Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Like I said W-R, I don't know if it will "pan out". Your intent is so obvious. Run interference on the 1C board. From heretofore, you do not exist to me. And per your post 1 year ago, I don't care if you don't have arms or legs. Enjoy your TrackIR.

what a sad post

[julian265]

I know it's challenging, but we really shouldn't feed the troll.

[Wolf_Rider]

Well, its your choice if you'd rather do that Julian, than address what asked of you in post 101 this thread. Perhaps you'd rather be tainted with Blaster's statement?

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Well, its your choice if you'd rather do that Julian, than address what asked of you in post 101 this thread.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The post you've seen plenty of times before. No doubt you'll go off on some tangent from that, and raise a bunch of questions to which you already know the answer.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by julian265

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The post you've seen plenty of times before. No doubt you'll go off on some tangent from that, and raise a bunch of questions to which you already know the answer.

actually, Julian, I've already asked a question, and before your above post... did you miss it, like you have the others asked of you?
and what is the point of your link, I don't understand... is it supposed to mean something??

I really have to wonder if the FT "boys" know what "the big lie" (in concept) is and where it came from?

[Blackdog_kt]

Wolf Rider, i'm someone who's actually tried both methods and found trackIR to be better, yet even to me you seem like you have an agenda to push.

They just gave you links where developers of DCS say that naturalpoint stopped them from providing support for other headtracking interfaces. It can't be spelled out any better, so you can either acknowledge it or bury your head in the sand.

The industry can't make games that only support one standard and then claim FT are violating copyrights when they are shutting them off from doing it in a legal manner, at least not without looking ridiculous.

So, in order to clear up some things, maybe i'll try to describe it a bit better to you.

A joystick, any kind of joystick, works with all games because there's a generic interface to control axial input for games.
Today, the same thing exists for headtracking but it's not getting used (and in some cases actively being prevented from use).
Well, my question is how would you feel if suddenly the only people who could fly the new sim where those who had a microsoft stick? I'd be fine, because i have a 10 year old precision pro 2, so who cares what happens to the rest of the community, right?

As for how hard it is to do it, i recently got a friend of mine to start flying IL2 with me. The guy is a programmer and a Linux user. Once i explained headtracking to him, he dug up a stagnant linux project, contacted the original author for some information and got to work. In TWO DAYS he had his own headtracking software, it works with normal LEDs (not even IR) and a webcam in a room with all the lights on. Heck, i tried it and it was smoother than the freetrack installation i tried on my home PC.

In the following weeks or months, he's probably going to code something open source and free from the ground up, which will be also coded in C/C++ and will be much less demanding on the PC than freetrack.

There is a very simple solution to all of this really.

1) Naturalpoint protects their software and API so that it only works with naturalpoint products, i'm all fine with that.

2) The developer provides a secondary, generic interface for alternative headtrackers, so that they don't have to use NP's API anymore. All it needs is the game to recognize 6 generic axis and accept inputs under a standard, generic interface.

Freetrack does have it's own API and doesn't need to use naturalpoint software. The reason FT is parsing it's data through the naturalpoint API is that freetrack's API is usually blacklisted or simply not used due to ignorance.

Finally, in regards to copyright, i asked my buddy about the possible legal implications of using the trackIR .dll file. He looked it up and apparently (maybe that's also the reason NP don't hold a patent), there's a legal clause that in the case at hand permits to sidestep the issue if certain measures are followed.
I don't remember exactly how it goes, but it seems that part of that .dll's content falls under public domain or something similar (you can't copyright basic mathematics after all), so all you need is a programmer to write his own .dll and make it available under an open source/free software license.

So, to sum up...freetrack doesn't NEED to use naturalpoint software to work. It just needs the developers to accept to use freetrack's implementation alongside the naturalpoint one. Then everyone is legal, we all get more options and you know me, i'm all for extra options so more members of the community can stay happy with their flight simming and the hobby can advance

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Wolf Rider, i'm someone who's actually tried both methods and found trackIR to be better, yet even to me you seem like you have an agenda to push.

no agenda on my part but there certainly is an agenda being pushed. eg simple questions get insult or fabrications in response = sounds like an agenda being pushed, to me.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

They just gave you links where developers of DCS say that naturalpoint stopped them from providing support for other headtracking interfaces. It can't be spelled out any better, so you can either acknowledge it or bury your head in the sand.

and the question I asked was, did DCS use their own proprity interface or did they use NP SDK to allow that/ your response to that question would be.....?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

The industry can't make games that only support one standard

GP Bikes is exclusively and advertised as exclusively FreeTrack

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

and then claim FT are violating copyrights when they are shutting them off from doing it in a legal manner, at least not without looking ridiculous.

refer back to the DCS question asked earlier on

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

So, in order to clear up some things, maybe i'll try to describe it a bit better to you.

A joystick, any kind of joystick, works with all games because there's a generic interface to control axial input for games.

yes, its called DirectX if I understand and maybe clearer would be the Direct Input and is part of the Microsoft operating systems... we're up to version 11 atm, aren't we? is this correct?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Today, the same thing exists for headtracking but it's not getting used

Which is.... what, exactly?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Well, my question is how would you feel if suddenly the only people who could fly the new sim where those who had a microsoft stick? I'd be fine, because i have a 10 year old precision pro 2, so who cares what happens to the rest of the community, right?

