The TrackIR interface consists of three different interfaces.

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

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

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

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

The TrackIR interface is proprietary and is closed source.





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

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

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

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


Wikipedia


its a rip off......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an analogy of the situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

"Dongles", not dangles. Also, you just said that I am analogies! :D

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

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

EDIT (because he edited too):

1C can protect their stuff with as much crap they want (to make it hard for people to use it). It then comes to the point of how much people are willing to put up with to pay them money for them to supply a copy of it. This is an ongoing thing with different publishers and developers.

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

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

Absolutely.


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

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

Software is no different.

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