Official Fulqrum Publishing forum
Page 5 of 7 « First 34 5 67
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   Controls threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=194)
-   -   Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=18648)

LoBiSoMeM 02-17-2011 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 225275)
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! :cool:

"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!

Blackdog_kt 02-17-2011 08:03 PM
Lobisomem, i can understand your desire to see freetrack supported in CoD, but you really are not helping by calling this guy things that you don't have proof if he is ;)
As for the debate at hand:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 225271)
Thank you, you've admitted (bold section) that the Freetrack has to use NP software, which negates everything you've put earlier. You've contradicted yourself before BD and so many times...
Excuse me for getting tired and not responding to everything, i just picked this one because you're clearly putting words in my mouth now.

What i said was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225188)
The game doesn't need to use any kind of NP software for headtracking to work. What it needs is to think it's using NP's dll because there's no alternative standard in the industry yet, but the actual file can be substituted by any suitable software.
If you can't understand that using my own dll is using a dll other than naturalpoint's, then i either wasted 9 years of my life and an enormous amount of my parent's money studying the English language and getting two proficiency degrees in it that actually allow me to teach it to others, or i don't know what else is happening.
My bet is on the "unknown something else" as a reason however and no, i don't imply you lack the brains to understand. :grin:

Also,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 225271)

there's this little thing you're forgetting called the End User Licensing Agreement... you don't "own" the product, you own the right to run it (as supplied)
when i pay money, open the box (which makes the product non-refundable) and have to click "yes" on a dialog box to use something i already paid for and can't return, the argument tends to become a bit iffy. That's part of the reason that bits of certain EULAs don't usually hold much water in an EU court of consumer law. Let's not be hypocrites here, how many in this forum use a modded version of IL2? That's a breach of the EULA as well :cool:

No hard feelings whatsoever, like i said we'll just have to agree that we disagree on the finer points.

Wolf_Rider 02-18-2011 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225384)



What i said was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225188)

Maybe i wasn't clear and you misunderstood how it works? In this case let me rephrase it. The game doesn't need to use any kind of NP software for headtracking to work. What it needs is to think it's using NP's dll because there's no alternative standard in the industry yet, but the actual file can be substituted by any suitable software.
BD, you can dance around your words anyway you like, but at the end of the day, they are your words, and mine still stand.

Tell me does the FT software still have means of using TIR interface inherent in it's program?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225188)

If you can't understand that using my own dll is using a dll other than naturalpoint's, then i either wasted 9 years of my life and an enormous amount of my parent's money studying the English language and getting two proficiency degrees in it that actually allow me to teach it to others, or i don't know what else is happening.
My bet is on the "unknown something else" as a reason however and no, i don't imply you lack the brains to understand. :grin:
I don't know what any of that has to do with the topic under discussion and it most certainly doesn't absolve you from your contradictions or prvent them... but here we digress

Also,


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225188)

when i pay money, open the box (which makes the product non-refundable) and have to click "yes" on a dialog box to use something i already paid for and can't return, the argument tends to become a bit iffy. That's part of the reason that bits of certain EULAs don't usually hold much water in an EU court of consumer law. Let's not be hypocrites here, how many in this forum use a modded version of IL2? That's a breach of the EULA as well :cool:
an EULA is just that a Licensing Agreement.. now you've stated your views on "owning the software", you no more own the software, which is under copyright (or in some cases patent) than you own the story of a book you've bought.

this is a subject for another thread though


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225188)

No hard feelings whatsoever, like i said we'll just have to agree that we disagree on the finer points.

No hard feelings here at all and I'm than happy to agree to disagree, but if you want go dragging things around in circles, using conjecture, hypothesis and sophistry, I'm more than happy to bring it back to centre and point them out.

MadBlaster 02-18-2011 03:53 AM
BUMP...skull made me do it.:)

Blackdog_kt 02-18-2011 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 225465)
BD, you can dance around your words anyway you like, but at the end of the day, they are your words, and mine still stand.

Tell me does the FT software still have means of using TIR interface inherent in it's program?




I don't know what any of that has to do with the topic under discussion and it most certainly doesn't absolve you from your contradictions or prvent them... but here we digress

Also,




an EULA is just that a Licensing Agreement.. now you've stated your views on "owning the software", you no more own the software, which is under copyright (or in some cases patent) than you own the story of a book you've bought.

this is a subject for another thread though





No hard feelings here at all and I'm than happy to agree to disagree, but if you want go dragging things around in circles, using conjecture, hypothesis and sophistry, I'm more than happy to bring it back to centre and point them out.

This is my last say in the matter, brought about not by a wish to convert anyone to my opinion, but my amazement at having a communication breakdown over such a simple explanation.

First of all, let me say that if 6DoF camera movement is made with the trackIR SDK you have a point that even when not using NP software but interfacing with something that's made with NP software, then there is ground to stand on.
My disagreement with you comes in the case that a game already features the smooth camera transitions needed for 6DoF in the relevant axes, coded by the developers themselves into the game without the help of such an SDK, which let's face it, is a given in most modern games.

In this way the situation resolves itself regardless of what either of us believes:
a) for old games where smooth camera movement is made with the NP SDK, anyone can use the old non-encrypted interface because there is no enforceable legal drawback for doing so
b) for new games where the camera movement is coded by the developers of the game, people can just instruct their PC to work with an alternative DLL

The first case is a bit iffy due to the use of the SDK, to make a judgment call on that we'd have to know if something made with proprietary software is legally equal to using that company's software or not. For example, if i code a small OS kernel on C/C++ and distribute it for free, do the people running my test OS violate any of the C/C++ copyrights if they don't have a license for the programming language or not? I'd hazard a guess that it's not, otherwise the whole industry would be a circle of royalty fees going from one company to the other, but i don't know for sure so i reserve judgment on that.

However, it's the second case the confusion is mostly about and what prompted me to post. You say that making one's PC "think" it's using NP software when it's not, is equal to actually using that software. So let's have the simplest example possible following the same principles of thought:
if i grow up in an environment where people call apples bananas and an "outsider" gives me an apple, i'll say thanks for the banana. Your reasoning implies that me thinking it's a banana actually makes it one :-P

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you somewhere along the line, but it does look that weird from where i'm standing. :grin:

In the end, no matter what we say we both know there will be a working alternative within a few weeks/months, one way or the other.
And the best part of it is, being a naturalpoint customer myself means that no matter if the workaround uses NP software or not i'll be able to use it with a clear conscience (i already paid for the right to use it after all). ;)

Wolf_Rider 02-18-2011 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

This is my last say in the matter, brought about not by a wish to convert anyone to my opinion, but my amazement at having a communication breakdown over such a simple explanation.

