1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

the .dll recreates NaturalPoint strings, does it not?

No. Not so.
Freetrack's own interface does not use, latch on to or in any other way have
anything to do with NP's software. No recreation of strings; nothing.

However, the game must be designed to use the freetrack interface.
Only one mainstream game currently uses the freetrack interface: ARMAII.

When the freetrack interface is not there, then freetrack will use NP's
interface by the creation of strings that match NP's. Hopwever, Freetrack will
only ever use the old NP interface that NP no longer use.
Freetrack never uses the new NP interface.
Freetrack will always use it's own interface whenever it can.

[Wolf_Rider]

there's is nothing wrong with development, Julian, as long as the application of the development is above board
I would like all the peripherals to run on their own micrprocessor
surely that was the case that could have been given to game/ sim developers for incorporation via a patch, yes? with no need to tap into NP's

Originally Posted by Letum

No. Not so.
Freetrack's own interface does not use, latch on to or in any other way have
anything to do with NP's software. No recreation of strings; nothing.

However, the game must be designed to use the freetrack interface.
Only one mainstream game currently uses the freetrack interface: ARMAII.

When the freetrack interface is not there, then freetrack will use NP's
interface by the creation of strings that match NP's. Hopwever, Freetrack will
only ever use the old NP interface that NP no longer use.
Freetrack never uses the new NP interface.

thanks that says it all... freetrack hacks into NP

[Letum]

Freetracks own interface has nothing what so ever to do with NP and NP software.
Freetrack contains no copyrighted or illegal code and Freetrack does not operate in any illegal way.

It doesn't get any more clear cut than that.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Letum

Freetracks own interface has nothing what so ever to do with NP and NP software.
Freetrack contains no copyrighted or illegal code and Freetrack does not operate in any illegal way.

It doesn't get any more clear cut than that.

keep trying.... freetrack hacks into NP.

[sigur_ros]

Troll feeding time is over.

[GF_Mastiff]

I think the lawyer's stopped by and started an argument? I'm amused so far.

[AndyJWest]

Their "need" was due to games not accepting the usual inputs for use with head pose.

Actually, I think that this is the key to the entire issue. Unless somebody can explain why there is a specific reason why a device which detects the position of somebody's head is fundamentally different from any other input device, there is no reason to accept that a particular manufacturer has a monopoly on such devices. Where there are specific breaches of copyright on software, that is an issue for the parties concerned, rather than third parties like games manufacturers. All they need do is to provide a generic interface, or comply with an existing one. In the case of IL-2, i see no particular reason why the existing joystick API wouldn't have been adequate, given the support for multiple devices. There is also the DeviceLink interface, which is more than adequate for stock 2DoF, and would need only limited expansion to support 6DoF. Producing software to interface with this isn't likely to be a major challenge.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Actually, I think that this is the key to the entire issue. Unless somebody can explain why there is a specific reason why a device which detects the position of somebody's head is fundamentally different from any other input device, there is no reason to accept that a particular manufacturer has a monopoly on such devices. Where there are specific breaches of copyright on software, that is an issue for the parties concerned, rather than third parties like games manufacturers. All they need do is to provide a generic interface, or comply with an existing one. In the case of IL-2, i see no particular reason why the existing joystick API wouldn't have been adequate, given the support for multiple devices. There is also the DeviceLink interface, which is more than adequate for stock 2DoF, and would need only limited expansion to support 6DoF. Producing software to interface with this isn't likely to be a major challenge.

WolfRider...the above post is exactly what people are trying to communicate to you. The reason you are getting into an argument is because you insist on focusing upon the Freetrack software's backup use of the NP API. If NP had not created an unnecessary proprietary interface and given developers 'incentives' to use it and created exclusivity agreements with publishers, this situation would not exist. How would you like it if there was no way to use a joystick except by using a Logitech joystick or using an open-source solution that relied upon hacking Logitech's interface? That is the situation that exists for users in the headtracking market at the moment. There's no room for interpretation there, that is a fact.
Their position is exactly the same legally as Intel's anti-competitive behaviour in laptop markets a few years ago in Asia, requiring suppliers to supply exclusively Intel-equipped laptops or forfeit their right to sell Intel products.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

WolfRider...the above post is exactly what people are trying to communicate to you. The reason you are getting into an argument is because you insist on focusing upon the Freetrack software's backup use of the NP API. If NP had not created an unnecessary proprietary interface and given developers 'incentives' to use it and created exclusivity agreements with publishers, this situation would not exist. How would you like it if there was no way to use a joystick except by using a Logitech joystick or using an open-source solution that relied upon hacking Logitech's interface? That is the situation that exists for users in the headtracking market at the moment. There's no room for interpretation there, that is a fact.
Their position is exactly the same legally as Intel's anti-competitive behaviour in laptop markets a few years ago in Asia, requiring suppliers to supply exclusively Intel-equipped laptops or forfeit their right to sell Intel products.

that's a nice try Grunch, but I believe you may have misinterpreted what you quoted.
Logitech? I wouldn't use Logitech if you paid me... though they (JS makers) all use USB drivers licensed from a single source - yes? and each joystick manufacturer has the common courtesy to not tap into another maker's programming software - yes?


Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

they (JS makers) all use USB drivers licensed from a single source - yes? and each joystick manufacturer has the common courtesy to not tap into another maker's programming software - yes?

Not from the beginning, no.

Joysticks first ran on a nine pin Atari interface, I'm not sure whether that was released or hacked but it was used on pretty much all 8 bit and a lot of 16 bit computers. It was also used for Atari ST and Amiga mice, with different APIs, so you needed a switch on a third party mouse if the maker wanted users to be able to use it on both the ST and Amiga (I'm not really sure why Atari and Commodore allowed 3rd party mice, perhaps because the originals were shit enough to stop people buying the computers if they couldn't upgrade to something better). Then came sound card based PC joysticks, which were exclusively analogue and used a load more pins. I suspect the API for that belonged to IBM, or maybe Creative, but it was used for most joysticks at that time. USB is an open standard I'm pretty sure, created by the makers of all the devices which were intended to be connected to it, it's certainly not Microsoft's exclusive property.