which I linked on page 14:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=135

Post 193:
If you disagree with my assessment of the likelihood of ED using NP software without permission, please explain why.

Yey, we are humans again. :grin:
I must say, that i got really defensive because i thought W-R is a track ir fanboy. But now i get the point. The question about DSC is to see if:
1.) they tried to use completely own interface and NP is indeed trying to run a monopol
or
2.) They used part of NP SDK to build their own code on and NP was simply defending their code

Here's perfect example of why we struggle with you W-R troll. "Vendor independent" = "SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK."

Please look up the word "independent" in the dictionary. Maybe you simply don't "trust" the word "independent" in the quote. And that is easily understandable, given your agenda. So what is your rate, 5 cents a word?

that's right Stipe, I'm not a fanboi - not by a longshot.

Perhaps I could best put my views this way, in the form of two quotes?


oh well, here goes

"The greatest tenet of Democracy, is transparency of Government"

and

"The greatest tenet of Freedom, is honesty"



I'm really hoping that helps :)

Let's say that DCS tried to do their own thing and NP asked them to stop.
I wonder on what ground did DCS cave?
Thats why some people hate NP. We don't know if the rumors are true or not.
If it's comfirmed then God knows whats ahead. COD 2 running with Saitek pedals only?

Rumours do feature in a large part of any kerfuffle, at least that is what I've found in my journeys around the traps and unfortunately, the rumour mill can be nigh on impossible to shut down, once fired up.
Its why we need level heads, we need facts and we need clarity.

Speculation (Fyi, I've posted the definition in this thread):
DCS and NP do a deal for the game. NP draws up a contract and DCS signs it. There is a clause in the contract that may not be legally enforceable, but it is there anyway that says there is a big financial penalty/withdrawal of support...etc. that will be exercised by NP if DCS decides to develop an in-house headtracking functionality, vendor independent or otherwise. Just the threat of court action is enough to intimidate most companies. Going to court costs lots of money. Since TrakIR dominates this market, DCS probably couldn't justify spending money on legal costs to defend going independent at this time. It's a risk/reward decision. So, the artificial monopoly stays in place.

But guys behind DCS must have a legal department for crying out loud(hey guys,what NP is trying to do is illegal.We wont be fooled).Or am I a romantic? Money investment in development of the game or bribery is likely. But still, in today's world i wouldn't be suprised if something like that is going on. We know how business runs. Can't NP go to court becouse something like that? Monopol. Remember Microsoft?

could I make a genuinely polite comment at this point?

all that just written, is just feeding rumours, it is what gets them big and fat and out of all proportion. This is what makes it hard to get clarity

So you're just going to ignore post #201?

ok. im out 4 now. keep your guard up Stipe.

could I make a genuinely polite comment at this point?
all that just written, is just feeding rumours, it is what gets them big and fat and out of all proportion. This is what makes it hard to get clarity

I agree. But what else could be the reason for DCS to remove their SDK if you think. I try to emerge myself in their position. NP calls me:"please remove your SDK and use our product only". Just that. What would you do? Like I said. If that from above is the actual quote from the developer that's a good enough proof for me that something is not right. I do hope I'm mistaken though. If that's how things work now we are all screwed. The problem is: yes it was removed for sure and yes it was independent SDK, but why it was removed then?

I'm very sorry, but I didn't realise there was an assessment, by you, there Julian.
I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment, on the grounds of; I wait for fact concerning DCS and the SDK. Fact, not rumour, not assessment, not speculation, not Chinese whispers but fact.
Thank you for the link, which is obviously the second of the two mentioned by Blackdog. That post (which also says "by agreement" with NP) is also two years old. Are DCS still got their vendor (seller) independent (not under the control of any one, or group of, seller/s) underway yet? This is a fair question, I think... what do you think, Julian?



I would ask; "On what grounds?" but to go any further until some fact turns up,and you can see yourself the "by agreement part". in the link, is only surmising.
You might not mean to be doing this, but that is how it is coming across.


mate, it still comes back to the standing question... which is; how did DCS go about it?
Until then, what else can we do?

Logically impossible. If you reserve judgement until "facts" arrive, then you neither disagree or agree. However you have just said that you are disagreeing. You can't hold a view point without having some reasoning behind it, whether you're willing to post it or not.



