Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Wolf_Rider]

who invented headtracking for the PC?

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

who invented headtracking for the PC?

Who invented head tracking?

Who invented head?

Who invented tracking?

Who invented invented?

Who invented who?




Fyi, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7121946.html - Cybernet Systems Corporation. Also, this is a patent.

[sigur_ros]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

You suggest TrackIR interface code is not an original work

No, software interface is 'idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation' so copyright cannot stop compatibility.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

who invented headtracking for the PC?

VFX first to have many games support.

http://www.mindflux.com.au/products/iis/vfx1soft.html

[klem]

Wow 49 pages of legal debate! Well there are a few answers to the original question.

The poor guy only asked for our thoughts.
(But I wish he'd put his hat on straight!)

I use TIR because I tried FT in the old days and it wasn't too good back then. I suppose I never got off the TIR wagon. It's good and I could afford it so I bought TIR4 after TIR2. Now running TIR5 software and unsure about the advantages of TIR5 hardware because I'm too lazy to look.

[Wolf_Rider]

@ Blaster
@ Sigur_ros

well, thank you both, you've completely shutdown all claims of monopoly... well done!

mindflux was through eye tracking, not IR
(Curiously though, the mindflux lists both TIR and a Logitech 6DoF tracker?)

and the CSC was using a colour camera and a selectable image


so... three different technologies and no monopoly

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

@ Blaster
@ Sigur_ros

well, thank you both, you've completely shutdown all claims of monopoly... well done!

mindflux was through eye tracking, not IR
(Curiously though, the mindflux lists both TIR and a Logitech 6DoF tracker?)

and the CSC was using a colour camera and a selectable image


so... three different technologies and no monopoly

Oh man. You are hopelessly reaching for anything now. Their existence does nothing to prove that NP does not create an "artificial" monopoly via NDA with game developers. Maybe NP will get sued down the road for patent infringement by these other guys that actually have a patent? That would be ironic. But I speculate. Anyway, it is late here. Must go.

[Wolf_Rider]

@ Blaster...

nice dreams.. do let us know how that all goes for you.


* Edit

@ Blackdog..

yes, that basically sums up the consensus reached a long time ago (except developers/ publishers do need to keep a mind to legalities and moralities) and it would basically have to stand up or fall over in court... until then even a face to face with a Q.C. would be only an opinion.
and the bigger picture is; the right to hack software, which some feel they have.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

@ Blaster...

nice dreams.. do let us know how that all goes for you.


* Edit

@ Blackdog..

yes, that basically sums up the consensus reached a long time ago (except developers/ publishers do need to keep a mind to legalities and moralities) and it would basically have to stand up or fall over in court... until then even a face to face with a Q.C. would be only an opinion.
and the bigger picture is; the right to hack software, which some feel they have.

Personally speaking, the bigger picture for me is not spending 150$ right now but when i feel like it, maybe a couple of months post release. What FT does with NP is between them and the longer we focus our energy on it, the longer a generic headtracking method will take to implement.

I'm not hating on naturalpoint, i'm one of their customers in fact. However, i'm not going to take up their legal defence pro bono when
a) i'm not sufficiently qualified and
b) they are a big company making good money and they can afford the lawyers, seeing as how they didn't do anything up till now makes me think they don't have a reasonable chance of winning such a case

If we want the developer to have freedom in providing us with alternatives, then the developer must have a way of washing their hands clean. My solution was very simple and effective.

They give us the aforementioned interface and we decide what to do with it. They are not responsible for the way we use it.

Saying that they are is like saying western digital should make sure their customers are not using their hard disks to store illegally dowloaded content: it's out of the scope of the business and totally non-enforceable.

If a developer provided a specific, custom tailored interface for one particular head tracking method that was dubious then yes, they could face problems. If they provide a generic instruction set that lets the end user take it from there, then they have no responsibility whatsoever...the user has it.

I think it's the best solution either way we look at it. I don't want to have to wait for FT to settle their disputes with NP, when i can get my buddy to code me an alternative in 2 evenings worth of time that will make use of a generic interface, plus in favor of community spirit i would gladly distribute it to the rest of the community as well.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

If a developer provided a specific, custom tailored interface for one particular head tracking method that was dubious then yes, they could face problems.

Intersting point, but using FreeTrackCilent.dll no game-dev can "face problems", because they don't will even provide FreeTrackClient.dll, they will just get the data from FreeTrackClient.dll... That's why BIS can use Freetrack Interface without any legal or moral issues.

This point is vital here to specific Freetrack Interface suport in IL-2:CoD: If 1C didn't have an exclusivity contract with NP, 1C can use Freetrack Interface.

Simple as that.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Personally speaking, the bigger picture for me is not spending 150$ right now but when i feel like it, maybe a couple of months post release. What FT does with NP is between them and the longer we focus our energy on it, the longer a generic headtracking method will take to implement.

by the sounds of it, you've already spent $150 approx.
A consesus was reached here very early in the piece that games should be available for alternative forms of headtracking... the hack method of doing so is in question though. Solution - develop a clean product

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I'm not hating on naturalpoint, i'm one of their customers in fact.

see point 1

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

However, i'm not going to take up their legal defence pro bono when
a) i'm not sufficiently qualified and
b) they are a big company making good money and they can afford the lawyers, seeing as how they didn't do anything up till now makes me think they don't have a reasonable chance of winning such a case

see second last paragraph

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

If we want the developer to have freedom in providing us with alternatives, then the developer must have a way of washing their hands clean. My solution was very simple and effective.

They give us the aforementioned interface and we decide what to do with it. They are not responsible for the way we use it.

see point 1

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Saying that they are is like saying western digital should make sure their customers are not using their hard disks to store illegally dowloaded content: it's out of the scope of the business and totally non-enforceable.

subject for a different thread, not the one in hand

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

If a developer provided a specific, custom tailored interface for one particular head tracking method that was dubious then yes, they could face problems.

we have agreement on that

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

If they provide a generic instruction set that lets the end user take it from there, then they have no responsibility whatsoever...the user has it.

you may have mised the fact, there was a consensus reached very early on

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I think it's the best solution either way we look at it. I don't want to have to wait for FT to settle their disputes with NP,

Thier disputes with NP, or NP's disputes with FT?
From you saying, it seems FT doesn't have much of a case either... how long has it all been going on for now? 2 - 3 years?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

when i can get my buddy to code me an alternative in 2 evenings worth of time that will make use of a generic interface, plus in favor of community spirit i would gladly distribute it to the rest of the community as well.

How much support would be offered with your bud's ap?

* Edit

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

You really don't understand that Kinetic-like solutions will not do the HT trick just scanning your head, but can do that scanning shoulders, arms, etc. And if you use some "markers", the 3-point calculation using Kinetic can be MORE accurate and fast as TIR, FT, etc.

In a flight sim it will be great in 6DoF HT, much more natural, with much more realistic movement. It's a totaly new approach, and we will see how it will work in near future. Isn't just for "Call Of Duty" games. Open your mind and think about possibilities: with Kinetic you can have the same 3-point HT PLUS really 3D motion capture.

.... you whinge about the cost of TIR (the whole argument for FT you present) but jump at paying for Kinect?