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

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

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

Has this issue been decided yet?

Is it out of Oleg's hands?

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

I don't see what leverage NaturalPoint could have on Maddox Games. It is (by far) in NP's interest that as many high end games as possible work with their stuff.

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

Well as they are the only ones out there making this product, I guess your "SOL"

IL2 works well with NP Track Ir, as does some free track stuff...

I'd imagine 1C would make it work with the standard USB headtrack HID.. that's if this exists. I vaguely remember that it does already.
:cool:

I notice ArmaII now has official support for freetrack.

It seems like NaturalPoint have a few exclusivity agreements with publishers. For example, it's currently against the rules to discuss alternative head-tracking systems on the Ubisoft forums.
Also, they quite often deliberately change their API to break Freetrack in new games. I can understand it to a degree because it's their API and their efforts that convinced developers to support head-tracking devices. It's still rather anti-competitive, though.
Good to hear that ArmaII supports FreeTrack.

Well, nobody can tell them "don't change your API", it's their right to do so and the lines between that and an unethical business practice are quite blurry. They are selling a peripheral with the assorted interface and one could argue that this is a bundle deal, as their software is not exactly open-source.

The best way to circumvent this problem is a separate open source API for the other platforms. Then the Freetrack users wouldn't be tied to Naturalpoint's implementation changing periodically, plus if Naturalpoint convinced the game publishers not to support it they would indeed have some ground to stand on when claiming anti-competitive acts. As it is now, it might mess with a lot of users but nobody can tell them not to change sftware that effectively belongs to them for all intents and purposes.

NaturalPoint's agressive marketing makes me, also a FreeTrack user, very nervous. I don't want to buy expensive stuff when I can make a working system myself from an old webcam and a few IR leds.

S!

Business is tough Untamo, and NaturalPoint uses it's leading position to the full to keep it. But again..resourcefull players have always found a way around obstacles ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

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

___

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

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

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

BTW freetrack works fine for me in IL2.

It does.
from someone from the Eagle Dynamics team (DCS: BS): http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40
"Every joystick has standard software interface, that's why every joystick works in every game. For now there is no standard for head tracking devices software interface. We were going to add vendor-independent SDK in English release to allow every head tracking vendor (including FreeTrack) implement support of their devices for BlackShark. SDK has been removed from English release because of NaturalPoint request. Now we make agreement with NaturalPoint and we will release 3DOF version of our head tracking SDK soon."

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

Business is one thing, this is another. Apart from the above example, I have heard/seen other examples of NP pressuring developers/forums to do things like 'moderate' discussions and exclude other trackers, however I don't have any links. They do have the ability to pressure developers, as a flight sim can only be compatible with TIR if NP says so, and a flight sim that can't work with TIR wouldn't be very popular with TIR owners.

Absolutely. They can do what they want with their own software. I only have a problem with the suspiciously slow adoption of generic head-tracking inputs by games.

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

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

Do any 1C members read these posts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The TrackIR interface consists of three different interfaces.

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

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

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

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

The TrackIR interface is proprietary and is closed source.





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

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

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

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


Wikipedia


its a rip off......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you support hacking? :rolleyes:






copyright [ kóppi rīt ]


noun (plural copyrights)

Definition:

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

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


where did your "definition" come from Mikkowl??

True if I avoid your best arguments and argue that your spelling somehow affects your arguments (it does not). But I replied to all your points and did not indicate any evil things. I am a grammar nazi and you wrote some humorous things (you said I was analogies! :D).

Why does it kill off credibility? Arguments stand by their own merit rather than the person making them. I still want to know why the analogies are BS. And why does it give them every right? Hacking isn't evil by definition.

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

____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so you support hacking then, eh?

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

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

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

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

Yes I read that in one of your first posts. My response to this was the analogies showing the same reasoning/rights in other situations, to illustrate how unethical and wrong the reasoning is.

That is not copyright, it is just warranty related. Although I have no idea what those countries use as laws to say that it's illegal. Pollution/safety related maybe.