I assume you mean "is DCS still developing an independent 6DoF interface?". My answer is "I doubt it".

fact is Julian, I stand by my disagreement and you can argue that all you want, or not, and that is entirely up to you and you have also quoted my reasons for disagreeing with your assessment. If it clearer to you, I could probably change "disagree" to "dismiss". Anyway, lets see what turns up in the wash, eh?

DCS, Julian, only ever (at least in going by the link) mentioned 3DoF, may I ask you; where did the 6DoF come into it from?

That's what's bugging me. "by agreement" part. What's in the agreement? :)
Hehehe. I'm loosing my sanity. It's really early in the morning.:o

its in the link Julian put up in his 201, Stipe. It still doesn't explain the "how or what" though, so lets see what answers we get back. :)

Page 22 and nobody form 1C even can talk a word about 1C commercial agreement with NP.

I'm not stupid... If W-R, one of a lot of NP fakes over internet forums wants to pose as "the average consumer", we aren't blind as he is.

Shame Oleg. Really, a shame. Other FT topic without any clear answer...

No,no. I want to know whats in the agreement clause.:grin:
I know it's not possible since that is a business secret. But i'm curious.:)

Fair enough... I'm curious too

Agreement means contract and/or an addendum to an existing contract/agreement. This is how vendors do business with each other. They put out RFPs (request for proposals). Vendors respond with what they can provide and how much it will cost...etc. In this case NP is the vendor to ED/DCS for the headtracking piece of the game. In that agreement it is likely a "covenant not to compete" type clause is present that protects NP's interest. That is pretty standard stuff. Now that clause may be enforceable, non-enforceable or partially enforceable. You don't actually know until you get to court. All you have is your attorney's opinion, as he is the one who drew it up for you. Now these two companies may have a long history of working together, so this agreement just keeps getting pushed to the next game and updated as their is no competition when they put out the RFP since NP is the only player.

Also, in real life, departments in a company are not always in sync. Guys in software development department of a company aren't necessarily worried or cognizant of what's in a vendor contract. So, if they get an idea to do something in-house and then someone in legal department says, hey you better not do that or we might get sued because of our agreement with NP. Yes, this seems rational, reasonable, albeit speculative, reasoning.

Fact is Wolf_Rider you either work for NP or you just talk from the back of your garden thinking you got something figured out by filthering it from you narrow point of view... heh... Narrow Point... suit them better I guess.

Anyway... while you rant your bigotry on these forums I must say to the others here concern rather about the real issue of this thread, that I managed to make Freetrack work in DCS A10c via PPJoy. That in Windows 7 64bit and in 64bit variant of the game.

So...

If the developer(s) decide to make their game open to more than just one interface for headtracking we are OK.

Some people don't have TIR neither do plan to have one... maybe they don't want to use their necks too much so an alternative to that fancy interface should be provided. Thus ED (DCS developers) decided to let all the 6DoF of head be controlled by keys or axes from joystick... thus having freetrack translating it calculations into joystick axis is more than enough.

It works OK. No extra CPU load. The fuss relates to the fact PPJoy is developed for free by a passionate simmer from South Africa and he didn't had 500$ to make the drivers "approved" my M$... thus you need to be in test mode to install them...

here is my tracker:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9835/img0322ad.jpg

it costs to build 2.5$ and some fun.

Facetrack uses PPJoy without the need for NP software, and doesn't need LEDS, or dots, or clips... so you could have saved yourself your 2.5$ ;)

@norulz
Do you get 6dof with that in il-2? Did you try in ROF if you have it?

@W-R
Same question as for norulz but for face track.

We are retarded. This has to be the longest discussion. 10+ hours.
"head tracking marathon" :)

To be honest, I'm not too sure Stipe, but the Face API does offer 6DoF. As with FT though, most seem to pass the PPJoy part of it over for faketrackir... so it is another hack program.
This is the first time that anyone has ever responded in any manner to Face Track, which has been mentioned here before.

Ah screw it then. I'm going to stick my head inside the monitor and look around.:grin:
It will offer 6 dof. I'll call it: Face burn™

yes it does full 6DoF as I said.

FreeTrack after making its calculations can export them via a multitude of interfaces. Freetrack, TIR unencrypted, PPJoy, Mouse, Keyboard strokes, and another 2 AFAIK.

