fair enough



there are some steps which must be followed in order for it work though... surely you could give a bit of a run down on that part? surely?

I had a talk about the .ddl and legal issues with that buddy of mine who coded his own linux head tracker. Since a big part of linux in general is how distribution and lincenses work out, apparently all it takes is a few questions in the relevant forums before a bunch of lawyers will flock to answer your questions. He was worried about possible legal implications too so he did some preliminary research at the start of his project.

So, first of all you don't need the naturalpoint dll file, you can code your own dll with your own formulas and calculations to give your headtracking software the spatial awareness it needs to function. That's what my buddy did, he didn't use any naturalpoint files, he didn't reverse engineer anything, he just sat down and coded his own set of calculations.

Now, each game with headtracking support expects to see a key in your registry that tells it where the headtracking dll is. This is a simple "make a call and wait for the reply" request, the game just wants to find a set of instructions that translate movement of dots on a camera into 3d positional data.
It doesn't have to be a specific type of camera, neither does it have to be a naturalpoint file or a specific set of calculations or way of doing them. You could code it in XYZ coordinates or polar coordinates if you wanted to and it would make no difference to the game, as long as it knows that it has to look in a specific folder to receive 3d positional data.
So, you just point it to your own dll instead of a naturalpoint dll, that's all there is to it. You do this by editing your registry to point at your dll instead of the trackIR dll. This happens automatically when you install freetrack or another alternative.

It's obvious this does not qualify as hacking anything that belongs to naturalpoint, it's actually your own PC that you are hacking.



So, legally speaking, there is only one point of dispute remaining but that also seems covered by certain laws.

It seems the only copyrighted parts of the code are the IDs of the games: whenever you run a game, trackIR checks to see if it's natively supported (which is required for 6DoF and this is why people go this route instead of mouselook emulation).
The way it happens is that there's a specific numerical ID that each game with native trackIR support transmits to the trackIR software. The software sees for example 0101 and thinks "ah ok, this is IL2 sturmovik", so it proceeds to load the profile you have set up for this game, etc.
If you want to have 6DoF with an alternative headtracker and the game doesn't have a generix 6-axes interface like ArmA2, you need to incorporate these IDs into your dll. Even if your dll is fully capable of 6DoF, unless the game supports 3rd party alternatives it will only work in 6DoF if it does the "transmit/receive ID" thing with the dll. So, that's the one part of copyrighted naturalpoint stuff, which you need for 6DoF support only, a list of the game IDs with 6DoF capability.

However, there seems to be a legal clause under the US copyright law that prevents this from being legally enforceable. It goes along the lines of "if a piece of software code is the only possible way for a certain function to work even with alternative hardware, then that code cannot be copyrighted" and it's an obvious case of legislation against monopoly.

I think naturalpoint knows that keeping other dll files from using the published game ID list is legally non enforceable, they know all this better than we do for sure, and that's why they encrypted their new software instead of trying to fight a legal battle that can't be won.
Encrypting their API is perfectly within their rights and it means that whenever a new game that supports headtracking is released, it's game ID will remain secret and not get published: with the old API, you would run an update on your trackIR software (which you can download for free anyway) to get the updated list of supported games, open the dll and get the game ID from the list, with the new API you can't browse it to get the new IDs.

However, keeping the ID list a secret is still against the US copyright law apparently (the legal way seems to be to encrypt the software but publish the game ID list), but instead of naturalpoint having to sue the 3rd party developers for using the IDs and trying to go against what the law states, by encrypting the API they have thrown the glove back to them: now, if 3rd party developers want to know the game IDs it's them who have to take the case to court. They might very well win if they did so (after all, it's supposed to be part of US copyright law), but no hobbyist programmer will spare the expenses to do it.

So, a stalemate has been forced and both NP and developers of 3rd party alternatives have settled into a situation where NP can legally do nothing about alternative headtracking in older games, while 3rd party headtracking groups can do nothing about newer games unless the game developers provide a generic interface. :-P

So... why don't developers publish that ID number for their game?

Anyway... I didn't got the idea completely... I guess I need a drawing or something.

You have:

Game
Interface
Registry
HT Software

Why is the dll in the game folder? Why is it still looking for dll location in registries? Why then people replace that NP dll with own dll's that just have the same name?

Isn't the same thing with Joystick interfaces? Why is that open and anyone can build a joystick that is universally compatible?

Joystick interfaces are included I think in DirectImput from DirectX... right? Why... no DirectImput for 6DoF headtracking?

excellent, and I bet he's chuffed at his achievement

More good news, and I'm sure if this is the approach to and method of having alternative tracker go about their business, there should be no call from any entity to kick up any complaint. This is the way it should be done, though it does come back to the sort after inclusion. Put the hand up, get in contact with game developer and make the pitch, ask for inclusion and do it with a product that relies on its own bits and pieces... no fixers/ no swapping files around and no infringements.

not necessarily, because others files are required to apply a "fix" first

so, they know about Mouse look but find the TIR software route easier?

as you know, Mouse Look gives the 6DoF



Use Mouse Look or PPJoy (as some already do), etc... the "alternatives" are there. Cachya hooked in through Mouse Look successfully, iiuc.


