One year ago:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...devices+BoB%3F

Another way to go about this. Simply bifurcate the head tracking interface functionality out of the stock game. Make it mouse only. Then offer two separate add-on packages. One for TrackIR users with their encrypted/proprietary interface and the other for Freetrack users with their free-use interface. The game is priced at ~$50 right now. So, say drop the price to $48 and price each headtracking add-on at say $2 dollars each as an example. This will maximize sales of the game and give the user more flexibility in how they want to play the game.

I certainly wouldn't object if it was possible to do! Like Lobisomem says, I too don't quite understand why there has not been an official response - certainly stirred up a lot of debate in the past looking at that thread you linked to. Ah well, only a few weeks to go and all will be revealed!

If a mod sees this please close it, its useless.

I think that is what quite a few people seem to be saying... "FT, make your own software and interface, and make it independantly and being dependant on other peoples' software and interface, or parts of. Also don't use the NP SDK to do so."

They already have made it. Apparently it is being used by other game developers now. I see an SDK folder where I have Freetrack saved on my computer. There is a stereo button in the GUI to activate the freetrack interface. So, it must exist.

The problem is that 1C has given us all the impression that TrakIR interface will be bundled (again!) into the game with the video advertisments it has provided to us. It has done nothing to lead us to believe that we can use another headtracking solution such as Freetrak. That is the relevant issue here. I don't think there is a "professional" representive from Freetrak to do a business deal with 1C because it is free license. So, if we want to get an answer from 1C (and I do believe this is the goal of this thread) then we the users of Freetrak and other solutions should be pointing out economic reasons why it would be prudent to do so. I see no economic reason to bundle TrakIR interface again. Why, because there are now legitimate competitive options available and if you exclude them you disenfranchise a segment of the market that would otherwise buy your game. It is not like 2001. Speaking for myself, I've been playing IL-2 4 years now, have plenty of money to invest in the hobby. But I have no intention of spending $150 for something I can do for $40. That is just the way I am. I'm a saver. My mortgage will be paid off soon while my friends lose their house. Simple rational budgeting. 1C should address this segment of the market because there are a lot of us who will just keep on playing the old game because it has become quite good with the efforts of DT and the "other guys" and frankly, there simply hasn't been enough time to enjoy their latest efforts now that we are all distracted with the release date of CoD. So, I suggest we steer this thread around and get 1C's attention. And the only way I think we can do that is to point out how they can make more money if they go in this direction. Or we can party down with Johnny Lee again next year with the same old arguements. I do like that video. A classic youtube moment imho.

how does this interface work? how was it developed?



the software must have been created by someone and hosted on a site created by someone...

I am not a programmer. I won't be able to tell you. In the meantime, I have just sent a message to the Freetrack author to post here. Hopefully, that request will pan out. In the meantime, you can certianly do your own research at their website. I suppose if you are a programmer, you could download the program and deconstruct it to figure it out. But it also been stated earlier in this thread that other games are making it available to users. I assume that to be true, but I did not verify. Of course, we all know your well-documented position on this topic W-R. So, your future comments will be weighed accordingly by me and by others I think.

so you've gone from "I don't think there is a professional representative ~" to "I've contaced the FT author ~ "?

well done on the casuistry of your post the first quote is from...

oh, and the site download brings up security certificate warnings ;) which kind of figures

This is what the manual says it does. High level explanation I guess.

FreeTrack interface
Raw pose
Raw pose affected by model dimensions, position and averaging.
Raw pose Z measurement is distance from camera sensor.
Axis range isn't limited.
All measurements absolute with no centring so centre can only be controlled manually by changing the model dimensions or orientation.
X, Y, Z translation measures the location of the pivot point, adjustable via the point model position.
Ordering of points in point list
Virtual pose
Uses centring, smoothing, averaging, inverts, mapping, response curves, limited by response curve (+/- 180 degrees for rotation and +/- 500mm for translation).

When using the interface for games, especially multiplayer games, the data range should not be trusted and limits used to prevent cheating.

that doesn't explain how it works... is there something in your little book, which does this?

Like I said W-R, I don't know if it will "pan out". Your intent is so obvious. Run interference on the 1C board. From heretofore, you do not exist to me. And per your post 1 year ago, I don't care if you don't have arms or legs. Enjoy your TrackIR.

what a sad post

I know it's challenging, but we really shouldn't feed the troll.

Well, its your choice if you'd rather do that Julian, than address what asked of you in post 101 this thread. ;) Perhaps you'd rather be tainted with Blaster's statement?

Agreed. But you know how it is when you accidently step in a pile of dog poop. It sometimes takes a few seconds until you realize what happened. I probably won't be posting in CoD board anymore. It's not W-R's fault. He obviously can't help himself. No arms, no legs. TrakIR and speech recongnition software are probably his only friends. If the mods do their jobs and ban this guy, maybe I'll be back. But until then, I'm out. Good luck trying to get Freetrack going.

That's a rather sad outlook you have there, son

I initially thought that Wolf_Rider's posts were genuine questions. But by the time I came to write my post on the 10th page I suspected he was just trolling on Naturalpoint's behalf.

His response to my post removed any doubt from my mind. He deliberately ignored my first statement: that discussions of how Freetrack has been used with other games are not relevant to the question of whether Freetrack should be supported in this sim, so long as there is a legal, open source Freetrack SDK available for use by sim developers... which would be used if Freetrack support were implemented in CoD.

His actions in this thread are the very definition of "FUD".

He asks for a description of how Freetrack's open source SDK works. Can anyone be bothered to write one for him? Seriously? If they did, he would just obfuscate or ask questions which deliberately "misunderstand" (or outright ignore) what was written. And continue to vaguely assert that Naturalpoint has been vaguely ripped off somehow.

And besides, the source code is freely available. If Wolf_Rider wants to understand how Freetrack works he can download it and take a look.

We live in a society where we are considered innocent until proven guilty. If Wolf_Rider, or Naturalpoint, or anyone else wishes to claim that Freetrack breaks the law, or infringes patents or copyrights, they are free to produce evidence to support such a claim. Indeed, if Naturalpoint has a legitimate grievance it is able to take legal action which would shut the Freetrack project down and obtain financial compensation. I have no idea why Naturalpoint would not have done this - as it would be entirely in the company's interest to do so - other than because they don't have any evidence.

If Naturalpoint, who are a company out to make a profit on selling TrackIR, were unable to demonstrate that their competition acts illegally (on account of it... er... not being true - how jolly inconvenient for these entitled-to-a-profit businessmen!), I suspect that they would spread precisely the kind of FUD we are seeing in this thread and elsewhere. Just ask vaguely insulting questions rather than offer answers, that's the trick! "When did you stop beating your wife", etc. etc.

as mentioned earlier, the download link draws up a site's security certificate warning from my A/V, GHarris.
Always asked was "how does the INTERFACE work?"

Always stated was if the FT uses its own software and doesn't draw from any other company's software against thier wishes, I don't have a problem with that.

In the software (manual) however is a section tick box to select TIR interface, which means the FT draws from another's interface (software) This http://forum.free-track.net/index.ph...ic=1560&page=1 admittedly, is from 2009, but take a special note of post #7 and #11

you are also, as others have done, confused between copyright and patent, they are two different items.

now GHarris, its quite obvious that you and your two mates before you have no base for your points... so now the insults start ;) well, knock yourself out. Let's see if you can outdo Blaster.

Here is a excerpt of the Freetrack Homepage:

Seems to be that FT is still using NP software.

Bro, it's not like this is gonna stop him.

Yup exactly my thoughts.


Anyway. Cutting deals with publishers in order to remove the competition IS illegal. That's what anti-trust laws are for. Just a few years ago Intel ate a 1 billion euro fine from the European Commission for making deals with the likes of HP, Dell and other integrators so that they will not use AMD parts. In the US they just settled with nVidia and will be paying them 1.46 billion USD, after they just payed AMD (in the US, after a Federal Trade Commission settlement) 1.26 billion USD.

More info (chronological):
AMD and Intel Settle Their Differences
Intel Settles With the Federal Trade Commission
Intel Settles With NVIDIA: More Money, Fewer Problems, No x86

So, to sum things up:
- Natural Point has made and is still making deals with publishers in order to not allow any other head tracking devices to work in those respective games;
- while this may sound as legitimate bussiness practice, it is in fact a monopolistic behaviour and illegal in the European Union as well as in the United States, as exemplified above.


As i said in another thread, the reason Natural Point does not have (as yet) any legal problems as a consequence of these issues is the fact that they are activating inside a very young, small, niche market, a market with low visibility and they haven't come (yet!) under scrutiny.

cutting out the competition... anti-trust laws? I totally agree

as for the quote.. that's a rather loud accusation you're making there, do you have anything you can back that accusation up with?

Antitrust - competition?
FT is opensource, to operate in a market you'd have to make money by selling your product.
FT is more like a club than a company.

Imho none those arguments are valid.

I'd agree that none of those arguments are vaild as well, Swiss

But I believe Korn was talking about NP, not FT ;)

I'm making no accusation, i'm simply stating the facts as i know them. Bohemia Interactive had such a deal with Natural Point, as stated as one of their guys on the official forums and as it was well known inside the community. Their forums were also haunted by a bunch of trolls and even NP employees extremely vocal and aggressive when there was any Free Track talking. They went away when BI shut down the deal and included Free Track support with a patch last year.
Natural Point has another such deal with Eagle Dynamics (LOMAC & DCS developer and publisher), however i got to be honest, i don't know if either part has admited to that (it is possible they did, i don't read their forums much).

The Bohemia Interactive story is easy to check. And everybody knows about the other one, just ask... I'm sure there are others, but i don't know anything about the driving sims, maybe someone else is more knowledgeable.

Korn, no, you made an accusation... let's be clear about that and you made a loud noise about anti-trust... all that is rather serious and what you've come up with is hearsay to back it.

you might recall the bohemia experience was the equivalent of a bunch of "boys" (in support of FT) bursting in through the, door, smashing glass, turning over tables and slapping the women. It was when it was learned that FT had not approached those developers in any manner, that the situation sort of quietened down. Bohemia forum went through a horrible time until then.

Perhaps you could check was to whether DCS made their own interface for other trackers to use or used NP's SDK to create it. If they used the SDK, then NP was (I assume) well within their rights to insist anything created from it not be used.

Again:
FT is Free
TIR is a company.

In fact there is only one company serving this market - ergo no competition.
If there is only one company they are free to cut a deal - I see no option to apply an antitrust law.

Does it suck for the consumer? Sure I don't like TIR either, however it's not illegal.

Fair enough

rofl you're funny. Hearsay? So you pretend you're worried about the monopoly bussiness, and when i provide you enough information to go and check for yourself you dare accusing me of hearsay? Did you actually read what i posted? Man what a crappy job you got to do :) :). PR for Natural Point posing as regular user... I actually feel sorry for you. :rolleyes: Yeah i know, you're just a guy, just another guy concerned that Free Track is stealing NP bussiness and violates its (nonexistent) patents, like any honest citizen. Man you crack me up :grin: :grin: :grin:. Feel free to talk to your peers from now on, i'm sure there's more than one of you, or at least more than one user :grin: :grin:, i think i got all the laugh you can give.


swiss, you are mistaken, antitrust laws are concerned not only with actually protecting fair competition between companies, but also (maybe even primary) with protecting the consumers. Please search the web for further info, as well as consulting any specialized professional (lawyer or economist)... This is very basic stuff.