Clearly, there is no communication breakdown, in any form but you have made attempt to "convert" to your opinion, there isn't any problem with that in itself. Knock yourself out on that one, however what that opinion represent may one of question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

First of all, let me say that if 6DoF camera movement is made with the trackIR SDK you have a point that even when not using NP software but interfacing with something that's made with NP software, then there is ground to stand on.

Agreement on that you have, no doubt, subject to the licensing arrangements and copyright considerations though and method of access.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

My disagreement with you comes in the case that a game already features the smooth camera transitions needed for 6DoF in the relevant axes, coded by the developers themselves into the game without the help of such an SDK, which let's face it, is a given in most modern games.

If by that you mean Mouse Look (aka Freelook), then that has around since the early 90's


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

In this way the situation resolves itself regardless of what either of us believes:
a) for old games where smooth camera movement is made with the NP SDK, anyone can use the old non-encrypted interface because there is no enforceable legal drawback for doing so
b) for new games where the camera movement is coded by the developers of the game, people can just instruct their PC to work with an alternative DLL

We've been over the "legalities" before


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

The first case is a bit iffy due to the use of the SDK, to make a judgment call on that we'd have to know if something made with proprietary software is legally equal to using that company's software or not. For example, if i code a small OS kernel on C/C++ and distribute it for free,
Do you mean free of charge, or free of licensing conditions?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

do the people running my test OS violate any of the C/C++ copyrights if they don't have a license for the programming language or not? I'd hazard a guess that it's not, otherwise the whole industry would be a circle of royalty fees going from one company to the other, but i don't know for sure so i reserve judgment on that.

see above


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

However, it's the second case the confusion is mostly about and what prompted me to post. You say that making one's PC "think" it's using NP software when it's not, is equal to actually using that software.
will the TIR package wortk without that DLL?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

So let's have the simplest example possible following the same principles of thought:
if i grow up in an environment where people call apples bananas and an "outsider" gives me an apple, i'll say thanks for the banana. Your reasoning implies that me thinking it's a banana actually makes it one :-P
No, there you are attempting to call an apple a banana to justify your stance on modifying a dll supplied as part of a copyrighted software package.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you somewhere along the line, but it does look that weird from where i'm standing. :grin:

misunderstanding? nah, you know what is going on and also realise that it isn't part of the front row of a Guns 'n' Roses concert present.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

In the end, no matter what we say we both know there will be a working alternative within a few weeks/months, one way or the other.

Undoubtly, you may even recall that a consensus was reached that other headtrackers should be accommodated, the sticking point being on how they go about doing what they do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 225547)

And the best part of it is, being a naturalpoint customer myself means that no matter if the workaround uses NP software or not i'll be able to use it with a clear conscience (i already paid for the right to use it after all). ;)
you have the right to use the software conditionally and after all your comment earlier on 6DoF being already in games you go on to say that? there isn't a need for a "workaround" and FT should be able to remove from its sofware, any and all method of access to the TIR interface.





*Edit

Something for your consideration there BD... http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=18723&page=8 post #70 ~ #78 inclusive -enjoy

MadBlaster 02-18-2011 08:17 AM
W-R, what do you think about that script? I stare at it a bit, I think it would take OM about 30 minutes or less to write a C script in game to get it hooked up. All he has to do is map those variables to the game. That's it. This NP encryption thing is an illusion. If I can figure out what's going on just by googling, then any programmer weetod can figure it out too.

Wolf_Rider 02-18-2011 08:58 AM
Blaster, what it keeps coming back to and what people keep moving away from is;

We have a consensus that the use of alternative forms of headtracking should available

Some sort of generic interface should be available (perhaps there is already?)



The makers of alternative headtrackers should play nice by copyright and patent holders

sigur_ros 02-18-2011 10:01 AM
You continue to make up stories Troll_Rider, it is shown over and over again there are no issued patents and no longer copyright issue.

Ever heard of "IBM compatible" computer? "Sound Blaster compatible" sound card? Microsoft Office compatible software like OpenOffice? Non-Adobe PDF compatible software before it became open standard in 2008? It is possible for TrackIR to become open standard like PDF today, but if not it will still be used regardless as it is unlikely majority of game developers will support anything else (imagine trying to establish open PDF alternative from scratch).

The consensus is more like (most ideal to least):

1. TrackIR should be made open - already a standard, easier and better for everyone, developers and users, better maintained.
2. TrackIR should not actively block competition from gaining access.
3. TrackIR should not deter developers trying to support alternative interfaces.
4. Game developers should support open alternative interface - this is the least ideal because developer will need to waste time supporting two standards and the commercial TrackIR will always be better maintained and supported.

Wolf_Rider 02-18-2011 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 225605)


You continue to make up stories Troll_Rider, it is shown over and over again there are no issued patents and no longer copyright issue.

also shown over and over again that that is not the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 225605)

Ever heard of "IBM compatible" computer? "Sound Blaster compatible" sound card? Microsoft Office compatible software like OpenOffice? Non-Adobe PDF compatible software before it became open standard in 2008?

IBM split off basically into another two entities... Apple and Microsoft/ PC. As for the others, have you heard of Linux?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 225605)

It is possible for TrackIR to become open standard like PDF today, but if not it will still be used regardless as it is unlikely majority of game developers will support anything else (imagine trying to establish open PDF alternative from scratch).

I suppose it is quite possible TrackIR could become an open standard... why should they?
Mouse Look is already another standard


Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 225605)

The consensus is more like (most ideal to least):

1. TrackIR should be made open - already a standard, easier and better for everyone, developers and users, better maintained.
2. TrackIR should not actively block competition from gaining access.
3. TrackIR should not deter developers trying to support alternative interfaces.
4. Game developers should support open alternative interface - this is the least ideal because developer will need to waste time supporting two standards and the commercial TrackIR will always be better maintained and supported.

The consensus (major) is; Alternative headtrackers should be available in games.

1. they are already suffering cries of monoply, now you want them to become one? (see point 2)

2. argued endlessly and no proof provided that this is the case (see point 1)

3. see point 2

4. see Consensus (Major) which is meant for more than just two, it is meant for all alternative forms of headtracker - currently available, or yet to come

LoBiSoMeM 02-18-2011 11:23 AM
You feed the troll a lot, why you do that?

Give the troll poison, not food:

1) Why Bohemia Interactive can suport Freetrack using Freetrack interface? You believe BIS is a company of hackers?

2) Why most games devs can't even talk about using other HT interfaces than NP?

The first point makes the troll run... Just use it!

SEE 02-18-2011 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 225577)
The makers of alternative headtrackers should play nice by copyright and patent holders
MS Flightsim series does not have TIR native support. NP have to use MicroSofts 'Simconnect' interface, as does FT. SimConnect is open to all 3rd party devs.

