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
Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
can FT work without NP software being installed?
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian265
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?
|