Before i leave this thread for good, as i'm sure any unbiased individual has already enough data to form his/her own opinion, i want to apologize for any mistake i made, english is not my native language.

Good day, gentlemen.

I think you may need to wake up to yourself a bit there Korn, or read the thread through, at least.
You made an accusation, couldn't back it up adequately and were asked a question, obviously one you have no answer to or no details about, so you get in a huff and make threats to leave.... well, that's your choice.

Also Korn, you might consider Facetracking, negates your whole premise of antitrust ;)

This thread has gone from interesting to just plain hilarious.

Those arguing in favor of Free Track sound exactly like the folks that argue most vociferously in favor of pirating any software title they wish as it is their "right" because the interweb is "free" and we need to stike a blow for "freedom of expression" against the evil capitalists.

:rolleyes:

Grow up kids.


Really.

do they just sound like that to you, or are they pirates to you?

Arrrrghhhh did somebody mention pirates!
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...n/images-2.jpg

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The post you've seen plenty of times before. No doubt you'll go off on some tangent from that, and raise a bunch of questions to which you already know the answer.

http://naturalpointofview.blogspot.c...t-archive.html

Possibly. More fool me for responding.

I realize we have a language barrier here, but I did say they sound like, not that they are. Their arguments take the same form and structure.

It is even more reinforced by the fact that someone put up a website/blog/whatever it is, that tracks one person's posts on various sites about the "controversy".

What next? Get Wiki Leaks involved?

Why are people so against seeing a company be successful? Don't we all want to be secure in our finances, and make money on our hard work? I know I do.

I don't understand this bruhaha at all.

actually, Julian, I've already asked a question, and before your above post... did you miss it, like you have the others asked of you?
and what is the point of your link, I don't understand... is it supposed to mean something??

I really have to wonder if the FT "boys" know what "the big lie" (in concept) is and where it came from?

Wolf Rider, i'm someone who's actually tried both methods and found trackIR to be better, yet even to me you seem like you have an agenda to push.

They just gave you links where developers of DCS say that naturalpoint stopped them from providing support for other headtracking interfaces. It can't be spelled out any better, so you can either acknowledge it or bury your head in the sand.

The industry can't make games that only support one standard and then claim FT are violating copyrights when they are shutting them off from doing it in a legal manner, at least not without looking ridiculous.

So, in order to clear up some things, maybe i'll try to describe it a bit better to you.

A joystick, any kind of joystick, works with all games because there's a generic interface to control axial input for games.
Today, the same thing exists for headtracking but it's not getting used (and in some cases actively being prevented from use).
Well, my question is how would you feel if suddenly the only people who could fly the new sim where those who had a microsoft stick? I'd be fine, because i have a 10 year old precision pro 2, so who cares what happens to the rest of the community, right? :rolleyes:

As for how hard it is to do it, i recently got a friend of mine to start flying IL2 with me. The guy is a programmer and a Linux user. Once i explained headtracking to him, he dug up a stagnant linux project, contacted the original author for some information and got to work. In TWO DAYS he had his own headtracking software, it works with normal LEDs (not even IR) and a webcam in a room with all the lights on. Heck, i tried it and it was smoother than the freetrack installation i tried on my home PC.

In the following weeks or months, he's probably going to code something open source and free from the ground up, which will be also coded in C/C++ and will be much less demanding on the PC than freetrack.

There is a very simple solution to all of this really.

1) Naturalpoint protects their software and API so that it only works with naturalpoint products, i'm all fine with that.

2) The developer provides a secondary, generic interface for alternative headtrackers, so that they don't have to use NP's API anymore. All it needs is the game to recognize 6 generic axis and accept inputs under a standard, generic interface.

Freetrack does have it's own API and doesn't need to use naturalpoint software. The reason FT is parsing it's data through the naturalpoint API is that freetrack's API is usually blacklisted or simply not used due to ignorance.

Finally, in regards to copyright, i asked my buddy about the possible legal implications of using the trackIR .dll file. He looked it up and apparently (maybe that's also the reason NP don't hold a patent), there's a legal clause that in the case at hand permits to sidestep the issue if certain measures are followed.
I don't remember exactly how it goes, but it seems that part of that .dll's content falls under public domain or something similar (you can't copyright basic mathematics after all), so all you need is a programmer to write his own .dll and make it available under an open source/free software license.

So, to sum up...freetrack doesn't NEED to use naturalpoint software to work. It just needs the developers to accept to use freetrack's implementation alongside the naturalpoint one. Then everyone is legal, we all get more options and you know me, i'm all for extra options so more members of the community can stay happy with their flight simming and the hobby can advance ;)

no agenda on my part but there certainly is an agenda being pushed. eg simple questions get insult or fabrications in response = sounds like an agenda being pushed, to me.

and the question I asked was, did DCS use their own proprity interface or did they use NP SDK to allow that/ your response to that question would be.....?

GP Bikes is exclusively and advertised as exclusively FreeTrack ;)

refer back to the DCS question asked earlier on

yes, its called DirectX if I understand and maybe clearer would be the Direct Input and is part of the Microsoft operating systems... we're up to version 11 atm, aren't we? is this correct?