The way Freetrack does it's calculations are opened to analysis due to the fact source code is available... is just math.

The way it hooks to the interfaces is again pretty opened... minus that fake TIR interface which is a third party made available by people that love NP and their monopoly very much.

Many people don't want to break the problem in parts cause it will reveal the mistakes in their reasoning. So they try to keep it in one bite and start name calling by the colors they see in the coffee cup.


btw... before fretrack it was freelook. a 2DoF free application...

I have freetrack. What I meant was if you can get 6 dof over PPJoy?

That's good to hear. I also use FT and PPJoy for A-10C (32 bit), but had heard that it wasn't going to work as 64 bit.

Did you need to do anything to get PPJoy to work in 64 bit?

+2

Life is simple. No "hack" in Freetrack now. Freetrack has own interface, open, free. Nothing with" NP code". BIS uses Freetrack interface AND TrackIR interface in ArmAII and O:A.

So, what's the big deal? Why we can't have a single word from 1C, Oleg...?

Strange...

lol


http://www.seeingmachines.com/produc...api/licensing/


The point I was attempting is, well some of many :) is that there are options out there which can be utilised and developed. Another is, neither NP or SM seem to be at loggerheads, so there is the monopoly thing no longer applicable. (keep in mind though that NP started out servicing the needs of the invalid, until a gamer or two saw how the smartnav could be a bonus to gaming. A few approaches and a few chit chats later... and the rest is in the annuls of history. Not bad, eh?).

Yes!

Yes... it is a bit twitchy. You need to install the latest version... 08426 IIRC... and you need to put Win7 in "test mode" with a program... then restart.... install PPJoy... configure it then you can turn off test mode with same program.

I still need to test it a bit but it works.

There is a thread on ED forums just about this... let me find it.


here's a movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScuYfagMixU

same youtube user have a thread on ED forums... but I can't find it now as I need to leave from work with some... other work :) .

Yes, we have A LOT of options, but how can we use these options if game devs don't make it available?

We have TIR, FaceAPI, Freetrack... You really don't understand the "monopoly thing", sorry. We have competition, but few game devs make it available, as BIS did.

Why? You can't answer. I can't answer. But 1C, Oleg, can. Why they don't answer these questions?

You really don't think how strange is that, W-R?

I'll address this point of yours, if I may.


What needs to happen is to make the approach to the developers, in a professional and friendly manner. Remember! you are asking for inclusion in their game, their product, it isn't necessarily the other way around. Foremost though is the need for a working product, a clean product, a product which the developer themselves could be proud of and not have to worry about being associated with. Their reputation is on the line there.


Its not hard

ROFL. Here are my only quotes of you, since I posted my assessment and asked for your opposite reasoning:

"I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment, on the grounds of; I wait for fact concerning DCS and the SDK. Fact, not rumour, not assessment, not speculation, not Chinese whispers but fact."

"Are DCS still got their vendor (seller) independent (not under the control of any one, or group of, seller/s) underway yet? This is a fair question, I think... what do you think, Julian?"

If you have forgotten, the issue was (to quote you) "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?"

I still think it's extremely unlikely that ED would try to use NP's software without permission. You still disagree, apparently with the reason: "just because".

The ED quote implies that more than 3DoF was originally intended, and as 6DoF is the current standard, and also the number of DoF required for fully featured human head movement, it's a safe deduction to make.

Anyway, if you're not going to discuss the issue, but rather write circuitous and irrelevant questions, I'll leave you to it.

Julian, sorry mate but your assessmnet I dismissed in favour of waiting for some facts. You can imply and deduce and theorise as much as you like, but that is all you are doing. None of that really, is going to get anyone anywhere... is it? That in itself is what drives things around in circles.

You - again - is wrong.

There is no need to "make the approach". Freetrack is a free software, available to download, and EVERYBODY knows about it.

You really believe that Saitek, Thrustmaster, etc need to "make the approach" to have support for joystick and other input devices in CoD or any other title?

You really believe that someone can have "worries" about being associated with Freetrack? It's not a "product", you or don't understand a thing or really are one of the thousands of NP fakes, because Freetrack is FREE.

