Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[SEE]

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.

[vicinity]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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.

Originally Posted by SEE

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.

[SEE]

Originally Posted by vicinity

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.

[LoBiSoMeM]

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?

[LoBiSoMeM]

I'll quote myself...

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

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?

It's so funny the fact that NP guy W-R NEVER touch the point that BIS made accessible to users BOTH TIR and Freetrack interfaces...

He just go in circles, bitting own tail... Let's get to this point. I don't care about NP, I care about Freetrack suport - and other HT solutions. And we have BOTH INTERFACES SUPORT into a major title like ArmAII...

Why?!?!?!?! Please, W-R, Novotny, someone... give me a good reason why we can have both interfaces suports in one big title of a big company and we have a "problem" with IL-2:CoD devs even in talking about Freetrack suport?

I'm paranoid?!?! I don't think so... Let's talk about that, please! BIS can use Freetrack AND TIR interface! Freetrack devs didn't make any "professional approach" of BIS, just the costumers demand Freetrack suport, as here. And BIS put easily Freetrack suport into ArmAII, with no drama...

Please, let's elaborate that, not entering in some pointless discussion: why we can in ArmAII and not in IL-2:CoD?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

I'll quote myself...



It's so funny the fact that NP guy W-R NEVER touch the point that BIS made accessible to users BOTH TIR and Freetrack interfaces...

He just go in circles, bitting own tail... Let's get to this point. I don't care about NP, I care about Freetrack suport - and other HT solutions. And we have BOTH INTERFACES SUPORT into a major title like ArmAII...

Why?!?!?!?! Please, W-R, Novotny, someone... give me a good reason why we can have both interfaces suports in one big title of a big company and we have a "problem" with IL-2:CoD devs even in talking about Freetrack suport?

I'm paranoid?!?! I don't think so... Let's talk about that, please! BIS can use Freetrack AND TIR interface! Freetrack devs didn't make any "professional approach" of BIS, just the costumers demand Freetrack suport, as here. And BIS put easily Freetrack suport into ArmAII, with no drama...

Please, let's elaborate that, not entering in some pointless discussion: why we can in ArmAII and not in IL-2:CoD?

how does the interface work in ArmAII and how many pass it over in favour of the NP route?

You don't know there is a problem with other developers, only they have not committed any comment

[Royraiden]

You guys are pathetic!Go on, release all the anger trapped inside you.Maybe it will help you feel better.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

how does the interface work in ArmAII and how many pass it over in favour of the NP route?

You don't know there is a problem with other developers, only they have not committed any comment

Talk more, please, NP guy... It's begginig to became REALLY funny now!

"how does the interface work in ArmAII and how many pass it over in favour of the NP route?"

"NP route"? You are a sick person, really... Maybe because NP hire this kind of people their solution is so overpriced... I'm using the FREETRACK ROUTE, as in any game with Freetrack interface suport!

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by vicinity

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.

It quite possibly would be if there are no alternatives, but, alternatives have shown

Originally Posted by vicinity

Also, mouselook is not 6dof - mouselook moves in two axis x and y.

You mention one of those alternatives here and Mouse Look (aka Freelook) offers the full 6DoF

Originally Posted by vicinity

Actually FT is at 2.2 something atm and future updates are still planned.

last maintenance release was on 200 Nov 2008

Originally Posted by vicinity

If there was a standard interface for headtracking in games anyone could come into the market.

I don't see anyone as disputing that


[QUOTE=vicinity;224950]

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).

[QUOTE=vicinity;224950]


Many have agreed that a software author has every right to protect the work and efforts

Originally Posted by vicinity

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.

refer back to Mouse Look comments

[vicinity]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

It quite possibly would be if there are no alternatives, but, alternatives have shown

You mention one of those alternatives here and Mouse Look (aka Freelook) offers the full 6DoF

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, mouselook is 2dof, not 6.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

last maintenance release was on 200 Nov 2008

Yes, and what has that got to do wtih what i've posted?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I don't see anyone as disputing that

Yes, i'm making a point that I think that it is how it should be.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Many have agreed that a software author has every right to protect the work and efforts

Yes, they have a right to protect their work and efforts, but I don't think they should stop anyone from trying to enter the market, and that they should make it easier for developers and gamers by supporting a standard way of providing headtracking i.e. like we have with joysticks, as others have already posted in this thread.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

refer back to Mouse Look comments

refer back to the that not being 6dof comment earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom