1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[AndyJWest]

The standard MS joystick interface is perfectly adequate, as I've already said. An axis is an axis, whether it is derived from head movement or a joystick pot. It is a digital input derived from a sensor. I don't have to 'prove' anything. If NP want to claim propritary rights, it is down to them to offer proof. what exactly are NP claiming rights to? Unless they can offer an explanation as to why the existing interface was unsuitable, any claim to 'originality' should be treated with suspicion. Intellectual property rights are only supposed to be enforced to encourage new developments, not to support a monopoly of the obvious.

[TheGrunch]

I think the processing of the image is done by the software and ergo the CPU of the consumer's PC, not by the device itself, so it couldn't be passed straight to the HID interface, but still, there would have been no obstacle to creating a virtual joystick as part of the device's software like PPJoy does.
Anyway, what Andy is saying, W_R, as I have been, is that there is no adequate reason to create the proprietary interface EXCEPT if you consider the creation of the device as an attempt to create a monopoly.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Anyway, what Andy is saying, W_R, as I have been, is that there is no adequate reason to create the proprietary interface EXCEPT if you consider the creation of the device as an attempt to create a monopoly.

I don't think that to be the case grunch and you know it, else you would be whinging that you couldn't use ATI drivers/ control panel on an nVidia card and visa versa, or any driver with similar product those drivers were developed for, or any joystick programmer with any joystick, interswap Intel and AMD cpus, etc..... you've made allegations without proof, admit to having no proof and agree that developers/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I don't think that to be the case grunch and you know it... you've made allegations without proof, admit to having no proof and agree that developers/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.

Yeah, but I also understand the principle of reasonable doubt. I don't see how your link supports your allegations about the Freetrack developers, either. How could a bunch of free software developers "intimidate" a game developer? I thought you were going to bring up something more substantial than people bitching in a forum thread. I thought game developers had thicker skins than that.
I understand enough about the way that joystick devices work to know that there was no need to create the proprietary interface. They could have even kept their software as it is, all they had to do is pass the output to a virtual joystick instead of via an encrypted datastream as it is most recently. They wouldn't even have to make the virtual joystick device themselves, they could just use the freely available PPJoy, although they would likely be wise to make their own solution to avoid infringing copyright themselves.
The other benefit to this is that developers wouldn't even have to code in support for TrackIR specifically, they would just have to make view position accessible to a joystick device, so it would even make developers' lives easier.
Incidentally, I didn't know that NP broke older TrackIR hardware in newer games just to break Freetrack, so that at least was informative. I wonder if my TrackIR 3 would work with Arma II?

EDIT: In fact, it seems like the cause of the controversy in that thread was the developers' insistence on ignoring the fact that Freetrack has its own API that developers are free to use.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Yeah, but I also understand the principle of reasonable doubt. I don't see how your link supports your allegations about the Freetrack developers, either. How could a bunch of free software developers "intimidate" a game developer? I thought you were going to bring up something more substantial than people bitching in a forum thread. I thought game developers had thicker skins than that.
I understand enough about the way that joystick devices work to know that there was no need to create the proprietary interface. They could have even kept their software as it is, all they had to do is pass the output to a virtual joystick instead of via an encrypted datastream as it is most recently. They wouldn't even have to make the virtual joystick device themselves, they could just use the freely available PPJoy, although they would likely be wise to make their own solution to avoid infringing copyright themselves.
The other benefit to this is that developers wouldn't even have to code in support for TrackIR specifically, they would just have to make view position accessible to a joystick device, so it would even make developers' lives easier.
Incidentally, I didn't know that NP broke older TrackIR hardware in newer games just to break Freetrack, so that at least was informative. I wonder if my TrackIR 3 would work with Arma II?

EDIT: In fact, it seems like the cause of the controversy in that thread was the developers' insistence on ignoring the fact that Freetrack has its own API that developers are free to use.

NP are just protecting their code and the product's good name in quality.

I've basically said before there is nothing wrong with someone developing their own interface, its just when the hack into someone else's that there is a problem. So why all your hoo har?

for your edit... perhaps the developers have never been approached to include the api via a patch. You've already said earlier that the first was BIS and you've agreed that developer/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Round and round we go...

Tesll us what it is that you think NP have intellectual property rights over. Is it:

(A) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer.

(B) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer using the particular protocol they developed.

(C) something else entirely.

If it is (A) they were not original. If it is (B) then anyone can develop an alternative - or use the existing standards.

If it is (C) then for god's sake tell us what it is.

yes well tell us about it, you've been running a right merry-go-round.

what is it exactly, you don't understand now?

[TheGrunch]

You'd understand why it's possible if you understood a bit more about computer hardware. ATI and NVidia make their own proprietary drivers because their drivers are a direct interface between hardware and software, their drivers communicate directly with the card. TrackIR's software communicates with the TrackIR device via USB, which first of all does a lot of the interfacing itself, and secondly is too slow a protocol for the speeds required by a 3D engine. It's then passed to the game via their encrypted datastream. The TrackIR software can recognise the head position on its own, so it would be quite possible to pass that information from the TrackIR software to a virtual joystick instead of encrypting it and sending it to the game. In fact, the TrackIR software has to be running for the device to work anyway so I don't see how that could ever be a problem.

[Wolf_Rider]

which means?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

which means?

That there was no good reason to create the interface in the first place except to cause other implementations difficulty once theirs was in use. It made developers' lives harder as well since they had to add TrackIR support specifically.

As to BIS, given what's written in that thread it seems like the Freetrack developers were tearing their hair out about showing their API to BIS and BIS saying that they couldn't implement it because it used the NP API. Which it didn't. Sounds like a misunderstanding, but it looks like it got pretty out of hand.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm off out, talk to you guys later.

[AndyJWest]

Round and round we go...

Tesll us what it is that you think NP have intellectual property rights over. Is it:

(A) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer.

(B) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer using the particular protocol they developed.

(C) something else entirely.

If it is (A) they were not original. If it is (B) then anyone can develop an alternative - or use the existing standards.

If it is (C) then for god's sake tell us what it is.