Well, to be really clear with you, just read:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79821

As I said, life is simple. BIS made a thread, saw the MASSIVE amount of votes for Freetrack support, and put it into ArmAII and O:A. And you, in 2011, will still with this nonsense talking about "approach" and "worries"?

A lot of CoD future users uses Freetrack, wake up! The major two types of HT solutions uses TIR and Freetrack. Freetrack has own interface - AND THIS INTERFACE IS FREE, OPEN, DON'T NEED TO "APPROACH", FOR GOD SAKE!

I will buy CoD, as any TIR customer, and I have THE RIGHT to have Freetrack support in this title. Is simple enough to you and 1C? For me HT is needed to have the desired experience. Isn't fair to me that some TIR owner have the right to use 6DOF HT and not me.

Shame, shame, shame... And don't even talking about that proof this shame... Only the usual NP fakes trolling discussions leading to a close...

Sad. Really sad.

you have it wrong on so many levels Lobi, so many levels

Now you put your talking about nothing into a higher level, congrats!

Please, leave the topic. Just want to see some CoD dev answer about these questions, not some "thoughts" made by one NP troll, sorry.

here is the thread I was talking:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...80#post1074980

is about facetracknoir but PPJoy works the same with FT

The world does not owe you anything, Lobi and your link to Bohemia exposes a theme...

"Unfortunately it seems on Vbulletin I cannot make just a poll that won't accept replies, so at risk of further nazi/dictator/despot accusations thrown at me, all replies of any kind, for/against will be deleted, not to stifle anyone's freedom of expression, but simply due to the problems we've had with previous freetrack threads whereby the very small minority of freetrack supporters have refused to follow requests not to drag the threads into attacks on other tracking systems, other tracking developers."

Yes. The attacks usually starts with some NP troll like you, talking about "hack".

OUR topic here starts with the SIMPLE request to CoD devs to talk about other HT solutions besides TIR.

But they don't talk about the subject. And just ONE fake - you - came here to mess the topic...

Life is simple... The same as usual. Now the next step is some "moderator" close the topic, nobody talk about the subject... Shame... 2011... And this kind of behaviour...

You'll see when it comes out Lobi.

Dont like it, dont buy it.

Just to proof my point:
 

Above, the first post of W-R here...

Really pathetic, troll... Keep the good work of diseminate lies and accusing us - Freetrack users - of beeing "troublemakers"...

Shame...

No, I want to buy it. And I just want Freetrack support.

People whine about flames, I'm whinnig to have the option to use Freetrack as HT device. I don't want just to "don't buy it". It's not an option to me.

sticks and stones, LoBi... go ahead and name call all you want, you lower your own standing and damage your own cause every time you do (arrogance intended ;) )

Well fu.k me. I think we are entering the 15-th circle of "is FT a hack" "no it's not". Our brains are fried from ir leds. :grin::grin::grin:
Anyway, Oleg, can you end the madness and throw us a bone here.

Lobi, afaik Oleg mentioned that there'll be some sort of a "6DOF" available to even those without head tracking devices. Such as me. Means buttons to move, tilt and roll the camera in all axises. If they havent dropped that from the feature list yet I would wonder why they'd see the effort to block track ir's free "competitor", the facetracknoir.

Now you tell us. Where were you 15 hours ago? :)

Oleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeggggggggggggggggggggggg!!!

Really? Damn! :grin:

I can't remember when was the last time i laughed so hard. This is nuts.
Oleg must have a blast right now. At the end all will work, but what the heck.
OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGG!

I think they're all having a blast and maybe running sweep :)

Shut up. All us. Just scream:

OLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!

now you're just being rude

Shush! Just make the chorus louder:

OLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

We have nothing more to talk, just need to listen.

Llllllllllllooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssssoooooooommmmmmmmmmmeeeeee eemmmmmmmmm! Hhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaavvvvvveeeeeeee yyyyooooouuuuuuu fffffiiiiiiiinnnnnnddd OOOlllleeeeegggggggg yyyyeeetttttttt!? WWWWWWWWhhhhhhaaaattttt dddiiiiiidddd hhhhheeeee sssssaaaaaaaayyyy? Are we all getting in a looney bin? I call shotgun.:grin::)

OLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!

Nothing yet, Stipe... Let's keep shouting!

you've got to be kidding, yeah?

