Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > Controls threads

Controls threads Everything about controls in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-16-2011, 06:03 PM
MadBlaster MadBlaster is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt View Post
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.
Nice post. Makes perfect sense.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-16-2011, 06:24 PM
Wolf_Rider Wolf_Rider is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,677
Default

until it is looked at and the missing bits and inaccuracies are pointed out
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-16-2011, 06:39 PM
MadBlaster MadBlaster is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider View Post
until it is looked at and the missing bits and inaccuracies are pointed out
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-16-2011, 06:46 PM
Wolf_Rider Wolf_Rider is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster View Post

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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-16-2011, 08:28 PM
CharveL CharveL is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster View Post
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.
Is this guy for real??
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-16-2011, 09:31 PM
MadBlaster MadBlaster is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharveL View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-16-2011, 06:37 PM
SEE SEE is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,678
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-16-2011, 09:42 PM
vicinity vicinity is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider View Post
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
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SEE View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by vicinity; 02-16-2011 at 09:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-16-2011, 10:38 PM
SEE SEE is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,678
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicinity View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-16-2011, 11:20 PM
LoBiSoMeM LoBiSoMeM is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 963
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.