BoB and Freetrack

[csThor]

The reason that NP encrypted the communication between device and program is that Freetrack used NP's interface and "masked" itself as TIR. Wouldn't you be p*ssed if you wrote a specialized API for your product, invested loads of money into it only to see another competitor use it (without asking, if that is the gist of the stuff I found on the Web) for its own product? I mean, really ... NP's tactics may be questionable, but Freetrack isn't without fault here, either. Had they written their own interface/API for their product I'd have agreed with you but right now, with the information I have (and I avoided both FT's site and NP's site - wouldn't get the right answers there anyway) I must say that FT's tactics aren't sacrosanct, either.

[julian265]

I agree. Which is why I'd like to see games accepting generic head position and angle as axis inputs, just like mouses, joysticks, and wheels.

Freetrack includes a free and open source SDK, but Natural Point appears to be pressuring game developers into not using it, or limiting it to 3DoF.

[fuzzychickens]

Originally Posted by julian265

I agree. Which is why I'd like to see games accepting generic head position and angle as axis inputs, just like mouses, joysticks, and wheels.

Freetrack includes a free and open source SDK, but Natural Point appears to be pressuring game developers into not using it, or limiting it to 3DoF.

Exactly, the only thing NP will accomplish if they get widespread support from flightsim games is to cripple technology advancement in headtracking , except any advancement they themselves accomplish.

If history tells us anything, companies that have monopolies in their respective fields have little incentive to innovate.

[Soldatov]

NP gave 1C encrypted TrackIR API for SOW:BOB.

[julian265]

Thanks Soldatov, that in itself is fine (if you haven't bought TIR 1 or 2), but will 1C allow other trackers to work with BoB?

Does anyone know who to talk to, or where to ask, so I can get an answer to this question?