Someone tries to make a new record time in getting banned. :grin:

Since you cant help the (non)existence of 6dof facetrack in the cod you might as well wait and see.

"don't make eye contact with him"

No, I just want to hear from Oleg the actual statement about that. Nothing to be banned, closed threat, etc.

Just simple statement. And we all can help if the topic is openly discussed.

What's the big deal about that? People bother a lot with minor issues in cod development, why we can't discuss HT options?

Strange world...

4PM in Moscow. Hes out of the office.

True. But we have Freetrack questions that came from 2009 without answer... He's out of office a lot...

OLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

For how much is trackir5 running this days? How about that clip is it really that flimsy?
W-R
facetrack, just a regular unmodiffied wweb cam right? How about daylight?
Does it have any problems with tracking in daylight conditions?
Lobi-put that in your signature. :)

Since in CoD Gs will influence the players head movement and targeting, the player will have to compesate the Gs moving the head this will be a major disadvantage for ones without headtracking. Maybe you can use the mouse interface to FreeTrack, 2 axis of movement (3 if you count the mouse scroll). If CoD use multiple joystick interface FreeTrack can use it too. FT just have to use criativity. The man ll be never slave if he uses the power of mind. :cool:

No way i ll buy CoD if i can not use any HT option, since i ll not play to be a targeting drone.

Really don't need to emulate mouse, etc. Freetrack has own interface, easy to suport. Using Freetrack with PPjoy, with less than 6DOF, and other workarounds really are not necessary at all. Oleg can use Freetrack interface and keep it simple.

TIR5+TrackClip Pro is currently $169.95 at their store

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/...e-catalog.html

Again, taking into account I'm also just one of the thousands of evil NP trolls, it comes down to how you want to roll. If I was new to head-tracking I'd probably try the FT option first to get an idea then decide if it's worth the money to have a convenient, higher performing unit instead of an awkward workaround as some people don't want to spend the time figuring out the maze of additional software, internet searching and tweaking required to get it working well on a particular game and OS.

As for this thread I think it's much ado about nothing really. All of the axes are there in the new sim and I'd bet the dwindling remainder of Lobi's sanity that FT will work just fine in CoD without an international televised press release by Oleg to confirm it.

I hope so. And I will have no worries if Oleg didn't come here and this lack of feedback meaning he will do the right thing.

No problem at all.

Well, i'm glad the discussion has reached a more civil tone because the more we all bitch and moan, the more the people with a different opinion get defensive or retaliate in kind and this drives the discussion away from the actual content of our posts.

Lobisomem, i too support the inclusion of a generic interface for free headtracking alternatives, especially since the basic functions are already there. There was a post by a guy who tried out CoD in one of the game shows and he said that you can control 3 of the 6 total axes with the mouse: the forward/backward motion is controlled by rolling the mousewheel, keeping the mouse wheel pressed and moving the mouse sideways enables to lean left/right and so on. I guess the traditional 2DOF axes are already controlled via the joystick hat, so the game seems to already have 6DoF built into it regardless if the player uses headtracking equipment or not.

The only thing we need to use FT or a similar program is to have these axes as a mappable option in the simulator's control panel.

However, i would urge you to refrain from attacking other posters with a different opinion, especially now that the discussion is finally getting somewhere and has stopped moving around in circles. There's no use going back to the way it was during the last 10-15 pages, W-R has calmed down and it seems he's not opposed to having a free head tracking alternative, he's just opposed to using the hacked NP dll, it would be nice of you to calm down as well and stop calling him a paid instigator. Let's all drop the conspiracy theories, stop focusing on the 2-3 points that we disagree on and start focusing on what we do agree on and being a bit reasonable, it will help us all get more options in the new simulator ;)

Yes, a generic interface for 6DOF is needed and easy to implement, just allow us to assign input device axis to head movement. Really simple.

Thank you Blackdog


All it would take gents, is a show of good faith





*Edit

Blackdog, I did forget to mention though, I did make my views " ~ he's not opposed to having a free head tracking alternative, he's just opposed to using the hacked NP dll, ~ " known well before the silliness began. I apologise for the actions of those who missed that.

The same NP says... but not before making that dll the only one devs use so the alternatives have no alternative.

Some in face of monopoly don't give a darn about "meanings" of fighting it... Is not "ethical"? Monopoly is not ethical either.

