For the Nth time, they were developing their own, then ceased at the request of NP. GET IT NOW?

There is no contradiction in Blackdog's post. FT does have its own API, in fact you can enable or disable each of the methods FT uses to output head pose data. If you only enable the FT API, then FT only uses it, and does not use NP's DLL. If you only enable PPJoy, then FT outputs the six axes to a PPJoy virtual controller, which looks to windows like a six axis joystick, which you then map to the head axes in the game... Again, without the NP DLL. DO YOU GET IT??? When games accept six the FT API, or allow the assignment of joystick axes to head controls, FT has no need for the NP DLL. It's only when the head control axes are mysteriously kept hidden (unlike EVERY other one used in games) that people tick the trackIR box, to make the game think it is receiving data from one. GET IT NOW?

Maths != software. Nice straw-man, by the way.

Again, yes. However it is relevant to your question that the installation of FT will install the NP DLL, which is only used if the trackIR interface is enabled. GET IT NOW?

Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

what is the proof of this? if you mention DCS, then refer to my earlier question


There is a contradiction... read it again, and it looks clear by your own admission that FT uses the NP software.

take that up with Blackdog, it's his entry

no, you got it backwards there, matey That's not what I was enquiring about


Once again, let's get some facts into the thread... what proof do you have that NP is lobbying for exclusion of other products? (go back to the first of your quotes here)

How about Hat-Track
it is much cheaper and looks good as TrackIR

NOOOOOOO are you kidding? They also stoled NP ideas, software, hardware, everything :-P

I don't have time to go through the entire post point by point, so just a couple of things here.

If DCS was done with NP tools then yes, NP has a say in things. In that case, the makers of DCS should provide a separate alternative that's done without NP tools, so they can enable support for 3rd party alternatives.

As for my example with the microsoft sticks, it was just that, an example. Saying that they are out of production doesn't invalidate it. But since you couldn't resist splitting hairs, just substitute the MS sticks for a different brand like Saitek and tell me how cool (or not) it would be if only Saitek sticks worked with CoD? ;)

Finally, about the exclusiveness of it all, i find that releasing a "freetrack only" game is just as stupid as releasing a "trackIR only" game. They should be giving their customers some freedom of choice for crying out loud :rolleyes:

Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:

and the answer is yes. All it needs is to be enabled within the game interface, which means that yes, the game developer has to explicitly allow it to interface with the game.

This is no different than trackIR mind you. TrackIR also needs some "hooks" of its own to be programmed into the game before it's recognized and i can use it. If it was all done by the trackIR software it would work in every single game released but it doesn't (it uses mouse emulation for the old titles), so it's pretty clear that whatever head-tracking interface we use, the game needs to be specially programmed to take advantage of it.

That's not too much work compared to coding an entire game that already uses functions like smooth camera control and axial inputs, it just needs an extra 6 axes in the conrtol options.
Now that i think of it, i seem to remember that even the original IL2 version of 2001 wasn't what we call a trackIR enhanced title, ie it lacked native trackIR support.

The process is like this:
1) A developer codes a head tracking interface.
2) Another developer, the one who's making the game, needs to enable it to interface with the game.

The reason freetrack can't interface with a lot of games on its own is not that it lacks the means to do so, it's mostly because the game software doesn't allow it to. In that sense, i find that raising the question of "can it work on its own" is misleading (i'm not saying it's done intentionally, it's just misleading) because it lacks the proper context.
The context is, "in the cases that it doesn't work on its own, why is that so?" and the answer is simple, "because they don't allow it to do what it can perfectly do on its own". Well, that not the fault of freetrack or any other headtracking interface, is it now?

Freetrack doesn't need to use trackIR's "hands", it's got its own but most of the time they are not allowed to "touch" anything by the game engine. If a game has a generic 6 axes interface then freetrack's "hands" are untied and it works without needing to use any kind of naturalpoint software whatsoever.

Edit: Seems like Julian beat me to the punch line. As long as the axes are visible, then any kind of headtracking interface can work on its own, totally independent of NP's software. However, if i'm an boxing match and they tie my hands around my back it's a bit hypocritical of my sparring partner to complain if i head-butt him :D

I took a peek at my next paycheck yesterday, and happily noticed that it was more than double what is usual. Thank you Michigan winter for snowing and bringing me overtime.

I just sprung for Track IR 5, it should be here Tuesday. Interested to see how it compares to FTnoIR that I've been using.

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!


Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

+1000000
Hat's off to you!

You people are all crazy.

I'm done with this thread.

This irony is biting!!!
But i am afraid you really meant it that way.