Which is.... what, exactly?

Microsoft stopped making their joysticks years ago. Besides that MS include in their operating systems generic drivers for use. You may have noticed though that gameports have been dropped, yes? well, that's progress for you. Even MS JS programmer isn't supported in Windows7

Fantastic effort on his part then... there's also another proggy called FaceTracknoIR (at least I think that is the correct name)

excellent, I wish him all the best


1. good to hear
2. personally, I don't have problem with that. FSX has simconnect (However some FSX FT users don't like it so they use the NP software hack to run their FT instead.

well, there is something in your statement which is contradictory... you say FT has its own API (great, but I keep asking how this works and no serious anwer is the response - only silliness is, the likes of which would be expected from the front row of a Guns 'n' Roses concert) and you go on to say that the FT has to use NP software to work. This is as plain as day on the FT site and is quite possible for the "blacklisting", as you put it. Admittedly you offer ignorance, well that's cool... all FT has to do is make the approach to the developers with their own stand alone product. One that doesn't use any part of anyone elses' copyright protected software.

can't patent basic maths after all? you may be right there but patent isn't copyright... so would that then leave Microsoft, and everybody else/ every developer, up the creek with regard to their software copyrights? Construct one's own dll? excellent, can FT do that with out using all or part of another companies copyrighted dll?
(but, it looks like another contradiction in essence, so, do let us know how you get on there, with that one:)
yes, they release it open source/ freeware... no problem. They could also charge for it if they wanted, there's no restrictions on how it should be released, is there?


see the earlier point on your contradiction and another question... can FT work without NP software being installed?


hey, I'm all for options, don't get me wrong... legal ones though.

Has anyone thought of using facetracking... its much cheaper than FT?

For the Nth time, they were developing their own, then ceased at the request of NP. GET IT NOW?

There is no contradiction in Blackdog's post. FT does have its own API, in fact you can enable or disable each of the methods FT uses to output head pose data. If you only enable the FT API, then FT only uses it, and does not use NP's DLL. If you only enable PPJoy, then FT outputs the six axes to a PPJoy virtual controller, which looks to windows like a six axis joystick, which you then map to the head axes in the game... Again, without the NP DLL. DO YOU GET IT??? When games accept six the FT API, or allow the assignment of joystick axes to head controls, FT has no need for the NP DLL. It's only when the head control axes are mysteriously kept hidden (unlike EVERY other one used in games) that people tick the trackIR box, to make the game think it is receiving data from one. GET IT NOW?

Maths != software. Nice straw-man, by the way.

Again, yes. However it is relevant to your question that the installation of FT will install the NP DLL, which is only used if the trackIR interface is enabled. GET IT NOW?

Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

what is the proof of this? if you mention DCS, then refer to my earlier question


There is a contradiction... read it again, and it looks clear by your own admission that FT uses the NP software.

take that up with Blackdog, it's his entry

no, you got it backwards there, matey That's not what I was enquiring about


Once again, let's get some facts into the thread... what proof do you have that NP is lobbying for exclusion of other products? (go back to the first of your quotes here)

How about Hat-Track
it is much cheaper and looks good as TrackIR

NOOOOOOO are you kidding? They also stoled NP ideas, software, hardware, everything :-P

I don't have time to go through the entire post point by point, so just a couple of things here.

If DCS was done with NP tools then yes, NP has a say in things. In that case, the makers of DCS should provide a separate alternative that's done without NP tools, so they can enable support for 3rd party alternatives.

As for my example with the microsoft sticks, it was just that, an example. Saying that they are out of production doesn't invalidate it. But since you couldn't resist splitting hairs, just substitute the MS sticks for a different brand like Saitek and tell me how cool (or not) it would be if only Saitek sticks worked with CoD? ;)

Finally, about the exclusiveness of it all, i find that releasing a "freetrack only" game is just as stupid as releasing a "trackIR only" game. They should be giving their customers some freedom of choice for crying out loud :rolleyes:

Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:

and the answer is yes. All it needs is to be enabled within the game interface, which means that yes, the game developer has to explicitly allow it to interface with the game.

This is no different than trackIR mind you. TrackIR also needs some "hooks" of its own to be programmed into the game before it's recognized and i can use it. If it was all done by the trackIR software it would work in every single game released but it doesn't (it uses mouse emulation for the old titles), so it's pretty clear that whatever head-tracking interface we use, the game needs to be specially programmed to take advantage of it.

That's not too much work compared to coding an entire game that already uses functions like smooth camera control and axial inputs, it just needs an extra 6 axes in the conrtol options.
Now that i think of it, i seem to remember that even the original IL2 version of 2001 wasn't what we call a trackIR enhanced title, ie it lacked native trackIR support.

The process is like this:
1) A developer codes a head tracking interface.
2) Another developer, the one who's making the game, needs to enable it to interface with the game.

The reason freetrack can't interface with a lot of games on its own is not that it lacks the means to do so, it's mostly because the game software doesn't allow it to. In that sense, i find that raising the question of "can it work on its own" is misleading (i'm not saying it's done intentionally, it's just misleading) because it lacks the proper context.
The context is, "in the cases that it doesn't work on its own, why is that so?" and the answer is simple, "because they don't allow it to do what it can perfectly do on its own". Well, that not the fault of freetrack or any other headtracking interface, is it now?

Freetrack doesn't need to use trackIR's "hands", it's got its own but most of the time they are not allowed to "touch" anything by the game engine. If a game has a generic 6 axes interface then freetrack's "hands" are untied and it works without needing to use any kind of naturalpoint software whatsoever.