That dll was used cause it was available... NP seeing their position attacked induced the idea that the "gate", the interface the programs give headtracking solutions to the game is the main problem... and since their dll was in used at that time they locked it then convinced devs to use only their own encrypted "gate". Thus... forcing the others to take "other" route. Then complaining...

If a game is including all the interfaces available... and adds them as they are getting born by necessity then NP knows they have no chance. No one would give them 180$ on some fancy webcam with a chip when they could do the same with a 20$ webcam and the enormous (by the day) CPU power they already have.

Especially... when the alternative does not lock the client into a money milking product line, gives more options to the user and works better in general.


The problem is not that darn dll... As it is neither that darn "tracking clip". NP could still sell their 3point clip that works ok with FT but they know they cannot have a bussiness with just that 2$ clip sold to 40$ when that can be made if necessary by "Chinese" for 1$. Sure it can be made in house also... but it is meaningless to the issue.

Isn't it nice that you don't have to buy a mouse from just one manufacturer? Would you like to have same discussion about the "huge" effort went into developing the pathetic mouse interface? How about Joysticks? Or audiocards...


So...

NP TIR does their calculations by a chip and software
FT does its calculations only by software and is different, more complex in options and free.... opened also.

The interfaces

NP locked theirs
FT is free
(other interfaces exists)

Devs use only NP interface...


problem.


That is the issue of this thread.

Perfect!

And I can clearly understand why NP troll fakes jump in this kind of discussions screaming "HACK", but I saw a lot of others that I believe that are regular posters with a lot of misconceptions regars all this subject, and that is sad!

It's a matter that's important to all that like simms, and want better and cheaper options of hardware. It's sad that someone thing it's just a stupid "crusade" of some Freetrack users...

I have the money to buy the most expensive TIR, but I can buy a cheaper PS3eye cam, build a simple 3 point IR clip and have the same results. And as I like MP games, I will really enjoy if EVERYBODY can have some kind of HT solution, will be nice!

But I'm the wrong. Maybe I born in the wrong world... :cool:

there is no monopoly, Blaster you fool, and you know it... mouse look has been used before and you nailed it LoBi, a crusade by FT users...

You are the most pathetic NP fake that I ever saw. But all are equally limited in arguments and funny!

Cachya interfaces through mouse look, LoBi
Seeing Machines has an API out

Your "monopoly" claims are a product of your own imagination and your claims of "cheaper and better hardware" are a furphy.

In IL-2 there is no monopolly yet. This is the question of the initial poster of this thread. Will it be?

Cause in DCS A10c 64bit version it is. The only native headtracking interface is the encrypted one from NP.


Anyway... this throll is very funny :D . At some point acknowledges an argument then just flies over it like nothing happen.

have you actually tried using another program norulz? one that doesn't rely on the NP software to work?

[IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/zssf80.jpg[/IMG]

you read only even pages or what?

I take it then, you haven't tried?

Take whatever you want... I take you don't read what is replied to you.

I guess that just confirms you haven't and have no intention of trying

Now I understand why you were so confident when you said you don't work for NP... your dad does. I apologies if I troubled your youth... bye.

now you start on family?

Guys, i support the use of freetrack because i like having extra options for everybody. What i don't support is insults to further the cause.

The .dll is naturalpoint software, NP has the right to protect it and in that regard W-R is correct.
On the other hand, freetrack and other alternative headtracking interfaces would use their own API if the game developers provided a generic 6-axis interface for head tracking, this is where you are correct.

The way i see it neither of you is 100% right, you are both 50% correct and that's it. However, the more you resort to personal attacks and name calling, the more you weaken your position because you give the impression that it's either due to a certain obsession or an inability to present real arguments instead of hurling insults.

I support ALL head tracking methods, i want naturalpoint to stay in business (because if i have the money to spare i will buy one again, it's smoother and faster) and i want to see CoD work well with all of them.
That being said, the way some of the freetrack fans post in this thread is just as bad in trying to force an opinion on others as the trackIR fans they are supposed to be "fighting" against, lighten up already :rolleyes:

hm... I've just hopped to WolfRider's favorite source for "proving" FT's hacking of NP work... and the thing that amazes me that no one, so far, noticed that Freetrack works with it's own interface in IL2, according to that site. is it so hard to expect any less from COD, then?