NP developed there own interface/hardware and 'encouraged' game devs to us it - these titles were advertised as having 'TrackIR Native support'.

FT gave the Headtracking community an opportunity to access Titles with 'TrackIR native support' by reverse engineering the NP interface to accept Webcams, etc.

NP failed to prevent this in terms of Copyright/Patent infringement.


FT has its own interface + 4 others, Simconnect and TrackIR being two of them to be compatible with TrackIR enhanced titles and FSX.


NP has an encrypted version (which also ties its hardware to it). Any future title advertised as being 'TrackIR enhanced' will be using this.

The rights and wrongs of the above are what you guys cannot agree on, but don't feel too bad - neither could the courts!..........:grin:)

Rather than argue about the legalities (in which opinions are entrenched) would it not be better to email/contact the people who will make the decision and request that both interfaces are supported?

Wolf_Rider 02-18-2011 01:05 PM
the better thing is to allow for any alternative headtracker.... and FSX is TrackIR Enhanced

LoBiSoMeM 02-18-2011 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 225664)
the better thing is to allow for any alternative headtracker...
As Bohemia Interactive did in their new titles and 1C can do in IL-2:CoD: suport to the two major HT solutions available, at least: TIR and FT.

Now we agree. In the future, maybe it's time to game industry think about one unified and open 6DOF HT interface.

LoBiSoMeM 02-18-2011 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEE (Post 225640)
FT gave the Headtracking community an opportunity to access Titles with 'TrackIR native support' by reverse engineering the NP interface to accept Webcams, etc.
Said as that, sounds like Freetrack is all "reverse engineering". No, Freetrack makes the link with a webcam, acquire a image, do the computing to create 6DOF data. Nothing of this is "reverse engineering". This is some misconception that leads to a lot of confusion.

What Freetrack did was can link with TIR hardware (feature removed after NP request). And use TIR interface to link the 6DOF data and games.

Freetrack didn't "reverse engineering the NP interface to accept Webcams". There is no need to "reverse engineering" a software to use a 2D image of tree dots and create 6DOF HT data. It's simple.

Wolf_Rider 02-18-2011 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM (Post 225677)

Now we agree. In the future, maybe it's time to game industry think about one unified and open 6DOF HT interface.
where have you been?

Consensus was reached way long ago and Mouse Look has been in use for ages




*Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM (Post 225682)

Said as that, sounds like Freetrack is all "reverse engineering". ~ Nothing of this is "reverse engineering". This is some misconception that leads to a lot of confusion.

its no misapprehension numbnut... its how it got started in the first place

SEE 02-18-2011 03:24 PM
My last post, you guys can argue all you like but just to clarify my penultimate contribution - from the public domain and there for all to access -


NaturalPoint have filed five patent applications for optical motion tracking as a means of view control in virtual environments since 2005, but as of 2008 none have been issued. [1


In October 2008 NaturalPoint changed the TrackIR interface and began encrypting the data stream sent to some new titles. Third party devices which had reverse-engineered the previous TrackIR interface were rendered incompatible with these new game titles due to the encryption.

Some larger gaming and simulation titles still do not support the TrackIR interface natively, such as Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Microsoft Flight Simulator X requires the TrackIR to send view control data to it using Microsoft's own SimConnect interface.



'reverse engineered' = punter could use a web cam or Wimote instead of the NP bespoke optics.

I suggest you all kiss and make up and badger the devs........:grin:

swiss 02-18-2011 03:25 PM
Quote:
none have been issued.

After you submit a patent application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), your invention is officially “patent pending” and you may use that term when describing the invention to others. In fact, because of the large backlog of cases at the USPTO, your invention is likely to stay “patent pending” for several years.[.] If an inventor has a patent pending for an invention and a company begins to use that invention without his permission, the inventor can proceed to get the patent issued and sue the company for patent infringement.

http://mlwise-law.com/CustomContentR...spx?ID=1108990

LoBiSoMeM 02-18-2011 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 225685)
where have you been?

Consensus was reached way long ago and Mouse Look has been in use for ages
You STILL not understanding what "Mouse Look" is... Or better, is playing idiot.

Quit that game, please.

LoBiSoMeM 02-18-2011 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEE (Post 225780)
'reverse engineered' = punter could use a web cam or Wimote instead of the NP bespoke optics.
"Reverse engineering is the process of discovering the technological principles of a human made device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g., a mechanical device, electronic component, or software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail to be used in maintenance, or to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without using or simply duplicating (without understanding) any part of the original."

From Wikipedia, no need to search deeper definition.

Freetrack uses "reverse engineering" only to get the data Freetrack uses and communicate with games through TIR interface.

If you put in "general terms", people think that Freetrack itself is only one "hack" of NP HT solution, using a webcam insted of the fancy NP webcam without IR filter. No, it's an independent and fully functional 6DOF HT solution, with own interface.

That point can't be stressed enough, because some people don't even understand that in 2011. Freetrack can do all your work through Freetrack own interface without a trace of "reverse engineering" NP work. We just need that games access Freetrack data through Freetrack Interface.

If someone is against this, don't know what free market and free choice means.

Wolf_Rider 02-19-2011 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEE (Post 225780)

Some larger gaming and simulation titles still do not support the TrackIR interface natively, such as Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Microsoft Flight Simulator X requires the TrackIR to send view control data to it using Microsoft's own SimConnect interface.[/I]




I suggest you all kiss and make up and badger the devs........:grin:

Like FS2004, FSX is TrackIR Enhanced.

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/...mulator-x.html


Any PC game or simulation that has special support features built in just for TrackIR, is considered to be : TrackIR Enhanced™ (this applies to all of the games listed below)

Visit our forums and tell us which other games you'd like to see enhanced!

Sort this list of all enhanced games by TrackIR support/release date.


http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/...games-all.html


now, what a lot of FSX/FT users do is pass over the simconnect in favour of hooking into TIR


also, why should anyone who is being "badgered" listen?

sigur_ros 02-19-2011 05:14 AM
Why do you feel need to argue things you now nothing about Wolf_Troll? Just visit Naturalpoint forums and you see TrackIR uses dll hack pre-FSX and SimConnect for FSX, there is no mention of TrackIR or 'TrackIR Enhanced' in software, box or documents and no Naturalpoint anything in Microsoft Flight Simulator series. The Naturalpoint quote is not strictly correct in this case, they want to give better impression than saying they use dll hacks and game interfaces open to anyone.

