Well luckily enough I happened to already have a Wii so i didn't have to buy that sperately. Still if I were to compare the cost of my FT setup vs even TIR4 then the FT setup would be 1/4 of the price.

No, I have not tired trackIR though I do someday intend to when I can afford to buy it. However I feel all these comparisons are pointless - I would expect trackIR to work better than a home solution but that doesn't mean I think developers should favour one over the other.

Ideally I would like a standard interface for headtracking as it would save developers time, allow for real consumer choice, stop workarounds or hacks that have appeared since NP encrypted the API and stop the pointless TIR vs FT threads popping up all the time.

Best of all I think headtracking would be supported in more games because there would be more people in support of headtracking asking developers to implement.

I think i'm going to stop now for good, because even i'm starting to repeat myself.

EDIT: WR, i'm not even going to bother responding - same replies from you as the whole way through the thread. "it's a hack, it's a hack, it's a hack" is not an argument. "Prove it's not a hack" is also not an argument as the onus would be for you to prove that it is. Our opinion on this matter differs and it would be pointless for either of us to continue.

consensus was reached very early on in the discussion about alternative forms of headtracking.




that would be nice and hopefully, notwithstanding the way FT went about it, the consensus becomes adopted.

GIGANTIC lie ever.

Proof it! That's the point:

- NP pretends that they "own" HT solution for games, simply as that!

Freetracks does UNIQUE calcutations, uses a vast array of cameras, have A LOT of tweak tools and provide a lot of output options!

NP dislikes a lot Freetrack becuse it's a BETTER software than all NP does so far. That's because they request FT to remove support for NP hardware. And that's why NP keep the broken record of "reverse engineering", as if nobody can do the math behind provide 6DoF HT with some 2D image as source. Pathetic.

Stop the lies, loser! Be a man! :-)

Better a man, than a troll like yourself LoBi. this is my final post on the matter, thanks for being relevant and adultlike in your responses Vicinity, I appreciate that behaviour. Wolf_Rider, I think you should join us and leave this troll by itself.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/geek...x445-68506.jpg

http://www.findagrave.com/forums/use...5262-troll.jpg

@ LoBi...

Prove it? run FT without TIR files being used

how about you prove it is using those files? make a youtube movie for the eternity showing how it is (ab)using them... :)

Read back through the threads... or just ask LoBi.

Surely this is the bone of contention.

Quite clearly FT can run without using TIR files but no developer has yet to accommodate this.

Nobody disputes that FT does use TIR files but that is simply because no game developer has incorporated FT native support.

Bohemia Interactive did for Armed Assault 2.

Anyway, we've seen Oleg say that joystick axes will be able to control the camera in CoD, which is clearly the most open and sensible solution that any head-tracking device could use. What remains to be seen is whether all 6 axes will be available for use or whether 6DOF will be artificially restricted to a few head-tracking solutions.

Yes, that is the bone on contention



ArmaII, as mentioned before... also mentioned before is FSX through its Simconnect


Thank you, but, even with support, many users pass the support over in favour of using TIR files.


@ Grunch

Joystick or mouselook?