Even that isn't needed in the specific case of Freetrack - it is easy to implement in any game, with OWN .dll, OWN interface.

A generic and open standard for HT will be great too!

And - please - don't feed so much the pathetic NP fake troll - these "marketing things" came in waves over forums to lead the threads to a close...

Let's just laugh!!! :-)

Just remember LoBiSoMeM, it takes a troll to know one.
As Blackdog said, namecalling doesn't help your cause.

If you believe that this cause is "mine", you really understand nothing...

People think small. People think that EVERYBODY is looking just for yourselves... That's not the way to see the HT question: the need to MORE OPTIONS than just TIR. It's will improve tha access to quality HT for much more consumers. As a MP player, I like to see a lot of players with good input devices.

The problem is that all us involved with these questions are tired of the same LIES of NP, the omission of game devs, closed topics, etc...

It's a shame that simms consumers don't get involved with these questions, really.

+1. Blackdog, Your posts are always so true and wise. :cool:

While i absolutely agree to the first part of this post, the second to last sentence is, afaik, still not proven except by hearsay.
The answer to the last sentence might be that not sooo many people share your view or just don't care at all.
I fully support Freetrack as long as it uses its own or other free interfaces to any game!

The second part of your sentence is so simple to be acomplished: when game devs USES Freetrack interface and not ONLY the encripted NP one, the world will be a nice place to live!

Think a minute about that, please. A lot of these discussions can't move further because people is blind to see where resides the "block" to generic full 6DOF HT interface...

As I said a lot: I',m not stupid. If I'm talking about this subject, is because anybody with a clear mind can see that the problem isn't "Freetrack uses NP interface", is the fact that game devs don't uses generic 6DOF interface.

I'll not enter in the circle of stupidity again, sorry. Maybe I'm rude, but I"m tired - really tired - of the same and old nonsense...

And you don't think it's "strange" that game devs usually don't came to these discussions?

Gimme a break, please...

What is strange is that NP gets all the bad PR for something the game-devs have, or better, haven't done.
The game-devs and their reasoning not to include a free interface, can't be reached or are unknown.
So the only known party, NP, must be guilty.

Sorry, that is the way it appears to me.

Please use the answer, that NP has influenced the game-devs of countless games, only with a proof.

Thank you

Why Oleg Maddox can't came to this discussion and write a word about the subject?

Think a minute, please. I'm in these discussions about Freetrack for sometime, and I know devs READ these topics but CAN'T answer sometimes...

Why? Maybe Oleg can write something about... What I know is that IL-2:CoD FOR SURE will have suport for the encripted NP interface... Why Oleg can't tell us if it will have too full 6dof suport for other HT devices/softwares?

Two of the "know parts" don't even can put your faces in these topics: devs and NP, to talk about alternative HT devices. And can I speak the true for you? I'm glad that here the devs isn't answer yeat, because in some forums I saw some devs with the same old lie about "hacks" and nonsense talking... After BIS put Freetrack suport into ArmAII, all this talking is meaningless, but still in the agenda of the NP trolls.

That way I can have some respect by the great team of Oleg Maddox, by now.

Speculation:
I suspect OM can't answer because of the Non-Disclosure Agreement 1C may have with NatrualPoint regarding CoD. Something in that agreement is likely preventing it like (i.e.,threat of being sued/breach of contract). Since we are not privy to the NDA, we Freetrack users have no way of providing the ultimate proof to robtek. We can only use deductive reasoning based on a decade of history and what's out there on the internet.

I hope we will have all options like:
TrackIR (3, 4 & 5), TrackIR 1 & 2, FreeTrack, GlovePIE, NewView and so on.

If we were obligated to use only TrackIR, so I think this is some kind of monopoly.
People who have TrackIR 1 & 2 will suffer too.
So, please, give us some options to choose.;)



santobr.

Could you go into more detail on the "how it works", please?


*Edit

There is a method that quite a few games use and have been for a while now which could be hooked into, and that is Mouse Look (aka Freelook). It contains all the elements people are asking for... and all that is needed is a method of hooking the webcam into that :)

sorry mate, I can't. just quoting "the source", that's all. personally I'm using the stuff for playing (IL2 1946 atm only), not for loosing sleep over the fact how it works.