Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Royraiden]

EDIT****If you want info about the questions I asked dont read this thread because it is full of useless off-topic posts mostly by two sad fellas.

Having already ordered a HOTAS+Rudder pedals for this sim(thanks to all the kind members for sharing your thoughts and experience on my other thread),now its time for me to consider upgrading my head tracking setup.I've been using Freetrack for the past year with almost no complaints regarding the software.On the other hand, due to my poor craftsmanship, my 3 point clip started failing on me,something I was expecting because that thing was held on by layers and layers of duct tape(yes it was a pretty cheap build).So I've read several times that I could use the Natural Point Track Clip Pro with Freetrack, and went to their website to order one.I can get it shipped for $60.00.If I would have know these from the start I would have saved the money I spent on the webcam+ tools and parts and go all out for a TrackIR solution.My main concern is,how can I be sure that Freetrack is going to be supported when the game comes out?If I could choose I would stay with freetrack because its a great piece of software,and the fact that it is free.Though there are a few advantages to owning Track Ir.The most important for me is the reflective Clip.Having the 3 point clip with Freetrack means that I need to have my headphones on in addition to another cable hanging around my face.I guess I could build a reflective clip for Freetrack but I honestly dont want to fiddle more with parts.



Freetrack
Pros:
-FREE software
-Easy to set up and use once you got the setup built correctly
-Easy to replace(if the camera fails)

Cons:
-Support(not all games supporting track ir support freetrack, correct me)
-Bothersome to make clip(at least to me)
-Requires a dark room to work properly most of the time

TrackIR
Pros:
-No need to build
-More complex software(im assuming)
-Comes with reflective clip(does not need a dark room to work properly)
-Better support on games

Cons:
-Expensive!

I guess there are more cons but since I dont own a TIR setup I dont know which ones.

If I decided to go for the TrackIR I would try to get the TIR4 but it isnt available on amazon and theres just a few on ebay.Where is the cheapest place I could get one?Feel free to correct my mistakes, if there's any.Give me some advice/suggestions/experience.And most importantly,is Freetrack going to be supported at release?Im fairly new to the forum so maybe this was discussed earlier.

[Qpassa]

Would be good to know the position of OM. Have they blocked access to needed information as Eagle Dynamics did with DCS:Black Shark(because Natural Point payed it)?

[Royraiden]

Well, Ilya has been shown using TrackIR in 2 videos.In one of them he was actually talking about it.

[speculum jockey]

Instead of making a setup that tracks three infrared lights, just mount a few to shine towards you (high output LED's if possible) and just make your own reflective clip instead. That way you don't have to have a bunch of wires hanging from your head, and the LED setup could run off of a power source other than batteries. (think replacing one of those USB LED lamps with an IR one).

[Matt255]

-Support(not all games supporting track ir support freetrack, correct me)
Could be, never found one that doesn't support Freetrack though (Black Shark needs a fix though).

-Bothersome to make clip(at least to me)
You can buy the TrackClipPro (yes, pretty expensive, but still less expensive then TrackIR). This might be a problem if you don't wear a headphone/headset.

-Requires a dark room to work properly most of the time
Not if you use IR LED's (or bought the TrackClipPro).

I'm using Freetrack with a VX3000 webcam and the TrackclipPro and it works perfectly, no reason for me to get TrackIR.


If CloD won't support Freetrack, i'll be very disappointed.

[Royraiden]

Thanks for your replies.Indeed a lot of people will be dissapointed if there's no Freetrack support.That is why I havent bought anything yet.

[Wolf_Rider]

does FT still hack from TIR software?

[Royraiden]

Could be, never found one that doesn't support Freetrack though (Black Shark needs a fix though).


You can buy the TrackClipPro (yes, pretty expensive, but still less expensive then TrackIR). This might be a problem if you don't wear a headphone/headset.


Not if you use IR LED's (or bought the TrackClipPro).

I'm using Freetrack with a VX3000 webcam and the TrackclipPro and it works perfectly, no reason for me to get TrackIR.


If CloD won't support Freetrack, i'll be very disappointed.

No Im not using IR led's though I thought they were when I bought them.How's the build quality?I read somewhere that it broke fairly easy.

[Matt255]

It seems very fragile indeed. I have it for 15 months or so and it's still in good shape, it won't fall apart by looking at it, but it's definately not sturdy, especially not for the price, if it would cost 10 € or so, it would be a fair price imo.

[Blackdog_kt]

I had some problems with power outages and surges recently that resulted in my power supply getting fried. Thankfully, the rest of my PC survived and the PSU was replaced for free thanks to a 3-year warranty, but the whole thing ended with my TrackIR 4 camera going dead.

I was of course considerably annoyed (to put it mildly :-P ) because i didn't want to buy a new set, but on the other hand head tracking is one of those things that once you get used to you can't go back.

So i installed freetrack and after some tweaking i can use it with a cheap microsoft lifecam vx-5000 and my battered trackclip Pro (that thing is so notoriously flimsy that i've had to use duct-tape a mere 2 months after i bought my TrackIR+trackclip Pro set).

I use my webcam to place skype videocalls to relatives abroad, so i change the camera's configuration back and forth whenever i want to use freetrack.

Also for the same reason i haven't modified it (didn't remove the IR filter), but the IR leds from the trackcklip still register if the room is dark.

Granted, my initial observations are a bit tinted by the fact that i haven't tweaked freetrack to my taste just yet, but truth be told if i could spare the money right now i'd buy a new TrackIR set.

Don't get me wrong, Freetrack is a very good solution and i hope it's supported in CoD. However, coming from 2-3 years of TrackIR use it seems to me that TrackIR is definitely better (or just something i'm used to).

My comparison will focus mainly on the things that i think trackIR does better, not because i want to diss freetrack but because if it was equally good i'd be just saying "omg, it's as good as trackIR and free, definitely prefer it!" and be done with it :-P

For me, the points i personally disliked were:
1) There's a noticeable delay between moving my head and freetrack doing its job. I guess this is not an issue for someone who's new to head tracking or only used freetrack in the past, but for someone who's used TrackIR and got spoiled by its near instantaneous response the delay is noticeable.

2) The freetrack software is definitely more complicated than TrackIR version 5 software, but it's more or less on par with the older trackIR version 4 versions. I guess that's the price one pays for the ability to customize, more parameters and so on.

3) The keys i use to control freetrack sometimes have trouble registering. I use F9 to pause it and F12 to recenter. Sometimes i have to keep pressing 2-4 times before it does what it's supposed to do. The biggest drawback in this is that if you pause it, it seems to also deactivate the camera so when you resume it you have to wait for the webcam to also do its own "start-up". It's not a century of delay of course, but it's a noticeable and often crucial few seconds.
With trackIR, i could point my head into a weird angle, pause the device at that spot and turn my head straight on the screen to keep looking that way without straining my neck, then i would press F9 again and it would instantly start following my movement again.
With freetrack, i find that it will probably take 2-3 attempts to do it and then i'll also have to wait a few seconds for the webcam to come back to life.

4) Trying to set a proper curve for one axis in Freetrack is driving me nuts. The trackIR method (especially in the version 5 software) is definitely superior by leaps and bounds.

5) Accuracy is not the same, even when using 640x480 webcam video resolution. I also have a steady 30FPS with 0 jitter and the freetrack software clearly shows 3 dots being tracked. I won't hold this last one against it however, because i think it could be improved with some tweaking on my part.
I get a lot of "blind" angles, so for example if i want to look to my 5 o'clock the movement is smooth until a certain point, i get a blind spot where it loses contact and then it picks it up again. I think this could be solved by making my own custom IR leds and sanding them down a bit so they are easier to pick up, plus taping some photo film in front of my webcam to act as a visible light filter.

6) I get motion in an extra axis during certain movements. If i'm looking straight up the in-game view also rotates to clockwise some, if i'm looking down into the cockpit it rotates counter-clockwise. TrackIR had a bit of this too in the version4 software but definitely not so pronounced and it was totally eradicated for me with the version 5 drivers.
I think this is also a point that can be solved with some tweaking, as i think it has to do with setting the distances of the reference point in the freetrack interface.


Finally, my thoughts on a few improvements that could make freetrack even better.

1) Don't turn off the webcam when pause key is pressed, leave it running, keep tracking it but just stop the data stream towards the game. This would solve the wasted seconds between pause and resume.

2) A revamped interface for setting up the sensitivity curves. Keep the old one for those that might prefer it, plus copy the trackIR method as an alternative way to do it.

3) Have a way to automatically calibrate the reference point so we don't have to take a measuring tape to our heads :-P
A 3-step calibration could be used, where the player needs to look straight ahead, all the way up and all the way down. The software could then extrapolate the reference point datum by measuring the rotational offset that's caused when looking up/down, because it knows it shouldn't be there.

My final assesment is that freetrack is not as good as trackIR in an absolute comparison, but it's better on a cost-effectiveness basis. If you want to get head tracking on the cheap definitely try it out, just be prepared to spend time configuring it and having to deal with a few frustrating aspects.

[ElAurens]

I've been running the Track Clip Pro emitter on my Sennheisers pretty much since they came out with the thing.

No issues.

And I will give up my TIR 4 Pro when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands.

[swiss]

does FT still hack from TIR software?

Huh?
TIR cameras are locked out in the current FT software(by NP request), so no, I don't think they copy their software.

But I managed to find a FT version which you make work with a TIR cam, only needs an additional optitrack driver.
In my case that's a TIR3 cam, the results however are not so overwhelming.
Could be due to the fact that my LED construction's dimensions are not 100% identical to TIR specs?

Anyway, I just bought used TIR5 for $80, and hope it performs better.
I wonder what benefit over 100 fps will have .

So far, FT wins hands down.
- easier to use and to setup imho
- more software options for adjustments
- cheaper

[Royraiden]

I had some problems with power outages and surges recently that resulted in my power supply getting fried. Thankfully, the rest of my PC survived and the PSU was replaced for free thanks to a 3-year warranty, but the whole thing ended with my TrackIR 4 camera going dead.

I was of course considerably annoyed (to put it mildly :-P ) because i didn't want to buy a new set, but on the other hand head tracking is one of those things that once you get used to you can't go back.

So i installed freetrack and after some tweaking i can use it with a cheap microsoft lifecam vx-5000 and my battered trackclip Pro (that thing is so notoriously flimsy that i've had to use duct-tape a mere 2 months after i bought my TrackIR+trackclip Pro set).

I use my webcam to place skype videocalls to relatives abroad, so i change the camera's configuration back and forth whenever i want to use freetrack.

Also for the same reason i haven't modified it (didn't remove the IR filter), but the IR leds from the trackcklip still register if the room is dark.

Granted, my initial observations are a bit tinted by the fact that i haven't tweaked freetrack to my taste just yet, but truth be told if i could spare the money right now i'd buy a new TrackIR set.

Don't get me wrong, Freetrack is a very good solution and i hope it's supported in CoD. However, coming from 2-3 years of TrackIR use it seems to me that TrackIR is definitely better (or just something i'm used to).

My comparison will focus mainly on the things that i think trackIR does better, not because i want to diss freetrack but because if it was equally good i'd be just saying "omg, it's as good as trackIR and free, definitely prefer it!" and be done with it :-P

For me, the points i personally disliked were:
1) There's a noticeable delay between moving my head and freetrack doing its job. I guess this is not an issue for someone who's new to head tracking or only used freetrack in the past, but for someone who's used TrackIR and got spoiled by its near instantaneous response the delay is noticeable.

2) The freetrack software is definitely more complicated than TrackIR version 5 software, but it's more or less on par with the older trackIR version 4 versions. I guess that's the price one pays for the ability to customize, more parameters and so on.

3) The keys i use to control freetrack sometimes have trouble registering. I use F9 to pause it and F12 to recenter. Sometimes i have to keep pressing 2-4 times before it does what it's supposed to do. The biggest drawback in this is that if you pause it, it seems to also deactivate the camera so when you resume it you have to wait for the webcam to also do its own "start-up". It's not a century of delay of course, but it's a noticeable and often crucial few seconds.
With trackIR, i could point my head into a weird angle, pause the device at that spot and turn my head straight on the screen to keep looking that way without straining my neck, then i would press F9 again and it would instantly start following my movement again.
With freetrack, i find that it will probably take 2-3 attempts to do it and then i'll also have to wait a few seconds for the webcam to come back to life.

4) Trying to set a proper curve for one axis in Freetrack is driving me nuts. The trackIR method (especially in the version 5 software) is definitely superior by leaps and bounds.

5) Accuracy is not the same, even when using 640x480 webcam video resolution. I also have a steady 30FPS with 0 jitter and the freetrack software clearly shows 3 dots being tracked. I won't hold this last one against it however, because i think it could be improved with some tweaking on my part.
I get a lot of "blind" angles, so for example if i want to look to my 5 o'clock the movement is smooth until a certain point, i get a blind spot where it loses contact and then it picks it up again. I think this could be solved by making my own custom IR leds and sanding them down a bit so they are easier to pick up, plus taping some photo film in front of my webcam to act as a visible light filter.

6) I get motion in an extra axis during certain movements. If i'm looking straight up the in-game view also rotates to clockwise some, if i'm looking down into the cockpit it rotates counter-clockwise. TrackIR had a bit of this too in the version4 software but definitely not so pronounced and it was totally eradicated for me with the version 5 drivers.
I think this is also a point that can be solved with some tweaking, as i think it has to do with setting the distances of the reference point in the freetrack interface.


Finally, my thoughts on a few improvements that could make freetrack even better.

1) Don't turn off the webcam when pause key is pressed, leave it running, keep tracking it but just stop the data stream towards the game. This would solve the wasted seconds between pause and resume.

2) A revamped interface for setting up the sensitivity curves. Keep the old one for those that might prefer it, plus copy the trackIR method as an alternative way to do it.

3) Have a way to automatically calibrate the reference point so we don't have to take a measuring tape to our heads :-P
A 3-step calibration could be used, where the player needs to look straight ahead, all the way up and all the way down. The software could then extrapolate the reference point datum by measuring the rotational offset that's caused when looking up/down, because it knows it shouldn't be there.

My final assesment is that freetrack is not as good as trackIR in an absolute comparison, but it's better on a cost-effectiveness basis. If you want to get head tracking on the cheap definitely try it out, just be prepared to spend time configuring it and having to deal with a few frustrating aspects.

When my 3 point clip worked I had no problems to speak of except the fact that I had to close the door and windows to make the room darker.

You can see how it performed in Wings of Prey in one of my videos.Please dont focus on my flying/shooting skills.
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeKqaccTmRM
It looks kinda slow but I had all the smooth sliders to the max.

[Wolf_Rider]

Swiss, as I understood it the FT hacks from the NP coding.

Not having the TIR camera available for use with the FT software is the other end of the stick and irrelevent.

[Royraiden]

Huh?
TIR cameras are locked out in the current FT software(by NP request), so no, I don't think they copy their software.

But I managed to find a FT version which you make work with a TIR cam, only needs an additional optitrack driver.
In my case that's a TIR3 cam, the results however are not so overwhelming.
Could be due to the fact that my LED construction's dimensions are not 100% identical to TIR specs?

Anyway, I just bought used TIR5 for $80, and hope it performs better.
I wonder what benefit over 100 fps will have .

So far, FT wins hands down.
- easier to use and to setup imho
- more software options for adjustments
- cheaper
Were did you find it that cheap?

[MadBlaster]

3) The keys i use to control freetrack sometimes have trouble registering. I use F9 to pause it and F12 to recenter. Sometimes i have to keep pressing 2-4 times before it does what it's supposed to do. The biggest drawback in this is that if you pause it, it seems to also deactivate the camera so when you resume it you have to wait for the webcam to also do its own "start-up". It's not a century of delay of course, but it's a noticeable and often crucial few seconds.
With trackIR, i could point my head into a weird angle, pause the device at that spot and turn my head straight on the screen to keep looking that way without straining my neck, then i would press F9 again and it would instantly start following my movement again.
With freetrack, i find that it will probably take 2-3 attempts to do it and then i'll also have to wait a few seconds for the webcam to come back to life.

If you look in Freetrack at the controls/tracking/center, you see a box for "toggle". You want this box unchecked. What is happening is you are pressing F12 too much/fast and the box gets 'auto" checked and unchecked by the software. The best way around this is to write and run yourself a Glovepie script similar to below. That way, you will always be consistent with the center key. Note the .2 second time delay. Also, most if not all of the problems you are experiencing with Freetrak can be resolved. There should be no hesitation...etc. It is possible to get it very stable and smooth to where the only thing you need to do is initiate the program and start the tracking. But it does take some time and initiative to get it figured it out. Count me on the list of users hoping that CoD will include ability to use Freetrak.

;*************************FREETRAK**************** ******************************
;in freetrak software, make sure f12 is mapped to "center" and f10 is mapped to "pause"
;center freetrak and mouse cursor
if joystick1.Button6 =true then
key.f12=true
mouse.CursorPosX=700
mouse.CursorPosY=525
elseif released(joystick1.Button6) then
wait .2 seconds
key.f12= false
endif

Edit:You can ignore the mouse cursor stuff. I have the mouse cursor visible in game. So this script centers the mouse cursor up for me when I press button 6 on the joystick. Also, I usually only have to press button 6 once after I have adjusted my seating position. Then it's good for the duration unless I alter my seating position. Then I have to press it again.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Swiss, as I understood it the FT hacks from the NP coding.

Not having the TIR camera available for use with the FT software is the other end of the stick and irrelevent.

You understood nothing.

NP "coding" is nothing. The math behind tracking 3 points in space is free, old and simple.

Why NP sell overpriced hardware? Because people like to waste money in 2011 and don't have so much manual skill and are lazy, and use the oldest excuse "I don't have time and have plenty of money". Thank's God this kind of people don't move the world.

Why we don't see Freetrack support in all games with HT? Because NP uses pathetic commercial practices, and devs can't even answer simple questions - like IL-2:CoD devs - about Freetrack support.

I'm tired about all this kind of thing. A shame, ridiculous, etc. Of course IL-2:CoD will have TrackIR support, but why ANY of the devs can't write A LINE about Freetrack support? KGB?

[Royraiden]

You understood nothing.

NP "coding" is nothing. The math behind tracking 3 points in space is free, old and simple.

Why NP sell overpriced hardware? Because people like to waste money in 2011 and don't have so much manual skill and are lazy, and use the oldest excuse "I don't have time and have plenty of money". Thank's God this kind of people don't move the world.

Why we don't see Freetrack support in all games with HT? Because NP uses pathetic commercial practices, and devs can't even answer simple questions - like IL-2:CoD devs - about Freetrack support.