Edit: Seems like Julian beat me to the punch line. As long as the axes are visible, then any kind of headtracking interface can work on its own, totally independent of NP's software. However, if i'm an boxing match and they tie my hands around my back it's a bit hypocritical of my sparring partner to complain if i head-butt him :D

I took a peek at my next paycheck yesterday, and happily noticed that it was more than double what is usual. Thank you Michigan winter for snowing and bringing me overtime.

I just sprung for Track IR 5, it should be here Tuesday. Interested to see how it compares to FTnoIR that I've been using.

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!


Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

+1000000
Hat's off to you!

You people are all crazy.

I'm done with this thread.

This irony is biting!!!
But i am afraid you really meant it that way.

All you just think to yourselves, how much players in the world had no sufficient funds to buy all the devices to play a single game. Oleg stated he worries about CoD be playable for all around the world and deny a free interface kills the users with less money or in countries where TIR is not distributed. As an example in my country beyound buy CoD and have a decent machine to run it, a joystick, i ll have to import TIR and pay high taxes 60% for country more the estadual taxes to bring it. Just impossible to me as just for many players.

You are really very egoistic. It is necessary to have an alternative for the guys all around the world and likes IL2 series. Kill Freetrack interface is to kill a lot of sells. Or at less turn TIR more acessible and cheaper for all.

I hope Oleg maintain his preocupation in allow players all around the world to play decently.

I believe we are all good man, however earn money is not a sin (all we need it), we cannot be slaves of it and have to think in the others and not only in large amount of money.

We just ask to let FT use his own interface, monopoly is ilegal. At least here i do not kwown in you country. As just i can choose my joystick i ll can choose my headtracking interface. And as just some players prefer to buy a saitek X65F instead a low end piece there ll be players ll prefer to use TIR instead FT if it really offers more advantages. If TIR not offer so many advantages that it is preferable to use FT then we must admit that TIR is overpriced since it does not have any great technology or superior quality. You have to earn money because you have big product not because you not allow others to compete with you. Capitalism is supposed to earn money, but it is supposed to be free and democratic as well.

I pray God you have a serious and rare disease, wich treatment is patentied for some big drugdeveloper, and you cannot use another cheaper with the same active principle because its not allowed. Then you ll die because you not have money to buy the medicines. hahaha...

What some of this "posh" people are forgeting is that in some parts of the world a 100 euros might be a week paycheck or even a month paycheck if one is really in a bad place. I thought i never see the day that flight sim community will become elitist. I guess if you are not from US, Britain or Australia you don't deserve to play. I don't agree with your last statement though. Watch out, karma is a bit.h!

Stipe. This might interest you. I am a born and bred "right-wing" Republican from America. I have never voted Democrat in my life. I pay taxes and vote. We aren't all bad here in America. We believe in capitalism and competition to add value to our society. This NP/1C situation is non-competitive. As a consumer of 1C games who desires freedom of choice, I have a right to point this out. This goes on every day in a capitalistic society. It is the market demand side of things letting the supply side know that we want something different. If we have to, we vote with our wallets.

Fyi, W-R, I do not have time to respond, nor do you exist.

I completely agree with you. I want to apologize if my post was missunderstood. I didn't tend too "attack" the whole nations. Just those "laud" citizens of this countries that are here on this forums and were born with silver spoon i guess. ~S~

NP. Oops, I guess that could be taken the wrong way to. I mean No Problem.:-)

What some posters here implement is just plain wrong!!!
Nobody here wants to restrict free developement and multiple choices!!!
What this discussion is about is the alleged illegal use of NP Software on the one side
and the not proven accusations that NP is influencing developers to bar competing software on the other side.
But then, some people see only black and white and who is not completely on their side must be a enemy.
A quite restricted view, i believe.
Just like without Freetrack or TrackIR or any competing Software :-D

What this discussion is or was about is if freetrack will work with COD or not. Nothing less, nothing more. The topic went down the toilet and the original question is still not answered.;)

Excellent job Stipe!!! You saw he was running interference again and you smashed it like a bug. Now always remember, if he tries to troll again you can..."I'm too busy right now..etc." Okay, I have to leave the computer for a while now. But there is hope.

What is it about the ED developer's quote that is not proof? (you know, the one that said they stopped developing an open tracking interface at the request of NP)

What about the censorship on the Ubi forums?

In page 16 and neither Oleg, Ilya or other dev of IL-2:CoD bother to came here and answer the simple question:

- Will IL-2:CoD have suport for other HT devices/softwares besides TIR?

It's funny to see that they can't answer that, and the coolest thing if that the BIG LIE of "legal issues" go away with the fact that Bohemia Interactive suport Freetrack interface in your major titles...

Shame.

I see that there is no way that a free software did use a shortcut by using the software of a regular company!
So it also never happened that the said free software did use their own interface after getting caught.
Of course only regular, money earning companies can be bad.
And the fact, posted on the homepage of said free software, that it still can and will use proprietary software, is a misunderstanding.
Oh, by the way when we are at it, communism WILL rule the world, be shure.

You can read? 16 pages explaining EVERYTHING and this talking about "software"?

No communism, just use your brain a little:

1 - Freetrack actual version didn't use "NP code". Freetrack has your own interface;

2 - Freetrack is GNU, open source, free. It's made to use a lot of hardware options to create a HT solution;

3 - Today a big sim company give Freetrack suport for their MAJOR tiltes, so the "legal" talking is plain stupid.

Amazes me how people sound like a broken record. "proprietary software"... My God!

This kind of discussion is over. If 1C didn't have some "classified" commercial agreement with NP, 1C CAN GIVE FREETRACK SUPORT IN IL-2:COD! Simples as that, Bohemia Interactive did it.

