1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB? - Page 2

TheGrunch · #1 02-20-2010, 07:59 AM

The Freetrack code is public. It's published here. If NaturalPoint had any copyright claims against the code, they were dealt with several releases ago. They have access to read the code as often as anyone else. There is not a lot of code and NaturalPoint have made requests for lines to be removed before, which were complied with. So it would appear that there's no longer any code that's original to TrackIR in there anyway. And in any case, infringing copyright would be essentially impossible given that the TrackIR programs and drivers are supplied as binaries. To say that they've "hacked" the interface is just to say that they've worked out how to provide the correct input to the game. There's certainly nothing illegal about that. Sani's FOV Changer is more of a hack than that, it changes data in memory to change the FOV in Il-2.

AndyJWest · #2 02-20-2010, 08:04 AM

The standard MS joystick interface is perfectly adequate, as I've already said. An axis is an axis, whether it is derived from head movement or a joystick pot. It is a digital input derived from a sensor. I don't have to 'prove' anything. If NP want to claim propritary rights, it is down to them to offer proof. what exactly are NP claiming rights to? Unless they can offer an explanation as to why the existing interface was unsuitable, any claim to 'originality' should be treated with suspicion. Intellectual property rights are only supposed to be enforced to encourage new developments, not to support a monopoly of the obvious.

TheGrunch · #3 02-20-2010, 08:09 AM

I think the processing of the image is done by the software and ergo the CPU of the consumer's PC, not by the device itself, so it couldn't be passed straight to the HID interface, but still, there would have been no obstacle to creating a virtual joystick as part of the device's software like PPJoy does.
Anyway, what Andy is saying, W_R, as I have been, is that there is no adequate reason to create the proprietary interface EXCEPT if you consider the creation of the device as an attempt to create a monopoly.

Wolf_Rider · #4 02-20-2010, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Anyway, what Andy is saying, W_R, as I have been, is that there is no adequate reason to create the proprietary interface EXCEPT if you consider the creation of the device as an attempt to create a monopoly.

I don't think that to be the case grunch and you know it, else you would be whinging that you couldn't use ATI drivers/ control panel on an nVidia card and visa versa, or any driver with similar product those drivers were developed for, or any joystick programmer with any joystick, interswap Intel and AMD cpus, etc..... you've made allegations without proof, admit to having no proof and agree that developers/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.

TheGrunch · #5 02-20-2010, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I don't think that to be the case grunch and you know it... you've made allegations without proof, admit to having no proof and agree that developers/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.

Yeah, but I also understand the principle of reasonable doubt. I don't see how your link supports your allegations about the Freetrack developers, either. How could a bunch of free software developers "intimidate" a game developer? I thought you were going to bring up something more substantial than people bitching in a forum thread. I thought game developers had thicker skins than that.
I understand enough about the way that joystick devices work to know that there was no need to create the proprietary interface. They could have even kept their software as it is, all they had to do is pass the output to a virtual joystick instead of via an encrypted datastream as it is most recently. They wouldn't even have to make the virtual joystick device themselves, they could just use the freely available PPJoy, although they would likely be wise to make their own solution to avoid infringing copyright themselves.
The other benefit to this is that developers wouldn't even have to code in support for TrackIR specifically, they would just have to make view position accessible to a joystick device, so it would even make developers' lives easier.
Incidentally, I didn't know that NP broke older TrackIR hardware in newer games just to break Freetrack, so that at least was informative. I wonder if my TrackIR 3 would work with Arma II?

EDIT: In fact, it seems like the cause of the controversy in that thread was the developers' insistence on ignoring the fact that Freetrack has its own API that developers are free to use.

AndyJWest · #6 02-20-2010, 08:32 AM

Round and round we go...

Tesll us what it is that you think NP have intellectual property rights over. Is it:

(A) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer.

(B) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer using the particular protocol they developed.

(C) something else entirely.

If it is (A) they were not original. If it is (B) then anyone can develop an alternative - or use the existing standards.

If it is (C) then for god's sake tell us what it is.