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

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


btw, your analogies were still crap

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

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

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

So to prevent any further hassling from you about it

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

nobody owns the rights to basketball

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

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

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

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

as I said... crap analogies


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

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

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

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

S!

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

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

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

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

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

I mean a game as in console or PC. What would you think if they made such demands?

I mean literally just a publisher or sponsor that says that a certain group are not allowed to play it (Asians in this case). Not that they did anything special to warrant it. What would you think if they made such demands?

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

Hyperlobby is a stand alone program made by some private individual. It is unethical of whoever controls Hyperlobby to punish (potentially) millions of people due to the actions of perhaps a dozen, or a hundred. This is called collective punishment. Hyperlobby or Maddox Games should have come up with a better solution. Regarding the hacking itself, this case is cheating in a sport. Ruining the experience for others by doing so. And that is unethical.

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

No one is forcing them to do that, not hackers nor pirates, or users of TrackIR dynamic library files. I myself (and other customers) are discouraged rather from buying games that require annoying anti-measures. There's several companies that understand that user made content can be a gold mine for sales, and that anti-stuff is annoying to consumers, and they don't implement them. Bethesda (Morrowind, Fallout 3) and Paradox Games (Hearts of Iron & Europa Universalis), as well as Starbreeze Studios (Chronicles of Riddick) all don't use any anti-copy stuff, and I'm going to buy Hearts of Iron 3 soon largely in part to this.

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

I think it is a serious threat. What if almost no one knew of FreeTrack, and/or it barely worked except mouse emulation with most titles, requiring lots of time to set up right and all that. That'd be extremely good for NaturalPoint sales.

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

Feuerfalke, I think you might have confused together parts of his post - part of it was my text and part was his reply to it. Since he did not use the quote function it is not entirely apparent who wrote what. Unless it is merely I who is confused by your post :)

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


Sigur_ros...

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

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




Flanker35M...

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

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

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

S!

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

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

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

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

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

B

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

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

Who developed the interface?


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

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

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


wikipedia




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

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

If not, why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this thread (and others): http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...3231057376/p/1

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

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

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

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

Does that give you special rights or something?






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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the .dll recreates NaturalPoint strings, does it not?

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, however that's what I read Brando as saying. I also think that there is a problem with preventing more open protocols from developing as they have with sticks and mouses. Do you not have a problem with this?

My opinion differs on all points. If you want to pay more for the extra development time required to run things on a special microprocessor, rather than the computers CPU, that's your choice.

They always had their own interface. Their "need" was due to games not accepting the usual inputs for use with head pose.

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



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

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

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

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

keep trying.... freetrack hacks into NP.

Troll feeding time is over.

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

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

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


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

Not from the beginning, no.

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

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

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

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

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

and yes, they removed the strings as requested but went to a workaround to drag the stings out of the NP software

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Yes, it is an allegation. What's your alternative explanation?

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

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

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

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

Wolf_Rider, I asked these questions because I was unclear from yor earlier postings where you stood:I'd have thought that a simple yes or no would clarify things more than a suggestion to read your earlier posts. Is there a particular reason why you don't consider an answer appropriate?

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

and you lable me a 'troll' lolol

from post #71



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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

Well, I see that determining explanations by a process of elimination has eluded you.

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

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

Post 35:
Interesting, yes. Clear, no. I have no idea what 'flexing it's copyright by voiding the warranty' could mean - they are two entirely different legal issues. As for 'R&D', if you think that NP were the first in the field, can you explain why they haven't taken on MicroSoft over the issue, given that they have had a 6DOF inteface in their flight sims for some time?

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

andyjwest...

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


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

Okay, but answer me two questions. Do you think my allegation is unlikely, and why?

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

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

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

this was your question... it has been answered and as you can see your question to me is a redundant one.


so you choose to openly slander several companies....

grunch... post #71 might refresh your memory for the other question. When you answer that, you will be answering your own question

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

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