I'm tired about all this kind of thing. A shame, ridiculous, etc. Of course IL-2:CoD will have TrackIR support, but why ANY of the devs can't write A LINE about Freetrack support? KGB?

Take it is my friend.I did have time to try and build my clip,I did it and it was falling apart,it worked but that doesnt mean it was a treat to use.For what I've paid for the webcam+tools I didnt have and the parts to build ,I could have saved a bit more and go for TIR,but I didnt.I wanted to try Freetrack and I found out it was an excellent piece of software.Dont be so eager to judge people like that.

[swiss]

Were did you find it that cheap?

was a used one(still cheap imho), local auction site.


as I understood it the FT hacks from the NP coding.


That would be a copyright infringement.
If ft really did, their site would be down - and I also don't know of any lawsuits the filed and won.




Edit: Does anyone know if there's a vector clip for basecap mounting?

[SEE]

I have both FT and TrackIR but prefer FT, if set up correctly there should be no issues with FT in use and I find the software better allround (probably because I started with FT and then added NP TIR to my SIM hardware collection only recently). After setting it up and trying it for a week I went back to FT. The best recommendations I can give are that TrackIR is 'plug n play', 'guaranteed to work' and will definitely be supported in CoD.

From previous threads, the general opinion was that CoD would use NP's encrypted interface (compatible with TIR4/5 hardware only) which would exclude FT as a 'plug n play' alternative unless CoD also included FT's own bespoke interface. It may well be that to use FT you may have to use it in an alternative mode such as 'PPjoy', mouse emulation (2DOF) or something similar. I have never seen a response from the Dev's regards FT support.

[Royraiden]

Thanks for your reply SEE.

[MadBlaster]

Instead of making a setup that tracks three infrared lights, just mount a few to shine towards you (high output LED's if possible) and just make your own reflective clip instead. That way you don't have to have a bunch of wires hanging from your head, and the LED setup could run off of a power source other than batteries. (think replacing one of those USB LED lamps with an IR one).

I think it worth mentioning possible safety issue here. It is not good for your eyes to look at infrared light source. If you do reflective setup, make sure the LED's are not infrared.

[Royraiden]

I think it worth mentioning possible safety issue here. It is not good for your eyes to look at infrared light source. If you do reflective setup, make sure the LED's are not infrared.

I guess it wouldnt work without ir led's.I think the Trackir camera uses ir led's that the reflective clip,well reflects.

[SEE]

Just a thought, WOP (which is only 12 months old) supports both TIR and FT so I guess it must use the older 'non encrypted interface'. May be CoD will be similar, we will have to wait and see. Without a definitive answer from the Dev's we are all pretty much guessing.

[MadBlaster]

To clarify what I was thinking. In a reflective setup you would use reflective tape instead of LED's in your headset. The light source would be at the camera. That's the direction I thought SpecJock was going in his comment. So, you would not want to use infrared led under that design, because it would be pointed towards you instead of away from you, and you would get eye damage.

[julian265]

To clarify what I was thinking. In a reflective setup you would use reflective tape instead of LED's in your headset. The light source would be at the camera. That's the direction I thought SpecJock was going in his comment. So, you would not want to use infrared led under that design, because it would be pointed towards you instead of away from you, and you would get eye damage.

Normal IR LEDs are incapable of damaging your eyes, they do not emit the power or wavelength required to heat anything.

The average hand held video camera with "night-vision" has IR LEDs, with no safety concerns being raised.

[julian265]

Swiss, as I understood it the FT hacks from the NP coding.

Not having the TIR camera available for use with the FT software is the other end of the stick and irrelevent.

"FT hacking" is irrelevant to the issue of games exposing or not exposing the head control axes, which is of far greater importance. This is especially true, as the claim of "hacking" only involves the formatting of a trivial string, for legal rather than functional purposes.

If NP wants to re-invent the wheel, and create it's own super-dooper-ultra-special method of getting six generic, run-of-the-mill axes into a game, then good for them. It's their (sometimes successful) attempts to get the game devs to hide the head control axes that are unacceptable, and anti-competitive.

[Wolf_Rider]

You understood nothing.

NP "coding" is nothing. The math behind tracking 3 points in space is free, old and simple.

Why NP sell overpriced hardware? Because people like to waste money in 2011 and don't have so much manual skill and are lazy, and use the oldest excuse "I don't have time and have plenty of money". Thank's God this kind of people don't move the world.

Why we don't see Freetrack support in all games with HT? Because NP uses pathetic commercial practices, and devs can't even answer simple questions - like IL-2:CoD devs - about Freetrack support.

I'm tired about all this kind of thing. A shame, ridiculous, etc. Of course IL-2:CoD will have TrackIR support, but why ANY of the devs can't write A LINE about Freetrack support? KGB?

no, I don't misunderstand, sport... NP have every right to protect their efforts... does FT have its own module that developers can put into their product, or does FT still rely on pulling information out of NP's module?

It's agressive defense like yours which kills your own argument ;)

[Royraiden]

Wow, almost all the threads here end up with a huge off topic discussion.Is it so hard to stay on topic?

[Blackdog_kt]

Swiss, as I understood it the FT hacks from the NP coding.

Not having the TIR camera available for use with the FT software is the other end of the stick and irrelevent.

Actually, FT has it's own interface and just collects and transmits positional data. In older games that only support trackIR but use an old unlocked version of the naturalpoint API, FT transmits that data through the naturalpoint interface.

It's similar for FS2004/FSX, where FT feeds its data to microsoft's simconnect interface.

As for the newer games that use a locked version of the NP API it's up to the developers to enable native FT support. An example of this is ArmA2.

So, long story short, FT is perfectly capable of interfacing directly and on its own with any game, as long as the game developers let it do so.



I think it worth mentioning possible safety issue here. It is not good for your eyes to look at infrared light source. If you do reflective setup, make sure the LED's are not infrared.

Are you sure about this? IR wavelengths carry less energy than our everyday normal, visible light. It should probably be completely harmless, as going out on a sunny day or simply driving at night and seeing the headlights of the cars on the opposite lane would bombard you with light radiation of a much higher energy than a couple of IR leds. :confused:

[MadBlaster]

@julian

Please go back and re-read. Talking about high-output infrared LED that produces invisible light that your eye can not see. I really don't think it is a good idea to be staring at this for hour and hours. It just isn't worth the risk. Use a high output non-infrared LED for this type of setup.

[julian265]

snip does FT have its own module that developers can put into their product, snip

Yes, they do. Secondly, exposing the head axes like any other axis also works.

Royraiden, I consider this perfectly on-topic, as NP has been attempting to get various game devs to keep the head axes hidden, thus preventing other head trackers from being used.

Think about it... If you were a developer, why would you allow generic windows axes to control sticks/throttles etc, and not the head axes?

It's not a conspiracy theory - one of the devs on the ED forums stated that they had made a deal with NP, so that non NP trackers could use three axes!

[Royraiden]

Yes, they do. Secondly, exposing the head axes like any other axis also works.

Royraiden, I consider this perfectly on-topic, as NP has been attempting to get various game devs to keep the head axes hidden, thus preventing other head trackers from being used.

Think about it... If you were a developer, why would you allow generic windows axes to control sticks/throttles etc, and not the head axes?

It's not a conspiracy theory - one of the devs on the ED forums stated that they had made a deal with NP, so that non NP trackers could use three axes!
I understand your point,but seeing the trend of most of the threads on this forums, I just didnt want an endless discussion made out of just a few simple questions.Thanks again to every one for sharing your thoughts.

[julian265]

@julian

Please go back and re-read. Talking about high-output infrared LED that produces invisible light that your eye can not see. I really don't think it is a good idea to be staring at this for hour and hours. It just isn't worth the risk. Use a high output non-infrared LED for this type of setup.

There is no need for high-output IR LEDs for this purpose. Thinking it isn't a good idea is different to there being actual risk of eye damage.

A quick search found this:
http://www.axis.com/products/cam_irillum/files/Eye_Safety_with_Near_Infra-Red_011107.pdf
Which is a product that emits many times more power than the small IR LED's for our purpose.

Of course, if you can find documentation stating that there is a risk from looking at a 0.1W IR LED, then I'd be interested to see it.

[MadBlaster]

There is no need for high-output IR LEDs for this purpose.

I'm glad you agree. Now go outside and stare at the sun for a few hours.:)

[Wolf_Rider]

Actually, FT has it's own interface and just collects and transmits positional data. In older games that only support trackIR but use an old unlocked version of the naturalpoint API, FT transmits that data through the naturalpoint interface.

It's similar for FS2004/FSX, where FT feeds its data to microsoft's simconnect interface.

As for the newer games that use a locked version of the NP API it's up to the developers to enable native FT support. An example of this is ArmA2.

So, long story short, FT is perfectly capable of interfacing directly and on its own with any game, as long as the game developers let it do so.





Are you sure about this? IR wavelengths carry less energy than our everyday normal, visible light. It should probably be completely harmless, as going out on a sunny day or simply driving at night and seeing the headlights of the cars on the opposite lane would bombard you with light radiation of a much higher energy than a couple of IR leds. :confused:

By the sounds of it then FT have finally come to the party and are doing their own thing instead of the antics it did in the past... I ain't got a concern with that if FT is stand alone, the concern was the interfacing with NP software to get the data.

in general:
true infrared light can't seen, much like ultraviolet light can't be seen.... Red though is very effective for using as a light source at night as it doesn't affect the person's night vision, like a normal light does. If you go looking directly at the sun though (definitely not suggested so please don't do this), you do get a full blast of full range of frequencies of the spectrum and at highish levels, and that includes x-rays, gamma rays, pretty much all the rays you could point the stick at.

Crikey, its a colour temp of 200k Kelvin, so don'tya go lookin' at the sun. The humble incandescent house bulb has a temp of 3200

[julian265]

By the sounds of it then FT have finally come to the party and are doing their own thing instead of the antics it did in the past... I ain't got a concern with that if FT is stand alone, the concern was the interfacing with NP software to get the data.

There has been no additions or changes to FT since November 2008 - the FT interface was around before that. Also FT never gets data from TIR.

[Wolf_Rider]

FT used to get from NP, , Julian265... that was the problem, and the site says different to what you say on which gets what from where

[julian265]

What are you saying FT gets/got from NP?

[Wolf_Rider]

it used to, Julian... check the FT site for one, would you like some other sources?

[julian265]

Got a link?

[Wolf_Rider]

TrackIR interfaceFreeTrack is compatible with the unencrypted version of NaturalPoint's TrackIR head tracking interface that has widespread support in simulation games. NaturalPoint have been using an encrypted version of the interface in more popular titles since late 2008, these can be identified as requiring TrackIR software version 4.1.036 or higher and are incompatible with FreeTrack.[18][19] First used in DCS: Black Shark,[20] it caused developer Eagle Dynamics to release their own head tracking interface but soon after cancelled it at NaturalPoint's request.[21] FreeTrack compatibility is still possible using [TrackIRFixer] to remove the encryption requirement, however this involves file modification which can conflict with some forms of DRM and online anti-cheat. Currently DiRT 2 and F1 2010 are affected by DRM, refusing to run after the fix has been applied.

TIRViews.dll is a dynamic-link library file distributed with TrackIR software that provides tailored support for a small number of mostly older games, using special interfaces or memory hacks to facilitate view control.[22] Though a violation of the TrackIR software's EULA,[23] it is possible to use the file with FreeTrack.

NaturalPoint's TrackIR interface SDK is only available under a signed license agreement[24] and is covered by a NDA, so while FreeTrack is open source, the TrackIR interface component is required to be closed source.[25]

wiki

[julian265]

OK, I thought you were saying that the FT software gets info from NP software.

Carry on.

[Wolf_Rider]

The NP interface is NP software ;)

your ball I believe :)

[julian265]

You don't need to attack points that I never made. Please leave your straw man at the door.

My post:
"There has been no additions or changes to FT since November 2008 - the FT interface was around before that. Also FT never gets data from TIR."

You disagreed, which logically made me think that you were saying that FT gets data from TIR. If you want to ignore the word "data" or "info" and pretend that I was meaning differently, then you can carry on talking to yourself.

Your quote from wiki is quite valid, but it doesn't affect my views on the matter of head tracking in games.

[Wolf_Rider]

dragging the circle around so quick, Julian?

the point addressed was your point; "Also FT never gets data from TIR". I'm sorry but you seemed to be incorrect there. I'm also sorry if you saw that as an attack, it wasn't, it was a correction. You've been shown quite clearly, it used to and in some cases still does.
I'm wondering if Dirt2 and F1 2010 are getting the same treatment ArmA 2 got?
Let's hope UBI get the DRM right on this one...


your ball again...

[julian265]

A sim gets joystick position info or data from a joystick.

FT does not get any data from TIR.

Get it?

[Wolf_Rider]

perhaps you'd like to try that one again?
and don't be rude

[albx]

Why everytime there is a discussion about Freetrack the end is always FT vs. TIR and copyright infringments?? The question here was "will COD support FreeTrack?". So, if NP couldn't shut down freetrack website i think there is no patent infringments and is only speculation...

[Wolf_Rider]

nah... its obvious there is copyright infringement

[Stipe]

The question still remains. Will freetrack work in COD? I refuse to buy trackIR.

[Untamo]

@OP:

In my (and my squadmates') experience the "Requires a dark room to work properly most of the time" issue is the other way round, as in, TIR needs to be in dark, and FT doesn't.

I personally haven't had TIR, but my squadmates (with many different TIR versions) have reported that sunlight in the room really wreaks havoc on it. An in my personal experience FT isn't bothered by it at all.

My rig:
M$ VX3000 webcam with IR filter removed + 2 layers of floppy disc covering it from visible light.

Hat with 4 (obsolete configuration but still works with the latest FT version) super bright IR leds (TSAL5100) powered from USB port.

Price:
Webcam 20€
Leds, resistors and wiring 4€

No matter the lighting conditions my setup works perfectly smooth with 30fps.

And yes, I really hope that FT will be supported :)

-Untamo

[Wolf_Rider]

Perhaps UBI will actually get something right and block (through DRM) it out? unless of course FT has their own bits and pieces, which don't infringe on anyone elses' copyrights, and have asked professionally for the developers to test and include it.

[Untamo]

Perhaps UBI will actually get something right and block (through DRM) it out? unless of course FT has their own bits and pieces, which don't infringe on anyone elses' copyrights, and have asked professionally for the developers to test and include it.

As I have understood, the FT did use the TIR interface in the past as it was the only way to get the tracking info in the game. Even then they had their own interface, it just wasn't used by any game.

As NP encrypted their interface, the FT community became more loud in their requests for game devs to include the FT interface. And in some happy cases they have done so.

-Untamo

[Stipe]

Hmmm. Half of the gamers use FT. I dont believe all those people will rush out to buy TrackIR. It's funny, half of my squadmates are using Trackir and they are having problems. Software is frezzing, that flimsy clip doesn't want to stay in position etc. The other half is happy and problems free. Look what happened with Arma2. Users created a big fuss and now is suported. Suicide for COD will not be the lack of dynamic campaign and bla,bla,bla but tracking support or better, lacking of "some" head tracking support. ~S~

[Wolf_Rider]

you two did read my last post, didn't you?

and yes, I can honestly say I've never downloaded a movie or mp3 in my life... legally or otherwise

[Wolf_Rider]

student huh? poor huh? 4 kids huh? how did you get your computer in the first place and how did you get the operating system and other software, and how did you get your hardware? ... aannnd how did you get your games you run??

[Wolf_Rider]

common thief... say no more

[LoBiSoMeM]

"Wolf Rider", simple as that: FreeTrack software is GNU, freeware. Have SDK inside, you can mess around as you can.

FreeTrack has your original interface that any dev can use, with lots of outputs.

The math involved in getting the 2d image of 3 points in space and output some positional data isn't NP product. NP win nothing with all "lawsuits" they try, but NP obviously give some money that some simmers give to them to make devs block FT interface and others for HT.

You know nothing, Wolf Rider. Stop talking about things you ignore, please.

And 1C, Oleg, Ilya... any word? You can't talk about it?

Why? You will be murdered by NP if so?

Really...

[Wolf_Rider]

if ever I want some mindless nitpicks, I'll certainly PM you Stipe, you're the top of the list... see ya later sport


LoBiSoMem... then why at one stage at least, and still does according to reading, does FT pull information out of NP software?

[robtek]

I am pretty shure that the majority of gamers wont build something like the FT assembly!
Only geeks like us would do something like that.
Having said that i have to remark that my experience with FT and TIR is absolutely in favor of TIR as i never did get FT working reliably.
I also favor the FT support for CloD, if just to pacify the (pretty loud) minority of FT users.

[Vasilj_Mitu]

I also favor the FT support for CloD, if just to pacify the (pretty loud) minority of FT users.

errm... from where do you draw your conclusion that we are minority? :cool:

[Wolf_Rider]

By the colour of the jackboots?

[David198502]

hey guys!!!i have read this thread now!
i for myself own track ir and im really enjoying it.but i convinced a friend of mine now,who normally dont play flight simulators, to buy COD, and he even bought il2 1946 two days ago, to get used to handle a simulated aircraft.yesterday i set up a coop mission to learn him the ropes. everything is fine and he really likes il2.but he has major problems to work with the hat switch to look around.so my question is where i can find a complete guide(possibly a dummies guide which explains every step) to use freetrack and mod the webcam??

[MadBlaster]

JMHO. In the end I think it is about game sales. If 1C/Ubi wants to maximize revenue, it will make sure CoD allows for the use of Freetrak devices or risk losing market share. I would not expect 1C to answer officially in this thread because that would probably not make NaturalPoint happy and they do business with them. TrakIR is the industry standard and logically, CoD has to support it. In the meantime, they make NaturalPoint happy during the release run up by providing advertising in their promotional videos for CoD. But that makes no difference to me since I am a Freetrak user and spendthrift, I will simply wait to buy CoD when I have assurance from the community that the game supports Freetrak. In the meantime, I'm happy to keep playing good ol' IL-2. But given the history that there was this encrypted interface with Black Shark, then there was a "fix" and also that Eagle Dynamics was going to do their own thing, then didn't at NP request? It all seems very scripted to me. Also, I see nothing in the system requirements for CoD that says, if you use TrackIR it has to be a newer model so you can get the new version of the software that works with the encrypted interface. I guess the wait could be prolonged in the DRM? Then I look at my mouse. It is a Logitech mouse not a microsoft mouse and I am using windows software/drivers. Ok, I guess I'm really not worried about it now. Going to bed.