But what makes me really laugh if that people like Robtek jump in defense of NP and CoD devs don't answer the questions, like ED didn't answer questions... Thank's God BIS devs don't hide in shadows and listen to the customers, maybe they don't need so much NP money.

But "capitalist" people believe that is normal... People even know what capitalism is about, I will bottle air and block people to beath normally... It's the same thing.

Tired of that. Please Oleg, if you can't answer or questions and if CoD get out without Freetrack suport, don't cry if people hack your .exe to use Freetrack .dll. Devs complaint a lot of hackers, piracy, but do little to give LEGAL CUSTOMERS suport and options.

As I said: shame. Just that.

As i see that the "same opinion as mine or enemy"-people have also lost the ability to read without prejudice ...
Happy dreams

Good job wingmen!!! Watch for W-R, he'll be on your 6 anytime now.

You don't have one "opinion". I'm a Freetrack user, I don't care if you can't underestand how Freetrack works. But when you came to one topic about suport to Freetrack in CoD and start talking nonsense things about "proprietary software", what's your point?

There isn't any "moral" or "legal" subject regards Freetrack. If you can't undestand that, it's sad. But MAYBE exists some agreement between NP and 1C. And if it exists, you can think about why some software companies didn't discuss openly about other HT solutions... Maybe the "ilegal" stuff is somewere else...

But Freetrack is evil...

That's not an unusual stance to take there


Great... at least we can agree on the basic premise

Why does it have to be the developer soley?
Does the developer need to scour out every part of the ' net to hunt down what may or may not be available "tracker" wise?

refer to the points made on "locking others out" and I think you'll the invalidation of your argument there. Microsoft provide drivers, generic drivers for use by joysticks... they also provide drivers (I believe) for webams and they supply those drivers with their operating systems.


Excellent, yet we don't hear the same cries from others of the same frame of mind.


No problem there... all FT and others need to do is work with the developer to have the tracker product included... see my earlier point on searching the web through... but, and but FSX has Simconnect. Yes, simconnect and the FT crowd pass that over in favour of hacking out NP software. Let me remind at this point of your stated views of hacking and FT being able to run without NP software installed.

and what happened there? that's right NP made the approach to the developers

okay... the two need to work together - fine

hmm, no... its not misleading Facrtrack seems to be able to enable within a game without NP software being installed (even though facetrack still has a function to interact through NP software). Has anyone noticed that FaceTrack is cheaper still than FT?

How to fix that is by (your own point) getting with the developer of the game they would like inclusion with... it simple, yes?

Face Track has a PPJoy. exe (freeware) asociated with it, which seems to interact just fine... but once again, this gets passed over in favour of relying on NP software


see the previous point

nobody has tied your hands behind your back for you... you've done that yourself.

A good show of faith on FT's (and other tracking developers' part), would be to remove any reliance on NP software from their product and then talk turkey with any game developers they want inclusion of their tracking programs in.

As far as the headbutting goes... you keep missing though ;)

Cant you guys stop this stupid discussion???????????****!

Freetrack isn't really considered legal while it has reliance on NP software, which you'll find is the whole crux of the matter..

Threats to iC ? this is going to help your cause?

"proprietry software"? what, people should just give you everything you want? you believe you can just take anything you want?[i]? Does the world owe you a living or something?




mate, what you're seeing here isn't communism... what your witnessing, is what got WWII started, complete with the "useful idiots" in tow.

Why game developers include track ir support and not others? Because of NP aggressive marketing and advertising. NP is like Justin Bieber. You can't take a piss and not hear about them. Who should do the marketing for freetrack or xxxxxtrack and approach the developer if those are free, open community projects? They are not a company nor they need to sell anything.
Developers already know about freetrack and other alternatives and it's up to their good mood to include them if you will.

and all that is supposed to mean what exactly, hmmm?

I'll answer your (the question asked in plain english) after my already asked questions are answered... are you willing to answer mine?

We can speculate some more. Since they don’t respond, maybe 1C could really care less if the TrackIR interface portion of the game gets “hacked”. It’s probably no skin off their nose. They still sell the game to so called NP “hacker” and get the revenue. Maybe 1C will actually provide, surreptitiously, the “hack” to the NP code in CoD, as they would have the inside track on how it works. Maybe Freetrack was created by 1C to sell more games? Oh my. No, I don’t expect we will get an answer from 1C. But I do know we will get an answer from he who does not exist, whether we like it or not.

Blackdog's point was that IF a sim only allowed one brand of joystick, it would be bad for consumers. I, and every other person reading this thread will have understood the analogy. You are purposefully typing garbage.

so you admit now that FT is a hack?

so you are asking a developer to ignore an NDA... an NDA in the same vein as the developer asks of it beta testers?

whatever it is you're on, please don't share it... it is doing some serious damage to your head




its a moot point and casuist (as soon as his point was countered, he changed it, and no reply about gameport being abandoned... so have, for the most part, floppy drives and AGP)

spec•u•late
verb \ˈspe-kyə-ˌlāt\
intransitive verb
1
a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

Examples: I speculate that W-R has no arms and legs, and hence has develop an unnatural affinity to his TrackIR. I speculate that W-R probably works for NP. I speculate that W-R gets paid by the word for his postings.


I see I have run out of time.

its obvious then, you have also "speculated" on FT being the way go ;)

also, Blaster, when it comes to insulting people, do you really think that that approach will help your cause? Who do you think it would hurt the most, you or your target?


now, where did Stipe get to?

I'm still waiting. You have my response on the previous page.

you'll be waiting for a while then, until you fulfill your part.

Insert elevator music here.

sport, you really could do well to read the thread through from the beginning, and who the heck are you to demand anything anyway? you see that is part of the FT problem and why should anyone who does that, be taken seriously?

5year old? well, at least I don't bang on about some people having no arms and legs, or make outlandishly wild statements

oh well goodo then, its obvious you have nothing to offer the thread apart from insult?

my point proven

It's really nice of you to consider i'm missing the point W-R when you are in fact conveniently, but very obviously, doing your best to sidestep the fact that i gave you an answer to your questions. Maybe it's one that doesn't suit what you wanted or expected to hear, i don't know.

So, one more time, freetrack can work on its own as long as there are 6 mappable axes of a generic interface within the game. Also, your points about FSX are invalid because freetrack has a simconnect output that bypasses the NP software and interfaces directly with FSX.

Finally, the developer won't really have to scour the net when
a) FT is a well known project by now
b) even if they never heard of it there's currently an, as of now, 20-pager in their own forums and they are not blind and finally
c) if another alternative surfaces and becomes popular enough the users will let the developers know about it too and they won't have to scour the net in this case either.



In fact it's better for all developers to code ONE generic 6-axes interface today and have it become an industry standard so that future alternative head tracking methods would be coded from the start to support that, instead of having to do it separately every time a new method gains popularity. If you really care about the developer's time that's what you should be asking for, so do you or is it just for the sake of lending credence to the argument that providing native FT support would be impossible/time consuming/detrimental to game development/etc?
In short, what your beef is with FT (which i also agree on as a basic premise, let NP protect their software) is a non-issue on the part of FT because they already have an alternative in place that works as long as the game in question is willing to receive the inputs.
The issue arises solely from games not supporting the FT interface, plain and simple. Who's to blame for that?

You could say it's partly the fault of FT for not pushing for the inclusion of it, but FT is a community project and not a company, their representatives are their users. In that sense, you could also argue that 18 pages of back and forth is a sufficient and as official as it can get demand on the part of FT to push for its inclusion in the new sim. So that's one more issue down and a few more to go.
Others will say that it's the fault of game developers for not listening to the wishes of their customers. Personally, i think it's peanuts to add 6 more axes to the ingame control options compared to the making of the rest of the game and if it keeps their customers happy they would be more than willing to do it.
So, i'm naturally suspicious about why some don't...or not, because some developers have said that NP stopped them from including a parallel implementation, one that would also be totally independent of reliance on NP software and thus completely legal.

Does it start to look like some people want the competition to have no legal way of operating, or am i just exercising the use of too common sense for this forum?
Which brings us to the final theory about who's to blame, some will say it's the fault of naturalpoint for boycotting the development of a generic interface that will give alternative methods a legal way to do what they want to do.
Now i'm being reasonable with you here, i'm accommodating towards your point of view and i even agree on some of what you say, i've been a very satisfied naturalpoint customer and i certainly don't like the zealotry displayed by either side of the camp. Freetrack is not the spawn of the devil and neither is Naturalpoint.

However, there has been evidence of NP stopping developers from coding an alternative interface. I'm still leaving some room for doubt here because i don't know exactly how it went down (i don't own a copy of DCS or frequent their forums), but it sure looks plausible when it's a well documented case that's coming straight from the horse's mouth.
There's two links to the DCS forum in this thread alone, where two separate members of the staff openly admit they stopped working on an independent head tracking solution at the request of NP (i think one also phrased it as "pressure"?).

Well, i certainly don't think the DCS guys just got up one morning with the intention of p*ssing off a substantial portion of their customer base and said "hey i'm bored to code this, let's stop working on it and blame it on NP for sh*ts and giggles". First of all, NP would be all over them for spreading false accusations.
Also, if it was destined to be an independent interface that didn't rely on the NP SDK, then they shouldn't really have much ground to legally stand on. The only thing they would be able to do is threaten to stop trackIR support for future releases of DCS, at which point the devs would obviously cave in.

Now i don't like basing my arguments on assumptions, so if someone has a link to answer this by all means provide it. So, was the DCS interface independent of the naturalpoint SDK? Again please, i'm not looking for hearsay but a clear and valid forum post from an eagle dynamics staff member that say they were working on an interface that was independent from naturalpoint's SDK. If such a thing exists, the only way NP would be able to force the DCS devs to stop working on it would be through "shady" means (aka "stop it or the next version of trackIR won't work with your games). That's why i'm asking for it, i want to be fair to them have some info that would indicate a high possibility of NP blackmailing eagle dynamics before i start accusing them of it on my own.

But why is all that important you'll say? Very simple.
IF it's true, and that's a big IF, the premise behind it is a classic example of a circular argument: i will prevent you from coding a legal way to support competitive products, so i can bring up the illegal use of my software as a bargaining chip against the competition in every turn along the way.
Again, i'm not saying this is what happened, i'm saying it's possible and i will reserve judgment until someone can answer the question in the previous paragraph. However, if it's indeed true then the blame rests solely with NP and nobody else for leaving no legal alternative to the competition.

So what's the bottom line to all this? How do we, as a community help solve it?