Wolf_Rider 02-19-2011 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 226039)

Just visit Naturalpoint forums and you see TrackIR uses dll hack pre-FSX and SimConnect for FSX,

You'll need to point that out by way of a link ... ie prove it


Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 226039)

there is no mention of TrackIR or 'TrackIR Enhanced' in software, box or documents and no Naturalpoint anything in Microsoft Flight Simulator series.

nor ArmAII, nor most other games


Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 226039)

The Naturalpoint quote is not strictly correct in this case, they want to give better impression than saying they use dll hacks and game interfaces open to anyone.
see point 1

LoBiSoMeM 02-19-2011 06:52 AM
Bohemia Interactive ArmAII is Freetrack Enhanced!

Why it can be Freetrack Enhanced, Wolf Rider? Because Bohemia Interactive is a company that suport hacks and illegal software?

Don't runaway again!

Man, this NP troll HATES this subject! Is like holy water or garlic to a vampire!

Wolf_Rider 02-19-2011 07:01 AM
@ Lobi

This link may be just what you're looking for, for what you're in need of

LoBiSoMeM 02-19-2011 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226057)
@ Lobi

This link may be just what you're looking for, for what you're in need of
Lose all arguments! Cool! Don't be ridiculous, we are discussing suport for other HT solutions besides TIR, and BIS made it suporting Freetrack! And you can't talk A WORD about the subject!

And now this PATHETIC post? LOL!!!

julian265 02-19-2011 10:01 AM
Question for the devs - give it a tick if you want the devs to answer it
http://goo.gl/mod/k13t

sigur_ros 02-20-2011 07:09 PM
Instead of creating original open source webcam tracking software from scratch like Freetrack, a different approach could be taken -- hijack TrackIR head tracking software itself at the camera driver level. Create a driver that makes your any camera look like TrackIR camera and then all rest of work is done for you, tracking algorithm and game support all provided. Naturalpoint's worst nightmare!

Explains why Naturalpoint were so protective of camera drivers when people wanted to make drivers for Mac and Linux. But they have been reverse engineered lately making it even easier for someone to make a driver hijack. If this were the case with Freetrack I could understand complaint of 'unfair' or 'bad' since it would be completely dependent on downloaded TrackIR software. But of course this not the case with Freetrack, being independent and communicates with games directly with whatever means which is common practice for software.

Wolf_Rider 02-20-2011 11:35 PM
Freetrack isn't completely independent though...

LoBiSoMeM 02-21-2011 03:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226559)
Freetrack isn't completely independent though...
Yes it is, using FreeTrackClient.dll as Freetrack Interface.

But you will never understand this simple thing...

Wolf_Rider 02-21-2011 07:27 AM
then there shouldn't be any need for the tir interface checkbox ;)

sigur_ros 02-21-2011 07:49 AM
That's for old games that aren't being developed anymore which can't possibly have Freetrack interface added. ;)

Wolf_Rider 02-21-2011 07:54 AM
so it isn't independent then... thank you

sigur_ros 02-21-2011 08:27 AM
You asked for a need and I gave it to you, that says nothing of dependence.

Wolf_Rider 02-21-2011 09:00 AM
WR: FT isn't completely independent though

LoBi: Yes it is, using FreeTrackClient.dll as Freetrack Interface

WR: then there shouldn't be a need for TIR interface checkbox

SR: That's for old games that aren't being developed anymore which can't possibly have Freetrack interface added.

WR: so it isn't independent then

SR: You asked for a need and I gave it to you, that says nothing of dependence.

where exactly did you go wrong, Siguer?

albx 02-21-2011 09:04 AM
W_R are you stupid or are you kidding? they already told you FT is indipendent, if you want you can just remove the checkbox and rebuild the software, the source code is available...

Wolf_Rider 02-21-2011 09:07 AM
as you would have read albx, removing access to NP would make it independent - yes
It would also show good faith... I suppose if someonone did as you suggested in removing and rebuilding, how long before someone else later on would reinstate and rebuild? It may also explain why there hasn't been any updated software for 2 and bit years

jimbop 02-21-2011 09:11 AM
Do we have an answer from the devs on whether FT will be supported in CoD? Don't have time to wade through 44 pages of what seems mostly bollocks...

albx 02-21-2011 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226652)
as you would have read albx, removing access to NP would make it independent - yes
It would also show good faith... I suppose if someonone did as you suggested in removing and rebuilding, how long before someone else later on would reinstate and rebuild? It may also explain why there hasn't been any updated software for 2 and bit years
this is why the softwares are open source!! i can do what i want with it, also include a button that make me a coffe or scratch my back!!
To be more serious, i don't think you are stupid W-R, but you should understand that FT is a valide alternative at a more expensive TrackIR. Who, like me, like to build his own device, and is satisfied when something he did works very good, then you should use FT, different is who don't have time or don't like to build 3 simple leds then should buy TrackIR. BUT!!! do you think is right that a software should use ONLY 1 head tracking device, considering also that there are others and LEGAL? don't you think it is forcing people to buy Trackir? What if one day a car maker decide that you should use only 1 kind of gas for your car, or only 1 kind of tires? do you still feel free?
I hope I have been clear at what i said, english is not my native language, sorry...

julian265 02-21-2011 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbop (Post 226654)
Do we have an answer from the devs on whether FT will be supported in CoD? Don't have time to wade through 44 pages of what seems mostly bollocks...
:lol: If you want the devs to answer that question, you can vote for it (make a google account if you haven't already):

Quote:
Originally Posted by julian265 (Post 226093)
Question for the devs - give it a tick if you want the devs to answer it
http://goo.gl/mod/k13t

Wolf_Rider 02-21-2011 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albx (Post 226679)

this is why the softwares are open source!! i can do what i want with it, also include a button that make me a coffe or scratch my back!!
To be more serious, i don't think you are stupid W-R, but you should understand that FT is a valide alternative at a more expensive TrackIR. Who, like me, like to build his own device, and is satisfied when something he did works very good, then you should use FT, different is who don't have time or don't like to build 3 simple leds then should buy TrackIR. BUT!!! do you think is right that a software should use ONLY 1 head tracking device, considering also that there are others and LEGAL? don't you think it is forcing people to buy Trackir? What if one day a car maker decide that you should use only 1 kind of gas for your car, or only 1 kind of tires? do you still feel free?
I hope I have been clear at what i said, english is not my native language, sorry...
There's no problem with open source albx, the more the better. No doubt FT is a valid alternative, though whilst it piggybacks/ sponges off/ hacks Naturalpoint, it is just that... and just because some people think they own the software when they buy it, or everything should be open source they have to keep in mind that isn't the case. Have you thought for a moment that some who may like to protect their work would respect the rights of others who also like to protect their work?

car makers again? (I didn't realise we were discussing cars :s )

governments (ultimately) determine what fuel is, or isn't used albx


do you actually know what "freedom" is albx?