[Wolf_Rider]

Its quite possible NP could not, in any way force a developer to lock other products out, if that product utilised gnu items and/ or their own items/ interfacing... NP can, and rightly so, force a developer to lock out anything which takes advantage of NP software, in any form, if they are under product licensing.
Publisher also has a choice of getting involved in the interests of protecting, or not, other softwares copyrights through DRM.

[Vasilj_Mitu]

so my question is where i can find a complete guide(possibly a dummies guide which explains every step) to use freetrack and mod the webcam??

http://www.free-track.net/english/

[Stipe]

@David198502
Logitech C120 is a great webcam for this build. If you get one be aware when you remove the ir filter. Newer model has one on the "plate" not in the lense assembly. Make sure you get wide angle ir leds. You can get regular ones and sand them down if you cant find the wide angle ones.

[Untamo]

Its quite possible NP could not, in any way force a developer to lock other products out, if that product utilised gnu items and/ or their own items/ interfacing... NP can, and rightly so, force a developer to lock out anything which takes advantage of NP software, in any form, if they are under product licensing.
Publisher also has a choice of getting involved in the interests of protecting, or not, other softwares copyrights through DRM.

You are absolutely correct, no one should take advantage of other peoples work.

But it is also true that FT has always had their own interface, which is totally their own.. or more correctly, no ones own, GPL licensed in other words. It just wasn't used by any games.

This of course doesn't mean that the usage of NP's interface was the right thing to do (in the past when no game utilized FT's interface).

Encryption of NP's interface now makes it impossible for the FT to utilize it, so if a new game can be played with FT, it is all their own merit, not NP's.

-Untamo

[Wolf_Rider]

As long as anyone elses' product isn't being used against their wishes, such as NP's, then I personally don't have a problem with it... but if there are utilities that allow information to be pulled out of someone elses' work, such as NP and having their encryption busted... then yes, there is a problem. One utility made by FT allows for the NP encryption to be stripped away, allowing FT software to access NP information, therein lay the problem




"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." - Thomas Jefferson

[Untamo]

As long as anyone elses' product isn't being used against their wishes, such as NP's, then I don't have a problem with it... but if there are utilities that allow information to be pulled out of someone elses' work, such as NP and having their encryption busted... then yes, there is a problem. One utility made by FT allows for the NP encryption to be stripped away, allowing FT software to access information.

"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." - Thomas Jefferson

True, this was the case in the past, when NP used a quite simple protection, it basically wasn't even encryption. FT went past that and utilized the NP's interface, which I really do agree, was wrong of them to do.

Now they do have a real encryption, which FT has promised not to hack under the threat of a lawsuit. So, any new TIR enabled game doesn't automatically work with FT anymore. The devs have to implement the FT interface for FT to work.

-Untamo

[Wolf_Rider]

If that is the case great, fantastic, excellent, well done (and not before time)

So, how does FT interface work?

[Vasilj_Mitu]

"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." - Thomas Jefferson

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" - Rhett Butler

NP can go get bent, for all I care... lots of smoke for nothing. if they ever had anything valid to go against FT, it would be long gone for sure. but hey, it's still here, isn't it?

[Untamo]

If that is the case great, fantastic, excellent, well done (and not before time)

So, how does FT interface work?

I honestly don't know, I just use it :D ... The science behind it is (I am told) quite simple, and as such, free knowledge.

-Untamo

[SEE]

IR wavelengths carry less energy than our everyday normal, visible light.

I don't want to go into the technical details but IR LED's are safe to use and found in a large number of everyday items. Bear in mind that the recommended IR LED's also have a very wide beam angle. The reason for using IR LED's as opposed to visible light LED's (which also emit IR but less of it) is to enable users to mask the lens from visible light and the tracking is limited to 'heat signature'. To work effectively with IR, the camera also needs to have the IR filter removed (this in itself illustrates just how much IR forms part of natural light to put it simply).
Even with the lens masked off, point the camera to your window (not the Sun!) on a sunny day and compare the IR dots with the stray reflections and direct light entering through the window- it will be significantly higher and completely kill the tracking function by swamping. Alternatively, light a candle and hold it from a distance in front of the camera..........there will be significantly higher heat signature than from an IR LED.

Finally, if building your own IR Clip there is absolutely no need to run your IR LED's at full power. Run them at 50/70% of the stated current and connect them in series (one after the other like Xmas tree lights where one pops and all go out), your batteries will last three times longer or, once it's all working and well made in terms of your wiring/soldering skills, connect the clip to the USB port.

[Wolf_Rider]

True, this was the case in the past, when NP used a quite simple protection, it basically wasn't even encryption. FT went past that and utilized the NP's interface, which I really do agree, was wrong of them to do.

Now they do have a real encryption, which FT has promised not to hack under the threat of a lawsuit. So, any new TIR enabled game doesn't automatically work with FT anymore. The devs have to implement the FT interface for FT to work.

-Untamo

but what you're saying doesn't seem to entirely be the case, on looking around...

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_supporting_FreeTrack

and

2. it still seems that FT has to hack into NP software

some newer games do seem to be unavalaible though, with users blaming TIR, which suggests that if there a standalone FT interface, FT hasn't made the approach to developers for inclusion of their interface, or has yet to be included.

(be aware also that the FT download link goes to page with questionable security certificate)

[Untamo]

but what you're saying doesn't seem to be the case, on looking around

......

from the FT site

it still seems that FT has hack into NP software

unless you can show me/ us something that supports your statements, it looks like your statements may be misguided

This piece of convesation was on the FT forums? Yes, people are finding their own ways to hack the NP interface, but this isn't what the FT crew are doing.

These are individual persons hacking away to get FT to work "as it did in the olden days". So, clearly not the correct approach. They should be pleading on the devs to include the FT support to the game.

-Untamo

[JG52Uther]

Wolf Rider,do you work for NP? You seem to be fighting their corner strongly? Not a dig,just interested.
As for FT and CoD,I have no idea,but I do know that any mention of FT at the UBI forum is strictly verboten,and any thread with their name is instantly moderated.
And as UBI are publishing CoD...

As an aside, I tried FT a couple of years ago,but didn't like it.I am happy enough with my TiR 3 and vector expansion.I use the track hat,as I don't like the flimsy track clip,or its usb connection.
Might treat myself to the latest model soon.

[SEE]

There is no point to the argument regards NP V FT and copyright. The guys at FT must have looked at NP's algorithm and came up with something identical or very close and included that as an alternative to their own FT code. To use FT with Il1946 you have to use their version of the NP algorithm (which is open source and anyone can dowload it to take a peek at it). Unfortunately, NP also looked at existing Tracking codes used in other applications and adapted it to their Headtracking product. In that respect it would have been impossible to patent the code as it was a 'development' not an 'invention'. You can write algorithims in many different ways to perform the same output data. NP could only protect their registered trademark and products that they themselves designed - hence the removal of references to the use of existing NP hardware in FT's literature. It's down to interpretation and NP consider that 'headtracking' is their intellectual property as a gaming product accessory and naturally want to protect it in other ways. The solution was simple, develop an encryption code and protect it legally. The real and only sensible argument is wether CoD should use the old code or include FT's code in addition to NP's.

[Wolf_Rider]

This piece of convesation was on the FT forums? Yes, people are finding their own ways to hack the NP interface, but this isn't what the FT crew are doing.

These are individual persons hacking away to get FT to work "as it did in the olden days". So, clearly not the correct approach. They should be pleading on the devs to include the FT support to the game.

-Untamo


my apologies, I did some proper reading and edited my post Untamo and yes I agree with the getting up the FT developers to seek inclusion - professionally.


Uther, no I don't work or are affiliated with NP, they aren't even paying me... sorry
I do however have a vested interest in people doing the right thing by others.

[Royraiden]

Again what is the point of the discussion?You guys dont seem to agree in anything.Why continue?If I could I would have locked the thread.This forum is not so useful if every thread ends up with an off topic discussion.And yes it is off topic.People here dont care what the thread is about, just post what they want and argue to death even if it is not relevant the original post.Some of you did gave me some suggestions ,thanks.No disrespect to the others.

[norulz]

There is no point to the argument regards NP V FT and copyright. The guys at FT must have looked at NP's algorithm and came up with something identical or very close and included that as an alternative to their own FT code. To use FT with Il1946 you have to use their version of the NP algorithm (which is open source and anyone can dowload it to take a peek at it). Unfortunately, NP also looked at existing Tracking codes used in other applications and adapted it to their Headtracking product. In that respect it would have been impossible to patent the code as it was a 'development' not an 'invention'. You can write algorithims in many different ways to perform the same output data. NP could only protect their registered trademark and products that they themselves designed - hence the removal of references to the use of existing NP hardware in FT's literature. It's down to interpretation and NP consider that 'headtracking' is their intellectual property as a gaming product accessory and naturally want to protect it in other ways. The solution was simple, develop an encryption code and protect it legally. The real and only sensible argument is wether CoD should use the old code or include FT's code in addition to NP's.

Exactly!

I am very interested on what they will do when face-api will takeoff... AFAIK another NP is trying to get money on that thing and another free version of it will emerge... and again... they will try to encrypt it etc etc... But NP... will be out of business by then.

[Wolf_Rider]

mmmm, no not "exactly"

FT stripped away the encryption, (encryption which was created by NP to protect what was their work, their software) there wasn't any FT developing of their own algorithms (at that time).

Ft code included as well as and seperate to NP code is fine by me

[Royraiden]

Wolf Rider,do I have to ask you personally to please dont go on with the silly discussion?

[Wolf_Rider]

excuse me? now why would you be asking that?

[albx]

Wolf Rider,do you work for NP? You seem to be fighting their corner strongly? Not a dig,just interested.
As for FT and CoD,I have no idea,but I do know that any mention of FT at the UBI forum is strictly verboten,and any thread with their name is instantly moderated.
And as UBI are publishing CoD...

As an aside, I tried FT a couple of years ago,but didn't like it.I am happy enough with my TiR 3 and vector expansion.I use the track hat,as I don't like the flimsy track clip,or its usb connection.
Might treat myself to the latest model soon.

you are right JG52Uther, FT is forbidden at UBI forums, and UBI is the CoD distributor, so I think this is the reason nobody here (Oleg & co.) come to confirm that CoD will only support TIR, so, yes, i believe FT will not be supported... :-x

[norulz]

lol...

How do you know what FT team did? It seems you had read all the source code from FT and NP for that matter... so where you work at? :-P :rolleyes:


How about we let this just drop dead and maybe a dev of CoD will make a statement about the issue the thread is about?


I want to know if I could use face api and facetracknoir with ppJoy in CoD. I don't give a damn about that NP silly interface... and their hat.

[Wolf_Rider]

How do you know what FT team did? It seems you had read all the source code from FT and NP for that matter... so where you work at? :-P :rolleyes:




How? Its a thing called history... so roll your eyes at that perhaps ;)

[SEE]

Freetrack
Pros:
-FREE software
-Easy to set up and use once you got the setup built correctly
-Easy to replace(if the camera fails)

Cons:
-Support(not all games supporting track ir support freetrack, correct me)
-Bothersome to make clip(at least to me)
-Requires a dark room to work properly most of the time

TrackIR
Pros:
-No need to build
-More complex software(im assuming)
-Comes with reflective clip(does not need a dark room to work properly)
-Better support on games

Cons:
-Expensive!

is Freetrack going to be supported at release?Im fairly new to the forum so maybe this was discussed earlier.

Back on topic......:grin:

a) None of have a clue as to FT support so my first advice would be 'wait and see', or

b) despite the expense , invest in a ready made TrackIR solution if Vector reflection is your preferred option. I have no experience of Reflection setups with NP or FT or how well it deals with stray ambient IR reflections in camera field of view. I would personally vist the NP TrackIR forum to see if there are any issues with reliabilty and functionality.

[Royraiden]

Back on topic......:grin:

a) None of have a clue as to FT support so my first advice would be 'wait and see', or

b) despite the expense , invest in a ready made TrackIR solution if Vector reflection is your preferred option. I have no experience of Reflection setups with NP or FT or how well it deals with stray ambient IR reflections from walls, etc. I would personally vist the NP TrackIR forum to see if there are any issues with reliabilty and functionality.

Thank you sir.

[CharveL]

As a long-time beta tester with NP I just wanted to raise a couple points with the caveat that, despite what might seem like a conflict of interest, I think free tracking alternatives are a great thing because not everyone can afford a TIR.

My personal experience with the NP guys is they are a really dedicated group of innovators in a smaller company that have managed to carve out a niche for themselves by creating a product that improves our simming experience. From what I've seen they are always willing to help their customers personally and often beyond what's called for, and seems a bit unfair when they are made out to be villains simply for protecting their work. Either way, that's for anyone to make their own opinion based on their own experience.

Anyway, I think it comes down to what works best for you considering the tradeoffs. FT has the benefit of being less expensive or even free if you already have a webcam and don't mind fashioning your own clip/reflector system. It's a great way to introduce yourself to head-tracking and see the benefits it provides for immersion!

Obviously the TIR gives the benefit of a more comprehensive and intuitive setup being specifically designed and supported by developers for seamless integration. The software gives better control over all axes and key-binding options, not to mention auto-detection of whatever game/sim you start which also adds to convenience, although perhaps minor for some.

The other factor to keep in mind is that the hardware itself relieves the CPU from much of the heavy lifting, providing up to 120hz refresh rate depending on the model, which improves your apparant in-game framerate considerably from the 24fps - 30fps (give or take) of your webcam. On a CPU intensive sim like CoD you need all the spare cycles you can get. With that said, some people can't tell the difference between a framerate of 20fps and 60fps so YMMV.

NP did all the legwork to make headtracking possible including wooing developers into adding the necessary hooks into their software, otherwise there would be no Freetrack, so I don't exactly blame them for not wanting to let others ride off of their work. On the other hand, if developers will support FT using FT's hooks then power to them and everybody is happy.

[TheGrunch]

You can achieve much the same CPU-offloading effect with a $30 Wiimote, to be fair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw TIR is very good, it's just becoming easier and easier to duplicate its functionality for a fraction of the cost. FaceAPI (http://www.seeingmachines.com/product/faceapi/) is another example of a piece of software that could do this very cheaply (not so cheaply for developers, however) using a $30 webcam. The only real caveat is that ideally the camera must capture at a high fps, not necessarily a high resolution, so a Playstation Eye or EyeToy camera is an ideal choice (320x240 @ 120 fps).

[LoBiSoMeM]

As a long-time beta tester with NP I just wanted to raise a couple points with the caveat that, despite what might seem like a conflict of interest, I think free tracking alternatives are a great thing because not everyone can afford a TIR.

My personal experience with the NP guys is they are a really dedicated group of innovators in a smaller company that have managed to carve out a niche for themselves by creating a product that improves our simming experience. From what I've seen they are always willing to help their customers personally and often beyond what's called for, and seems a bit unfair when they are made out to be villains simply for protecting their work. Either way, that's for anyone to make their own opinion based on their own experience.

Anyway, I think it comes down to what works best for you considering the tradeoffs. FT has the benefit of being less expensive or even free if you already have a webcam and don't mind fashioning your own clip/reflector system. It's a great way to introduce yourself to head-tracking and see the benefits it provides for immersion!

Obviously the TIR gives the benefit of a more comprehensive and intuitive setup being specifically designed and supported by developers for seamless integration. The software gives better control over all axes and key-binding options, not to mention auto-detection of whatever game/sim you start which also adds to convenience, although perhaps minor for some.

The other factor to keep in mind is that the hardware itself relieves the CPU from much of the heavy lifting, providing up to 120hz refresh rate depending on the model, which improves your apparant in-game framerate considerably from the 24fps - 30fps (give or take) of your webcam. On a CPU intensive sim like CoD you need all the spare cycles you can get. With that said, some people can't tell the difference between a framerate of 20fps and 60fps so YMMV.

NP did all the legwork to make headtracking possible including wooing developers into adding the necessary hooks into their software, otherwise there would be no Freetrack, so I don't exactly blame them for not wanting to let others ride off of their work. On the other hand, if developers will support FT using FT's hooks then power to them and everybody is happy.

It's not NP technology, please! That's because NP never can put your "company face" and said what's wrong with Freetrack.

The same to some game devs. Why in hell can't Oleg or Ilya come to this forum and answer costumers questions about suport for Freetrack interface?

Bohemia Interactive GIVE FULL FREETRACK SUPORT INTO ARMAII AND O:A, so, please stop the stupid talking about legal or "moral" issues regards NP and Freetrack. We aren't stupid, respect our intelect. Or you really believe that BIS have the risk to be sued for Freetrack native suport? Read this line of the changelog of ArmAII 1.05 patch:

" [60457] New: FreeTrack support using FreeTrackClient.dll "

Other thing is the fact that NP give some kind of "help" to devs, and they have SHAME to come into public and assume a lot of things...

Isn't hard to create a clear picture about that, sorry. And it's a shame. The next step to NP will be bother Madentec?!?!?! Or better: "proprietary math"?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.50.9280

By the way, 120FPS here with PS3Eye... A cheap cam.

[MadBlaster]

Johnny Chung Lee rocks. At ~3:50 when he puts on those glasses, gives a quick "check this out" glance and then does the bop and weave...that just makes me LOL!

[robtek]

Good Luck, LoBiSoMeM, with your crusade against the evil empire of NP.

Each of your posts pushes me a bit to the NP side, you're much too enthusiastic in promoting FT.

[GHarris]

I don't see how these arguments, about the ethics or legality of Freetrack implementations in old games, are relevant to the question of whether Freetrack should or will be supported in Cliffs of Dover. If it is supported in Cliffs of Dover it will be done by an entirely legal and open API. Whether other uses of Freetrack are appropriate has no bearing on that.

But I feel like waffling a bit so here comes a wall of text.

Regarding Wolf_Rider's comments that Freetrack developers should "make the approach" or "seek inclusion - professionally"... "Professonal approaches" are what people with something to sell do. The Freetrack developers are not in it to make a profit. I don't understand why they *should* be expected to "approach" a sim developer. Freetrack is out there, it's open source, that's all that is needed. Oleg and his colleagues have heard of Freetrack (they must have done) and all they need to know about implementing it is readily available to them.

I am a supporter of Freetrack because I simply prefer an open and free (as in speech) implementation of head tracking to a proprietary one. A proprietary implementation will inevitably be abused by the people in control of it at the expense of current and past customers. As was the case when TrackIR started encrypting its data stream and made versions 1 and 2 of its TrackIR hardware incompatible with new games when they could otherwise still work. The controllers of a proprietary implementation might also seek to stifle competition from other proprietary or open implementations. As was the case when "Implementation of the "HeadTracker" interface <was> canceled at the request of NaturalPoint. (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=33510)" in DCS: Black Shark.