Microsoft stopped making their joysticks years ago. Besides that MS include in their operating systems generic drivers for use. You may have noticed though that gameports have been dropped, yes? well, that's progress for you. Even MS JS programmer isn't supported in Windows7

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

As for how hard it is to do it, i recently got a friend of mine to start flying IL2 with me. The guy is a programmer and a Linux user. Once i explained headtracking to him, he dug up a stagnant linux project, contacted the original author for some information and got to work. In TWO DAYS he had his own headtracking software, it works with normal LEDs (not even IR) and a webcam in a room with all the lights on. Heck, i tried it and it was smoother than the freetrack installation i tried on my home PC.

Fantastic effort on his part then... there's also another proggy called FaceTracknoIR (at least I think that is the correct name)

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

In the following weeks or months, he's probably going to code something open source and free from the ground up, which will be also coded in C/C++ and will be much less demanding on the PC than freetrack.

excellent, I wish him all the best

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

There is a very simple solution to all of this really.

1) Naturalpoint protects their software and API so that it only works with naturalpoint products, i'm all fine with that.

2) The developer provides a secondary, generic interface for alternative headtrackers, so that they don't have to use NP's API anymore. All it needs is the game to recognize 6 generic axis and accept inputs under a standard, generic interface.

1. good to hear
2. personally, I don't have problem with that. FSX has simconnect (However some FSX FT users don't like it so they use the NP software hack to run their FT instead.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Freetrack does have it's own API and doesn't need to use naturalpoint software. The reason FT is parsing it's data through the naturalpoint API is that freetrack's API is usually blacklisted or simply not used due to ignorance.

well, there is something in your statement which is contradictory... you say FT has its own API (great, but I keep asking how this works and no serious anwer is the response - only silliness is, the likes of which would be expected from the front row of a Guns 'n' Roses concert) and you go on to say that the FT has to use NP software to work. This is as plain as day on the FT site and is quite possible for the "blacklisting", as you put it. Admittedly you offer ignorance, well that's cool... all FT has to do is make the approach to the developers with their own stand alone product. One that doesn't use any part of anyone elses' copyright protected software.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Finally, in regards to copyright, i asked my buddy about the possible legal implications of using the trackIR .dll file. He looked it up and apparently (maybe that's also the reason NP don't hold a patent), there's a legal clause that in the case at hand permits to sidestep the issue if certain measures are followed.
I don't remember exactly how it goes, but it seems that part of that .dll's content falls under public domain or something similar (you can't copyright basic mathematics after all), so all you need is a programmer to write his own .dll and make it available under an open source/free software license.

can't patent basic maths after all? you may be right there but patent isn't copyright... so would that then leave Microsoft, and everybody else/ every developer, up the creek with regard to their software copyrights? Construct one's own dll? excellent, can FT do that with out using all or part of another companies copyrighted dll?
(but, it looks like another contradiction in essence, so, do let us know how you get on there, with that one
yes, they release it open source/ freeware... no problem. They could also charge for it if they wanted, there's no restrictions on how it should be released, is there?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

So, to sum up...freetrack doesn't NEED to use naturalpoint software to work. It just needs the developers to accept to use freetrack's implementation alongside the naturalpoint one.

see the earlier point on your contradiction and another question... can FT work without NP software being installed?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Then everyone is legal, we all get more options and you know me, i'm all for extra options so more members of the community can stay happy with their flight simming and the hobby can advance

hey, I'm all for options, don't get me wrong... legal ones though.

Has anyone thought of using facetracking... its much cheaper than FT?

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by julian265

I know it's challenging, but we really shouldn't feed the troll.

Agreed. But you know how it is when you accidently step in a pile of dog poop. It sometimes takes a few seconds until you realize what happened. I probably won't be posting in CoD board anymore. It's not W-R's fault. He obviously can't help himself. No arms, no legs. TrakIR and speech recongnition software are probably his only friends. If the mods do their jobs and ban this guy, maybe I'll be back. But until then, I'm out. Good luck trying to get Freetrack going.

[Wolf_Rider]

That's a rather sad outlook you have there, son

[GHarris]

I initially thought that Wolf_Rider's posts were genuine questions. But by the time I came to write my post on the 10th page I suspected he was just trolling on Naturalpoint's behalf.

His response to my post removed any doubt from my mind. He deliberately ignored my first statement: that discussions of how Freetrack has been used with other games are not relevant to the question of whether Freetrack should be supported in this sim, so long as there is a legal, open source Freetrack SDK available for use by sim developers... which would be used if Freetrack support were implemented in CoD.

His actions in this thread are the very definition of "FUD".

He asks for a description of how Freetrack's open source SDK works. Can anyone be bothered to write one for him? Seriously? If they did, he would just obfuscate or ask questions which deliberately "misunderstand" (or outright ignore) what was written. And continue to vaguely assert that Naturalpoint has been vaguely ripped off somehow.

And besides, the source code is freely available. If Wolf_Rider wants to understand how Freetrack works he can download it and take a look.

We live in a society where we are considered innocent until proven guilty. If Wolf_Rider, or Naturalpoint, or anyone else wishes to claim that Freetrack breaks the law, or infringes patents or copyrights, they are free to produce evidence to support such a claim. Indeed, if Naturalpoint has a legitimate grievance it is able to take legal action which would shut the Freetrack project down and obtain financial compensation. I have no idea why Naturalpoint would not have done this - as it would be entirely in the company's interest to do so - other than because they don't have any evidence.

If Naturalpoint, who are a company out to make a profit on selling TrackIR, were unable to demonstrate that their competition acts illegally (on account of it... er... not being true - how jolly inconvenient for these entitled-to-a-profit businessmen!), I suspect that they would spread precisely the kind of FUD we are seeing in this thread and elsewhere. Just ask vaguely insulting questions rather than offer answers, that's the trick! "When did you stop beating your wife", etc. etc.