1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB? - Page 19

Wolf_Rider · #**181** 02-22-2010, 03:41 AM

A third? 2/3DoF was 2 or 3 Degrees of Freedom - as distinct from full 6DoF. And actually there is a reason - some games have BLOCKED OUT the methods that you mentioned, for controlling in-game head pose, which is the ONLY reason behind this thread's existence.

Thanks and my bad... I did leave out the word 'party' where your question mark is. NP took the time and the effort to create their system (interface and tracker module), when there was no other product around... why can't others go and do the same?
TrackIR in games only came about because of few people who saw what handicapped people were using (that being SmartNav) and thought to themselves; "this is a damned good idea, can it be adapted to a gaming environment?"

This is an odd thing to be asked, 18 pages into the thread about exactly this topic. The "rhetoric" continues because it simply isn't possible in some games, or isn't possible with 6DoF, which is equally unacceptable. I created this thread to try to get 1C to state their stance - whether or not they would restrict non-NP trackers, which would negate the use of PPJoy etc.

I guess some games only recognise one joystick... one input? which goes back to my earlier comments regarding approaching developers for a patch. Have any actually been approached in a civilsed manner?

Because you didn't actually answer the question, and have avoided it previously. The topic of this thread, and my "yes or no" question, was about BoB 'listening' for head positions on standard interfaces - not tracking software using standard interfaces (which is, or easily can be, a given). Do you understand the difference? If TIR, or freetrack, or any other tracker sent head position as normal joystick axes, many games would ignore it - and I'm wondering if BoB will too. But either a 1C rep didn't read the first post of this thread, or they won't comment.

"YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"? Note that the question is independent of freetrack and it's developers practises. The outcome of 1C's decision will affect non-NP, non-freetrack trackers. How about it, yes or no?"

the above is your original question...

I've already said several times, what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party. I've also already said, there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar. The problem lies with a third party infringing another company's copyright.
Why do people keep on "forgetting" what was said earlier?

julian265 · #**182** 02-22-2010, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

NP took the time and the effort to create their interface, when there was no other product around... why can't others go and do the same?

Once again, they can and have. But it is a bad way for head tracking to go... It should go the way joysticks/keyboards/mouses have, and use a standardised interface - which already exists. I've been saying this since the first page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I guess some games only recognise one joystick... one input? which goes back to my earlier comments regarding approaching developers for a patch. Have any actually been approached in a civilsed manner?

Most games recognise a few joysticks, Il-2 included, each with up to 8 axes and at least 32 buttons. There should be no need for any negotiation or approaches - IMO using the joystick or mouse interface is simply THE way to do it. I've been saying this since the first page also. I am unaware of the manner in which other trackers' creators have approached game devs.

My question: "YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"?"

Your answer: "what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party." - Which is true, but not an answer to the question. So why write it?

Your second answer: "there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar." - Which also avoids the question.

Do you understand the difference between trackers "accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar", and games listening to these protocols?

Wolf_Rider · #**183** 02-22-2010, 04:24 AM

Once again, they can and have.

except FT hacks into NP software

But it is a bad way for head tracking to go... It should go the way joysticks/keyboards/mouses have, and use a standardised interface - which already exists. I've been saying this since the first page.

and I'm not disagreeing there

Most games recognise a few joysticks, Il-2 included, each with up to 8 axes and at least 32 buttons. There should be no need for any negotiation or approaches - IMO using the joystick or mouse interface is simply THE way to do it. I've been saying this since the first page also.

again, personally, I'm not in disagreement there. A lot of earlier (but still popular) games only recognise one though... they were made before pedals, throttles, etc came along.
All that would be need is for there to be some way of having some way for the "webcam tracker" talk to the joystick/ mouse interface? or develop an original interface?

I am unaware of the manner in which other trackers' creators have approached game devs.

It would be interesting to learn of exactly what has happened with regard to this... I know (from reading) BIS stated nobody approached them in an official and civilised capacity at first. It was only after the onslaught (basically) from a few was told to cease and desist... then a poll was held to determine if there enough users interested

My question: "YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"?"

Your answer: "what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party." - Which is true, but not an answer to the question. So why write it?

Your second answer: "there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar." - Which also avoids the question.

it answers your question perfectly and is actually all the one answer... and respectfully - live with it, if it is not in the format of which you demand

Do you understand the difference between trackers "accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar", and games listening to these protocols?

do you understand there is a difference between your original question and the modified one which you have tried to put forward?

julian265 · #**184** 02-22-2010, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

and I'm not disagreeing there

Well I'll be. Your posts certainly made me, and others, think that you were.

Quote:

do you understand there is a difference between your original question and the modified one which you have tried to put forward?

Please show both questions that you refer to.

Wolf_Rider · #**185** 02-22-2010, 04:47 AM

Well I'll be. Your posts certainly made me, and others, think that you were.

well I'm sorry for peoples' reactions, if they either 1. couldn't read the thread properly or 2. got het up into a such a rage because of my comments regarding copyright, which had them seeing no further than that.
my answer to your question, which you obviously read judging by your treatment of it by splitting it, states my clear position.

Please show both questions that you refer to.

seriously now, your memory can't be that short, lolol... go back to the top of the page.