BoB and Freetrack

[julian265]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

snip... You may love it, and thats your prerogative. I think you'll find things are less paranoid with the IL2, and it's developer.

I'm more an IL2 fan than BS fan, but that's another matter. I really hope that you're right.

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Nothing you could say that ED was going to do would surprise me.

Hehe, fair enough.

Discussion of freetrack is also suppressed on the Ubi forums, and IIRC there are others too. This happens because Natural Point asks for it. I can only hope that they don't have the same influence on 1C. Should BoB be closed to non-Natural Point head trackers, I doubt I'd buy it.

[csThor]

The reason that NP encrypted the communication between device and program is that Freetrack used NP's interface and "masked" itself as TIR. Wouldn't you be p*ssed if you wrote a specialized API for your product, invested loads of money into it only to see another competitor use it (without asking, if that is the gist of the stuff I found on the Web) for its own product? I mean, really ... NP's tactics may be questionable, but Freetrack isn't without fault here, either. Had they written their own interface/API for their product I'd have agreed with you but right now, with the information I have (and I avoided both FT's site and NP's site - wouldn't get the right answers there anyway) I must say that FT's tactics aren't sacrosanct, either.

[julian265]

I agree. Which is why I'd like to see games accepting generic head position and angle as axis inputs, just like mouses, joysticks, and wheels.

Freetrack includes a free and open source SDK, but Natural Point appears to be pressuring game developers into not using it, or limiting it to 3DoF.

[fuzzychickens]

Originally Posted by julian265

I agree. Which is why I'd like to see games accepting generic head position and angle as axis inputs, just like mouses, joysticks, and wheels.

Freetrack includes a free and open source SDK, but Natural Point appears to be pressuring game developers into not using it, or limiting it to 3DoF.

Exactly, the only thing NP will accomplish if they get widespread support from flightsim games is to cripple technology advancement in headtracking , except any advancement they themselves accomplish.

If history tells us anything, companies that have monopolies in their respective fields have little incentive to innovate.

[Soldatov]

NP gave 1C encrypted TrackIR API for SOW:BOB.

[julian265]

Thanks Soldatov, that in itself is fine (if you haven't bought TIR 1 or 2), but will 1C allow other trackers to work with BoB?

Does anyone know who to talk to, or where to ask, so I can get an answer to this question?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by csThor

Natural Point is a business partner for 1C, Freetrack's maker isn't.

I'm a business partner of 1C and so is every other freetrack user: we buy 1C's products.

When you run a business and other people are making rival products you should
deal with that by competing with them by the production of superior
products at competitive prices; not by abuse of it's near-monopolistic position
to remove the competition (or, in this case, just the ingenuity of hobbyists).

Let's face it: If I can make a head tracking system for £15 that works as well as
NP's system at £160; the market desperately needs any competition it can get.

[brando]

"I'm a business partner of 1C and so is every other freetrack user: we buy 1C's products."

Sorry to burst your bubble but I think the word you're groping for here is 'customer'. Purchasing a product does not make you a 'business partner'.

B

[Letum]

The same could be said of the NP/1C relationship.

[csThor]

Not necessarily. If NP helps 1C/Maddox Games with technical support and - maybe, probably? - an SDK to incorporate TIR's abilities into SoW (the same way i.e. Intel did for years and still does) this makes them business partners in my eyes.