Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[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?

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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.....?

For the Nth time, they were developing their own, then ceased at the request of NP. GET IT NOW?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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) 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 quite possible for the blacklisting. 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.

There is no contradiction in Blackdog's post. FT does have its own API, in fact you can enable or disable each of the methods FT uses to output head pose data. If you only enable the FT API, then FT only uses it, and does not use NP's DLL. If you only enable PPJoy, then FT outputs the six axes to a PPJoy virtual controller, which looks to windows like a six axis joystick, which you then map to the head axes in the game... Again, without the NP DLL. DO YOU GET IT??? When games accept six the FT API, or allow the assignment of joystick axes to head controls, FT has no need for the NP DLL. It's only when the head control axes are mysteriously kept hidden (unlike EVERY other one used in games) that people tick the trackIR box, to make the game think it is receiving data from one. GET IT NOW?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

can't copyright basic maths after all? well, then I guess that leaves Microsoft, and everybody else/ every developer, up the creek with regard to their software copyrights, eh?
let us know how you get on there, with that one

Maths != software. Nice straw-man, by the way.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

another question... can FT work without NP software being installed?

Again, yes. However it is relevant to your question that the installation of FT will install the NP DLL, which is only used if the trackIR interface is enabled. GET IT NOW?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by julian265

For the Nth time, they were developing their own, then ceased at the request of NP. GET IT NOW?

what is the proof of this? if you mention DCS, then refer to my earlier question

Originally Posted by julian265

There is no contradiction in Blackdog's post. FT does have its own API, in fact you can enable or disable each of the methods FT uses to output head pose data. If you only enable the FT API, then FT only uses it, and does not use NP's DLL. If you only enable PPJoy, then FT outputs the six axes to a PPJoy virtual controller, which looks to windows like a six axis joystick, which you then map to the head axes in the game... Again, without the NP DLL. DO YOU GET IT??? When games accept six the FT API, or allow the assignment of joystick axes to head controls, FT has no need for the NP DLL. It's only when the head control axes are mysteriously kept hidden (unlike EVERY other one used in games) that people tick the trackIR box, to make the game think it is receiving data from one. GET IT NOW?

There is a contradiction... read it again, and it looks clear by your own admission that FT uses the NP software.

Originally Posted by julian265

Maths != software. Nice straw-man, by the way.

take that up with Blackdog, it's his entry

Originally Posted by julian265

Again, yes. However it is relevant to your question that the installation of FT will install the NP DLL, which is only used if the trackIR interface is enabled. GET IT NOW?

no, you got it backwards there, matey That's not what I was enquiring about

Originally Posted by julian265

Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

Once again, let's get some facts into the thread... what proof do you have that NP is lobbying for exclusion of other products? (go back to the first of your quotes here)

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't have time to go through the entire post point by point, so just a couple of things here.

If DCS was done with NP tools then yes, NP has a say in things. In that case, the makers of DCS should provide a separate alternative that's done without NP tools, so they can enable support for 3rd party alternatives.

As for my example with the microsoft sticks, it was just that, an example. Saying that they are out of production doesn't invalidate it. But since you couldn't resist splitting hairs, just substitute the MS sticks for a different brand like Saitek and tell me how cool (or not) it would be if only Saitek sticks worked with CoD?

Finally, about the exclusiveness of it all, i find that releasing a "freetrack only" game is just as stupid as releasing a "trackIR only" game. They should be giving their customers some freedom of choice for crying out loud

Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

can FT work without NP software being installed?

and the answer is yes. All it needs is to be enabled within the game interface, which means that yes, the game developer has to explicitly allow it to interface with the game.

This is no different than trackIR mind you. TrackIR also needs some "hooks" of its own to be programmed into the game before it's recognized and i can use it. If it was all done by the trackIR software it would work in every single game released but it doesn't (it uses mouse emulation for the old titles), so it's pretty clear that whatever head-tracking interface we use, the game needs to be specially programmed to take advantage of it.

That's not too much work compared to coding an entire game that already uses functions like smooth camera control and axial inputs, it just needs an extra 6 axes in the conrtol options.
Now that i think of it, i seem to remember that even the original IL2 version of 2001 wasn't what we call a trackIR enhanced title, ie it lacked native trackIR support.

The process is like this:
1) A developer codes a head tracking interface.
2) Another developer, the one who's making the game, needs to enable it to interface with the game.

The reason freetrack can't interface with a lot of games on its own is not that it lacks the means to do so, it's mostly because the game software doesn't allow it to. In that sense, i find that raising the question of "can it work on its own" is misleading (i'm not saying it's done intentionally, it's just misleading) because it lacks the proper context.
The context is, "in the cases that it doesn't work on its own, why is that so?" and the answer is simple, "because they don't allow it to do what it can perfectly do on its own". Well, that not the fault of freetrack or any other headtracking interface, is it now?

Freetrack doesn't need to use trackIR's "hands", it's got its own but most of the time they are not allowed to "touch" anything by the game engine. If a game has a generic 6 axes interface then freetrack's "hands" are untied and it works without needing to use any kind of naturalpoint software whatsoever.