A minor claim I'd like to assert would be that Naturalpoint created the market for head-tracking. They did not create head-tracking itself (and they have been awarded no patents on TrackIR). Naturalpoint's business model was fundamentally based on marketing - advertising of one kind or another - not technical innovation. They hyped the idea of head-tracking up, to sell the head-tracking kits they manufactured. They have been well paid for creating the market... for a while they were the only big player in the market, so all of the sales in the market they had created went to them.

In other words, they have already been paid for their hard work. They are not "entitled" to further income on anything head-tracking-related like the holder of a patent would be. In my opinion.

If they can still make money selling a proprietary head-tracking implementation when other viable head-tracking implementations exist then fair play to them. If they succeed in doing so it will probably be the case, much of the time*, that they are being paid for their marketing efforts rather than for their technical brilliance. It would be wrong if their continued success was due to monopolistic practices - marketing taken too far.

*(I say "much of the time" because (I don't know whether it's the minority or majority, and because) many people buy TrackIR rather than, say, setting up their own Freetrack kit, not based on a carefully considered weighing up of the options but because they have been advertised to (in one of many ways) by Naturalpoint. Blackdog_kt, who wrote a thorough explanation of his preferences on the first page of this topic, would be a clear exception to this. And good for him.)

I'd like to respond to a few of CharveL's points.
I think free tracking alternatives are a great thing because not everyone can afford a TIR... It's a great way to introduce yourself to head-tracking and see the benefits it provides for immersion!

I can afford a TrackIR and don't want it. Philosophical disagreement with TrackIR aside, I would consider Freetrack to be more than an "introduction" to head-tracking. I'm looking at building myself a Freetrack setup and do not see how NaturalPoint's head-tracking implementation would be an upgrade for me, even if money wasn't a factor.

The other factor to keep in mind is that the hardware itself relieves the CPU from much of the heavy lifting, providing up to 120hz refresh rate depending on the model, which improves your apparant in-game framerate considerably from the 24fps - 30fps (give or take) of your webcam. On a CPU intensive sim like CoD you need all the spare cycles you can get.

A Wiimote, when used with Freetrack, does the tracking in hardware. It also has a rather high refresh rate of 100Hz. Using a Wiimote, of course, is just one way of using Freetrack. People are free to use other devices as they see fit because Freetrack is open source.

NP did all the legwork to make headtracking possible including wooing developers into adding the necessary hooks into their software, otherwise there would be no Freetrack, so I don't exactly blame them for not wanting to let others ride off of their work.
I disagree. NP did the legwork to make headtracking popular. And they have already been paid for that work. They don't have a divine right to be the only head tracking implementation available. It's a little bit like saying "Apple did all the legwork to make MP3 players popular". Yes, they did a lot of the legwork of making MP3 players popular by advertising the heck out of the iPod, but they were given their reward for it in iPod sales. And they'd have been irrational to think that this means that no competing MP3 players should exist, or that the iPod should retain its market share forever in spite of competition.

One problem with this analogy is that it refers to hardware rather than software. Another problem is that Apple might very well have some MP3 player-related patents whereas Naturalpoint do not have any patents on TrackIR.

[MadBlaster]

What I don't understand is why the web cam manufacturers don't exploit the Freetrack bandwagon. I think there is money to be made for them and game developers like 1C. A large manufacturer like Logitech could simply take one of their existing cheap azz cameras, remove the IR filter, call it a "Freetrak Camera", and make some money on volume sale. A game developer like IC could approach Logitech and maybe pick up a royalty on the Logitech camera sales of those types of cameras by including the Freetrak functionality in CoD and advertising as such. Heck, 1C/Ubisoft could even sell it as a CoD/Logitech Cam bundle. Maybe even get RadioShack in on the deal to supply the infrared LEDs. And since the IR filter would be gone, it's not like Logitech would be displacing a future sale on another normal web cam.

[imaca]

nah... its obvious there is copyright infringement
not really, NP were within their rights to stop people using their dll, but when they stop developers from using their own way of relaying information to other devices this is simply anti-competitive behaviour (don't do it or you wont get TIR).
Unfortunately, this sort of crap is bogging down the planet these days, it's often dressed up as "IP" protection, but what it often really is is "my company has more money and better lawyers, don't p*ss with us".

[julian265]

From what I've seen they are always willing to help their customers personally and often beyond what's called for, and seems a bit unfair when they are made out to be villains simply for protecting their work. Either way, that's for anyone to make their own opinion based on their own experience.
"simply for protecting their work" - does this extend to lobbying developers to exclude compatibility with other people's work (not just FT)? (this is my only problem with them, apart from screwing TIR 1 and 2 owners)

The other factor to keep in mind is that the hardware itself relieves the CPU from much of the heavy lifting, providing up to 120hz refresh rate depending on the model, which improves your apparant in-game framerate considerably from the 24fps - 30fps (give or take) of your webcam. On a CPU intensive sim like CoD you need all the spare cycles you can get. With that said, some people can't tell the difference between a framerate of 20fps and 60fps so YMMV.
FT 6dof @ 30 FPS plus frame interpolation took less than 1% of CPU time on an E8400 - it won't have any noticable effect on the frame rate of any game.

NP did all the legwork to make headtracking possible including wooing developers into adding the necessary hooks into their software, otherwise there would be no Freetrack, so I don't exactly blame them for not wanting to let others ride off of their work. On the other hand, if developers will support FT using FT's hooks then power to them and everybody is happy.
They've wooed developers into implementing an interface which ONLY ACCEPTS TIR, which was the logical thing for them to do. However, they're still lobbying for the exclusion of a generic interface (like mice/joysticks/throttles/wheels/pedals use) - which is holding back competition and development.

[Wolf_Rider]

It's not NP technology, please! ~



its NP software, and that is what they are protecting, with every right to do so



Regarding Wolf_Rider's comments that Freetrack developers should "make the approach" or "seek inclusion - professionally"... "Professonal approaches" are what people with something to sell do. The Freetrack developers are not in it to make a profit. I don't understand why they *should* be expected to "approach" a sim developer. Freetrack is out there, it's open source, that's all that is needed. Oleg and his colleagues have heard of Freetrack (they must have done) and all they need to know about implementing it is readily available to them.

I am a supporter of Freetrack because I simply prefer an open and free (as in speech) implementation of head tracking to a proprietary one. A proprietary implementation will inevitably be abused by the people in control of it at the expense of current and past customers. As was the case when TrackIR started encrypting its data stream and made versions 1 and 2 of its TrackIR hardware incompatible with new games when they could otherwise still work. The controllers of a proprietary implementation might also seek to stifle competition from other proprietary or open implementations. As was the case when "Implementation of the "HeadTracker" interface <was> canceled at the request of NaturalPoint. (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=33510)" in DCS: Black Shark.



wot, use somebody elses' (FT) gear without their permission, or include a method of FT gear getting stuck into somebody elses' (NP) software.

nah... the professional thing to do is to make the approach and seek inclusion, offering a proper product.


NP were protecting their rights... if the FT software did its own work, instead of syphoning off from somebody elses', you'd find it would have been a completely different ballgame - be sure





They've wooed developers into implementing an interface which ONLY ACCEPTS TIR, which was the logical thing for them to do.



correct and completely understandable for NP to professionally make the approach to seek inclusion and then protect their software, after all, they made the effort. Would it have been too hard for FT to develop their own interface in the beginning, instead of hacking another?




However, they're still lobbying for the exclusion of a generic interface (like mice/joysticks/throttles/wheels/pedals use) - which is holding back competition and development.



do you have some proof of that?

and

how does that gear get to work in the games at the moment and has been for many years now?

[MadBlaster]

One year ago:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=13227&highlight=1C%27s+stance+head-tracking+devices+BoB%3F

[MadBlaster]

Another way to go about this. Simply bifurcate the head tracking interface functionality out of the stock game. Make it mouse only. Then offer two separate add-on packages. One for TrackIR users with their encrypted/proprietary interface and the other for Freetrack users with their free-use interface. The game is priced at ~$50 right now. So, say drop the price to $48 and price each headtracking add-on at say $2 dollars each as an example. This will maximize sales of the game and give the user more flexibility in how they want to play the game.

[SEE]

Another way to go about this. Simply bifurcate the head tracking interface functionality out of the stock game. Make it mouse only. Then offer two separate add-on packages. One for TrackIR users with their encrypted/proprietary interface and the other for Freetrack users with their free-use interface. The game is priced at ~$50 right now. So, say drop the price to $48 and price each headtracking add-on at say $2 dollars each as an example. This will maximize sales of the game and give the user more flexibility in how they want to play the game.

I certainly wouldn't object if it was possible to do! Like Lobisomem says, I too don't quite understand why there has not been an official response - certainly stirred up a lot of debate in the past looking at that thread you linked to. Ah well, only a few weeks to go and all will be revealed!

[Royraiden]

If a mod sees this please close it, its useless.

[Wolf_Rider]

Another way to go about this. Simply bifurcate the head tracking interface functionality out of the stock game. Make it mouse only. Then offer two separate add-on packages. One for TrackIR users with their encrypted/proprietary interface and the other for Freetrack users with their free-use interface. The game is priced at ~$50 right now. So, say drop the price to $48 and price each headtracking add-on at say $2 dollars each as an example. This will maximize sales of the game and give the user more flexibility in how they want to play the game.


I think that is what quite a few people seem to be saying... "FT, make your own software and interface, and make it independantly and being dependant on other peoples' software and interface, or parts of. Also don't use the NP SDK to do so."

[MadBlaster]

They already have made it. Apparently it is being used by other game developers now. I see an SDK folder where I have Freetrack saved on my computer. There is a stereo button in the GUI to activate the freetrack interface. So, it must exist.

The problem is that 1C has given us all the impression that TrakIR interface will be bundled (again!) into the game with the video advertisments it has provided to us. It has done nothing to lead us to believe that we can use another headtracking solution such as Freetrak. That is the relevant issue here. I don't think there is a "professional" representive from Freetrak to do a business deal with 1C because it is free license. So, if we want to get an answer from 1C (and I do believe this is the goal of this thread) then we the users of Freetrak and other solutions should be pointing out economic reasons why it would be prudent to do so. I see no economic reason to bundle TrakIR interface again. Why, because there are now legitimate competitive options available and if you exclude them you disenfranchise a segment of the market that would otherwise buy your game. It is not like 2001. Speaking for myself, I've been playing IL-2 4 years now, have plenty of money to invest in the hobby. But I have no intention of spending $150 for something I can do for $40. That is just the way I am. I'm a saver. My mortgage will be paid off soon while my friends lose their house. Simple rational budgeting. 1C should address this segment of the market because there are a lot of us who will just keep on playing the old game because it has become quite good with the efforts of DT and the "other guys" and frankly, there simply hasn't been enough time to enjoy their latest efforts now that we are all distracted with the release date of CoD. So, I suggest we steer this thread around and get 1C's attention. And the only way I think we can do that is to point out how they can make more money if they go in this direction. Or we can party down with Johnny Lee again next year with the same old arguements. I do like that video. A classic youtube moment imho.

[Wolf_Rider]

They already have made it. Apparently it is being used by other game developers now. I see an SDK folder where I have Freetrack saved on my computer. There is a stereo button in the GUI to activate the freetrack interface. So, it must exist.



how does this interface work? how was it developed?





I don't think there is a "professional" representive from Freetrak to do a business deal with 1C because it is free license.



the software must have been created by someone and hosted on a site created by someone...

[MadBlaster]

I am not a programmer. I won't be able to tell you. In the meantime, I have just sent a message to the Freetrack author to post here. Hopefully, that request will pan out. In the meantime, you can certianly do your own research at their website. I suppose if you are a programmer, you could download the program and deconstruct it to figure it out. But it also been stated earlier in this thread that other games are making it available to users. I assume that to be true, but I did not verify. Of course, we all know your well-documented position on this topic W-R. So, your future comments will be weighed accordingly by me and by others I think.

[Wolf_Rider]

so you've gone from "I don't think there is a professional representative ~" to "I've contaced the FT author ~ "?

well done on the casuistry of your post the first quote is from...

oh, and the site download brings up security certificate warnings ;) which kind of figures

[MadBlaster]

This is what the manual says it does. High level explanation I guess.

FreeTrack interface
Raw pose
Raw pose affected by model dimensions, position and averaging.
Raw pose Z measurement is distance from camera sensor.
Axis range isn't limited.
All measurements absolute with no centring so centre can only be controlled manually by changing the model dimensions or orientation.
X, Y, Z translation measures the location of the pivot point, adjustable via the point model position.
Ordering of points in point list
Virtual pose
Uses centring, smoothing, averaging, inverts, mapping, response curves, limited by response curve (+/- 180 degrees for rotation and +/- 500mm for translation).

When using the interface for games, especially multiplayer games, the data range should not be trusted and limits used to prevent cheating.

[Wolf_Rider]

that doesn't explain how it works... is there something in your little book, which does this?

[MadBlaster]

Like I said W-R, I don't know if it will "pan out". Your intent is so obvious. Run interference on the 1C board. From heretofore, you do not exist to me. And per your post 1 year ago, I don't care if you don't have arms or legs. Enjoy your TrackIR.

[Wolf_Rider]

Like I said W-R, I don't know if it will "pan out". Your intent is so obvious. Run interference on the 1C board. From heretofore, you do not exist to me. And per your post 1 year ago, I don't care if you don't have arms or legs. Enjoy your TrackIR.



what a sad post

[julian265]

I know it's challenging, but we really shouldn't feed the troll.

[Wolf_Rider]

Well, its your choice if you'd rather do that Julian, than address what asked of you in post 101 this thread. ;) Perhaps you'd rather be tainted with Blaster's statement?

[MadBlaster]

I know it's challenging, but we really shouldn't feed the troll.

Agreed. But you know how it is when you accidently step in a pile of dog poop. It sometimes takes a few seconds until you realize what happened. I probably won't be posting in CoD board anymore. It's not W-R's fault. He obviously can't help himself. No arms, no legs. TrakIR and speech recongnition software are probably his only friends. If the mods do their jobs and ban this guy, maybe I'll be back. But until then, I'm out. Good luck trying to get Freetrack going.

[Wolf_Rider]

That's a rather sad outlook you have there, son

[GHarris]

I initially thought that Wolf_Rider's posts were genuine questions. But by the time I came to write my post on the 10th page I suspected he was just trolling on Naturalpoint's behalf.

His response to my post removed any doubt from my mind. He deliberately ignored my first statement: that discussions of how Freetrack has been used with other games are not relevant to the question of whether Freetrack should be supported in this sim, so long as there is a legal, open source Freetrack SDK available for use by sim developers... which would be used if Freetrack support were implemented in CoD.

His actions in this thread are the very definition of "FUD" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt).

He asks for a description of how Freetrack's open source SDK works. Can anyone be bothered to write one for him? Seriously? If they did, he would just obfuscate or ask questions which deliberately "misunderstand" (or outright ignore) what was written. And continue to vaguely assert that Naturalpoint has been vaguely ripped off somehow.

And besides, the source code is freely available. If Wolf_Rider wants to understand how Freetrack works he can download it and take a look.

We live in a society where we are considered innocent until proven guilty. If Wolf_Rider, or Naturalpoint, or anyone else wishes to claim that Freetrack breaks the law, or infringes patents or copyrights, they are free to produce evidence to support such a claim. Indeed, if Naturalpoint has a legitimate grievance it is able to take legal action which would shut the Freetrack project down and obtain financial compensation. I have no idea why Naturalpoint would not have done this - as it would be entirely in the company's interest to do so - other than because they don't have any evidence.

If Naturalpoint, who are a company out to make a profit on selling TrackIR, were unable to demonstrate that their competition acts illegally (on account of it... er... not being true - how jolly inconvenient for these entitled-to-a-profit businessmen!), I suspect that they would spread precisely the kind of FUD we are seeing in this thread and elsewhere. Just ask vaguely insulting questions rather than offer answers, that's the trick! "When did you stop beating your wife", etc. etc.

[Wolf_Rider]

as mentioned earlier, the download link draws up a site's security certificate warning from my A/V, GHarris.
Always asked was "how does the INTERFACE work?"

Always stated was if the FT uses its own software and doesn't draw from any other company's software against thier wishes, I don't have a problem with that.

In the software (manual) however is a section tick box to select TIR interface, which means the FT draws from another's interface (software) This http://forum.free-track.net/index.php?showtopic=1560&page=1 admittedly, is from 2009, but take a special note of post #7 and #11

you are also, as others have done, confused between copyright and patent, they are two different items.

now GHarris, its quite obvious that you and your two mates before you have no base for your points... so now the insults start ;) well, knock yourself out. Let's see if you can outdo Blaster.

[robtek]

Here is a excerpt of the Freetrack Homepage:

FreeTrack can output head tracking data directly using TrackIR™, SimConnect and FSUIPC interfaces, programs that support these interfaces are regarded as having FreeTrack support. General input devices can also be emulated, specifically mouse, keyboard, and joystick (via PPJoy).

Seems to be that FT is still using NP software.

[swiss]

Here is a excerpt of the Freetrack Homepage:

Bro, it's not like this is gonna stop him.

[Korn]

I initially thought that Wolf_Rider's posts were genuine questions. But by the time I came to write my post on the 10th page I suspected he was just trolling on Naturalpoint's behalf.

Yup exactly my thoughts.


Anyway. Cutting deals with publishers in order to remove the competition IS illegal. That's what anti-trust laws are for. Just a few years ago Intel ate a 1 billion euro fine from the European Commission for making deals with the likes of HP, Dell and other integrators so that they will not use AMD parts. In the US they just settled with nVidia and will be paying them 1.46 billion USD, after they just payed AMD (in the US, after a Federal Trade Commission settlement) 1.26 billion USD.

More info (chronological):
AMD and Intel Settle Their Differences (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2873)
Intel Settles With the Federal Trade Commission (http://www.anandtech.com/show/3839/intel-settles-with-the-ftc/)
Intel Settles With NVIDIA: More Money, Fewer Problems, No x86 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4122/intel-settles-with-nvidia-more-money-fewer-problems-no-x86)

So, to sum things up:
- Natural Point has made and is still making deals with publishers in order to not allow any other head tracking devices to work in those respective games;
- while this may sound as legitimate bussiness practice, it is in fact a monopolistic behaviour and illegal in the European Union as well as in the United States, as exemplified above.


As i said in another thread, the reason Natural Point does not have (as yet) any legal problems as a consequence of these issues is the fact that they are activating inside a very young, small, niche market, a market with low visibility and they haven't come (yet!) under scrutiny.

