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

[MikkOwl]

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".

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

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.

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

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

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".

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.....

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

SNIP 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? SNIP

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

SNIP 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). SNIP

Originally Posted by brando

SNIP I can see no difference between the 'benevolent' bricklayer's stance and that of those who are promoting Freetrack. SNIP

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?

[julian265]

Originally Posted by brando

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

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?

[Letum]

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

[sigur_ros]

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.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

I have a FreeTrack device built from a web cam and electronics + I have the TrackIR 4.0Pro + TrackClip..

Does that give you special rights or something?

Originally Posted by julian265

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?

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

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

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.

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.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

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.

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.

[Wolf_Rider]

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

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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.