Edit: Seems like Julian beat me to the punch line. As long as the axes are visible, then any kind of headtracking interface can work on its own, totally independent of NP's software. However, if i'm an boxing match and they tie my hands around my back it's a bit hypocritical of my sparring partner to complain if i head-butt him

Originally Posted by julian265

Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I don't have time to go through the entire post point by point, so just a couple of things here.

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

This is no different than trackIR mind you. TrackIR also needs some "hooks" of its own to be programmed into the game before it's recognized and i can use it. If it was all done by the trackIR software it would work in every single game released but it doesn't (it uses mouse emulation for the old titles), so it's pretty clear that whatever head-tracking interface we use, the game needs to be specially programmed to take advantage of it.

Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I don't have time to go through the entire post point by point, so just a couple of things here.

That's not an unusual stance to take there

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

If DCS was done with NP tools then yes, NP has a say in things.

Great... at least we can agree on the basic premise

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

In that case, the makers of DCS should provide a separate alternative that's done without NP tools, so they can enable support for 3rd party alternatives.

Why does it have to be the developer soley?
Does the developer need to scour out every part of the ' net to hunt down what may or may not be available "tracker" wise?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

As for my example with the microsoft sticks, it was just that, an example. Saying that they are out of production doesn't invalidate it. But since you couldn't resist splitting hairs, just substitute the MS sticks for a different brand like Saitek and tell me how cool (or not) it would be if only Saitek sticks worked with CoD?

refer to the points made on "locking others out" and I think you'll the invalidation of your argument there. Microsoft provide drivers, generic drivers for use by joysticks... they also provide drivers (I believe) for webams and they supply those drivers with their operating systems.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Finally, about the exclusiveness of it all, i find that releasing a "freetrack only" game is just as stupid as releasing a "trackIR only" game. They should be giving their customers some freedom of choice for crying out loud

Excellent, yet we don't hear the same cries from others of the same frame of mind.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:



and the answer is yes. All it needs is to be enabled within the game interface, which means that yes, the game developer has to explicitly allow it to interface with the game.

This is no different than trackIR mind you. TrackIR also needs some "hooks" of its own to be programmed into the game before it's recognized and i can use it. If it was all done by the trackIR software it would work in every single game released but it doesn't (it uses mouse emulation for the old titles), so it's pretty clear that whatever head-tracking interface we use, the game needs to be specially programmed to take advantage of it.

That's not too much work compared to coding an entire game that already uses functions like smooth camera control and axial inputs, it just needs an extra 6 axes in the conrtol options.

No problem there... all FT and others need to do is work with the developer to have the tracker product included... see my earlier point on searching the web through... but, and but FSX has Simconnect. Yes, simconnect and the FT crowd pass that over in favour of hacking out NP software. Let me remind at this point of your stated views of hacking and FT being able to run without NP software installed.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Now that i think of it, i seem to remember that even the original IL2 version of 2001 wasn't what we call a trackIR enhanced title, ie it lacked native trackIR support.

and what happened there? that's right NP made the approach to the developers

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

The process is like this:
1) A developer codes a head tracking interface.
2) Another developer, the one who's making the game, needs to enable it to interface with the game.

okay... the two need to work together - fine

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

The reason freetrack can't interface with a lot of games on its own is not that it lacks the means to do so, it's mostly because the game software doesn't allow it to. In that sense, i find that raising the question of "can it work on its own" is misleading (i'm not saying it's done intentionally, it's just misleading) because it lacks the proper context.

hmm, no... its not misleading Facrtrack seems to be able to enable within a game without NP software being installed (even though facetrack still has a function to interact through NP software). Has anyone noticed that FaceTrack is cheaper still than FT?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

The context is, "in the cases that it doesn't work on its own, why is that so?" and the answer is simple, "because they don't allow it to do what it can perfectly do on its own". Well, that not the fault of freetrack or any other headtracking interface, is it now?

How to fix that is by (your own point) getting with the developer of the game they would like inclusion with... it simple, yes?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Freetrack doesn't need to use trackIR's "hands", it's got its own but most of the time they are not allowed to "touch" anything by the game engine. If a game has a generic 6 axes interface then freetrack's "hands" are untied and it works without needing to use any kind of naturalpoint software whatsoever.

Face Track has a PPJoy. exe (freeware) asociated with it, which seems to interact just fine... but once again, this gets passed over in favour of relying on NP software

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Edit: Seems like Julian beat me to the punch line. As long as the axes are visible, then any kind of headtracking interface can work on its own, totally independent of NP's software.

see the previous point

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

However, if i'm an boxing match and they tie my hands around my back it's a bit hypocritical of my sparring partner to complain if i head-butt him

nobody has tied your hands behind your back for you... you've done that yourself.

A good show of faith on FT's (and other tracking developers' part), would be to remove any reliance on NP software from their product and then talk turkey with any game developers they want inclusion of their tracking programs in.

As far as the headbutting goes... you keep missing though