[Wolf_Rider]

- Natural Point has made and is still making deals with publishers in order to not allow any other head tracking devices to work in those respective games;




cutting out the competition... anti-trust laws? I totally agree

as for the quote.. that's a rather loud accusation you're making there, do you have anything you can back that accusation up with?

[swiss]

Antitrust - competition?
FT is opensource, to operate in a market you'd have to make money by selling your product.
FT is more like a club than a company.

Imho none those arguments are valid.

[Wolf_Rider]

Antitrust - competition?
FT is opensource, to operate in a market you'd have to make money by selling your product.
FT is more like a club than a company.

Imho none those arguments are valid.



I'd agree that none of those arguments are vaild as well, Swiss

But I believe Korn was talking about NP, not FT ;)

[Korn]

cutting out the competition... anti-trust laws? I totally agree

as for the quote.. that's a rather loud accusation you're making there, do you have anything you can back that accusation up with?

I'm making no accusation, i'm simply stating the facts as i know them. Bohemia Interactive had such a deal with Natural Point, as stated as one of their guys on the official forums and as it was well known inside the community. Their forums were also haunted by a bunch of trolls and even NP employees extremely vocal and aggressive when there was any Free Track talking. They went away when BI shut down the deal and included Free Track support with a patch last year.
Natural Point has another such deal with Eagle Dynamics (LOMAC & DCS developer and publisher), however i got to be honest, i don't know if either part has admited to that (it is possible they did, i don't read their forums much).

The Bohemia Interactive story is easy to check. And everybody knows about the other one, just ask... I'm sure there are others, but i don't know anything about the driving sims, maybe someone else is more knowledgeable.

[Wolf_Rider]

Korn, no, you made an accusation... let's be clear about that and you made a loud noise about anti-trust... all that is rather serious and what you've come up with is hearsay to back it.

you might recall the bohemia experience was the equivalent of a bunch of "boys" (in support of FT) bursting in through the, door, smashing glass, turning over tables and slapping the women. It was when it was learned that FT had not approached those developers in any manner, that the situation sort of quietened down. Bohemia forum went through a horrible time until then.

Perhaps you could check was to whether DCS made their own interface for other trackers to use or used NP's SDK to create it. If they used the SDK, then NP was (I assume) well within their rights to insist anything created from it not be used.

[swiss]

Again:
FT is Free
TIR is a company.

In fact there is only one company serving this market - ergo no competition.
If there is only one company they are free to cut a deal - I see no option to apply an antitrust law.

Does it suck for the consumer? Sure I don't like TIR either, however it's not illegal.

[Wolf_Rider]

Fair enough

[Korn]

Korn, no, you made an accusation... let's be clear about that and you made a loud noise about anti-trust... all that is rather serious and what you've come up with is hearsay to back it.

rofl you're funny. Hearsay? So you pretend you're worried about the monopoly bussiness, and when i provide you enough information to go and check for yourself you dare accusing me of hearsay? Did you actually read what i posted? Man what a crappy job you got to do :) :). PR for Natural Point posing as regular user... I actually feel sorry for you. :rolleyes: Yeah i know, you're just a guy, just another guy concerned that Free Track is stealing NP bussiness and violates its (nonexistent) patents, like any honest citizen. Man you crack me up :grin: :grin: :grin:. Feel free to talk to your peers from now on, i'm sure there's more than one of you, or at least more than one user :grin: :grin:, i think i got all the laugh you can give.


swiss, you are mistaken, antitrust laws are concerned not only with actually protecting fair competition between companies, but also (maybe even primary) with protecting the consumers. Please search the web for further info, as well as consulting any specialized professional (lawyer or economist)... This is very basic stuff.


Before i leave this thread for good, as i'm sure any unbiased individual has already enough data to form his/her own opinion, i want to apologize for any mistake i made, english is not my native language.

Good day, gentlemen.

[Wolf_Rider]

I think you may need to wake up to yourself a bit there Korn, or read the thread through, at least.
You made an accusation, couldn't back it up adequately and were asked a question, obviously one you have no answer to or no details about, so you get in a huff and make threats to leave.... well, that's your choice.

Also Korn, you might consider Facetracking, negates your whole premise of antitrust ;)

[ElAurens]

This thread has gone from interesting to just plain hilarious.

Those arguing in favor of Free Track sound exactly like the folks that argue most vociferously in favor of pirating any software title they wish as it is their "right" because the interweb is "free" and we need to stike a blow for "freedom of expression" against the evil capitalists.

:rolleyes:

Grow up kids.


Really.

[Vasilj_Mitu]

do they just sound like that to you, or are they pirates to you?

[Sauf]

Arrrrghhhh did somebody mention pirates!
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/images-2.jpg

[julian265]

Well, its your choice if you'd rather do that Julian, than address what asked of you in post 101 this thread.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=589080&postcount=40

The post you've seen plenty of times before. No doubt you'll go off on some tangent from that, and raise a bunch of questions to which you already know the answer.

[julian265]

I initially thought that Wolf_Rider's posts were genuine questions. But by the time I came to write my post on the 10th page I suspected he was just trolling on Naturalpoint's behalf.

http://naturalpointofview.blogspot.com/2010/03/naturalpoint-winder-sockpuppet-archive.html

Possibly. More fool me for responding.

[ElAurens]

do they just sound like that to you, or are they pirates to you?


I realize we have a language barrier here, but I did say they sound like, not that they are. Their arguments take the same form and structure.

It is even more reinforced by the fact that someone put up a website/blog/whatever it is, that tracks one person's posts on various sites about the "controversy".

What next? Get Wiki Leaks involved?

Why are people so against seeing a company be successful? Don't we all want to be secure in our finances, and make money on our hard work? I know I do.

I don't understand this bruhaha at all.

[Wolf_Rider]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=589080&postcount=40

The post you've seen plenty of times before. No doubt you'll go off on some tangent from that, and raise a bunch of questions to which you already know the answer.

actually, Julian, I've already asked a question, and before your above post... did you miss it, like you have the others asked of you?
and what is the point of your link, I don't understand... is it supposed to mean something??

I really have to wonder if the FT "boys" know what "the big lie" (in concept) is and where it came from?

[Blackdog_kt]

Wolf Rider, i'm someone who's actually tried both methods and found trackIR to be better, yet even to me you seem like you have an agenda to push.

They just gave you links where developers of DCS say that naturalpoint stopped them from providing support for other headtracking interfaces. It can't be spelled out any better, so you can either acknowledge it or bury your head in the sand.

The industry can't make games that only support one standard and then claim FT are violating copyrights when they are shutting them off from doing it in a legal manner, at least not without looking ridiculous.

So, in order to clear up some things, maybe i'll try to describe it a bit better to you.

A joystick, any kind of joystick, works with all games because there's a generic interface to control axial input for games.
Today, the same thing exists for headtracking but it's not getting used (and in some cases actively being prevented from use).
Well, my question is how would you feel if suddenly the only people who could fly the new sim where those who had a microsoft stick? I'd be fine, because i have a 10 year old precision pro 2, so who cares what happens to the rest of the community, right? :rolleyes:

As for how hard it is to do it, i recently got a friend of mine to start flying IL2 with me. The guy is a programmer and a Linux user. Once i explained headtracking to him, he dug up a stagnant linux project, contacted the original author for some information and got to work. In TWO DAYS he had his own headtracking software, it works with normal LEDs (not even IR) and a webcam in a room with all the lights on. Heck, i tried it and it was smoother than the freetrack installation i tried on my home PC.

In the following weeks or months, he's probably going to code something open source and free from the ground up, which will be also coded in C/C++ and will be much less demanding on the PC than freetrack.

There is a very simple solution to all of this really.

1) Naturalpoint protects their software and API so that it only works with naturalpoint products, i'm all fine with that.

2) The developer provides a secondary, generic interface for alternative headtrackers, so that they don't have to use NP's API anymore. All it needs is the game to recognize 6 generic axis and accept inputs under a standard, generic interface.

Freetrack does have it's own API and doesn't need to use naturalpoint software. The reason FT is parsing it's data through the naturalpoint API is that freetrack's API is usually blacklisted or simply not used due to ignorance.

Finally, in regards to copyright, i asked my buddy about the possible legal implications of using the trackIR .dll file. He looked it up and apparently (maybe that's also the reason NP don't hold a patent), there's a legal clause that in the case at hand permits to sidestep the issue if certain measures are followed.
I don't remember exactly how it goes, but it seems that part of that .dll's content falls under public domain or something similar (you can't copyright basic mathematics after all), so all you need is a programmer to write his own .dll and make it available under an open source/free software license.

So, to sum up...freetrack doesn't NEED to use naturalpoint software to work. It just needs the developers to accept to use freetrack's implementation alongside the naturalpoint one. Then everyone is legal, we all get more options and you know me, i'm all for extra options so more members of the community can stay happy with their flight simming and the hobby can advance ;)

[Wolf_Rider]

Wolf Rider, i'm someone who's actually tried both methods and found trackIR to be better, yet even to me you seem like you have an agenda to push.



no agenda on my part but there certainly is an agenda being pushed. eg simple questions get insult or fabrications in response = sounds like an agenda being pushed, to me.




They just gave you links where developers of DCS say that naturalpoint stopped them from providing support for other headtracking interfaces. It can't be spelled out any better, so you can either acknowledge it or bury your head in the sand.



and the question I asked was, did DCS use their own proprity interface or did they use NP SDK to allow that/ your response to that question would be.....?



The industry can't make games that only support one standard



GP Bikes is exclusively and advertised as exclusively FreeTrack ;)



and then claim FT are violating copyrights when they are shutting them off from doing it in a legal manner, at least not without looking ridiculous.



refer back to the DCS question asked earlier on



So, in order to clear up some things, maybe i'll try to describe it a bit better to you.

A joystick, any kind of joystick, works with all games because there's a generic interface to control axial input for games.



yes, its called DirectX if I understand and maybe clearer would be the Direct Input and is part of the Microsoft operating systems... we're up to version 11 atm, aren't we? is this correct?



Today, the same thing exists for headtracking but it's not getting used



Which is.... what, exactly?



Well, my question is how would you feel if suddenly the only people who could fly the new sim where those who had a microsoft stick? I'd be fine, because i have a 10 year old precision pro 2, so who cares what happens to the rest of the community, right? :rolleyes:



Microsoft stopped making their joysticks years ago. Besides that MS include in their operating systems generic drivers for use. You may have noticed though that gameports have been dropped, yes? well, that's progress for you. Even MS JS programmer isn't supported in Windows7



As for how hard it is to do it, i recently got a friend of mine to start flying IL2 with me. The guy is a programmer and a Linux user. Once i explained headtracking to him, he dug up a stagnant linux project, contacted the original author for some information and got to work. In TWO DAYS he had his own headtracking software, it works with normal LEDs (not even IR) and a webcam in a room with all the lights on. Heck, i tried it and it was smoother than the freetrack installation i tried on my home PC.



Fantastic effort on his part then... there's also another proggy called FaceTracknoIR (at least I think that is the correct name)



In the following weeks or months, he's probably going to code something open source and free from the ground up, which will be also coded in C/C++ and will be much less demanding on the PC than freetrack.



excellent, I wish him all the best




There is a very simple solution to all of this really.

1) Naturalpoint protects their software and API so that it only works with naturalpoint products, i'm all fine with that.

2) The developer provides a secondary, generic interface for alternative headtrackers, so that they don't have to use NP's API anymore. All it needs is the game to recognize 6 generic axis and accept inputs under a standard, generic interface.



1. good to hear
2. personally, I don't have problem with that. FSX has simconnect (However some FSX FT users don't like it so they use the NP software hack to run their FT instead.



Freetrack does have it's own API and doesn't need to use naturalpoint software. The reason FT is parsing it's data through the naturalpoint API is that freetrack's API is usually blacklisted or simply not used due to ignorance.



well, there is something in your statement which is contradictory... you say FT has its own API (great, but I keep asking how this works and no serious anwer is the response - only silliness is, the likes of which would be expected from the front row of a Guns 'n' Roses concert) and you go on to say that the FT has to use NP software to work. This is as plain as day on the FT site and is quite possible for the "blacklisting", as you put it. Admittedly you offer ignorance, well that's cool... all FT has to do is make the approach to the developers with their own stand alone product. One that doesn't use any part of anyone elses' copyright protected software.



Finally, in regards to copyright, i asked my buddy about the possible legal implications of using the trackIR .dll file. He looked it up and apparently (maybe that's also the reason NP don't hold a patent), there's a legal clause that in the case at hand permits to sidestep the issue if certain measures are followed.
I don't remember exactly how it goes, but it seems that part of that .dll's content falls under public domain or something similar (you can't copyright basic mathematics after all), so all you need is a programmer to write his own .dll and make it available under an open source/free software license.



can't patent basic maths after all? you may be right there but patent isn't copyright... so would that then leave Microsoft, and everybody else/ every developer, up the creek with regard to their software copyrights? Construct one's own dll? excellent, can FT do that with out using all or part of another companies copyrighted dll?
(but, it looks like another contradiction in essence, so, do let us know how you get on there, with that one:)
yes, they release it open source/ freeware... no problem. They could also charge for it if they wanted, there's no restrictions on how it should be released, is there?



So, to sum up...freetrack doesn't NEED to use naturalpoint software to work. It just needs the developers to accept to use freetrack's implementation alongside the naturalpoint one.




see the earlier point on your contradiction and another question... can FT work without NP software being installed?




Then everyone is legal, we all get more options and you know me, i'm all for extra options so more members of the community can stay happy with their flight simming and the hobby can advance ;)


hey, I'm all for options, don't get me wrong... legal ones though.

Has anyone thought of using facetracking... its much cheaper than FT?

[julian265]

and the question I asked was, did DCS use their own proprity interface or did they use NP SDK to allow that/ your response to that question would be.....? For the Nth time, they were developing their own, then ceased at the request of NP. GET IT NOW?

well, there is something in your statement which is contradictory... you say FT has its own API (great, but I keep asking how this works and no serious anwer is the response - only silliness is) and you go on to say that the FT has to use NP software to work. This is as plain as day on the FT site and quite possible for the blacklisting. Admittedly you offer ignorance, well that's cool... all FT has to do is make the approach to the developers with their own stand alone product. One that doesn't use any part of anyone elses' copyright protected software.There is no contradiction in Blackdog's post. FT does have its own API, in fact you can enable or disable each of the methods FT uses to output head pose data. If you only enable the FT API, then FT only uses it, and does not use NP's DLL. If you only enable PPJoy, then FT outputs the six axes to a PPJoy virtual controller, which looks to windows like a six axis joystick, which you then map to the head axes in the game... Again, without the NP DLL. DO YOU GET IT??? When games accept six the FT API, or allow the assignment of joystick axes to head controls, FT has no need for the NP DLL. It's only when the head control axes are mysteriously kept hidden (unlike EVERY other one used in games) that people tick the trackIR box, to make the game think it is receiving data from one. GET IT NOW?

can't copyright basic maths after all? well, then I guess that leaves Microsoft, and everybody else/ every developer, up the creek with regard to their software copyrights, eh?
let us know how you get on there, with that one:)Maths != software. Nice straw-man, by the way.

another question... can FT work without NP software being installed?Again, yes. However it is relevant to your question that the installation of FT will install the NP DLL, which is only used if the trackIR interface is enabled. GET IT NOW?

Has anyone thought of using facetracking... its much cheaper than FT?Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

[Wolf_Rider]

For the Nth time, they were developing their own, then ceased at the request of NP. GET IT NOW?



what is the proof of this? if you mention DCS, then refer to my earlier question




There is no contradiction in Blackdog's post. FT does have its own API, in fact you can enable or disable each of the methods FT uses to output head pose data. If you only enable the FT API, then FT only uses it, and does not use NP's DLL. If you only enable PPJoy, then FT outputs the six axes to a PPJoy virtual controller, which looks to windows like a six axis joystick, which you then map to the head axes in the game... Again, without the NP DLL. DO YOU GET IT??? When games accept six the FT API, or allow the assignment of joystick axes to head controls, FT has no need for the NP DLL. It's only when the head control axes are mysteriously kept hidden (unlike EVERY other one used in games) that people tick the trackIR box, to make the game think it is receiving data from one. GET IT NOW?



There is a contradiction... read it again, and it looks clear by your own admission that FT uses the NP software.



Maths != software. Nice straw-man, by the way.



take that up with Blackdog, it's his entry


Again, yes. However it is relevant to your question that the installation of FT will install the NP DLL, which is only used if the trackIR interface is enabled. GET IT NOW?


no, you got it backwards there, matey That's not what I was enquiring about




Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?



Once again, let's get some facts into the thread... what proof do you have that NP is lobbying for exclusion of other products? (go back to the first of your quotes here)

[wannabetheace]

Freetrack
Pros:
-FREE software
-Easy to set up and use once you got the setup built correctly
-Easy to replace(if the camera fails)

Cons:
-Support(not all games supporting track ir support freetrack, correct me)
-Bothersome to make clip(at least to me)
-Requires a dark room to work properly most of the time

TrackIR
Pros:
-No need to build
-More complex software(im assuming)
-Comes with reflective clip(does not need a dark room to work properly)
-Better support on games

Cons:
-Expensive!

I guess there are more cons but since I dont own a TIR setup I dont know which ones.

If I decided to go for the TrackIR I would try to get the TIR4 but it isnt available on amazon and theres just a few on ebay.Where is the cheapest place I could get one?Feel free to correct my mistakes, if there's any.Give me some advice/suggestions/experience.And most importantly,is Freetrack going to be supported at release?Im fairly new to the forum so maybe this was discussed earlier.
How about Hat-Track
it is much cheaper and looks good as TrackIR

[albx]

How about Hat-Track
it is much cheaper and looks good as TrackIR

NOOOOOOO are you kidding? They also stoled NP ideas, software, hardware, everything :-P

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't have time to go through the entire post point by point, so just a couple of things here.

If DCS was done with NP tools then yes, NP has a say in things. In that case, the makers of DCS should provide a separate alternative that's done without NP tools, so they can enable support for 3rd party alternatives.

As for my example with the microsoft sticks, it was just that, an example. Saying that they are out of production doesn't invalidate it. But since you couldn't resist splitting hairs, just substitute the MS sticks for a different brand like Saitek and tell me how cool (or not) it would be if only Saitek sticks worked with CoD? ;)

Finally, about the exclusiveness of it all, i find that releasing a "freetrack only" game is just as stupid as releasing a "trackIR only" game. They should be giving their customers some freedom of choice for crying out loud :rolleyes:

Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:

can FT work without NP software being installed?



and the answer is yes. All it needs is to be enabled within the game interface, which means that yes, the game developer has to explicitly allow it to interface with the game.

