Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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

That's not an unusual stance to take there

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

If DCS was done with NP tools then yes, NP has a say in things.

Great... at least we can agree on the basic premise

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

Why does it have to be the developer soley?
Does the developer need to scour out every part of the ' net to hunt down what may or may not be available "tracker" wise?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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?

refer to the points made on "locking others out" and I think you'll the invalidation of your argument there. Microsoft provide drivers, generic drivers for use by joysticks... they also provide drivers (I believe) for webams and they supply those drivers with their operating systems.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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

Excellent, yet we don't hear the same cries from others of the same frame of mind.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:



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

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

That's not too much work compared to coding an entire game that already uses functions like smooth camera control and axial inputs, it just needs an extra 6 axes in the conrtol options.

No problem there... all FT and others need to do is work with the developer to have the tracker product included... see my earlier point on searching the web through... but, and but FSX has Simconnect. Yes, simconnect and the FT crowd pass that over in favour of hacking out NP software. Let me remind at this point of your stated views of hacking and FT being able to run without NP software installed.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

and what happened there? that's right NP made the approach to the developers

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

okay... the two need to work together - fine

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

hmm, no... its not misleading Facrtrack seems to be able to enable within a game without NP software being installed (even though facetrack still has a function to interact through NP software). Has anyone noticed that FaceTrack is cheaper still than FT?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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?

How to fix that is by (your own point) getting with the developer of the game they would like inclusion with... it simple, yes?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

Face Track has a PPJoy. exe (freeware) asociated with it, which seems to interact just fine... but once again, this gets passed over in favour of relying on NP software

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

see the previous point

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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

nobody has tied your hands behind your back for you... you've done that yourself.

A good show of faith on FT's (and other tracking developers' part), would be to remove any reliance on NP software from their product and then talk turkey with any game developers they want inclusion of their tracking programs in.

As far as the headbutting goes... you keep missing though

[Royraiden]

Cant you guys stop this stupid discussion???????????****!

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

refer to the points made on "locking others out" and I think you'll the invalidation of your argument there. Microsoft provide drivers, generic drivers for use by joysticks... they also provide drivers (I believe) for webams and they supply those drivers with their operating systems.

Blackdog's point was that IF a sim only allowed one brand of joystick, it would be bad for consumers. I, and every other person reading this thread will have understood the analogy. You are purposefully typing garbage.