Why Head Tracking?

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by albx

right but i offer a better product and don't force a company to use only my product... maybe this is called free market??

Isn't that the whole point. NP claim that free track did NOT make a better product they just a found a way to use the NP interface without paying for it.

From the NP point of view free track should have designed their own interface and encouraged game developers to implement it and not used the proprietary NP one. What NP then did was encrypted their own interface so freetrack etc would have to design their own interface instead of freeloading on NP.

But seriously this is a waste of space. Its not an issue that people ever listen to reason about.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Isn't that the whole point. NP claim that free track did NOT make a better product they just a found a way to use the NP interface without paying for it.

From the NP point of view free track should have designed their own interface and encouraged game developers to implement it and not used the proprietary NP one. What NP then did was encrypted their own interface so freetrack etc would have to design their own interface instead of freeloading on NP.

Biggest NP lie ever. FreeTrack have own interface and SDK. You can use even the raw data of head tracking... Ft software is really open.

But NP "forces" some companies to use your proprietary API.

And it isn't fair. NP lies, NP didn't "created" nothing new, etc.

We FreeTrack users don't care about anything NP does, if our games don't get blocked to use FreeTrack API. ArmAII uses FreeTrack API, DCS : BS don't. Why?

If people want to make a stand for NP, be better informed, please. Whe FT users aren't whinners without a reason: we have to deal with unfair market policies by NP.

[robtek]

Fairness exists only in protected environments!
And NP influencing Game developers is like the tail wags the dog.

[SEE]

Applying for a 'Patent' is extremely complex due to the definitions and restrictions as to what is considered 'intellectual property' and 'inventions'. The technology and software was already well established in terms of 'optical tracking' and thus 'headtracking' is an 'adaptation' rather than an 'invention'. Optical tracking has been used in manufacturing for many years, Nintendo WI remote is an optical tracker as is an optical mouse. NP can of course protect their products and registered trademarks from being used by 'another' and, quite rightly, have done exactly that.

The replies to the thread indicate that not every one feels that 'headtracking' is needed and some even dislike it. If nothing else, Freetrack gave me as an 'undecided and curious simmer' an opportunity to delve into 'headtracking' on the 'cheap'! Headtracking is now an accessory that I consider 'essential' and I owe a big thanks to FT. Would I buy TrackIR if that was my only option in a future SIM?.........probably yes! There in lies the problem and why NP will give incentives for developers to use their API.

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't know the exact details, but the way i see it is this.

1) If Freetrack uses its own API, independent from NaturalPoint's API, but NP goes around to game developers and tells them to use only the NP API, then NP is clearly limiting the choices of users. Game developers should realize that and allow access to other head tracking APIs along the NP one, so that their customers are satisfied and not forced into a monopoly situation.

2) If Freetrack uses the NaturalPoint API and NP decides to encrypt it, then tough sh*t. It's NP's API and they do what they want with it. In that case, it's Freetrack itself that limits Freetrack by not coming up with a complete solution of their own, not NP who are marketing their software as they see fit.

I don't know the exact circumstances, but i'd be surprised if both sides weren't a bit right and a bit wrong at the same time as usually happens

That sums it up for me.

[albx]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I don't know the exact details, but the way i see it is this.

1) If Freetrack uses its own API, independent from NaturalPoint's API, but NP goes around to game developers and tells them to use only the NP API, then NP is clearly limiting the choices of users. Game developers should realize that and allow access to other head tracking APIs along the NP one, so that their customers are satisfied and not forced into a monopoly situation.

2) If Freetrack uses the NaturalPoint API and NP decides to encrypt it, then tough sh*t. It's NP's API and they do what they want with it. In that case, it's Freetrack itself that limits Freetrack by not coming up with a complete solution of their own, not NP who are marketing their software as they see fit.

I don't know the exact circumstances, but i'd be surprised if both sides weren't a bit right and a bit wrong at the same time as usually happens

That sums it up for me.

I agree with you... but what seems is that NP don't want the developers support other tracking devices but only TIR, we will see how Oleg & C. will support in SOW... i think if TIR will be used then no other tracking device will be allowed... somebody want bet??

[LoBiSoMeM]

I bet.

Bohemia Interactive - producer of ArmAII - decided to give support to FreeTrack API after consumers request.

If 1C didn't do the same, will be really a shame and a disrespect with their customers who uses FreeTrack as head tracking solution. And we aren't just a few, by the way - look at Bohemia Interactive forums...

[julian265]

Originally Posted by albx

I agree with you... but what seems is that NP don't want the developers support other tracking devices but only TIR, we will see how Oleg & C. will support in SOW... i think if TIR will be used then no other tracking device will be allowed... somebody want bet??

hence http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16938

DCS allows TIR and generic head axis inputs. I use freetrack and PPJoy. Just check the PPJoy box in freetrack, assign the axes in DCS, and it's done.

Unless FT's developers have lobbied for game devs to use the FT API, you can't complain about it not being used.

It's when a game only uses the TIR interface, excluding all others, that I see it as unacceptable.

But at the core of the issue - with 6DoF head tracking, it makes NO sense to have a proprietary API. It's more work for everyone (especially the game devs), and hurts the consumer.

[imaca]

Originally Posted by albx

I agree with you... but what seems is that NP don't want the developers support other tracking devices but only TIR, we will see how Oleg & C. will support in SOW... i think if TIR will be used then no other tracking device will be allowed... somebody want bet??

I hope you are wrong - all I want is to be able to move my head side to side and back and forth (does anyone actually find twisting their head like a curious cat, or bobbing up and down useful?). This could easily be mapped to a few joystick buttons. (my crappy old cyborg has 3 ideally placed behind the hat switch).
Forgive me, but nothing I have read at any time convinces me I need anything else. Personally I would say only a bigger field of view (more monitors) will improve my SA, and would much rather spend money there than buy an overpriced web cam.