This is no different than trackIR mind you. TrackIR also needs some "hooks" of its own to be programmed into the game before it's recognized and i can use it. If it was all done by the trackIR software it would work in every single game released but it doesn't (it uses mouse emulation for the old titles), so it's pretty clear that whatever head-tracking interface we use, the game needs to be specially programmed to take advantage of it.

That's not too much work compared to coding an entire game that already uses functions like smooth camera control and axial inputs, it just needs an extra 6 axes in the conrtol options.
Now that i think of it, i seem to remember that even the original IL2 version of 2001 wasn't what we call a trackIR enhanced title, ie it lacked native trackIR support.

The process is like this:
1) A developer codes a head tracking interface.
2) Another developer, the one who's making the game, needs to enable it to interface with the game.

The reason freetrack can't interface with a lot of games on its own is not that it lacks the means to do so, it's mostly because the game software doesn't allow it to. In that sense, i find that raising the question of "can it work on its own" is misleading (i'm not saying it's done intentionally, it's just misleading) because it lacks the proper context.
The context is, "in the cases that it doesn't work on its own, why is that so?" and the answer is simple, "because they don't allow it to do what it can perfectly do on its own". Well, that not the fault of freetrack or any other headtracking interface, is it now?

Freetrack doesn't need to use trackIR's "hands", it's got its own but most of the time they are not allowed to "touch" anything by the game engine. If a game has a generic 6 axes interface then freetrack's "hands" are untied and it works without needing to use any kind of naturalpoint software whatsoever.

Edit: Seems like Julian beat me to the punch line. As long as the axes are visible, then any kind of headtracking interface can work on its own, totally independent of NP's software. However, if i'm an boxing match and they tie my hands around my back it's a bit hypocritical of my sparring partner to complain if i head-butt him :D


Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

[blampars]

Having already ordered a HOTAS+Rudder pedals for this sim(thanks to all the kind members for sharing your thoughts and experience on my other thread),now its time for me to consider upgrading my head tracking setup.I've been using Freetrack for the past year with almost no complaints regarding the software.On the other hand, due to my poor craftsmanship, my 3 point clip started failing on me,something I was expecting because that thing was held on by layers and layers of duct tape(yes it was a pretty cheap build).So I've read several times that I could use the Natural Point Track Clip Pro with Freetrack, and went to their website to order one.I can get it shipped for $60.00.If I would have know these from the start I would have saved the money I spent on the webcam+ tools and parts and go all out for a TrackIR solution.My main concern is,how can I be sure that Freetrack is going to be supported when the game comes out?If I could choose I would stay with freetrack because its a great piece of software,and the fact that it is free.Though there are a few advantages to owning Track Ir.The most important for me is the reflective Clip.Having the 3 point clip with Freetrack means that I need to have my headphones on in addition to another cable hanging around my face.I guess I could build a reflective clip for Freetrack but I honestly dont want to fiddle more with parts.....

I took a peek at my next paycheck yesterday, and happily noticed that it was more than double what is usual. Thank you Michigan winter for snowing and bringing me overtime.

I just sprung for Track IR 5, it should be here Tuesday. Interested to see how it compares to FTnoIR that I've been using.

[MadBlaster]

I don't have time to go through the entire post point by point, so just a couple of things here.

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!


This is no different than trackIR mind you. TrackIR also needs some "hooks" of its own to be programmed into the game before it's recognized and i can use it. If it was all done by the trackIR software it would work in every single game released but it doesn't (it uses mouse emulation for the old titles), so it's pretty clear that whatever head-tracking interface we use, the game needs to be specially programmed to take advantage of it.


Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

[Stipe]

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!




Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

+1000000
Hat's off to you!

[ElAurens]

You people are all crazy.

I'm done with this thread.

[robtek]

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!




Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

This irony is biting!!!
But i am afraid you really meant it that way.

[Ernst]

All you just think to yourselves, how much players in the world had no sufficient funds to buy all the devices to play a single game. Oleg stated he worries about CoD be playable for all around the world and deny a free interface kills the users with less money or in countries where TIR is not distributed. As an example in my country beyound buy CoD and have a decent machine to run it, a joystick, i ll have to import TIR and pay high taxes 60% for country more the estadual taxes to bring it. Just impossible to me as just for many players.

You are really very egoistic. It is necessary to have an alternative for the guys all around the world and likes IL2 series. Kill Freetrack interface is to kill a lot of sells. Or at less turn TIR more acessible and cheaper for all.

I hope Oleg maintain his preocupation in allow players all around the world to play decently.

I believe we are all good man, however earn money is not a sin (all we need it), we cannot be slaves of it and have to think in the others and not only in large amount of money.

We just ask to let FT use his own interface, monopoly is ilegal. At least here i do not kwown in you country. As just i can choose my joystick i ll can choose my headtracking interface. And as just some players prefer to buy a saitek X65F instead a low end piece there ll be players ll prefer to use TIR instead FT if it really offers more advantages. If TIR not offer so many advantages that it is preferable to use FT then we must admit that TIR is overpriced since it does not have any great technology or superior quality. You have to earn money because you have big product not because you not allow others to compete with you. Capitalism is supposed to earn money, but it is supposed to be free and democratic as well.

I pray God you have a serious and rare disease, wich treatment is patentied for some big drugdeveloper, and you cannot use another cheaper with the same active principle because its not allowed. Then you ll die because you not have money to buy the medicines. hahaha...

[Stipe]

What some of this "posh" people are forgeting is that in some parts of the world a 100 euros might be a week paycheck or even a month paycheck if one is really in a bad place. I thought i never see the day that flight sim community will become elitist. I guess if you are not from US, Britain or Australia you don't deserve to play. I don't agree with your last statement though. Watch out, karma is a bit.h!

[MadBlaster]

Stipe. This might interest you. I am a born and bred "right-wing" Republican from America. I have never voted Democrat in my life. I pay taxes and vote. We aren't all bad here in America. We believe in capitalism and competition to add value to our society. This NP/1C situation is non-competitive. As a consumer of 1C games who desires freedom of choice, I have a right to point this out. This goes on every day in a capitalistic society. It is the market demand side of things letting the supply side know that we want something different. If we have to, we vote with our wallets.

Fyi, W-R, I do not have time to respond, nor do you exist.

[Stipe]

Stipe. This might interest you. I am a born and bred "right-wing" Republican from America. I have never voted Democrat in my life. I pay taxes and vote. We aren't all bad here in America. We believe in capitalism and competition to add value to our society. This NP/1C situation is non-competitive. As a consumer of 1C games who desires freedom of choice, I have a right to point this out. This goes on every day in a capitalistic society. It is the market demand side of things letting the supply side know that we want something different. If we have to, we vote with our wallets.

Fyi, W-R, I do not have time to respond, nor do you exist.

I completely agree with you. I want to apologize if my post was missunderstood. I didn't tend too "attack" the whole nations. Just those "laud" citizens of this countries that are here on this forums and were born with silver spoon i guess. ~S~

[MadBlaster]

I completely agree with you. I want to apologize if my post was missunderstood. I didn't tend too "attack" the whole nations. Just those "laud" citizens of this countries that are here on this forums and were born with silver spoon i guess. ~S~

NP. Oops, I guess that could be taken the wrong way to. I mean No Problem.:-)

[robtek]

What some posters here implement is just plain wrong!!!
Nobody here wants to restrict free developement and multiple choices!!!
What this discussion is about is the alleged illegal use of NP Software on the one side
and the not proven accusations that NP is influencing developers to bar competing software on the other side.
But then, some people see only black and white and who is not completely on their side must be a enemy.
A quite restricted view, i believe.
Just like without Freetrack or TrackIR or any competing Software :-D

[Stipe]

What this discussion is or was about is if freetrack will work with COD or not. Nothing less, nothing more. The topic went down the toilet and the original question is still not answered.;)

[MadBlaster]

Excellent job Stipe!!! You saw he was running interference again and you smashed it like a bug. Now always remember, if he tries to troll again you can..."I'm too busy right now..etc." Okay, I have to leave the computer for a while now. But there is hope.

[julian265]

not proven accusations that NP is influencing developers to bar competing software on the other side.

What is it about the ED developer's quote that is not proof? (you know, the one that said they stopped developing an open tracking interface at the request of NP)

What about the censorship on the Ubi forums?

[LoBiSoMeM]

In page 16 and neither Oleg, Ilya or other dev of IL-2:CoD bother to came here and answer the simple question:

- Will IL-2:CoD have suport for other HT devices/softwares besides TIR?

It's funny to see that they can't answer that, and the coolest thing if that the BIG LIE of "legal issues" go away with the fact that Bohemia Interactive suport Freetrack interface in your major titles...

Shame.

[robtek]

I see that there is no way that a free software did use a shortcut by using the software of a regular company!
So it also never happened that the said free software did use their own interface after getting caught.
Of course only regular, money earning companies can be bad.
And the fact, posted on the homepage of said free software, that it still can and will use proprietary software, is a misunderstanding.
Oh, by the way when we are at it, communism WILL rule the world, be shure.

[Stipe]

FT can work on it's own without the use of NP software if given the chance!

[LoBiSoMeM]

I see that there is no way that a free software did use a shortcut by using the software of a regular company!
So it also never happened that the said free software did use their own interface after getting caught.
Of course only regular, money earning companies can be bad.
And the fact, posted on the homepage of said free software, that it still can and will use proprietary software, is a misunderstanding.
Oh, by the way when we are at it, communism WILL rule the world, be shure.

You can read? 16 pages explaining EVERYTHING and this talking about "software"?

No communism, just use your brain a little:

1 - Freetrack actual version didn't use "NP code". Freetrack has your own interface;

2 - Freetrack is GNU, open source, free. It's made to use a lot of hardware options to create a HT solution;

3 - Today a big sim company give Freetrack suport for their MAJOR tiltes, so the "legal" talking is plain stupid.

Amazes me how people sound like a broken record. "proprietary software"... My God!

This kind of discussion is over. If 1C didn't have some "classified" commercial agreement with NP, 1C CAN GIVE FREETRACK SUPORT IN IL-2:COD! Simples as that, Bohemia Interactive did it.

But what makes me really laugh if that people like Robtek jump in defense of NP and CoD devs don't answer the questions, like ED didn't answer questions... Thank's God BIS devs don't hide in shadows and listen to the customers, maybe they don't need so much NP money.

But "capitalist" people believe that is normal... People even know what capitalism is about, I will bottle air and block people to beath normally... It's the same thing.

Tired of that. Please Oleg, if you can't answer or questions and if CoD get out without Freetrack suport, don't cry if people hack your .exe to use Freetrack .dll. Devs complaint a lot of hackers, piracy, but do little to give LEGAL CUSTOMERS suport and options.

As I said: shame. Just that.

[robtek]

As i see that the "same opinion as mine or enemy"-people have also lost the ability to read without prejudice ...
Happy dreams

[MadBlaster]

Good job wingmen!!! Watch for W-R, he'll be on your 6 anytime now.

[LoBiSoMeM]

As i see that the "same opinion as mine or enemy"-people have also lost the ability to read without prejudice ...
Happy dreams

You don't have one "opinion". I'm a Freetrack user, I don't care if you can't underestand how Freetrack works. But when you came to one topic about suport to Freetrack in CoD and start talking nonsense things about "proprietary software", what's your point?

There isn't any "moral" or "legal" subject regards Freetrack. If you can't undestand that, it's sad. But MAYBE exists some agreement between NP and 1C. And if it exists, you can think about why some software companies didn't discuss openly about other HT solutions... Maybe the "ilegal" stuff is somewere else...

But Freetrack is evil...

[Wolf_Rider]

I don't have time to go through the entire post point by point, so just a couple of things here.



That's not an unusual stance to take there




If DCS was done with NP tools then yes, NP has a say in things.



Great... at least we can agree on the basic premise



In that case, the makers of DCS should provide a separate alternative that's done without NP tools, so they can enable support for 3rd party alternatives.



Why does it have to be the developer soley?
Does the developer need to scour out every part of the ' net to hunt down what may or may not be available "tracker" wise?



As for my example with the microsoft sticks, it was just that, an example. Saying that they are out of production doesn't invalidate it. But since you couldn't resist splitting hairs, just substitute the MS sticks for a different brand like Saitek and tell me how cool (or not) it would be if only Saitek sticks worked with CoD? ;)



refer to the points made on "locking others out" and I think you'll the invalidation of your argument there. Microsoft provide drivers, generic drivers for use by joysticks... they also provide drivers (I believe) for webams and they supply those drivers with their operating systems.




Finally, about the exclusiveness of it all, i find that releasing a "freetrack only" game is just as stupid as releasing a "trackIR only" game. They should be giving their customers some freedom of choice for crying out loud :rolleyes:



Excellent, yet we don't hear the same cries from others of the same frame of mind.




Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:



and the answer is yes. All it needs is to be enabled within the game interface, which means that yes, the game developer has to explicitly allow it to interface with the game.

This is no different than trackIR mind you. TrackIR also needs some "hooks" of its own to be programmed into the game before it's recognized and i can use it. If it was all done by the trackIR software it would work in every single game released but it doesn't (it uses mouse emulation for the old titles), so it's pretty clear that whatever head-tracking interface we use, the game needs to be specially programmed to take advantage of it.

That's not too much work compared to coding an entire game that already uses functions like smooth camera control and axial inputs, it just needs an extra 6 axes in the conrtol options.



No problem there... all FT and others need to do is work with the developer to have the tracker product included... see my earlier point on searching the web through... but, and but FSX has Simconnect. Yes, simconnect and the FT crowd pass that over in favour of hacking out NP software. Let me remind at this point of your stated views of hacking and FT being able to run without NP software installed.



Now that i think of it, i seem to remember that even the original IL2 version of 2001 wasn't what we call a trackIR enhanced title, ie it lacked native trackIR support.



and what happened there? that's right NP made the approach to the developers



The process is like this:
1) A developer codes a head tracking interface.
2) Another developer, the one who's making the game, needs to enable it to interface with the game.



okay... the two need to work together - fine



The reason freetrack can't interface with a lot of games on its own is not that it lacks the means to do so, it's mostly because the game software doesn't allow it to. In that sense, i find that raising the question of "can it work on its own" is misleading (i'm not saying it's done intentionally, it's just misleading) because it lacks the proper context.



hmm, no... its not misleading Facrtrack seems to be able to enable within a game without NP software being installed (even though facetrack still has a function to interact through NP software). Has anyone noticed that FaceTrack is cheaper still than FT?



The context is, "in the cases that it doesn't work on its own, why is that so?" and the answer is simple, "because they don't allow it to do what it can perfectly do on its own". Well, that not the fault of freetrack or any other headtracking interface, is it now?



How to fix that is by (your own point) getting with the developer of the game they would like inclusion with... it simple, yes?



Freetrack doesn't need to use trackIR's "hands", it's got its own but most of the time they are not allowed to "touch" anything by the game engine. If a game has a generic 6 axes interface then freetrack's "hands" are untied and it works without needing to use any kind of naturalpoint software whatsoever.



Face Track has a PPJoy. exe (freeware) asociated with it, which seems to interact just fine... but once again, this gets passed over in favour of relying on NP software




Edit: Seems like Julian beat me to the punch line. As long as the axes are visible, then any kind of headtracking interface can work on its own, totally independent of NP's software.



see the previous point



However, if i'm an boxing match and they tie my hands around my back it's a bit hypocritical of my sparring partner to complain if i head-butt him :D



nobody has tied your hands behind your back for you... you've done that yourself.

A good show of faith on FT's (and other tracking developers' part), would be to remove any reliance on NP software from their product and then talk turkey with any game developers they want inclusion of their tracking programs in.

As far as the headbutting goes... you keep missing though ;)

[Royraiden]

Cant you guys stop this stupid discussion???????????****!

[Wolf_Rider]

You can read? 16 pages explaining EVERYTHING and this talking about "software"?

No communism,

Amazes me how people sound like a broken record. "proprietary software"... My God!

This kind of discussion is over. If 1C didn't have some "classified" commercial agreement with NP, 1C CAN GIVE FREETRACK SUPORT IN IL-2:COD! Simples as that, Bohemia Interactive did it.

Tired of that. Please Oleg, if you can't answer or questions and if CoD get out without Freetrack suport, don't cry if people hack your .exe to use Freetrack .dll. Devs complaint a lot of hackers, piracy, but do little to give LEGAL CUSTOMERS suport and options.

As I said: shame. Just that.

Freetrack isn't really considered legal while it has reliance on NP software, which you'll find is the whole crux of the matter..

Threats to iC ? this is going to help your cause?

"proprietry software"? what, people should just give you everything you want? you believe you can just take anything you want?[i]? Does the world owe you a living or something?




mate, what you're seeing here isn't communism... what your witnessing, is what got WWII started, complete with the "useful idiots" in tow.

[Stipe]

Why game developers include track ir support and not others? Because of NP aggressive marketing and advertising. NP is like Justin Bieber. You can't take a piss and not hear about them. Who should do the marketing for freetrack or xxxxxtrack and approach the developer if those are free, open community projects? They are not a company nor they need to sell anything.
Developers already know about freetrack and other alternatives and it's up to their good mood to include them if you will.

[Wolf_Rider]

and all that is supposed to mean what exactly, hmmm?

[Wolf_Rider]

I'll answer your (the question asked in plain english) after my already asked questions are answered... are you willing to answer mine?

[MadBlaster]

We can speculate some more. Since they don’t respond, maybe 1C could really care less if the TrackIR interface portion of the game gets “hacked”. It’s probably no skin off their nose. They still sell the game to so called NP “hacker” and get the revenue. Maybe 1C will actually provide, surreptitiously, the “hack” to the NP code in CoD, as they would have the inside track on how it works. Maybe Freetrack was created by 1C to sell more games? Oh my. No, I don’t expect we will get an answer from 1C. But I do know we will get an answer from he who does not exist, whether we like it or not.

[julian265]

As for my example with the microsoft sticks, it was just that, an example. Saying that they are out of production doesn't invalidate it. But since you couldn't resist splitting hairs, just substitute the MS sticks for a different brand like Saitek and tell me how cool (or not) it would be if only Saitek sticks worked with CoD?
refer to the points made on "locking others out" and I think you'll the invalidation of your argument there. Microsoft provide drivers, generic drivers for use by joysticks... they also provide drivers (I believe) for webams and they supply those drivers with their operating systems.Blackdog's point was that IF a sim only allowed one brand of joystick, it would be bad for consumers. I, and every other person reading this thread will have understood the analogy. You are purposefully typing garbage.