albx 02-21-2011 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226728)
There's no problem with open source albx, the more the better. No doubt FT is a valid alternative, though whilst it piggybacks/ sponges off/ hacks Naturalpoint, it is just that... and just because some people think they own the software when they buy it, or everything should be open source they have to keep in mind that isn't the case. Have you thought for a moment that some who may like to protect their work would respect the rights of others who also like to protect their work?

car makers again? (I didn't realise we were discussing cars :s )

governments (ultimately) determine what fuel is, or isn't used albx


do you actually know what "freedom" is albx?
yes i know what freedom is, i'm a software developer and i know what means protect my work. What NP is doing, IMHO, is that they don't only want protect their work, they have all the rights to do it, but they also want, paying the developers of a game (and this make me upset), that nobody else can use a tracking device with it. Do you think is right? W_R, you have your own idea and nobody can make you change it, so i'm not trying to convince you... that's all, now if Oleg & C. wants add FT and any other tracking device, not only NP, well done, otherwise I'll only complain about it, and I will ask, like all the others FT users, to include a support for it in a next patch, so we also can enjoy it. I'm not going to buy trackir... that's all

Alberto

Wolf_Rider 02-21-2011 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albx (Post 226733)
yes i know what freedom is, i'm a software developer and i know what means protect my work. What NP is doing, IMHO, is that they don't only want protect their work, they have all the rights to do it, but they also want, paying the developers of a game (and this make me upset), that nobody else can use a tracking device with it. Do you think is right? W_R, you have your own idea and nobody can make you change it, so i'm not trying to convince you... that's all, now if Oleg & C. wants add FT and any other tracking device, not only NP, well done, otherwise I'll only complain about it, and I will ask, like all the others FT users, to include a support for it in a next patch, so we also can enjoy it. I'm not going to buy trackir... that's all

Alberto
'Round and 'round and 'round it goes... does anyone read a thread through? god only knows.



If you want inclusion, it would be well worth (you possibly with programming your skills?) to offer up a properly working and fully supported alternative that respects the rights (and wishes) of other developers to protect their product, and present it in a professional manner. Its not that hard is it??

Whilst outrageous claims against and the bashing of companies continues, why should anyone take you (collective) or your product seriously?

LoBiSoMeM 02-21-2011 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226737)
'Round and 'round and 'round it goes... does anyone read a thread through? god only knows.



If you want inclusion, it would be well worth (you possibly with programming your skills?) to offer up a properly working and fully supported alternative that respects the rights (and wishes) of other developers to protect their product, and present it in a professional manner. Its not that hard is it??

Whilst outrageous claims against and the bashing of companies continues, why should anyone take you (collective) or your product seriously?
A lot of crap.

I posted in this forum the way to any use FreeTrackClient.dll to get data from Freetrack Interface and use it right now in any aplication with 6DOF HT in mind.

And this guy keep talking about some "professional manner"... Go to hell. :evil:

The "professional manner" maybe is the NP manner: devs can't even TALK about their "contracts" with NP.

Pathetic.

Wolf_Rider 02-21-2011 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM (Post 226766)
A lot of crap.

I posted in this forum the way to any use FreeTrackClient.dll to get data from Freetrack Interface and use it right now in any aplication with 6DOF HT in mind.

And this guy keep talking about some "professional manner"... Go to hell. :evil:

The "professional manner" maybe is the NP manner: devs can't even TALK about their "contracts" with NP.

Pathetic.
and you wonder why there are problems with inclusion

albx 02-21-2011 04:42 PM
LoBiSoMeM you are feeding a troll, so I did also... my fault...

Wolf_Rider 02-21-2011 04:59 PM
I'm certain then, you don't know what freedom is albx

LoBiSoMeM 02-21-2011 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albx (Post 226777)
LoBiSoMeM you are feeding a troll, so I did also... my fault...
This troll need a lot of food, because he's so weak and skinny... :cool:

But I believe he's not a troll, maybe some kind of internet robot, because keep typing the same things over and over again...

robtek 02-21-2011 06:58 PM
Lobi and albx,

you must be feeling really vulnerable to start calling names again. :-D
But it would be so easy, if FT wasn't able to use any NP - software, be it a cracked or genuine dll, this whole discussion would have been cut short.
But FT is able to use those dll's, and some users use this shortcut even with the available and usable freetrack.dll.
So, if you would just accept that there are users who use freetrack to infringe on NP software even if its not needed, there might be a understanding.

LoBiSoMeM 02-21-2011 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by robtek (Post 226817)
Lobi and albx,

you must be feeling really vulnerable to start calling names again. :-D
But it would be so easy, if FT wasn't able to use any NP - software, be it a cracked or genuine dll, this whole discussion would have been cut short.
But FT is able to use those dll's, and some users use this shortcut even with the available and usable freetrack.dll.
So, if you would just accept that there are users who use freetrack to infringe on NP software even if its not needed, there might be a understanding.
NONONONONONONO!

I'm amazed how people don't understand how things work!

Freetrack uses the "NP route" because the GAMES USES THAT ROUTE, NOT FREETRACK ROUTE!

Man, think a minute... We Freetrack users don't want to "hack" the "nothing" of NP. Freetrack neither. But the majority of game devs just provide access to NP inteface ONLY!

Isn't hard to understand that! If games uses FreeTrackClient.dll to use Freetrack inteface, nobody will using Freetrack will use the "NP route". I never will use "NP route" in a geme with suport to Freetrack Interface. Freetrack Interface odes exactly the same thing, by God sake!

If Freetrack don't have NOW the "NP route", I'm now will be flying IL-2 without head tracking! Isn't a "shortcut" for me, it's THE ONLY WAY!!!

If Oleg uses Freetrack Interface, I'll tick Freetrack Interface in Freetrack!

Freetrack ellimination of the "NP route" is easy, NP can achieve it now! You know how?

- Allowing game devs to use either HT solutions and interfaces!

But you believe that NP want's that?!?!?!?!?!?!

Let's begin to think just a little?!?!??!

robtek 02-21-2011 08:48 PM
So finally you are speaking the truth, great.

As long as the game-devs dont use the freetrack.dll you don't care about pirating NP products.
You still failed to proof, as i knew that you couldn't, that NP influences the game-devs.
So your whole tower of depending opinions has crashed.

LoBiSoMeM 02-21-2011 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by robtek (Post 226850)
So finally you are speaking the truth, great.

As long as the game-devs dont use the freetrack.dll you don't care about pirating NP products.
You still failed to proof, as i knew that you couldn't, that NP influences the game-devs.
So your whole tower of depening opinions has crashed.
"My whole tower has crashed"...