That then is probably something which should be done... trouble is, it would probably send all parties broke and push developers away from tracking altogether

There is no need to, when there is already an alternative method of access and would it be so hard for FT (as the example) to create it's own game ID list?), thereby showing good faith.

If it is 6DoF which the cry, there are 6DoF available with Mouse Look, that being Yaw, Pitch, Zoom, strafe, lean, jump and crouch. So all the posturing, vrtually, is rendered moot. Now it is understood that not all games offer the full 6Dof but then some sims, aren't set up 3D modelling wise for the full 6DoF themselves.

well until it actually does go to court (if it does), as with anything legal before that goes to court, all you have is only an opinion. :-p

You also have NP acting on what they obviously have as legal advice and what FT, etc obviously have as legal advice. As to whether all parties are relying on genuine legal advice or that of knowledgable sounding mates, is a matter for the courts.

they're all very good questions..


why can't the alternatives developer's create their game lists/ ID's etc?

anyone can build a joystick, yes, anyone can also hook up a camera through the PPJoy ap., apparently

has anyone actually approached Microsoft about it?

Nice post. Makes perfect sense.

until it is looked at and the missing bits and inaccuracies are pointed out;)

I suppose that any premium or high profile software developer would expect the inclusion of alternative interfaces to have support and continual improvements. NP are a professional manufacturer and support their products/software through continued updates, improvements and also manufacture the hardware for a total solution. FT relies on donations, there have been no further updates since V2 and FT requires the user to mod/adapt and manufacture the hardware (with very mixed performance results for some). I would prefer to use FT in any software that supports Headtracking but it would also be understandable if a developer were to limit headtracking to NP given its support and continual developments as a bespoke product guaranteed to function.

Okay, for a moment I allow you to exist.

Do you realize that your two years of posting on this board on this subject has brought it to the forefront and likely aided in getting the NaturalPoint business model flushed down the toilet? So, W-R, you are not the enemy. You are our friend. Freetrack users worldwide thank you for your services. Ah, I gotta go. Run out of time again as I am very busy. But before I do, I recommend you change your virtual name at some point. NP guys might come looking for you. Good day. :)

thank you for allowing me to exist but what has your permission, let alone your statement, got to do with the topic?

at least now, we see a clear picture of what really is going on behind FT. Why should any legitimate developer support a product which appears to have that kind of intent?



That's a very, very good comment you've made there on current or continued support, See

Is this guy for real??

Of course I'm real. See for yourself. I posted a picture of myself at response #280 of this thread. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=280

Well, actually Blackdog_kt's post shows the law is very clear. It is NP and not FT breaking the law. You don't have to go to court to see how the law works, case studys obviously make things a lot clearer but that's not going to happen until another company decides to get in on the head tracking market.

Also, mouselook is not 6dof - mouselook moves in two axis x and y.

Actually FT is at 2.2 something atm and future updates are still planned. If there was a standard interface for headtracking in games anyone could come into the market. NP obviously don't want that though because you can charge for much more your product when there is no competition. Most of their updates are just to allow you to use their software on the most recently supported games and that is only because of the encryption they added to prevent other headtrackers entering the market and as they see it, using their hardwork (of getting developers to support headtracking).

What really should happen is for developers to leave headtracking options for all, rather than only supporting TrackIR and allowing NP to keep their monopoly.

I completely agree, I have both but prefer FT, unfortunately, the developers and their views or intentions have never been made public regards a definitive 'yes' or 'no' to 'can we use our FT set-ups in COD?' which was one of the original questions by the poster.

CoD Release is only a matter of weeks away and that question will finally be answered.

What I really don't understand is why ArmAII and O:A can have TIR and Freetrack suport, BIS devs can talk about the subject, and here we speculate a lot of things...

Why? Someone of 1C staff can please answer me that question?

It quite possibly would be if there are no alternatives, but, alternatives have shown



You mention one of those alternatives here and Mouse Look (aka Freelook) offers the full 6DoF



last maintenance release was on 200 Nov 2008



I don't see anyone as disputing that


[QUOTE=vicinity;224950]

NP obviously don't want that though because you can charge for much more your product when there is no competition. Most of their updates are just to allow you to use their software on the most recently supported games and that is only because of the encryption they added to prevent other headtrackers entering the market and as they see it, using their hardwork (of getting developers to support headtracking).

[QUOTE=vicinity;224950]


Many have agreed that a software author has every right to protect the work and efforts



refer back to Mouse Look comments

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, mouselook is 2dof, not 6.


Yes, and what has that got to do wtih what i've posted?


Yes, i'm making a point that I think that it is how it should be.

Yes, they have a right to protect their work and efforts, but I don't think they should stop anyone from trying to enter the market, and that they should make it easier for developers and gamers by supporting a standard way of providing headtracking i.e. like we have with joysticks, as others have already posted in this thread.

refer back to the that not being 6dof comment earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom

What do you pay when you buy track ir? I'm not talking about the camera and the clip. Every Chinese company can make that for 5$. You pay software.
Is it worth the money? It cost's 3 times as much as COD will. Is the code more complicated then COD? I don't think so. Why other company's don't sell their HT product but make it free you ask? Because they have some dignity and are not trying to sell you bottled air. Why devs include only track ir then?
Use your logic.
We can bit.h as much as we like, but until the devs realize, that track ir is not the only solution that work, we are wasting our time.