[Wolf_Rider]

We can speculate some more. Since they don’t respond, maybe 1C could really care less if the TrackIR interface portion of the game gets “hacked”.It’s probably no skin off their nose. They still sell the game to so called NP “hacker” and get the revenue.



so you admit now that FT is a hack?



Maybe 1C will actually provide, surreptitiously, the “hack” to the NP code in CoD, as they would have the inside track on how it works.



so you are asking a developer to ignore an NDA... an NDA in the same vein as the developer asks of it beta testers?



Maybe Freetrack was created by 1C to sell more games?



whatever it is you're on, please don't share it... it is doing some serious damage to your head






Blackdog's point was that IF a sim only allowed one brand of joystick, it would be bad for consumers. I, and every other person reading this thread will have understood the analogy.



its a moot point and casuist (as soon as his point was countered, he changed it, and no reply about gameport being abandoned... so have, for the most part, floppy drives and AGP)

[MadBlaster]

spec•u•late
verb \ˈspe-kyə-ˌlāt\
intransitive verb
1
a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

Examples: I speculate that W-R has no arms and legs, and hence has develop an unnatural affinity to his TrackIR. I speculate that W-R probably works for NP. I speculate that W-R gets paid by the word for his postings.


I see I have run out of time.

[Wolf_Rider]

its obvious then, you have also "speculated" on FT being the way go ;)

also, Blaster, when it comes to insulting people, do you really think that that approach will help your cause? Who do you think it would hurt the most, you or your target?


now, where did Stipe get to?

[Stipe]

I'm still waiting. You have my response on the previous page.

[Wolf_Rider]

you'll be waiting for a while then, until you fulfill your part.

[MadBlaster]

Insert elevator music here.

[Wolf_Rider]

sport, you really could do well to read the thread through from the beginning, and who the heck are you to demand anything anyway? you see that is part of the FT problem and why should anyone who does that, be taken seriously?

5year old? well, at least I don't bang on about some people having no arms and legs, or make outlandishly wild statements

[Wolf_Rider]

oh well goodo then, its obvious you have nothing to offer the thread apart from insult?

[Wolf_Rider]

my point proven

[Blackdog_kt]

It's really nice of you to consider i'm missing the point W-R when you are in fact conveniently, but very obviously, doing your best to sidestep the fact that i gave you an answer to your questions. Maybe it's one that doesn't suit what you wanted or expected to hear, i don't know.

So, one more time, freetrack can work on its own as long as there are 6 mappable axes of a generic interface within the game. Also, your points about FSX are invalid because freetrack has a simconnect output that bypasses the NP software and interfaces directly with FSX.

Finally, the developer won't really have to scour the net when
a) FT is a well known project by now
b) even if they never heard of it there's currently an, as of now, 20-pager in their own forums and they are not blind and finally
c) if another alternative surfaces and becomes popular enough the users will let the developers know about it too and they won't have to scour the net in this case either.



In fact it's better for all developers to code ONE generic 6-axes interface today and have it become an industry standard so that future alternative head tracking methods would be coded from the start to support that, instead of having to do it separately every time a new method gains popularity. If you really care about the developer's time that's what you should be asking for, so do you or is it just for the sake of lending credence to the argument that providing native FT support would be impossible/time consuming/detrimental to game development/etc?
In short, what your beef is with FT (which i also agree on as a basic premise, let NP protect their software) is a non-issue on the part of FT because they already have an alternative in place that works as long as the game in question is willing to receive the inputs.
The issue arises solely from games not supporting the FT interface, plain and simple. Who's to blame for that?

You could say it's partly the fault of FT for not pushing for the inclusion of it, but FT is a community project and not a company, their representatives are their users. In that sense, you could also argue that 18 pages of back and forth is a sufficient and as official as it can get demand on the part of FT to push for its inclusion in the new sim. So that's one more issue down and a few more to go.
Others will say that it's the fault of game developers for not listening to the wishes of their customers. Personally, i think it's peanuts to add 6 more axes to the ingame control options compared to the making of the rest of the game and if it keeps their customers happy they would be more than willing to do it.
So, i'm naturally suspicious about why some don't...or not, because some developers have said that NP stopped them from including a parallel implementation, one that would also be totally independent of reliance on NP software and thus completely legal.

Does it start to look like some people want the competition to have no legal way of operating, or am i just exercising the use of too common sense for this forum?
Which brings us to the final theory about who's to blame, some will say it's the fault of naturalpoint for boycotting the development of a generic interface that will give alternative methods a legal way to do what they want to do.
Now i'm being reasonable with you here, i'm accommodating towards your point of view and i even agree on some of what you say, i've been a very satisfied naturalpoint customer and i certainly don't like the zealotry displayed by either side of the camp. Freetrack is not the spawn of the devil and neither is Naturalpoint.

However, there has been evidence of NP stopping developers from coding an alternative interface. I'm still leaving some room for doubt here because i don't know exactly how it went down (i don't own a copy of DCS or frequent their forums), but it sure looks plausible when it's a well documented case that's coming straight from the horse's mouth.
There's two links to the DCS forum in this thread alone, where two separate members of the staff openly admit they stopped working on an independent head tracking solution at the request of NP (i think one also phrased it as "pressure"?).

Well, i certainly don't think the DCS guys just got up one morning with the intention of p*ssing off a substantial portion of their customer base and said "hey i'm bored to code this, let's stop working on it and blame it on NP for sh*ts and giggles". First of all, NP would be all over them for spreading false accusations.
Also, if it was destined to be an independent interface that didn't rely on the NP SDK, then they shouldn't really have much ground to legally stand on. The only thing they would be able to do is threaten to stop trackIR support for future releases of DCS, at which point the devs would obviously cave in.

Now i don't like basing my arguments on assumptions, so if someone has a link to answer this by all means provide it. So, was the DCS interface independent of the naturalpoint SDK? Again please, i'm not looking for hearsay but a clear and valid forum post from an eagle dynamics staff member that say they were working on an interface that was independent from naturalpoint's SDK. If such a thing exists, the only way NP would be able to force the DCS devs to stop working on it would be through "shady" means (aka "stop it or the next version of trackIR won't work with your games). That's why i'm asking for it, i want to be fair to them have some info that would indicate a high possibility of NP blackmailing eagle dynamics before i start accusing them of it on my own.

But why is all that important you'll say? Very simple.
IF it's true, and that's a big IF, the premise behind it is a classic example of a circular argument: i will prevent you from coding a legal way to support competitive products, so i can bring up the illegal use of my software as a bargaining chip against the competition in every turn along the way.
Again, i'm not saying this is what happened, i'm saying it's possible and i will reserve judgment until someone can answer the question in the previous paragraph. However, if it's indeed true then the blame rests solely with NP and nobody else for leaving no legal alternative to the competition.

So what's the bottom line to all this? How do we, as a community help solve it?

It's dead simple, if you really want FT to stop using the NP software, which is something i would like as well, you really should be asking for a generic interface with 6 mappable axes in the new sim like the rest of us, instead of forcing us to go around in circles for 20 pages in an effort to answer the exact same questions that you repeatedly posed 3-4 times despite receiving a multitude of answers to choose from.:rolleyes:

If you want the universal truth sorry but i don't have it, nobody does in fact, unless we have some godlike entity among us and we don't know it :-P

So, i just spent a good deal of my free time providing you with enough reasonable possibilities to choose from, inserted a healthy dose of doubt into my own arguments for the sake of fairness and reserved final judgment on the matter to be decided if and when i receive additional evidence. If that's still not good enough for you, then i'm sorry but i'll have to relegate you to that bridge over yonder where certain creatures of folk legend make their living by demanding a toll from travelers ;)

[Wolf_Rider]

So, one more time, freetrack can work on its own as long as there are 6 mappable axes of a generic interface within the game.



not all games though offer full 3D modelling (outside quite often has gaps and bits missing, when in cockpit view. This point may have esacaped a few FT adherents though




Also, your points about FSX are invalid because freetrack has a simconnect output that bypasses the NP software and interfaces directly with FSX.



I did mentioned this and also mentioned, in the same post, that the simconnect gets passed over in favour of running the NP hack.




There's two links to the DCS forum in this thread alone, where two separate members of the staff openly admit they stopped working on an independent head tracking solution at the request of NP (i think one also phrased it as "pressure"?).



I'll look for those links




Well, i certainly don't think the DCS guys just got up one morning with the intention of p*ssing off a substantial portion of their customer base and said "hey i'm bored to code this, let's stop working on it and blame it on NP for sh*ts and giggles". First of all, NP would be all over them for spreading false accusations.
Also, if it was destined to be an independent interface that didn't rely on the NP SDK, then they shouldn't really have much ground to legally stand on. The only thing they would be able to do is threaten to stop trackIR support for future releases of DCS, at which point the devs would obviously cave in.



which is the basis of my question (which seems to be continually ignored, yet unverified claims made) of whether DCS did use the NP SDK or develop their own method. NP can't stop them using their own method.
Have NP stopped support for ARMA ?











Now i don't like basing my arguments on assumptions, so if someone has a link to answer this by all means provide it. So, was the DCS interface independent of the naturalpoint SDK? Again please, i'm not looking for hearsay but a clear and valid forum post from an eagle dynamics staff member that say they were working on an interface that was independent from naturalpoint's SDK. If such a thing exists, the only way NP would be able to force the DCS devs to stop working on it would be through "shady" means (aka "stop it or the next version of trackIR won't work with your games). That's why i'm asking for it, i want to be fair to them have some info that would indicate a high possibility of NP blackmailing eagle dynamics before i start accusing them of it on my own.



I am and have been asking the same thing, but hang on... what's this;



There's two links to the DCS forum in this thread alone, where two separate members of the staff openly admit they stopped working on an independent head tracking solution at the request of NP (i think one also phrased it as "pressure"?).



?









It's dead simple, if you really want FT to stop using the NP software, which is something i would like as well, you really should be asking for a generic interface with 6 mappable axes in the new sim like the rest of us, instead of forcing us to go around in circles for 20 pages in an effort to answer the exact same questions that you repeatedly posed 3-4 times despite receiving a multitude of answers to choose from.:rolleyes:



I don't disagree with a "generic interface" or method of access at all. In fact, I welcome it.

but why should any developer entertain FT whilst they run a hack?
Perhaps, if FT and other tracker softwares removed the hack, developers may begin to take a more responsive countenance?

[Stipe]

It took 20 pages to get to this. Now i finally understand you and actually agree with you. Freetrack users would like to have a legal way to have 6DOF in games without using track ir as the only option. "Will freetrack be supported in COD", doesnt mean if it will be supported in the state as it is now if only trackir would be supported it would be using it's interface. The question should be: is there any way that we can get head tracking without track ir and that is completely legal without a shade of doubt ie. not running thru np? Generic interface as a standard would be best and freetrack would be legal.
W-R: I went a bit too far but you really pissed me off and i'm just a human. Let's have a civil discussion from now on. Agree?

[Wolf_Rider]

It took 20 pages to get to this. Now i finally understand you and actually agree with you. Freetrack users would like to have a legal way to have 6DOF in games without using track ir as the only option. "Will freetrack be supported in COD", doesnt mean if it will be supported in the state as it is now. The question should be: is there any way that we can get head tracking without track ir and that is completely legal without a shade of doubt? Generic interface as a standard would be best.



It was actually quite early in the thread, Stipe. Seriously, it was quite early.
Hence my efforts to have you read the thread through.




W-R: I went a bit too far but you really pissed me off and i'm just a human. Let's have a civil discussion from now on. Agree?



I would love a civil discussion, it is all I have sort... nobody should ever have to suffer the "no arms and legs" derision, that another poster brought in.






@ Blackdog... I have only found the one link back to DCS, the popular one which always gets trundled out. It gives a short statement and no detail.

[julian265]

Perhaps, if FT and other tracker softwares removed the hack, developers may begin to take a more responsive countenance?

The decision to allow access to the six head axes (such as DCS:A-10C does) affects ALL non-NP head trackers. If they are not accessible, then ONLY TIR can be used to give 6DoF input. The decision to keep them hidden has absolutely nothing to do with the dev's opinion of FT.

[Stipe]

I read it once, but i cant say that i might not miss something. But you must agree that most of the topic went like this: "freetrack is a hack." "No it isn't."
"yes it is." "No, it's not." *add a dozen of insults*
What I would like to know is, if generic interface is let's say easy to do, why isn't that done already? In every game? Everyone would be happy and legal.

[Wolf_Rider]

Julian, there is a standing question at the moment; Did DCS develop their own method or did DCS use the NP SDK?

It has been put up a few times now, and as of this post, there is still no firm reply confirming what DCS did.

Read back a few pages and you'll find some references to that which do allow access and in some case why access is limited.






I read it once, but i cant say that i might not miss something. But you must agree that most of the topic went like this: "freetrack is a hack." "No it isn't."
"yes it is." "No, it's not." *add a dozen of insults*
What I would like to know is, if generic interface is let's say easy to do, why isn't that done already? In every game? Everyone would be happy and legal.

exactly, and on all points. There were also questions asked, some answers given, which lead to more questions and more answers. Also involved was a lot of furphery and casusitry.

[Stipe]

Politely asking the developer of DCS thru e-mail or otherwise is the way to go then. That way we would know the ultimate thruth.
Also, the sim community would need to become "laud" and cool-headed
about proposing the idea of generic interface to game developers. I'm sure they would do the effort if the backdoor "game" is clean.

[Wolf_Rider]

Bravo :)

[julian265]

@ Blackdog... I have only found the one link back to DCS, the popular one which always gets trundled out. It gives a short statement and no detail.

The statement gets "trundled out" because it's clear enough. The likelihood that ED's SDK would have had anything to do with NP's software is extremely low, for two reasons:
- It would have been illegal, and TIR probably would have been patched to no longer work with ED products (fair enough).
- There was no reason to the steal code to perform such a simple task.

Either way, ED did the right thing and exposed A-10C's head control axes for assignment (which I think is all that is needed). Whether they did for BS or not, I can't remember.

[MadBlaster]

They used TrackIR encrypted interface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetrack#TrackIR_interface

NP shot them down when they tried to do their own thing.
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=33510

Sorry these links are redundant.

You get no reconciliation from me W-R troll. You are running interference with your own hidden agenda. Play the sympathy card all you want. You started it with me I think around #110 or #112 with the derogatory comments. Ok done.

[Wolf_Rider]

Julian, Blaster please... it can't be that difficult to digest what is on this and the previous page alone, can it?

[julian265]

Julian, Blaster please... it can't be that difficult to digest what is on this page alone, can it?

You asked "Julian, there is a standing question at the moment; Did DCS develop their own method or did DCS use the NP SDK?"

I referred to the ED quote:
"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."

So the answer to your question is "DCS was developing their own, however NP requested that it not be included in the English version".

If you disagree, explain why, rather than pretending that everyone else just doesn't get it.

[MadBlaster]

What did you do W-R? Buy off Stipe with a new TrackIR? You are cunning. I"ll give you that.

[Stipe]

If I may add something. We all need to cool down. Blaster as you see, the aggresive route leads nowhere. W-R, i'm sorry, but your answers sometimes come forward as arrogant. If this continues, we will throw fecies at each other before the game comes out. At the end we wont have nothing.
I know, "you are the one to talk", but i deleted my messages or edited them in this topic and i call you guys to do the same. Don't want to sound patronizing or poetic, but we are a dying breed. The flight sim community that is.
And MadBlaster, don't call me a sell out. I'm not that cheap. Sometimes one needs to take a deep breath and think if his words represent his age. Let it go.

[Wolf_Rider]

"~ 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. ~"



the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

[Wolf_Rider]

If I may add something. We all need to cool down. Blaster as you see, the aggresive route leads nowhere. W-R, i'm sorry, but your answers sometimes come forward as arrogant. If this continues, we will throw fecies at each other before the game comes out. At the end we wont have nothing.
I know, "you are the one to talk", but i deleted my messages or edited them in this topic and i call you guys to do the same. Don't want to sound patronizing or poetic, but we are a dying breed. The flight sim community that is.

please accept my apologies if that is the way my answers, etc, may at times come across, they are not intended to be arrogant. I will attempt to address this though.

[julian265]

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.
which I linked on page 14:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=223314&postcount=135

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

Post 193:
The statement gets "trundled out" because it's clear enough. The likelihood that ED's SDK would have had anything to do with NP's software is extremely low, for two reasons:
- It would have been illegal, and TIR probably would have been patched to no longer work with ED products (fair enough).
- There was no reason to the steal code to perform such a simple task.

Either way, ED did the right thing and exposed A-10C's head control axes for assignment (which I think is all that is needed). Whether they did for BS or not, I can't remember.

If you disagree with my assessment of the likelihood of ED using NP software without permission, please explain why.

[Stipe]

Yey, we are humans again. :grin:
I must say, that i got really defensive because i thought W-R is a track ir fanboy. But now i get the point. The question about DSC is to see if:
1.) they tried to use completely own interface and NP is indeed trying to run a monopol
or
2.) They used part of NP SDK to build their own code on and NP was simply defending their code

[MadBlaster]

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

Here's perfect example of why we struggle with you W-R troll. "Vendor independent" = "SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK."

Please look up the word "independent" in the dictionary. Maybe you simply don't "trust" the word "independent" in the quote. And that is easily understandable, given your agenda. So what is your rate, 5 cents a word?

[Wolf_Rider]

that's right Stipe, I'm not a fanboi - not by a longshot.

Perhaps I could best put my views this way, in the form of two quotes?


oh well, here goes

"The greatest tenet of Democracy, is transparency of Government"

and

"The greatest tenet of Freedom, is honesty"



I'm really hoping that helps :)

[Stipe]

Let's say that DCS tried to do their own thing and NP asked them to stop.
I wonder on what ground did DCS cave?
Thats why some people hate NP. We don't know if the rumors are true or not.
If it's comfirmed then God knows whats ahead. COD 2 running with Saitek pedals only?

[Wolf_Rider]

Rumours do feature in a large part of any kerfuffle, at least that is what I've found in my journeys around the traps and unfortunately, the rumour mill can be nigh on impossible to shut down, once fired up.
Its why we need level heads, we need facts and we need clarity.

[MadBlaster]

Let's say that DCS tried to do their own thing and NP asked them to stop.
I wonder on what ground did DCS cave?
Thats why some people hate NP. We don't know if the rumors are true or not.
If it's comfirmed then God knows whats ahead. COD 2 running with Saitek pedals only?


