice:

Wolf_Rider, either provide evidence that I suggested that "anybodies' software should just be opened up for anyone to use willy nilly, regardless of copyright" or apologise for posting this falsehood. Your repeated suggestions that I am breaking forum rules (which this would entail), combined with your reluctance to provide evidence to back this up, suggest that you have little concern for such rules yourself. If You are unable to do this, I will request that this topic be closed, and that appropriate action be taken against you. How the moderators react is of course up to them, but I'd think it difficult for them to allow your dishonest tactics to continue

AKA_Tenn

02-22-2010, 02:04 AM

basically... to use an analogy... to say freetrack is illegal is like saying... because one company makes TV's all other companies need to ask that one for permission if they want to make TV's too... or if one company makes fly swatters, any other company that makes something that also kills flies needs to as for permission...

yes... t hats right i used TV's and flyswatters as analogys...

Wolf_Rider

02-22-2010, 02:15 AM

Wolf_Rider continues:

~ Your repeated suggestions that I am breaking forum rules ~

err, you're off the ledge on this one andyjwest... I have never said that
:-P

I will request that this topic be closed, and that appropriate action be taken against you. How the moderators react is of course up to them, but I'd think it difficult for them to allow your dishonest tactics to continue.

You are free to do as you wish, andyjwest, but as with your calling for people to be ignored, the above also says more about you than anyone else. As for your claim of dishonest tactics... well, I can only say you are looking at yourself in your mirror there. "If you can't play them, badger them... if you can't badger them, do all you can to shut them down, eh? That's what you seem to be employing here, andyjwest.

basically... to use an analogy... to say freetrack is illegal is like saying... because one company makes TV's all other companies need to ask that one for permission if they want to make TV's too... or if one company makes fly swatters, any other company that makes something that also kills flies needs to as for permission...

yes... t hats right i used TV's and flyswatters as analogys...

I don't believe anyone has said FT is actually illegal... they have said though, that FT is infringing another company's copyright. Also said was; why couldn't FT come up with their own necessary bits, approach the developers for inclusion in the production, whilst leave NP's property alone?

Your TV analogy is spot on for describing how copyright and patents work. Does "manufactured under license" or "used under license", ring any bells??

AndyJWest

02-22-2010, 02:27 AM

Rule 9:
9. Discussions concerning illegal use of copyrighted software, registration key generators and other illegal ways of circumventing copyright laws are strictly prohibited...

I suppose this depends on the precise interpretation the moderators put on this.

You might also like to consider this rule, for you own benefit:
18. Dissemination of false information is prohibited regardless of the poster's awareness.

Since you still have offered no evidence to back up your false information regarding my attitude to breaches of copyright (there isn't any), you have broken the rules yourself. I am now informing the moderators of this.

Wolf_Rider

02-22-2010, 02:36 AM

AndyJWest

02-22-2010, 02:40 AM

The evidence is in your actions, shrillness and attitude, andyjwest, as mentioned before... as for the other, it looks like I was right with what you are employing here,... so knock yourself out, sport.
Or to put it another way, the 'evidence' is entirely in your imagination.

Since you have now admitted there is no real 'evidence' to back up your allegations, are you going to apologise?

Wolf_Rider

02-22-2010, 02:46 AM

are you always so quick to put words in peoples' mouth andyjwest?

bear in mind, I could ask the same of your...

"Originally Posted by AndyJWest (in post #169 and currently unedited at this time)

Wolf_Rider continues:

~ Your repeated suggestions that I am breaking forum rules ~ "

AndyJWest

02-22-2010, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (in post #169 and currently unedited at this time)

I am not in the habit of editing posts to change their meaning. In any case the moderators will have access to the original posting.

Still no evidence at all to back up your false claims about my attitude to copyright, I note.

Wolf_Rider

02-22-2010, 03:05 AM

how did you go?

AndyJWest

02-22-2010, 03:11 AM

how did you go?

It's not how, its where: to bed.

No doubt you'll try to come out with a 'witty' response or two, rather than backing up your drivel with evidence...

Wolf_Rider

02-22-2010, 03:18 AM

I think you've diverted the topic off course enough now andyjwest... how about acting as you requested (neigh... insisted) others do and just stick to the topic...

julian265

02-22-2010, 03:20 AM

If what they do violates NP NDA or software copyright, then there is a problem... there is however, no reason why a third do as you've suggested and write something to tap into MS joystick API, and not accessing NP software in any shape or form... is there?A third? 2/3DoF was 2 or 3 Degrees of Freedom - as distinct from full 6DoF. And actually there is a reason - some games have BLOCKED OUT the methods that you mentioned, for controlling in-game head pose, which is the ONLY reason behind this thread's existence.

SNIP ...if it is possible to use PPjoy, MS joystick API etc, why does the rhetoric continue in the vein of forcing NP to delete their copyright?This is an odd thing to be asked, 18 pages into the thread about exactly this topic. The "rhetoric" continues because it simply isn't possible in some games, or isn't possible with 6DoF, which is equally unacceptable. I created this thread to try to get 1C to state their stance - whether or not they would restrict non-NP trackers, which would negate the use of PPJoy etc.

YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"? Note that the question is independent of freetrack and it's developers practises. The outcome of 1C's decision will affect non-NP, non-freetrack trackers. How about it, yes or no?

I've already said several times, what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party. I've also already said, there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect. devicelink, joystick api, or similar. The problem lies with a third party infringing another company's copyright.
Why do people keep on "forgetting" what was said earlier?

Because you didn't actually answer the question, and have avoided it previously. The topic of this thread, and my "yes or no" question, was about BoB 'listening' for head positions on standard interfaces - not tracking software using standard interfaces (which is, or easily can be, a given). Do you understand the difference? If TIR, or freetrack, or any other tracker sent head position as normal joystick axes, many games would ignore it - and I'm wondering if BoB will too. But either a 1C rep didn't read the first post of this thread, or they won't comment.

Wolf_Rider

02-22-2010, 03:41 AM

A third? 2/3DoF was 2 or 3 Degrees of Freedom - as distinct from full 6DoF. And actually there is a reason - some games have BLOCKED OUT the methods that you mentioned, for controlling in-game head pose, which is the ONLY reason behind this thread's existence.

Thanks and my bad... I did leave out the word 'party' where your question mark is. NP took the time and the effort to create their system (interface and tracker module), when there was no other product around... why can't others go and do the same?
TrackIR in games only came about because of few people who saw what handicapped people were using (that being SmartNav) and thought to themselves; "this is a damned good idea, can it be adapted to a gaming environment?"

This is an odd thing to be asked, 18 pages into the thread about exactly this topic. The "rhetoric" continues because it simply isn't possible in some games, or isn't possible with 6DoF, which is equally unacceptable. I created this thread to try to get 1C to state their stance - whether or not they would restrict non-NP trackers, which would negate the use of PPJoy etc.

I guess some games only recognise one joystick... one input? which goes back to my earlier comments regarding approaching developers for a patch. Have any actually been approached in a civilsed manner?

Because you didn't actually answer the question, and have avoided it previously. The topic of this thread, and my "yes or no" question, was about BoB 'listening' for head positions on standard interfaces - not tracking software using standard interfaces (which is, or easily can be, a given). Do you understand the difference? If TIR, or freetrack, or any other tracker sent head position as normal joystick axes, many games would ignore it - and I'm wondering if BoB will too. But either a 1C rep didn't read the first post of this thread, or they won't comment.

"YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"? Note that the question is independent of freetrack and it's developers practises. The outcome of 1C's decision will affect non-NP, non-freetrack trackers. How about it, yes or no?"

the above is your original question...

I've already said several times, what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party. I've also already said, there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar. The problem lies with a third party infringing another company's copyright.
Why do people keep on "forgetting" what was said earlier?

julian265

02-22-2010, 04:12 AM

NP took the time and the effort to create their interface, when there was no other product around... why can't others go and do the same?Once again, they can and have. But it is a bad way for head tracking to go... It should go the way joysticks/keyboards/mouses have, and use a standardised interface - which already exists. I've been saying this since the first page.

I guess some games only recognise one joystick... one input? which goes back to my earlier comments regarding approaching developers for a patch. Have any actually been approached in a civilsed manner?Most games recognise a few joysticks, Il-2 included, each with up to 8 axes and at least 32 buttons. There should be no need for any negotiation or approaches - IMO using the joystick or mouse interface is simply THE way to do it. I've been saying this since the first page also. I am unaware of the manner in which other trackers' creators have approached game devs.

My question: "YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"?"

Your answer: "what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party." - Which is true, but not an answer to the question. So why write it?

Your second answer: "there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar." - Which also avoids the question.

Do you understand the difference between trackers "accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar", and games listening to these protocols?

Wolf_Rider

02-22-2010, 04:24 AM

Once again, they can and have.

except FT hacks into NP software

But it is a bad way for head tracking to go... It should go the way joysticks/keyboards/mouses have, and use a standardised interface - which already exists. I've been saying this since the first page.

and I'm not disagreeing there

Most games recognise a few joysticks, Il-2 included, each with up to 8 axes and at least 32 buttons. There should be no need for any negotiation or approaches - IMO using the joystick or mouse interface is simply THE way to do it. I've been saying this since the first page also.

again, personally, I'm not in disagreement there. A lot of earlier (but still popular) games only recognise one though... they were made before pedals, throttles, etc came along.
All that would be need is for there to be some way of having some way for the "webcam tracker" talk to the joystick/ mouse interface? or develop an original interface?

I am unaware of the manner in which other trackers' creators have approached game devs.

It would be interesting to learn of exactly what has happened with regard to this... I know (from reading) BIS stated nobody approached them in an official and civilised capacity at first. It was only after the onslaught (basically) from a few was told to cease and desist... then a poll was held to determine if there enough users interested

My question: "YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"?"

Your answer: "what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party." - Which is true, but not an answer to the question. So why write it?

Your second answer: "there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar." - Which also avoids the question.

it answers your question perfectly and is actually all the one answer... and respectfully - live with it, if it is not in the format of which you demand

Do you understand the difference between trackers "accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar", and games listening to these protocols?

do you understand there is a difference between your original question and the modified one which you have tried to put forward?