It's dead simple, if you really want FT to stop using the NP software, which is something i would like as well, you really should be asking for a generic interface with 6 mappable axes in the new sim like the rest of us, instead of forcing us to go around in circles for 20 pages in an effort to answer the exact same questions that you repeatedly posed 3-4 times despite receiving a multitude of answers to choose from.:rolleyes:

If you want the universal truth sorry but i don't have it, nobody does in fact, unless we have some godlike entity among us and we don't know it :-P

So, i just spent a good deal of my free time providing you with enough reasonable possibilities to choose from, inserted a healthy dose of doubt into my own arguments for the sake of fairness and reserved final judgment on the matter to be decided if and when i receive additional evidence. If that's still not good enough for you, then i'm sorry but i'll have to relegate you to that bridge over yonder where certain creatures of folk legend make their living by demanding a toll from travelers ;)

not all games though offer full 3D modelling (outside quite often has gaps and bits missing, when in cockpit view. This point may have esacaped a few FT adherents though

I did mentioned this and also mentioned, in the same post, that the simconnect gets passed over in favour of running the NP hack.


I'll look for those links

which is the basis of my question (which seems to be continually ignored, yet unverified claims made) of whether DCS did use the NP SDK or develop their own method. NP can't stop them using their own method.
Have NP stopped support for ARMA ?








I am and have been asking the same thing, but hang on... what's this;

?







I don't disagree with a "generic interface" or method of access at all. In fact, I welcome it.

but why should any developer entertain FT whilst they run a hack?
Perhaps, if FT and other tracker softwares removed the hack, developers may begin to take a more responsive countenance?

It took 20 pages to get to this. Now i finally understand you and actually agree with you. Freetrack users would like to have a legal way to have 6DOF in games without using track ir as the only option. "Will freetrack be supported in COD", doesnt mean if it will be supported in the state as it is now if only trackir would be supported it would be using it's interface. The question should be: is there any way that we can get head tracking without track ir and that is completely legal without a shade of doubt ie. not running thru np? Generic interface as a standard would be best and freetrack would be legal.
W-R: I went a bit too far but you really pissed me off and i'm just a human. Let's have a civil discussion from now on. Agree?

It was actually quite early in the thread, Stipe. Seriously, it was quite early.
Hence my efforts to have you read the thread through.


I would love a civil discussion, it is all I have sort... nobody should ever have to suffer the "no arms and legs" derision, that another poster brought in.






@ Blackdog... I have only found the one link back to DCS, the popular one which always gets trundled out. It gives a short statement and no detail.

The decision to allow access to the six head axes (such as DCS:A-10C does) affects ALL non-NP head trackers. If they are not accessible, then ONLY TIR can be used to give 6DoF input. The decision to keep them hidden has absolutely nothing to do with the dev's opinion of FT.

I read it once, but i cant say that i might not miss something. But you must agree that most of the topic went like this: "freetrack is a hack." "No it isn't."
"yes it is." "No, it's not." *add a dozen of insults*
What I would like to know is, if generic interface is let's say easy to do, why isn't that done already? In every game? Everyone would be happy and legal.

Julian, there is a standing question at the moment; Did DCS develop their own method or did DCS use the NP SDK?

It has been put up a few times now, and as of this post, there is still no firm reply confirming what DCS did.

Read back a few pages and you'll find some references to that which do allow access and in some case why access is limited.





exactly, and on all points. There were also questions asked, some answers given, which lead to more questions and more answers. Also involved was a lot of furphery and casusitry.

Politely asking the developer of DCS thru e-mail or otherwise is the way to go then. That way we would know the ultimate thruth.
Also, the sim community would need to become "laud" and cool-headed
about proposing the idea of generic interface to game developers. I'm sure they would do the effort if the backdoor "game" is clean.

Bravo :)

The statement gets "trundled out" because it's clear enough. The likelihood that ED's SDK would have had anything to do with NP's software is extremely low, for two reasons:
- It would have been illegal, and TIR probably would have been patched to no longer work with ED products (fair enough).
- There was no reason to the steal code to perform such a simple task.

Either way, ED did the right thing and exposed A-10C's head control axes for assignment (which I think is all that is needed). Whether they did for BS or not, I can't remember.

They used TrackIR encrypted interface.
NP shot them down when they tried to do their own thing.
Sorry these links are redundant.

You get no reconciliation from me W-R troll. You are running interference with your own hidden agenda. Play the sympathy card all you want. You started it with me I think around #110 or #112 with the derogatory comments. Ok done.

Julian, Blaster please... it can't be that difficult to digest what is on this and the previous page alone, can it?

You asked "Julian, there is a standing question at the moment; Did DCS develop their own method or did DCS use the NP SDK?"

I referred to the ED quote:
"Every joystick has standard software interface, that's why every joystick works in every game. For now there is no standard for head tracking devices software interface. We were going to add vendor-independent SDK in English release to allow every head tracking vendor (including FreeTrack) implement support of their devices for BlackShark. SDK has been removed from English release because of NaturalPoint request. Now we make agreement with NaturalPoint and we will release 3DOF version of our head tracking SDK soon."

So the answer to your question is "DCS was developing their own, however NP requested that it not be included in the English version".

If you disagree, explain why, rather than pretending that everyone else just doesn't get it.

What did you do W-R? Buy off Stipe with a new TrackIR? You are cunning. I"ll give you that.

If I may add something. We all need to cool down. Blaster as you see, the aggresive route leads nowhere. W-R, i'm sorry, but your answers sometimes come forward as arrogant. If this continues, we will throw fecies at each other before the game comes out. At the end we wont have nothing.
I know, "you are the one to talk", but i deleted my messages or edited them in this topic and i call you guys to do the same. Don't want to sound patronizing or poetic, but we are a dying breed. The flight sim community that is.
And MadBlaster, don't call me a sell out. I'm not that cheap. Sometimes one needs to take a deep breath and think if his words represent his age. Let it go.

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

please accept my apologies if that is the way my answers, etc, may at times come across, they are not intended to be arrogant. I will attempt to address this though.