Speculation (Fyi, I've posted the definition in this thread):
DCS and NP do a deal for the game. NP draws up a contract and DCS signs it. There is a clause in the contract that may not be legally enforceable, but it is there anyway that says there is a big financial penalty/withdrawal of support...etc. that will be exercised by NP if DCS decides to develop an in-house headtracking functionality, vendor independent or otherwise. Just the threat of court action is enough to intimidate most companies. Going to court costs lots of money. Since TrakIR dominates this market, DCS probably couldn't justify spending money on legal costs to defend going independent at this time. It's a risk/reward decision. So, the artificial monopoly stays in place.

[Stipe]

But guys behind DCS must have a legal department for crying out loud(hey guys,what NP is trying to do is illegal.We wont be fooled).Or am I a romantic? Money investment in development of the game or bribery is likely. But still, in today's world i wouldn't be suprised if something like that is going on. We know how business runs. Can't NP go to court becouse something like that? Monopol. Remember Microsoft?

[Wolf_Rider]

could I make a genuinely polite comment at this point?

all that just written, is just feeding rumours, it is what gets them big and fat and out of all proportion. This is what makes it hard to get clarity

[julian265]

So you're just going to ignore post #201?

[MadBlaster]

ok. im out 4 now. keep your guard up Stipe.

[Stipe]

could I make a genuinely polite comment at this point?
all that just written, is just feeding rumours, it is what gets them big and fat and out of all proportion. This is what makes it hard to get clarity

I agree. But what else could be the reason for DCS to remove their SDK if you think. I try to emerge myself in their position. NP calls me:"please remove your SDK and use our product only". Just that. What would you do? Like I said. If that from above is the actual quote from the developer that's a good enough proof for me that something is not right. I do hope I'm mistaken though. If that's how things work now we are all screwed. The problem is: yes it was removed for sure and yes it was independent SDK, but why it was removed then?

[Wolf_Rider]

I'm very sorry, but I didn't realise there was an assessment, by you, there Julian.
I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment, on the grounds of; I wait for fact concerning DCS and the SDK. Fact, not rumour, not assessment, not speculation, not Chinese whispers but fact.
Thank you for the link, which is obviously the second of the two mentioned by Blackdog. That post (which also says "by agreement" with NP) is also two years old. Are DCS still got their vendor (seller) independent (not under the control of any one, or group of, seller/s) underway yet? This is a fair question, I think... what do you think, Julian?





I agree. But what else could be the reason for DCS to remove their SDK if you think. I try to emerge myself in their position. NP calls me:"please remove your SDK and use our product only".



I would ask; "On what grounds?" but to go any further until some fact turns up,and you can see yourself the "by agreement part". in the link, is only surmising.
You might not mean to be doing this, but that is how it is coming across.




Just that. What would you do? Like I said. If that from above is the actual quote from the developer that's a good enough proof for me that something is not right. I do hope I'm mistaken though. If that's how things work now we are all screwed. The problem is: yes it was removed for sure and yes it was independent SDK, but why it was removed then?



mate, it still comes back to the standing question... which is; how did DCS go about it?
Until then, what else can we do?

[julian265]

I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment, on the grounds of; I wait for fact concerning DCS and the SDK. Fact, not rumour, not assessment, not speculation, not Chinese whispers but fact.

Logically impossible. If you reserve judgement until "facts" arrive, then you neither disagree or agree. However you have just said that you are disagreeing. You can't hold a view point without having some reasoning behind it, whether you're willing to post it or not.



Are DCS still got their vendor (seller) independent (not under the control of any one, or group of, seller/s) underway yet? This is a fair question, I think... what do you think, Julian? I assume you mean "is DCS still developing an independent 6DoF interface?". My answer is "I doubt it".

[Wolf_Rider]

fact is Julian, I stand by my disagreement and you can argue that all you want, or not, and that is entirely up to you and you have also quoted my reasons for disagreeing with your assessment. If it clearer to you, I could probably change "disagree" to "dismiss". Anyway, lets see what turns up in the wash, eh?

DCS, Julian, only ever (at least in going by the link) mentioned 3DoF, may I ask you; where did the 6DoF come into it from?

[Stipe]

That's what's bugging me. "by agreement" part. What's in the agreement? :)
Hehehe. I'm loosing my sanity. It's really early in the morning.:o

[Wolf_Rider]

its in the link Julian put up in his 201, Stipe. It still doesn't explain the "how or what" though, so lets see what answers we get back. :)

[LoBiSoMeM]

Page 22 and nobody form 1C even can talk a word about 1C commercial agreement with NP.

I'm not stupid... If W-R, one of a lot of NP fakes over internet forums wants to pose as "the average consumer", we aren't blind as he is.

Shame Oleg. Really, a shame. Other FT topic without any clear answer...

[Stipe]

its in the link Julian put up in his 201, Stipe. It still doesn't explain the "how or what" though, so lets see what answers we get back. :)

No,no. I want to know whats in the agreement clause.:grin:
I know it's not possible since that is a business secret. But i'm curious.:)

[Wolf_Rider]

Fair enough... I'm curious too

[MadBlaster]

Agreement means contract and/or an addendum to an existing contract/agreement. This is how vendors do business with each other. They put out RFPs (request for proposals). Vendors respond with what they can provide and how much it will cost...etc. In this case NP is the vendor to ED/DCS for the headtracking piece of the game. In that agreement it is likely a "covenant not to compete" type clause is present that protects NP's interest. That is pretty standard stuff. Now that clause may be enforceable, non-enforceable or partially enforceable. You don't actually know until you get to court. All you have is your attorney's opinion, as he is the one who drew it up for you. Now these two companies may have a long history of working together, so this agreement just keeps getting pushed to the next game and updated as their is no competition when they put out the RFP since NP is the only player.

Also, in real life, departments in a company are not always in sync. Guys in software development department of a company aren't necessarily worried or cognizant of what's in a vendor contract. So, if they get an idea to do something in-house and then someone in legal department says, hey you better not do that or we might get sued because of our agreement with NP. Yes, this seems rational, reasonable, albeit speculative, reasoning.

[norulz]

Fact is Wolf_Rider you either work for NP or you just talk from the back of your garden thinking you got something figured out by filthering it from you narrow point of view... heh... Narrow Point... suit them better I guess.

Anyway... while you rant your bigotry on these forums I must say to the others here concern rather about the real issue of this thread, that I managed to make Freetrack work in DCS A10c via PPJoy. That in Windows 7 64bit and in 64bit variant of the game.

So...

If the developer(s) decide to make their game open to more than just one interface for headtracking we are OK.

Some people don't have TIR neither do plan to have one... maybe they don't want to use their necks too much so an alternative to that fancy interface should be provided. Thus ED (DCS developers) decided to let all the 6DoF of head be controlled by keys or axes from joystick... thus having freetrack translating it calculations into joystick axis is more than enough.

It works OK. No extra CPU load. The fuss relates to the fact PPJoy is developed for free by a passionate simmer from South Africa and he didn't had 500$ to make the drivers "approved" my M$... thus you need to be in test mode to install them...

here is my tracker:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9835/img0322ad.jpg

it costs to build 2.5$ and some fun.

[Wolf_Rider]

Facetrack uses PPJoy without the need for NP software, and doesn't need LEDS, or dots, or clips... so you could have saved yourself your 2.5$ ;)

[Stipe]

@norulz
Do you get 6dof with that in il-2? Did you try in ROF if you have it?

@W-R
Same question as for norulz but for face track.

We are retarded. This has to be the longest discussion. 10+ hours.
"head tracking marathon" :)

[Wolf_Rider]

To be honest, I'm not too sure Stipe, but the Face API does offer 6DoF. As with FT though, most seem to pass the PPJoy part of it over for faketrackir... so it is another hack program.
This is the first time that anyone has ever responded in any manner to Face Track, which has been mentioned here before.

[Stipe]

Ah screw it then. I'm going to stick my head inside the monitor and look around.:grin:
It will offer 6 dof. I'll call it: Face burn™

[norulz]

yes it does full 6DoF as I said.

FreeTrack after making its calculations can export them via a multitude of interfaces. Freetrack, TIR unencrypted, PPJoy, Mouse, Keyboard strokes, and another 2 AFAIK.

The way Freetrack does it's calculations are opened to analysis due to the fact source code is available... is just math.

The way it hooks to the interfaces is again pretty opened... minus that fake TIR interface which is a third party made available by people that love NP and their monopoly very much.

Many people don't want to break the problem in parts cause it will reveal the mistakes in their reasoning. So they try to keep it in one bite and start name calling by the colors they see in the coffee cup.


btw... before fretrack it was freelook. a 2DoF free application...

[Stipe]

I have freetrack. What I meant was if you can get 6 dof over PPJoy?

[julian265]

snip I managed to make Freetrack work in DCS A10c via PPJoy. That in Windows 7 64bit and in 64bit variant of the game.

That's good to hear. I also use FT and PPJoy for A-10C (32 bit), but had heard that it wasn't going to work as 64 bit.

Did you need to do anything to get PPJoy to work in 64 bit?

[LoBiSoMeM]

yes it does full 6DoF as I said.

FreeTrack after making its calculations can export them via a multitude of interfaces. Freetrack, TIR unencrypted, PPJoy, Mouse, Keyboard strokes, and another 2 AFAIK.

The way Freetrack does it's calculations are opened to analysis due to the fact source code is available... is just math.

The way it hooks to the interfaces is again pretty opened... minus that fake TIR interface which is a third party made available by people that love NP and their monopoly very much.

Many people don't want to break the problem in parts cause it will reveal the mistakes in their reasoning. So they try to keep it in one bite and start name calling by the colors they see in the coffee cup.


btw... before fretrack it was freelook. a 2DoF free application...

+2

Life is simple. No "hack" in Freetrack now. Freetrack has own interface, open, free. Nothing with" NP code". BIS uses Freetrack interface AND TrackIR interface in ArmAII and O:A.

So, what's the big deal? Why we can't have a single word from 1C, Oleg...?

Strange...

[Wolf_Rider]

Ah screw it then. I'm going to stick my head inside the monitor and look around.:grin:
It will offer 6 dof. I'll call it: Face burn™

lol


http://www.seeingmachines.com/product/faceapi/licensing/


The point I was attempting is, well some of many :) is that there are options out there which can be utilised and developed. Another is, neither NP or SM seem to be at loggerheads, so there is the monopoly thing no longer applicable. (keep in mind though that NP started out servicing the needs of the invalid, until a gamer or two saw how the smartnav could be a bonus to gaming. A few approaches and a few chit chats later... and the rest is in the annuls of history. Not bad, eh?).

[norulz]

I have freetrack. What I meant was if you can get 6 dof over PPJoy?

Yes!

Julien

Did you need to do anything to get PPJoy to work in 64 bit?

Yes... it is a bit twitchy. You need to install the latest version... 08426 IIRC... and you need to put Win7 in "test mode" with a program... then restart.... install PPJoy... configure it then you can turn off test mode with same program.

I still need to test it a bit but it works.

There is a thread on ED forums just about this... let me find it.


here's a movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScuYfagMixU

same youtube user have a thread on ED forums... but I can't find it now as I need to leave from work with some... other work :) .

[LoBiSoMeM]

lol


http://www.seeingmachines.com/product/faceapi/licensing/


The point I was attempting is, well some of many :) is that there are options out there which can be utilised and developed. Another is, neither NP or SM seem to be at loggerheads, so there is the monopoly thing no longer applicable. (keep in mind though that NP started out servicing the needs of the invalid, until a gamer or two saw how the smartnav could be a bonus to gaming. A few approaches and a few chit chats later... and the rest is in the annuls of history. Not bad, eh?).

Yes, we have A LOT of options, but how can we use these options if game devs don't make it available?

We have TIR, FaceAPI, Freetrack... You really don't understand the "monopoly thing", sorry. We have competition, but few game devs make it available, as BIS did.

Why? You can't answer. I can't answer. But 1C, Oleg, can. Why they don't answer these questions?

You really don't think how strange is that, W-R?

[Wolf_Rider]

Yes, we have A LOT of options, but how can we use these options if game devs don't make it available?





I'll address this point of yours, if I may.


What needs to happen is to make the approach to the developers, in a professional and friendly manner. Remember! you are asking for inclusion in their game, their product, it isn't necessarily the other way around. Foremost though is the need for a working product, a clean product, a product which the developer themselves could be proud of and not have to worry about being associated with. Their reputation is on the line there.


Its not hard

[julian265]

you have also quoted my reasons for disagreeing with your assessment.ROFL. Here are my only quotes of you, since I posted my assessment and asked for your opposite reasoning:

"I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment, on the grounds of; I wait for fact concerning DCS and the SDK. Fact, not rumour, not assessment, not speculation, not Chinese whispers but fact."

"Are DCS still got their vendor (seller) independent (not under the control of any one, or group of, seller/s) underway yet? This is a fair question, I think... what do you think, Julian?"

If you have forgotten, the issue was (to quote you) "The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?"

I still think it's extremely unlikely that ED would try to use NP's software without permission. You still disagree, apparently with the reason: "just because".

DCS, Julian, only ever (at least in going by the link) mentioned 3DoF, may I ask you; where did the 6DoF come into it from?
The ED quote implies that more than 3DoF was originally intended, and as 6DoF is the current standard, and also the number of DoF required for fully featured human head movement, it's a safe deduction to make.

Anyway, if you're not going to discuss the issue, but rather write circuitous and irrelevant questions, I'll leave you to it.

[Wolf_Rider]

Julian, sorry mate but your assessmnet I dismissed in favour of waiting for some facts. You can imply and deduce and theorise as much as you like, but that is all you are doing. None of that really, is going to get anyone anywhere... is it? That in itself is what drives things around in circles.

[LoBiSoMeM]

I'll address this point of yours, if I may.


What needs to happen is to make the approach to the developers, in a professional and friendly manner. Remember! you are asking for inclusion in their game, their product, it isn't necessarily the other way around. Foremost though is the need for a working product, a clean product, a product which the developer themselves could be proud of and not have to worry about being associated with. Their reputation is on the line there.


Its not hard

You - again - is wrong.

There is no need to "make the approach". Freetrack is a free software, available to download, and EVERYBODY knows about it.

You really believe that Saitek, Thrustmaster, etc need to "make the approach" to have support for joystick and other input devices in CoD or any other title?

You really believe that someone can have "worries" about being associated with Freetrack? It's not a "product", you or don't understand a thing or really are one of the thousands of NP fakes, because Freetrack is FREE.

Well, to be really clear with you, just read:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79821

As I said, life is simple. BIS made a thread, saw the MASSIVE amount of votes for Freetrack support, and put it into ArmAII and O:A. And you, in 2011, will still with this nonsense talking about "approach" and "worries"?

A lot of CoD future users uses Freetrack, wake up! The major two types of HT solutions uses TIR and Freetrack. Freetrack has own interface - AND THIS INTERFACE IS FREE, OPEN, DON'T NEED TO "APPROACH", FOR GOD SAKE!

I will buy CoD, as any TIR customer, and I have THE RIGHT to have Freetrack support in this title. Is simple enough to you and 1C? For me HT is needed to have the desired experience. Isn't fair to me that some TIR owner have the right to use 6DOF HT and not me.

Shame, shame, shame... And don't even talking about that proof this shame... Only the usual NP fakes trolling discussions leading to a close...

Sad. Really sad.

[Wolf_Rider]

you have it wrong on so many levels Lobi, so many levels

[LoBiSoMeM]

you have it wrong on so many levels Lobi, so many levels

Now you put your talking about nothing into a higher level, congrats!

Please, leave the topic. Just want to see some CoD dev answer about these questions, not some "thoughts" made by one NP troll, sorry.

[norulz]

here is the thread I was talking:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1074980#post1074980

is about facetracknoir but PPJoy works the same with FT

[Wolf_Rider]

The world does not owe you anything, Lobi and your link to Bohemia exposes a theme...

"Unfortunately it seems on Vbulletin I cannot make just a poll that won't accept replies, so at risk of further nazi/dictator/despot accusations thrown at me, all replies of any kind, for/against will be deleted, not to stifle anyone's freedom of expression, but simply due to the problems we've had with previous freetrack threads whereby the very small minority of freetrack supporters have refused to follow requests not to drag the threads into attacks on other tracking systems, other tracking developers."

[LoBiSoMeM]

The world does not owe you anything, Lobi and your link to Bohemia exposes a theme...

"Unfortunately it seems on Vbulletin I cannot make just a poll that won't accept replies, so at risk of further nazi/dictator/despot accusations thrown at me, all replies of any kind, for/against will be deleted, not to stifle anyone's freedom of expression, but simply due to the problems we've had with previous freetrack threads whereby the very small minority of freetrack supporters have refused to follow requests not to drag the threads into attacks on other tracking systems, other tracking developers."

Yes. The attacks usually starts with some NP troll like you, talking about "hack".

OUR topic here starts with the SIMPLE request to CoD devs to talk about other HT solutions besides TIR.

But they don't talk about the subject. And just ONE fake - you - came here to mess the topic...

Life is simple... The same as usual. Now the next step is some "moderator" close the topic, nobody talk about the subject... Shame... 2011... And this kind of behaviour...

[Erkki]

You'll see when it comes out Lobi.

Dont like it, dont buy it.

[LoBiSoMeM]

does FT still hack from TIR software?

Above, the first post of W-R here...

Really pathetic, troll... Keep the good work of diseminate lies and accusing us - Freetrack users - of beeing "troublemakers"...

Shame...

[LoBiSoMeM]

You'll see when it comes out Lobi.

Dont like it, dont buy it.

No, I want to buy it. And I just want Freetrack support.

People whine about flames, I'm whinnig to have the option to use Freetrack as HT device. I don't want just to "don't buy it". It's not an option to me.

[Wolf_Rider]

sticks and stones, LoBi... go ahead and name call all you want, you lower your own standing and damage your own cause every time you do (arrogance intended ;) )

[Stipe]

Well fu.k me. I think we are entering the 15-th circle of "is FT a hack" "no it's not". Our brains are fried from ir leds. :grin::grin::grin:
Anyway, Oleg, can you end the madness and throw us a bone here.

[Erkki]

Lobi, afaik Oleg mentioned that there'll be some sort of a "6DOF" available to even those without head tracking devices. Such as me. Means buttons to move, tilt and roll the camera in all axises. If they havent dropped that from the feature list yet I would wonder why they'd see the effort to block track ir's free "competitor", the facetracknoir.

[Stipe]

Now you tell us. Where were you 15 hours ago? :)

[LoBiSoMeM]

Oleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeggggggggggggggggggggggg!!!