I don't know the exact details, but the way i see it is this.

1) If Freetrack uses its own API, independent from NaturalPoint's API, but NP goes around to game developers and tells them to use only the NP API, then NP is clearly limiting the choices of users. Game developers should realize that and allow access to other head tracking APIs along the NP one, so that their customers are satisfied and not forced into a monopoly situation.

2) If Freetrack uses the NaturalPoint API and NP decides to encrypt it, then tough sh*t. It's NP's API and they do what they want with it. In that case, it's Freetrack itself that limits Freetrack by not coming up with a complete solution of their own, not NP who are marketing their software as they see fit.

I don't know the exact circumstances, but i'd be surprised if both sides weren't a bit right and a bit wrong at the same time as usually happens :grin:

That sums it up for me.

I agree with you... but what seems is that NP don't want the developers support other tracking devices but only TIR, we will see how Oleg & C. will support in SOW... i think if TIR will be used then no other tracking device will be allowed... somebody want bet?? :grin:

I bet.

Bohemia Interactive - producer of ArmAII - decided to give support to FreeTrack API after consumers request.

If 1C didn't do the same, will be really a shame and a disrespect with their customers who uses FreeTrack as head tracking solution. And we aren't just a few, by the way - look at Bohemia Interactive forums...

Only when its obviously better to do it that way :D Sometimes you will find a place which will assemble and test a PC from provided specs that only charge for the parts. If someone else will assemble and test a PC for me then I am happy to let them, I do not see assembling PCs as particularly "fun".

I also worked with audio and sound equipment at one stage and have when necessary built PA systems graphic equalizers etc from scratch but when I wanted a guitar amp I went out and picked up a Peavey.

Just saying I see building your own head-tracker as more an enthusiast thing a bit like the guys spending their weekends putting custom exhausts and fancy wheels and a custom stereo in their car or the overclocking types that put their PC system specs in their forum signature.

The real point is that regardless of using freetrack, or trackIR or having an elephant watch your head movements and move the mouse with its trunk ... some form of head tracking is almost as important as a good joystick.

hence http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16938

DCS allows TIR and generic head axis inputs. I use freetrack and PPJoy. Just check the PPJoy box in freetrack, assign the axes in DCS, and it's done.

Unless FT's developers have lobbied for game devs to use the FT API, you can't complain about it not being used.

It's when a game only uses the TIR interface, excluding all others, that I see it as unacceptable.

But at the core of the issue - with 6DoF head tracking, it makes NO sense to have a proprietary API. It's more work for everyone (especially the game devs), and hurts the consumer.

I think the best solution would be a widely accepted standard of a single API to be used by game developers, so that they could cut down on development time. Then the people who make head tracking software would have to come up with someting that complies to this standard, or make sure their own API can interface with or "plug into" the game developer's implementation.

This not only makes it easier and faster for developers to code stuff, it also streamlines production of further titles and makes sure that everyone who wants to develop a head-tracking solution has a chance at making something work.

Some will say that NP will lobby against this and it could be true, but the bottom line is they couldn't roll it back if it started. Just imagine it, SoW, DCS A-10, the next ArmA title all come out with the same head-tracking API and demand the developers of head-tracking software and devices to conform with it, instead of vice versa where the developer has to do the work. If NP doesn't do it, they'll have a whole lot of angry customers, so they will be forced to ;)

Absolutely. Except that the API is pretty much already present, by use of the usual analog axis inputs.

Like TIR 1,2,3 owners who can't use TIR in new titles due to the "enhanced" NP interface!

you can make Tir 1,2,3, work with FT software. :)

:lol: the irony!

sure.

On the other hand: You cant get spare parts for a 4 year old Sony TV - and they are not dominating the market.