You guys like drama a lot!

Yes, as long game-devs don't use FreeTrackClient.dll I don't care about "pirating" NP products, and you know why?

Because Freetrack don't "pirate" nothing from NP using TrackIR interface to send data to games. NP achieve that Freetrack REMOVED suport for NP hardware, just that!

I'm tired, really tired of read people that believe know a thing about "copyright" talking nonsense and crap.

I'm not an idiot. It's plain obvious that NP "influences" game-devs. Why they can't even came here and write a word about the subject?

By the way, Robtek, my tower is stronger than ever, because you too ignore the BIGGEST POINT ABOUT ALL THAT:

- Why IN HELL Bohemia Interactive can use FreeTrackClient.dll in ArmAII and O:A - two MAJOR titles of a company that have even military contracts - without big issues?!?!?!?! Maybe because they are a BIG company now? Maybe because ArmAII sells very good? Maybe because they don't need extra money from some hardware company now and can suport their loyal customers?

If any of the "NP defenders" can write a sentence talking about that, I'll be really glad! "My whole tower has crashed"... Please, crash BIS tower too!

:cool:

robtek 02-21-2011 09:26 PM
No, LoBiSoMeM,

what you don't seem to understand is that especially the BIS situation speaks in favor of my point of view!
BIS proves is that game-devs can use the freetrack.dll, and as BIS is really not the biggest company with the the best selling games, the bigger and even more successful companies should have even less restrictions to use this dll!
Yet, they don't!
You might speculate as much as you want about the influences from NP, as long as you can't prove it, thats just opinions. Nothing more and nothing less.
When you see the poll i mentioned, that means they offend less than 10% of their possible customers.

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 12:50 AM
Craps. The “infringement” argument is pure fallacy. There is no copyright infringement. Freetrack can use the TrackIR interface because it falls under the “Fair Use” clause of the Copyright Act. The usage is "non-commercial". It is that simple.

P.S. I wasn’t here.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 01:46 AM
guess again, Blaster... FT wouldn't pass the Berne 3 step test

LoBiSoMeM 02-22-2011 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by robtek (Post 226866)
No, LoBiSoMeM,

what you don't seem to understand is that especially the BIS situation speaks in favor of my point of view!
BIS proves is that game-devs can use the freetrack.dll, and as BIS is really not the biggest company with the the best selling games, the bigger and even more successful companies should have even less restrictions to use this dll!
Yet, they don't!
You might speculate as much as you want about the influences from NP, as long as you can't prove it, thats just opinions. Nothing more and nothing less.
When you see the poll i mentioned, that means they offend less than 10% of their possible customers.
At least you stop taking this crap about "hack".

If any game-dev can use Freetrack Interface, what's about this?

You write this:

"Yet, they don't!"

Why? You can't "speculate" a thing? I go further: they don't and they can't do a lot of things...

And if you think that 10% is little... Well, maybe some companies like to keep all customers they can, and "please" Freetrack users is really an easy task!

Of course, if a game company don't receive some cash from NP.

By the way, maybe you don't think that BIS is a big software company and don't sell a lot, but in HT marketing I can assure that ArmAII and O:A creates a new market to this kind of thing, and Freetrack suport by BIS is really a landmark.

If BIS can, all that don't have ant contract of exclusivity with NP can. And give Freetrack suport in IL-2:CoD is easy, as for a lot of HT solutions. This is the point: why don't suport these multiple solutions and TALK about the subject?

This "you can't prove" is poor... I'm trying to understand WHY game-devs do what they do, and can't find a logical reason besides NP influence. If anybody from 1C can speak...

But they can't... Why? Strange, isn't? :cool:

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226917)
guess again, Blaster... FT wouldn't pass the Berne 3 step test
I suppose you support the new world order as well. :rolleyes: Really, what a stretch. LOL.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 02:48 AM
@ Blaster...

The New Secular Order? get your little dictionary out and look up the test, perhaps?

@ Lobi...

You've been shown many times reasons for why not, and you've also never explained "the what".
Have you made a presentation to any developers yet?

swiss 02-22-2011 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM (Post 226854)
Yes, as long game-devs don't use FreeTrackClient.dll I don't care about "pirating" NP products, and you know why?

I see: if the NP interface is the only one available, you use it with FT.
It's justified because you got the moral "right" too have a second option of your choice?

What W-R wants is basically FT 2.3 without the option of being able to use the np interface.
Yes, that would mean you couldn't use in games like IL2 anymore, but at least there would be nothing left to argue about and this discussion could finally end.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 03:07 AM
:)

and developers may find that a bit more attractive to look at ;)

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226933)
@ Blaster...

The New Secular Order? get your little dictionary out and look up the test, perhaps?
Per the little book, the “3-point test” you mention is not a part of the U.S. Copyright Act. You are welcome to point to an instance where the WTO ruled that section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act was deemed invalid by this WTO “3-point test” and the U.S. government, ignoring its own laws on the books, actually enforced such a decision by the WTO within U.S. borders. I think you will be googling a very long time. By the time you find it, we will all be a part of the New World Order and Natural Point corporate headquarters will be re-located to the North Pole with Santa Claus and his Elves.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 04:00 AM
I suppose it would have to be the north pole, considering you've taken all the space at the bottom of the garden.

what is sect: 107? its more than just the first paragraph ;)

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 04:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226939)
I suppose it would have to be the north pole, considering you've taken all the space at the bottom of the garden.

what is sect: 107? its more than just the first paragraph ;)
It is the "Fair Use" clause of the Act. The Act is old. Though, even with the implementation of the Digital Rights Acts, it still applies.

Anyway, I don't see dollar bills coming out of my computer everytime I use Freetrack software. There is no commercial benefit to anyone. The FT website is still up. The FT software, still freely available. It has to be this way because NP simply does not have a case in U.S. courts. Everyone is sue happy in the U.S., so they would do it if they could I think. And NP is in Oregon, so U.S. copyright laws apply.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 04:18 AM
quote the full section....

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 04:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226941)
quote the full section....
Please, just go to wikipedia or U.S. law book and check for yourself. Non-commercial use is just one of the factors that can be weighed by a judge in determining a fair use exclusion on copyright protection. I think a strong case can be made on another factor that can be weighed by the judge, but I don't want to go into that. Each can form their own opinion when they do their own research. I'm out.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 04:30 AM
come on now, its not that hard,,, just copy and paste

sigur_ros 02-22-2011 04:41 AM
"Did you know the President of United States is alien from outer space? I don't have any evidence but if you would kindly go and get some evidence to prove he isn't alien I will gladly pick holes in it for you..."

