Who invented head tracking?

Who invented head?

Who invented tracking?

Who invented invented?

Who invented who?

:grin:


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

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


VFX first to have many games support.

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

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.

@ 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 ;)

Let's try it the other way around.
At $150 for TIR we're in the range of a decent joystick.
How many of the FT users do have such a stick?
Yes they do benefit, yes they can and do spend this amount for peripherals.



I can't see any relation to the problem, but nice text anyway.

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.

It's obvious what he wants, he's perfectly entitled to his opinion and until we hear otherwise from a qualified lawyer it could or couldn't stand in court, but for the majority of people who are looking at the big picture the issue is not the legalities but the actual usability: we can't let the availability of alternative forms of head tracking in general (besides FT) to rest on that one point of FT doing things the way it does.

If we do, the FT debate will only serve as a "trojan horse" to block all alternatives by trying to make the developer screen each method for copyright issues, which in turn will make the developer not bother at all because it will be too much work. This is what i'm against, we're looking at the tree and missing the forest here.

The thing is, there's an even easier way to do it all and the developer totally "washes his hands" of all responsibility so to speak if they follow this route: 6 generic headtracking axes in the game options that the user can map to whatever control on his own. Get your favorite alternative headtracker set up, map the axes in the game to it (either directly or through emulation like PPjoy as a 2nd joystick) and you're good to go:

1) Is this legal? Perfectly.

2) Will it work with the majority of head tracking solutions without the need to add customized support separately for each one? Most likely so.

3) Will it prevent freetrack from working with it until they remove the naturalpoint emulation? Well, it's not Oleg's job to enforce a solution, so we don't care.

That's all there is to it. We can't expect the developer to individually screen every head tracking method for copyright issues just like we can't expect him to provide customized individual support for each one. However, if they choose to use an in-house generic interface of their own they shift the burden of dealing with the legalities away from them to the end user (that means us) and they also get a working product for everyone, problem solved.

@ 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.

The funny thing is that I spend less than $40 in a TM16000M, glue some pvc tube and have the better control rod available for use in IL-2 1946 or IL-2:CoD...

And I use Freetrack with a PS3Eye and can have wide range of movement with 120FPS...

I have the money, but I don't want to give a coin for NP. They have overpriced products.

About generic interfaces, it's the simple way to go, but NP don't like this route. NP like limited HT capabilities, like 3DoF for the "poor" and 6DoF with TIR, things that we all tired to see.

It's pointless this discussion. NP have it's basis in the pathetic atempt to restrain all alternative HT solutions, or talking crap about "hacking", or pushing game-dev to use only NP interface.

That's the way it's work. All can see that W-R and other NP trolls don't want to discuss REAL alternatives, because this REAL alternatives put in risk the market of NP.

Just to add some more info http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12144231 so with MS hardware involved with motion tracking I think the NP will have their hands full :)