Um, for what it's worth, here's my onion.

I'd like freetrack, or any other variant, to be really good.

I bought TrackIR4 when really drunk, but have never regretted it. It's brilliant, and does what it says on the tin, as some UK readers may appreciate.

Clearly, NP ask for as much money as they can. They are a business, and so try to get as much cash from their users as they will pay. I can understand that, despite wishing their product didn't cost as much.

And, er... is there anything else to say? If TrackIR is too pricey, use an alternative. Better still, develop an alternative. But mouthing off about it doesn't really do much, other than perhaps encourage others to develop said alternative.

Maybe if people spent less time posting and more time developing, they could create an alternative too.

Yaw, Pitch, Zoom, Strafe, Lean, Crouch and Jump looks an awful lot like 6DoF



It is a clear response to what you posted; "Actually FT is at 2.2 something atm and future updates are still planned." ... the last update was 2.5 years ago



and you have agreement on that, so is there a problem?



excellent



"they" aren't trying to stop anyone from entering the market, Vicinity..."they are trying to protect their work, their efforts and you agreed earlier that protecting the work and efforts was okay



Thank you, you've just decribed Yaw, Pitch, Zoom, Strafe, Lean, Crouch and Jump







*Edit

@ Novotny... well said

Why would they waste the time to be later excluded out of the game/market?
And be sure, if track ir would cost as much as it's worth, i would be the first one to buy it. That's around 50$. Why it costs as much as it does? You said it yourself. Because people pay. And why? God knows. Maybe they are all using they credit card while drunk.:)

What?
NP is a company, you now; employees with salaries all kind of different costs - while FT is just a bunch of geeks who program for free in their spare time. You can't compare that.

With that attitude you better grow your own vegetables, otherwise you would help somebody make a profit.

Well, I think I said that it is as good as you imagine it is. Which it is. Thus, they can charge an amount which will cover their costs and still entice people to buy it. Which I presume they do, as they are still in business.

If an apple would cost 15$ i would plant my own tree. I hope you understand. If you think it's worth it, good for you. I hope you have fun. But don't accuse me of being a bad person if i'm not willing to pay that much.

Well then, plant that bloody tree.

I only understand that you have no idea of business - zero.

Usually what happens there is, is the neighbour's tree gets raided first

You all know where you can go. :grin:
There is a whole forest around, but you can hang on your own branch for all i care Mr. businessman.
Personal insults huh? Didn't you say that, that is the last resort when you know you are wrong W-R?

said the grasshopper to the ant (Aesop) :)

And now you're going all bobby dylan on us. I appreciate the humour, though. :D

It's not really a big issue, is it? No one is getting shafted. Again, I hope that those with web cams can get or create some software that works for them. I cannot hate NP for having done it very well and then trying to make a living out of it. I hope we can all come to that conclusion.

Am I not allowed to have a personal opinion about it? Or is this a topic for track ir users only?

You control x and y with mouse look, that's 2dof, two axis you can control. To have 6dof you need to be able to control all six which can't be done with just mouselook!

I said that Freetrack was on version 2.2something in response to someone saying it was 2.0. I also said that there are future updates planned, as can be seen on their website. That had nothing to do with how long ago its last update was.

They are trying to but that's an opinion, I think by encrypting how information from the game is accessed it is clear NP are doing their best to keep the monopoly the have on the market, if they would accept that they can't be the only ones in the market forever it would make it easier for devlopers to provide headtracking to more people. It's clear neither of us will change our position on this so I don't think there is much point in arguing it any further.

I'm trying to make you understand the difference in 6dof and the 2dof using a mouse to look around provides, i'm not really sure why i'm bothering though.

Oh god, no. By all means, have your opinion, it's entirely valid. I hope you don't think we were being rude. I just feel differently, and voiced that onion in (I hope) a reasonable manner.

So do I, Novotny




*Edit


@ Vicinity... NP doesn't have a monopoly on the market, this has already been gone over, many, many times and fair enough you tried to correct the FT version #. I have pointed out, as other/s have that the last release was 2.5 years ago. Mouse Look is Mouse Look, Vicinty, and yes there is a difference between 2Dof and 6Dof, that part is clear. However, Mouse Look is available for 6DoF, you've proved this yourself.

Incidently - you have a pm, Wolf Meister.

Thank you. And I said that if you enjoy track ir and it's at reasonable price for you I don't have a problem with that.
Oh, and rude users are the trademark of this forum. ~S~

When you say gone over, you mean you've stated it isn't as fact, giving an example of others in the market. Monopoly doesn't mean that there is NO competition at all.

From Wikipedia:
"In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

Now, explain how Natural Point is not a monopoly?

Yes but I didn't even comment about when the last update was, it isn't relevant.

No, i've said mouselook doesn't do 6dof and you've just come back with "yes it does" again and again. Give an example of a game where you can look around in 6dof using only a mouse.

It has been done to death already Vicintiy... read the thread through



It is relevant to the point made earlier on support



Mouse Look (aka Freelook) involves keyboard and mouse and I've described by name the method of such.

thanks for the PM, Novotny. I do hope my reply, as limited as it is, helps

I have read the whole thread through. You are an expert at not actually answering any questions.

If NP have a monopoly, it's only because they're quite good at what they do. They don't force anyone to change their game code to ensure other solutions couldn't work - seriously, why would they bother with that? They almost certainly do ask developers to incorporate their work - but isn't that perfectly reasonable?

If my 'xxxx your pants' add-on was really good and accurately gave users a sense of filling their pants with faeces, why would I not ask Oleg et al to allow it too work? Shouldn't anyone who desires it not have the option to sense their pants filling up with crap?

For all who are interested, so far, the beta developer's SKU involves my mate standing behind you pissed out of his mind with a Samurai sword. It's working really good.

That comment has nothing to do with the topic, Vicinity.
If you have read the thread through as you say you have, you would have seen all the points made, both for and against.

It's all here: http://naturalpointofview.blogspot.com/

one side of it is there, Stipe and the other side is, there is no monopoly because there are alternatives... Mouse Look (aka Freelook) is one of them

Even just briefly looking over the supplied link, I am horrified by the lengths some people will go to in order to vilify something they have some sort of vendetta against.

If only this energy could be directed toward something useful to mankind.

Off topic: Thanks, Wolf_Rider.

@Novotny
How do you know this? Are you privy to the NDA between NP and 1C? Of course not. So, you are literally talking crap here.:)

@Everyone
6dof for your mouse is irrelevant. The mouse and the head have to be independent. You can't sit in the back of a stuka, fly the plane, move your head around and shoot bandit on your six. You need the mouse to aim the gun while you move your head. Freetrack allows you to do this. Mouseylook, who the hell knows or cares except W-R.

I see this thread is now one of the top on the board again! Also, I see that the date for release of CoD may be delayed. Coincendence? I leave you to speculate.;)

You are right. This is one of the alternatives. Only one or better so far the only one.I'm sure suddenly there will be some hack claims. And where is that patent everyone is yapping about?

Aren't track ir users doing the exact same thing here, in this topic?
Same deal, just on the opposite river bank.

Ok, I do love a bit of surreal funny but I seem to be jesting with those who are living there full time.

I haven't claimed to know anything; I've merely made suppositions based on reasonable conclusions.

That's all I have to add.

Edit: Stipe, I didn't say who was horrifying me. Might be everyone.

Thanks Stipe

Your quote button isn't working correctly.:-P
If it doesn't work in the game the same as track ir it's not really an alternative. If you prove, that it will work in COD, well I will use it and I'll buy you a bear for finding a cheaper solution for me.

No, it isn't irrelevent and there only has to be an alternative. The calls have only ever been "we want 6DoF access". The advices in response have always been, come up with a method of accessing the 6DoF, but do it without violating anyone elses' copyrights



left mouse click for fire weapon?

Damnit, I'm starting to get into this.

You say that NP encypted their own software? And that's bad? I do hope you are posting from a Linux set-up. And if you are, are you using a CPU from either AMD or Intel? YOU TOTAL BASTARD.

And if not, have you hand-crafted the motherboard? And the GPU? Or the RAM? Is it all totally open source?

Am I making any sort of point?

You can't encrypt something that you don't have a patent for it. Or am I crazy? I really don't know, that's why I'm asking.
That's like saying: oh, let's say Nintendo made the first video game. Are they the only one allowed to make video games?
NP weren't the first one that made HT. You can't take something, make it better, have no patent and say, this is all mine.
Who made the first wheel? How come we have so many different company's making wheels? They all steal by that logic.
Maybe they bought the patent?

It is for the people who bought trackir 1 & 2 and who now forced to upgrade and buy a new version if they want to get headtracking in the new games with encryption.

I bought a ford escort in 1987. Why can't I have their latest release for free?

And Stipe - they only protected their code, not the concept.

Aren't you guys starting to get it?

To be honest there is I feel some may have a confusion between copyright and patent and as mentioned earlier, they are two seperate entities.





*Edit

Vicinity, AGP died out, gameport died out, floppy drives are close to extinction and so is the P2 connection for mice and keyboards... Microsoft don't offer programming support for their FFB joystick in the (at least) last two operating system releases. where is the out cry there?

Fair point. So all headtracking solutions, not just freetrack used NP code? Did you see the list NP feels that they are stealing from them? Even the ones that were around before NP? So, did NP steal from someone else in the past?

I just hope we're starting to get through to these chaps. I am totally for consumer rights, but they seem to have some really weird idea about what they're entitled to.

could you present the list you're refering to, please Stipe?

Again, I don't know what NP do to protect their code, but it would not be worth their while to try and stop any code that did not infringe upon their copyright.

Let's be completely frank: this is about the cost of TrackIR. If it didn't cost as much as it did, you wouldn't be screaming about it. Coca-Cola protect their intellectual rights more vociferously than perhaps anyone on the planet, but you don't care about that because you can afford it.

Seriously, why don't you channel some of this energy into something worth fighting for?

You are right. My bad. I wasn't aware while reading. GlovePIE, NewView, tir_attack, JTrackIR and ZoomTracker
Correction: "they are doing the same thing with no problems."
What ever that might mean. It's really hard to know what's true. Are they all using NP code or NP uses their code since some of the above are older than NP based on info from web?

No, and I wouldn't expect them to provide me a new trackir 5 if I had one of the old ones either, I would however appreciate them more as a customer if they continued to support their product. It's the same with games, if a company continues to support it and remove bugs etc. their customers will be more happy. I would buy a trackir tomorrow if I could afford it but I wouldn't be happy if they decided to stop supporting the product to encourage sales of their latest one.

Note: I am just saying why some people might not be happy about it, and not what they as a company should/shouldn't do.

Novotny, NP has every right to encrypt their code. You don't understand the issue. This is about NP creating a barrier to a market via their NDA with 1C to maintain an artificial monopoly. Ten years ago, when they really were the only player, they had every right to make tons of money as a monoply. That was ten years ago! There are now many equivalent substitutes to TrackIR. This is the natural progression, economic theory. For example, everyone use to drive model A and model T Fords in the US and ford was a monoply. Now we all drive all kinds of cars. I direct you back to Blackdog's last post. He has a firm grasp on the issue imo and I believe he has good reputation on this board, whereas, mine may, admittedly, be questionable at this point.:grin:

As i said, the fact that one sees a naturalpoint value in the registry or a similarly named dll doesn't mean it's the actual naturalpoint software, it's how one makes their custom-coded dll work with older titles: just "tell" the PC that it's NP when it's really not, because NP is the only thing the game will recognize. This is not equal to using NP software by any means, it's actually more like using an emulation or virtual machine tool like DosBox to run my old games from within windows.
Hence i stand by my opinion that if anything is getting "hacked" when using alternative methods, that is my own PC first and foremost.

To know if FT or any other tracking software is actually using NP files, you'd have to open both in some programming environment and look at them side by side. In fact, when my trackIR died and i started experimenting with freetrack, i checked that registry value and the dll has a different name. Until someone provides me with enough information that it is in fact a renamed NP file, i can't pass judgment on whether FT uses NP software. Telling my PC that the dll is NP to make it work doesn't mean it is true, i'm just instructing my PC to work with an alternative instruction set.

Long story short, we'll have to ask a lawyer or a programmer if we need more details :-P

I think we understand the sentiment Vicinity but you've got to keep in mind that with progress and further deveopment comes upset for some. Me? I like the idea of floppies but I can adapt and move on. It won't be long before IDE interface and platter HD's are relegated to the dustbin of history either.

{I don't drink coca cola, or similar, as it is just cr@p)


*Edit


Finally, you agree NP are allowed to encrypt their code - yeehar. It needs to be understood though there is no monopoly though... proven by Mouse Look (aka Freelook).

And... relax.

I'm glad to see us all cooling off a bit. It is a bit silly, getting so angry about something so unimportant as gaming devices, isn't it? Especially as none of us have any vested interest.

Stipe, forgive me, but I haven't quite understood your last point.

Edit whilst posting:: I just noted Madblaster's response, and as such should read Blackdog's post, even though it's bound to take me into bloody March.

Edit:: Hi Blackdog! ignore the above ;)

Sorry M8, not my native language. All off the head tracking solutions from above are supposedly using the NP code, but NP has no problem with it.
Some off those HT are supposed to be around longer than NP track ir. If that is true, how come they are using NP code if NP wasn't around when they wrote their code. Hence, NP stole from them.
If I speculate, just for fun-The creators of freetrack are laid off employees from NP. That's why the feud between them. :)

Well - and I'm entirely guessing here - perhaps NP used obvious and well known coding routines in the basics of their code, whilst their clever stuff existed at a higher level.

A bit like building a house. You can't copyright the concepts of foundations and brickwork, however you could sue someone if they knocked off a replica of your pride and joy, 'Cool House 1.0'.

I hope that makes some sense, I'm totally guessing and trying to get a feel for the issues.

NP doesn't seem to want their software used in such fashion though


You know full well that unless NP software is installed on the machine, Freetrack can't use NP anything to access what it wants. The clear example of this is FSX. It has its Simmconnect, yet users pan that in favour of using the FT through NP route... this has been mentioned before.

The problem is that I still don't know what NP have copyrights for? Track ir?
Then freetrack would violate that if it was called track ir-xxx.
What else could they have copyright for? math? IR leds?
W-R
Not trying too nitpick, but the difference between "they don't like seeing that someone is using it that way" and "they are not allowed to do that" is huge.

1)Where did I ever say that I did not believe that NP can't encrypt their code? This is an assumption you made. But I don't care. Assume what you want W-R.

2)Mouse Look is not an equivalent substitute to Freetrack. Do you even play Il-2 anymore? Again, the Stuka example. The mouse needs to be independent of the 6DoF. Currently in existing game you use the 6DoF axis to look around with your head. The mouse moves the gun with the mouse axis'. You are suggesting using the mouse axis for the head with Mouse Look. Well then what. Do I just stare at the gun? How do I aim and shoot? Sure, I can fire with the left mouse button. But how do I aim? It won't work. But Freetrack works. I already know that. I would like to use it with CoD.

AFAIK, copyright applies to software, patent applies to hardware.

Well, they could protect any aspect of their code - which would include maths. They could also protect how their code interfaces with their hardware - that seems quite reasonable to me.