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 226946)
"Did you know the President of United States is alien from outer space? I don't have any evidence but if you would kindly go and get some evidence to prove he isn't alien I will gladly pick holes in it for you..."
Hillarious.:grin:

Yes, I won't step in that troll trap.

swiss 02-22-2011 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 226940)
The FT website is still up. The FT software, still freely available. It has to be this way because NP simply does not have a case in U.S. courts. Everyone is sue happy in the U.S., so they would do it if they could I think. And NP is in Oregon, so U.S. copyright laws apply.
Freetrack is French, or last their homepage registrant is.
Have fun suing him in a U.S. court.


Edit: If you can justify FT using the np interface with 107 I'll eat my shorts.

Quote:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Effect upon work's value

The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,[15] where the copyright owner, Universal, failed to provide any empirical evidence that the use of Betamax had either reduced their viewership or negatively impacted their business. In the aforementioned Nation case regarding President Ford's memoirs, the Supreme Court labeled this factor "the single most important element of fair use" and it has indeed enjoyed some level of primacy in fair use analyses ever since. Yet the Supreme Court's more recent announcement in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[16] that "all [four factors] are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright" has helped modulate this emphasis in interpretation.

In evaluating the fourth factor, courts often consider two kinds of harm to the potential market of the original work: First, courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work. In the judgement of the Supreme Court in Acuff-Rose Music they decisively stated that, "when a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of the original, it clearly supersedes the object of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur." In one instance, a court ruled that this factor weighed against a defendant who had made unauthorized movie trailers for video retailers, since his trailers acted as direct substitutes for the copyright owner's official trailers.[17] Second, courts also consider whether potential market harm might exist beyond that of direct substitution, such as in the potential existence of a licensing market. This consideration has weighed against commercial copy shops that make copies of articles in course-pack for college students, when a market already existed for the licensing of course-pack copies.[18]

Courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not oppose fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Copyright considerations may not shield a work against adverse criticism.

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 06:31 AM
1) I don't know about tracking him down. Alternatively, they can go after the validity of the GPL/GNU license. Get the license revoked and the public won't download the software because they will think it is illegal. And if it is declared illegal, they can probably get the website blocked in the U.S.

(2)
Quote:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature
Yes, this is the factor in the fair use judicial balancing test I was refering to. Now tell me how my using Freetrack to play IL-2 with my webcam is of a commercial nature/benefit to me, the end user, or the Freetrack developer? Or, if you instead agree that the usage is non-commercial, then prove how this non-commercial usage of the TrackIR interface is harmful to Naturalpoint?

As to the fourth factor that you expand on, I had no idea there was a market for TrackIR interface code? I guess you buy that on E-bay. Remember, NP has no patent on hardware and their patent-pending language offers no legal protection.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 226946)

"Did you know the President of United States is alien from outer space? I don't have any evidence but if you would kindly go and get some evidence to prove he isn't alien I will gladly pick holes in it for you..."
the village called, looking for you...

swiss 02-22-2011 07:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 226954)
then prove how this non-commercial usage of the TrackIR interface is harmful to Naturalpoint?
It replaces their product while using their interface?

But you're right, I should ask in the NP forum.
In case I get useful replies, I'll let you know.

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss (Post 226962)
It replaces their product while using their interface?

But you're right, I should ask in the NP forum.
In case I get useful replies, I'll let you know.
Ok.

I think potential lost revenue would be very difficult to prove, if not impossible. Especially given that using a webcam is so much cheaper than purchasing TrackIR. For some, the webcam is a sunk cost, so they may only spend $5 or $10 on LEDs or nothing at all if those are a sunk cost too. So you would be arguing to a judge that that same person would have otherwise spent +$150 instead of using something that costs nothing. Then that puts all mouse users on the hook as well. Well, you see, there’s nothing to stand on here.

Another comment on the fourth test. If NP wanted to, they could have chosen not to bundle the TrackIR interface code in games. Simply sell it as separate software package with a market price. When it is bundled, there is no value or the value it indeterminate. How can a judge make a determination on value this way? He can't. Since it is bundled, it is easy to make a case that the value is zero, again, since the game can be played with a mouse.

sigur_ros 02-22-2011 08:02 AM
§ 102 more relevant.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 226969)
Ok.

I think potential lost revenue would be very difficult to prove, if not impossible. Especially given that using a webcam is so much cheaper than purchasing TrackIR. For some, the webcam is a sunk cost, so they may only spend $5 or $10 on LEDs or nothing at all if those are a sunk cost too. So you would be arguing to a judge that that same person would have otherwise spent +$150 instead of using something that costs nothing.
you just proved it


*Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 226970)
§ 102 more relevant.

"in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
Article 10 paragraph 1 of TRIPs provides that a computer program is a type of work which is eligible for protection under copyright law:

"Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971)."

sigur_ros 02-22-2011 08:14 AM
...


Yes, computer software protected by copyright law, section 102 of copyright law I repeat here again.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226971)
you just proved it


*Edit



Article 10 paragraph 1 of TRIPs provides that a computer program is a type of work which is eligible for protection under copyright law:

"Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971)."
Whatever floats your NWO boat.:rolleyes:

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 226976)

Yes, computer software protected by copyright law, section 102 of copyright law I repeat here again.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Article 10 paragraph 1 of TRIPs provides that a computer program is a type of work which is eligible for protection under copyright law:

"Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971)."


and

Article 27 paragraph 1 of TRIPs states that:

"(...) patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. (...) patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced."

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigur_ros (Post 226970)
§ 102 more relevant.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
You suggest TrackIR interface code is not an original work, but an outgrowth extension? Maybe this is true since HT technology existed before being used in games by TrakIR. So now we have formulated two possible defenses, all to be nullified by the WTO (lol).

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 09:13 AM
who invented headtracking for the PC?

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226990)
who invented headtracking for the PC?
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.

sigur_ros 02-22-2011 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 226988)
You suggest TrackIR interface code is not an original work
No, software interface is 'idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation' so copyright cannot stop compatibility.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 226990)
who invented headtracking for the PC?
VFX first to have many games support.

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

klem 02-22-2011 10:04 AM
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.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 10:08 AM
@ 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 ;)

swiss 02-22-2011 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 226969)
Ok.

I think potential lost revenue would be very difficult to prove, if not impossible. Especially given that using a webcam is so much cheaper than purchasing TrackIR. For some, the webcam is a sunk cost, so they may only spend $5 or $10 on LEDs or nothing at all if those are a sunk cost too. So you would be arguing to a judge that that same person would have otherwise spent +$150 instead of using something that costs nothing. Then that puts all mouse users on the hook as well. Well, you see, there’s nothing to stand on here.
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.



