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

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Letum

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

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

the .dll recreates NaturalPoint strings, does it not?

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.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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 componetes... the cost is a furphy, a red herring.

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.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

err no... freetrack should have done the correct thing in the first place and developed their own interface, instead of tapping into NaturalPoint's.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

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

[Wolf_Rider]

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

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

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

[Letum]

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.

[AndyJWest]

Their "need" was due to games not accepting the usual inputs for use with head pose.

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.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

keep trying.... freetrack hacks into NP.

[sigur_ros]

Troll feeding time is over.

[GF_Mastiff]

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

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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.

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.