I just don't understand why people think NP are evil. No one has produced any argument to sway me, and again, I think it's down to cost, at the end of the day. I wish it was cheaper too.

Edit:: Masterblaster, I just noted your final sentence. With respect, I think you are misunderstanding the legality of the points being argued.

Please don't think I'm trolling or that I want to fight. I just want to learn and understand.
"They can defend any part of their code". Which part? What if they are trying to protect a piece of code that is essential for any head tracking software to work and that is generic or the basis of any code?
That's why i would like to see copyright proof of what they feel is theirs. At the end of the day, almost everyone can afford track ir. But for the quality not becouse it's the only option. I bought simped rudder pedals, again, becouse it's a quality product that will last me for years.

The only point with that last sentance is to clarify that legal rights protection on software is called a copyright and legal right protection on hardware is called a patent. Not meant as commentary on the arguement. I just see the words being thrown around in the discussion interchangeably and they are really not interchangeable. But if I'm missing something, please point it out.

Mouse look is an alternative to naturalpoint


there is a little thing called DEVELOPING, that could well assist you in the situation you want there. Mouse Look (aka Freelook) is an alternative, the method of hooking into it to suit the needs to be arrived at... this has been mentioned before.


I seem to remeber that was the case anyway in the prehacked version of il2 (I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember, even with TIR proper). I haven't run il2 since it was hacked ;)



no body is saying FT shouldn't be used in a clean form... remove the need for NP files and your more than likely set.


basically correct and Trade Marks are for trade names and logo's, etc.

Novotny, If the maths was copyrighted, it would have no effect unless it could be proven that the maths was copied... Any person wanting to make a head tracker could come up with their own code (from the existing, published methods), without any worry about infringing anyone's copyright.

I have to sign off. You may have noted that I'm from Belfast, and I have almost finished an entire bottle of Scotch. Yes, I am that drunk, however I'm not so stupid that I can't spell.

I've enjoyed our discussions, and will of course be back for more tomorrow. Or later this day. Depends on how you look at it.

Au Revoir!, and for god's sake, look for the good, not the bad, you silly bastards.

That's what seems to be getting to the real crux of the problem and that is the quality of the TIR system. True, that some people may have a hard time of affording it, but they seem to have their computers and their monitors and other hardwares, etc, as well as their beers and iphones.

yes! exactly! Hi 5

I can afford it, but don't want too. It's not good enough price/performance wise and because they are trying to fight the whole world.
Top reason is this:

Forced obsolescence
Gamasutra: "How quickly does this sort of tech become outdated?"
NauralPoint: "As fast as we can make it outdated?"
All TrackIR cameras work with the OptiTrack SDK and the latest 64bit drivers but not the latest software (although TrackIR 2 and SmartNav 1 are disabled in the driver INF file).
TrackIR 1 & 2 cameras excluded in v3 software and higher, limiting them to 2DOF.
TrackIR 1 & 2 cameras excluded from encrypted interface introduced in v4.1.036 software and used by newer games.
TrackIR 3 cameras require purchase of software license for 6DOF with v4 software.
TrackIR 3 cameras and below excluded by v5 software.

Removed functionality
Camera image cropping removed in v3 software and above.
Mouse emulation moved into separate executable (TIRMouse.exe) and restricted to games only in v4 software and above.
Mouse override delay removed in v4 software and above.
Mouse button hotkeys removed in v4 software and above.
TrackIR 4 and above not back compatible with software v3 and below.
More precise single point 2DOF tracking removed in v5 software.
Camera orientation control removed in v5 software.
Preferred object size removed in v5 software.
Recording and playback removed in v5 software.

I don't want to buy a new version every year or two.

.

There is the exact crux of the problem



to put the quoted excerpt into its proper persective...

How many versions of TrackIR have there been, and what advances have there been in the technology?

We've released 4 models so far, with continuous improvements. Increased responsiveness thanks to higher frame rates, better smoothing algorithms, and resolution enhancements. We've widened the field of view, so users can enjoy a broader range of motion. At first TrackIR was just emulating a mouse, so it was a big jump to have it supported in games as it's own separate input, and another big jump to add full 6DOF support (because then TrackIR could do a lot of things that just weren't possible with mouse-look). We've also done a lot to improve light filtering and tracking algorithms, so you don't have to worry about interference from reflections that occur on your glasses, or a shiny forehead, etc.

How quickly does this sort of tech become outdated?

As fast as we can make it outdated? It's tricky to nail down from a tech perspective, because the system is potpourri of special components, carefully combined for max performance at min cost. We don't talk about it as much, but alongside the hardware design and software improvements, we've been honing the ways we effectively acquire and mix components. I think gyros and accelerometers are already outdated, since they just can't guarantee the level of fidelity that optical offers, but they still seem to be popping up in the latest console controllers because they've come down in price. This cost-effective mix keeps everything moving very fast.

From a broader perspective, excellent 6DOF tracking without markers of any kind may be possible within 5 years. This seems like the Holy Grail at the moment for any optical tracking device. But we doubt that quest will end up with a solution that's as fast, precise, and affordable as TrackIR. For example, we've improved on our initial device for 5 years now, but that first version still offers more precise tracking data than an EyeToy. For game players, motion tracking is already available and will just be refined with different tech. So we're working to stay well ahead of the curve behind the scenes, and reinforce that premium head tracking isn't going away any time soon. "


http://gamasutra.com/view/news/10729...on_Tracker.php



all that must mean you are running a very old system then?

