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

[julian265]

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.

[MikkOwl]

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').

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

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.

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.

[Blackdog_kt]

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.

[Untamo]

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.

[Flanker35M]

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

[Blackdog_kt]

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

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.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

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

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

BTW freetrack works fine for me in IL2.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

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

It does.
from someone from the Eagle Dynamics team (DCS: BS): http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...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.

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

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

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

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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

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

[julian265]

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?