Quote:
Another comment on the fourth test. If NP wanted to, they could have chosen not to bundle the TrackIR interface code in games. Simply sell it as separate software package with a market price. When it is bundled, there is no value or the value it indeterminate. How can a judge make a determination on value this way? He can't. Since it is bundled, it is easy to make a case that the value is zero, again, since the game can be played with a mouse.
I can't see any relation to the problem, but nice text anyway.

MadBlaster 02-22-2011 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 227006)
@ 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 ;)
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.

Blackdog_kt 02-22-2011 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss (Post 226935)
I see: if the NP interface is the only one available, you use it with FT.
It's justified because you got the moral "right" too have a second option of your choice?

What W-R wants is basically FT 2.3 without the option of being able to use the np interface.
Yes, that would mean you couldn't use in games like IL2 anymore, but at least there would be nothing left to argue about and this discussion could finally end.
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.

Wolf_Rider 02-22-2011 10:35 AM
@ 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.

LoBiSoMeM 02-22-2011 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss (Post 227008)
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.
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.

DD_crash 02-22-2011 12:06 PM
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 :)

Blackdog_kt 02-22-2011 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 227017)
@ 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.
Personally speaking, the bigger picture for me is not spending 150$ right now but when i feel like it, maybe a couple of months post release. What FT does with NP is between them and the longer we focus our energy on it, the longer a generic headtracking method will take to implement.

I'm not hating on naturalpoint, i'm one of their customers in fact. However, i'm not going to take up their legal defence pro bono when
a) i'm not sufficiently qualified and
b) they are a big company making good money and they can afford the lawyers, seeing as how they didn't do anything up till now makes me think they don't have a reasonable chance of winning such a case

If we want the developer to have freedom in providing us with alternatives, then the developer must have a way of washing their hands clean. My solution was very simple and effective.

They give us the aforementioned interface and we decide what to do with it. They are not responsible for the way we use it.

Saying that they are is like saying western digital should make sure their customers are not using their hard disks to store illegally dowloaded content: it's out of the scope of the business and totally non-enforceable.

If a developer provided a specific, custom tailored interface for one particular head tracking method that was dubious then yes, they could face problems. If they provide a generic instruction set that lets the end user take it from there, then they have no responsibility whatsoever...the user has it.

I think it's the best solution either way we look at it. I don't want to have to wait for FT to settle their disputes with NP, when i can get my buddy to code me an alternative in 2 evenings worth of time that will make use of a generic interface, plus in favor of community spirit i would gladly distribute it to the rest of the community as well.

LoBiSoMeM 02-22-2011 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DD_crash (Post 227044)
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 :)
Nah, decent hardware creators don't bother so much about "hacks", they goes opposite way:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ne/9210071.stm

I bought a PS3Eye without even have a PS3... Just because someone "hack" the driver to PC use... you think Sony is upset about that? LOL!

NP is a joke. Isn't a serious hardware company, someday they will vanish if still trying just to keep this market of simmers nerds with IR lights in head!

With M$ Kinetic and future hardware we maybe someday can use our hands to rotate some dials inside the cockpit of WWII warbirds virtualy... :cool:

LoBiSoMeM 02-22-2011 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 227045)
If a developer provided a specific, custom tailored interface for one particular head tracking method that was dubious then yes, they could face problems.
Intersting point, but using FreeTrackCilent.dll no game-dev can "face problems", because they don't will even provide FreeTrackClient.dll, they will just get the data from FreeTrackClient.dll... That's why BIS can use Freetrack Interface without any legal or moral issues.

This point is vital here to specific Freetrack Interface suport in IL-2:CoD: If 1C didn't have an exclusivity contract with NP, 1C can use Freetrack Interface.

Simple as that.

DD_crash 02-22-2011 12:34 PM
I was thinking that MS would put motion tracking support into windows, like mouse and joystick. Do you think that NP will like or fight it?

LoBiSoMeM 02-22-2011 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DD_crash (Post 227051)
I was thinking that MS would put motion tracking support into windows, like mouse and joystick. Do you think that NP will like or fight it?
It near future M$ WILL do that, for sure.

Kinect is years away form IR dots tracking, is much more flexible, with much more possibilities. And the hardware price is the same as some TIR actual solution...

NP will bankrupt when this technology became available for PC users, and I'll never use Freetrack again, or have stupid IR leds in my head.

But next month I'll like to have Freetrack suport in IL-2:CoD! LOL! :-)

swiss 02-22-2011 01:03 PM
I don't know how this Kinect stuff works, but it sounds promising for sure. :cool:


Lobi, f.i.
You are aware NP makes the big money with the professional tracking systems not with a downgraded eco gamer solution, right?

adonys 02-22-2011 01:05 PM
M$'s Kinect was already reverse-engineered and connected and used on PC. So, that moment won't be too far away.

I also find the price NP asks for a device like that to be outrageous. And I own town of their devices: a TrackIR2 and a TrackIR 4 Pro.

albx 02-22-2011 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM (Post 227049)
Nah, decent hardware creators don't bother so much about "hacks", they goes opposite way:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ne/9210071.stm

I bought a PS3Eye without even have a PS3... Just because someone "hack" the driver to PC use... you think Sony is upset about that? LOL!

NP is a joke. Isn't a serious hardware company, someday they will vanish if still trying just to keep this market of simmers nerds with IR lights in head!

With M$ Kinetic and future hardware we maybe someday can use our hands to rotate some dials inside the cockpit of WWII warbirds virtualy... :cool:
I did the same lobi, i also have a PS3eye e no PS3 :D, did you removed the IR filter? i'm using white leds, not the IR, and works very good

Korn 02-22-2011 02:20 PM
Microsoft already announced the Kinect will be available for pc as well, SDK to be released this spring and everything. And Asus wants to make a move with a similar product, Wavi Xtion. Already demo-ed at CES this year: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/a...demoed-at-ces/

So yeah, dark times for NP coming, i guess that explains their desperation... I'd like to see them trying to push Microsoft out of their way like they're trying to do with the evil open-source FreeTrack rofl.

swiss 02-22-2011 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albx (Post 227072)
I did the same lobi, i also have a PS3eye e no PS3 :D, did you removed the IR filter? i'm using white leds, not the IR, and works very good
I almost bought one too(no PS3 here either) - I was checking all the local auctions sites and discounters.
The "hack" to make it work looked somewhat difficult though, that scared me a bit. By fluke I ran into the cheap T5 for 80(the eye was $40) so I went for the former. Not having cables hanging from my head is a nice side effect I only realized later.

While typing this thread I just checked on the prices for the eye again -down to $29.
I might give it a another try, just to see how a 120fps cam performs compared to T5.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:38 PM.
Page 5 of 7 « First 34 5 67
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.