That's certainly some extrapolating you've done there




it is an alternative..argue it any way you like, it is an alternative

develop it properly and you could probably knock yourself out

mouse look is an alternative, regardless of how much twisting or inferring you may attempt

and I've been waiting for CoD since then, plus hoping to keep up with developments. You don't have a problem with that, do you??

it was about then the sim was hacked (iirc)... before the hack, TIR only had 3DoF support (iirc) as the cockpit 3d modelling wasn't set up for the full 6Dof... leaving gaps and missing parts in the model (iirc)

W-R I'm just waiting for you to start:" how do you afford food?" "do you eat old meat?"
everything isn't related. Unless you want it to be. Or make it. Why do you have the need to incorporate every single thing into a head tracking discussion is beyond me.
No, i dont have very old system. It's not new either. It get's the job done. I upgrade things around me if they are that much better then previous version and it's worth the money.
I said track ir is not. For me anyway.
And all this is pointless. Devs needs to include freetrack dll. If they don't it's theirs fault not NP. You simply don't buy the game. Period.

Guess your not up to the challenge tonight, so I won't push it. Well anyway, you've done a good job on the post count today. Again, we thank you for your services. Keep up the good work! I'm out.

don't have to ;) you've already said you can afford ~ ;) ;)



Last time I looked, it is a head tracking thread. Am I missing something :confused:



the gamasutra article you mentioned seems to say 4 is better than 3 which was better than 2 and that again was better than 1. It seems like like development and progress in action... just like Intel and AMD, include nVidia and ATI in that as well ;)



Fair and reasonable... the NP software, or parts of it, wouldn't be for you either then?



the call is to provide access for other headtracking, not just one particular product.



I've got every release ;)




*Edit


None of that however has any bearing on the topic at hand, Blaster... the topic at hand is the inclusion of other forms/ variations of headtracker. do you agree?

I will keep using freetrack and I hope NP get's hacked out of this world.There
Just so you will have someone to bark at. Good night. :)

You have been serving up MouseLook as a viable replacement for Freetrack throughout this thread. It is not. Unless you can prove otherwise, it is red herring suggestion that you make. Good night.

Crikey, and it wasn't that long ago either... the alternative to the NP 6DoF is the Mouse Look (aka Freelook)









now that that is done and dusted :-P ...

should we get back to the consensus reached on having alternative (clean) forms of headtracking included?

No. We want to hack and steal. :grin:
What else do you want? We went about legal solutions and generic interface at least ten times. All was said. What now? How is the weather in the land down under?

Naturalpoint themselves admit it is clean in this edit to Freetrack wikipedia page:

" In the new FreeTrack releases the copyrighted material has generally been removed from the binaries"

From horses mouth.

Surprised, are we? :-P



That's the thing we will agree to disagree on then. If i alter my registry to make my PC think that "blackdog's awesome headtracking software" is naturalpoint's dll file, that doesn't change the fact that what i'm using is in truth NOT naturalpoint software, with no software of NP being used in any way or form. What's used is windows registry editor. If sometime in the future ms sidewinder sticks got blacklisted by the flightsim developers i'd do something similar and tell my PC that my joystick is in fact a generic model to keep it working.

The workaround is a cause of the restriction, not the other way around. Plus as long as the workaround doesn't use copyrighted bits, apart from the game IDs i mentioned before which according to law should not be copyrightable in the first place, it's perfectly legal.
I don't get what the fuss is all about.

Actually i don't know it, that's what i said in my previous post. Unless someone opens the files in a programming tool and goes through the code comparing bit by bit to tell me how it's done, i can't pass judgment either way. Maybe FT's dll is a hacked knock off of NP's dll, maybe it's not, but i won't pass judgment when i have no proof whatsoever either way.

Maybe i wasn't clear and you misunderstood how it works? In this case let me rephrase it. The game doesn't need to use any kind of NP software for headtracking to work. What it needs is to think it's using NP's dll because there's no alternative standard in the industry yet, but the actual file can be substituted by any suitable software.

It's like we're 20 years in the past and the only one making PC joysticks is quickshot. You buy a stick from a brand new company named CH products but the games you play only recognize quickshot, because they were made when nobody else made joysticks. What do you do? You make your game think that you're using a quickshot stick, but you are very much indeed using a CH products stick in reality. Are you infringing on anyone's copyrights? Not really. What you are doing is making up for obsolete games not supporting your alternate hardware, that's all. Of course this scenario never happened because people back then didn't hold copyrights on which stick works with gameports.

Illustrating this distinction (between actually using someone else's copyrighted software as opposed to making your hardware think that you are when you're not) is why i keep mentioning my buddy and how he coded his own headtracker. The guy did everything from scratch, he just "told" his PC "this is the file you want, work with that". At no point is any kind of NP software getting used.

And before someone says "but the registry key is filed under a naturalpoint title", well, if we were to pay royalties every time we type down the company's name then every single one of us posting in this thread would be in big trouble already :-P
It's not naturalpoint at all, he just tells his PC that it is but it's not.

If the games would work with a generic interface he would tell his PC that it's a generic headtracker, or maybe a trackIR user who wanted to use another piece of software could make his PC "think" that his trackIR camera is not tracIR but a wiimote working under freetrack, etc etc.

As long as the code is not copied and distributed verbatim and the hardware items have been bought and paid in cold hard cash, it's no business whatsoever of the guy making it how the end user customizes them. That's my attitude in general about consumer rights. You have my money, i have your receipt, i'm respecting your copyrights/trademarks/patents, so it's none of your business what i do with it from now on.
If i buy a car and i want to make modifications, the most the car company can do is void my warranty. However, if the modifications are done properly the car won't refuse to start. ;)




EDIT:

Interesting, so they used some of NP's code almost verbatim but now they don't anymore? That's just superb then, should be no reason whatsoever for FT not to work with CoD.

Where have you been the past 40 pages man? You could have saved all of us a ton of typing :-P

I'll quote myself...

It's so funny the fact that NP guy W-R NEVER touch the point that BIS made accessible to users BOTH TIR and Freetrack interfaces...

He just go in circles, bitting own tail... Let's get to this point. I don't care about NP, I care about Freetrack suport - and other HT solutions. And we have BOTH INTERFACES SUPORT into a major title like ArmAII...

Why?!?!?!?! Please, W-R, Novotny, someone... give me a good reason why we can have both interfaces suports in one big title of a big company and we have a "problem" with IL-2:CoD devs even in talking about Freetrack suport?

I'm paranoid?!?! I don't think so... Let's talk about that, please! BIS can use Freetrack AND TIR interface! Freetrack devs didn't make any "professional approach" of BIS, just the costumers demand Freetrack suport, as here. And BIS put easily Freetrack suport into ArmAII, with no drama...

Please, let's elaborate that, not entering in some pointless discussion: why we can in ArmAII and not in IL-2:CoD?

Whatever changes were made, they were made in 2008, with the last release of FT, and the wiki edit.

You forget about the interface, which is copyright. If there was no NP developed interface (SDK) in the game, you wouldn't have Freerack except for what it could do on its own.


What is used is a plethora of aps which, 1. strip out the NP encryption (which has already been agreed, it is quite okay to protect their work)
and 2. modify game executables.
3. your not telling your pc that there is type of stick different to what that stick in reality is, you're telling your pc that a cheap camera is a TIR unit



Glad you've noticed that...



Again, I totally agree with you



Is there any reason why Ftreetrack (or other similar) can't create their own game ID's? why do they feel it necessary to use NP's? (I've asked before)



dunno mate, you tell us. You complain about things going around in circles, then go and take things around in circles yourself...

look below


[QUOTE=Blackdog_kt;225188]

Actually i don't know it, that's what i said in my previous post. Unless someone opens the files in a programming tool and goes through the code comparing bit by bit to tell me how it's done, i can't pass judgment either way. Maybe FT's dll is a hacked knock off of NP's dll, maybe it's not, but i won't pass judgment when i have no proof whatsoever either way.

[/QUOTE


Actually, you do know it and do seem to be making judgement



Thank you, you've admitted (bold section) that the Freetrack has to use NP software, which negates everything you've put earlier. You've contradicted yourself before BD and so many times...



BD, your joystick thing is a comlete furphy as Microsoft supply natively USB drivers for joysticks to use. The gameport being dropped thing, has been done before, the same as AGP was dropped (now, there's a thought... get your AGP slot to recognise a PCIExpress card ;) )



oh, come on that one was bad even for you at the end of a long post... seriously. see contradiction



Royalties aren't part of the topic at hand though and the NaturalPoint name is Trade Mark and see contradiction



If the various games had a "generic interface" (which, by the way is the consenus and a consensus you have mentioned before yourself, there wouldn't be a problem. Mouse Look (aka Freelook) for one, is available... FSX offers a SIMMCONNECT (again, which gets passed over in favour of the NP route.



there's this little thing you're forgetting called the End User Licensing Agreement... you don't "own" the product, you own the right to run it (as supplied)


Possibly true... another they can do is to refuse to touch any of the modified parts, if the car is in for repairs. But this really has nothing to do with the thread.



The all important, and increasingly necessary part, of putting things in its proper context

"FreeTrack did not deny copyright infringement, and responded to a request from NaturalPoint to remove the copyrighted material by producing new releases. In the new FreeTrack releases the copyrighted material has generally been removed from the binaries and replaced with tools which allow the user to violate the copyright themselves when TrackIR support is used. This shifts the burden of copyright violation necessary for unauthorized use of the TrackIR enhanced interface from the FreeTrack developers to end users of FreeTrack."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=224257031


I don't know how you could have missed that one, BD ;) but when taken in context with your comments on "owning" software... I guess you may have

how does the interface work in ArmAII and how many pass it over in favour of the NP route?

You don't know there is a problem with other developers, only they have not committed any comment

You guys are pathetic!Go on, release all the anger trapped inside you.Maybe it will help you feel better.

No anger here... just a consensus ;)

Only in your own mind number six. In the end, you will see your self as number one. Then your world comes crashing down.:-P