Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

So, one more time, freetrack can work on its own as long as there are 6 mappable axes of a generic interface within the game.

not all games though offer full 3D modelling (outside quite often has gaps and bits missing, when in cockpit view. This point may have esacaped a few FT adherents though

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Also, your points about FSX are invalid because freetrack has a simconnect output that bypasses the NP software and interfaces directly with FSX.

I did mentioned this and also mentioned, in the same post, that the simconnect gets passed over in favour of running the NP hack.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

There's two links to the DCS forum in this thread alone, where two separate members of the staff openly admit they stopped working on an independent head tracking solution at the request of NP (i think one also phrased it as "pressure"?).

I'll look for those links

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Well, i certainly don't think the DCS guys just got up one morning with the intention of p*ssing off a substantial portion of their customer base and said "hey i'm bored to code this, let's stop working on it and blame it on NP for sh*ts and giggles". First of all, NP would be all over them for spreading false accusations.
Also, if it was destined to be an independent interface that didn't rely on the NP SDK, then they shouldn't really have much ground to legally stand on. The only thing they would be able to do is threaten to stop trackIR support for future releases of DCS, at which point the devs would obviously cave in.

which is the basis of my question (which seems to be continually ignored, yet unverified claims made) of whether DCS did use the NP SDK or develop their own method. NP can't stop them using their own method.
Have NP stopped support for ARMA ?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Now i don't like basing my arguments on assumptions, so if someone has a link to answer this by all means provide it. So, was the DCS interface independent of the naturalpoint SDK? Again please, i'm not looking for hearsay but a clear and valid forum post from an eagle dynamics staff member that say they were working on an interface that was independent from naturalpoint's SDK. If such a thing exists, the only way NP would be able to force the DCS devs to stop working on it would be through "shady" means (aka "stop it or the next version of trackIR won't work with your games). That's why i'm asking for it, i want to be fair to them have some info that would indicate a high possibility of NP blackmailing eagle dynamics before i start accusing them of it on my own.

I am and have been asking the same thing, but hang on... what's this;

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

There's two links to the DCS forum in this thread alone, where two separate members of the staff openly admit they stopped working on an independent head tracking solution at the request of NP (i think one also phrased it as "pressure"?).

?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

It's dead simple, if you really want FT to stop using the NP software, which is something i would like as well, you really should be asking for a generic interface with 6 mappable axes in the new sim like the rest of us, instead of forcing us to go around in circles for 20 pages in an effort to answer the exact same questions that you repeatedly posed 3-4 times despite receiving a multitude of answers to choose from.

I don't disagree with a "generic interface" or method of access at all. In fact, I welcome it.

but why should any developer entertain FT whilst they run a hack?
Perhaps, if FT and other tracker softwares removed the hack, developers may begin to take a more responsive countenance?

[Stipe]

It took 20 pages to get to this. Now i finally understand you and actually agree with you. Freetrack users would like to have a legal way to have 6DOF in games without using track ir as the only option. "Will freetrack be supported in COD", doesnt mean if it will be supported in the state as it is now if only trackir would be supported it would be using it's interface. The question should be: is there any way that we can get head tracking without track ir and that is completely legal without a shade of doubt ie. not running thru np? Generic interface as a standard would be best and freetrack would be legal.
W-R: I went a bit too far but you really pissed me off and i'm just a human. Let's have a civil discussion from now on. Agree?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Stipe

It took 20 pages to get to this. Now i finally understand you and actually agree with you. Freetrack users would like to have a legal way to have 6DOF in games without using track ir as the only option. "Will freetrack be supported in COD", doesnt mean if it will be supported in the state as it is now. The question should be: is there any way that we can get head tracking without track ir and that is completely legal without a shade of doubt? Generic interface as a standard would be best.

It was actually quite early in the thread, Stipe. Seriously, it was quite early.
Hence my efforts to have you read the thread through.

Originally Posted by Stipe

W-R: I went a bit too far but you really pissed me off and i'm just a human. Let's have a civil discussion from now on. Agree?

I would love a civil discussion, it is all I have sort... nobody should ever have to suffer the "no arms and legs" derision, that another poster brought in.






@ Blackdog... I have only found the one link back to DCS, the popular one which always gets trundled out. It gives a short statement and no detail.

[Stipe]

I read it once, but i cant say that i might not miss something. But you must agree that most of the topic went like this: "freetrack is a hack." "No it isn't."
"yes it is." "No, it's not." *add a dozen of insults*
What I would like to know is, if generic interface is let's say easy to do, why isn't that done already? In every game? Everyone would be happy and legal.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

@ Blackdog... I have only found the one link back to DCS, the popular one which always gets trundled out. It gives a short statement and no detail.

The statement gets "trundled out" because it's clear enough. The likelihood that ED's SDK would have had anything to do with NP's software is extremely low, for two reasons:
- It would have been illegal, and TIR probably would have been patched to no longer work with ED products (fair enough).
- There was no reason to the steal code to perform such a simple task.

Either way, ED did the right thing and exposed A-10C's head control axes for assignment (which I think is all that is needed). Whether they did for BS or not, I can't remember.

[Wolf_Rider]

Julian, Blaster please... it can't be that difficult to digest what is on this and the previous page alone, can it?

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Julian, Blaster please... it can't be that difficult to digest what is on this page alone, can it?

You asked "Julian, there is a standing question at the moment; Did DCS develop their own method or did DCS use the NP SDK?"

I referred to the ED quote:
"Every joystick has standard software interface, that's why every joystick works in every game. For now there is no standard for head tracking devices software interface. We were going to add vendor-independent SDK in English release to allow every head tracking vendor (including FreeTrack) implement support of their devices for BlackShark. SDK has been removed from English release because of NaturalPoint request. Now we make agreement with NaturalPoint and we will release 3DOF version of our head tracking SDK soon."

So the answer to your question is "DCS was developing their own, however NP requested that it not be included in the English version".

If you disagree, explain why, rather than pretending that everyone else just doesn't get it.

[MadBlaster]

What did you do W-R? Buy off Stipe with a new TrackIR? You are cunning. I"ll give you that.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by julian265

"~ We were going to add vendor-independent SDK in English release to allow every head tracking vendor (including FreeTrack) implement support of their devices for BlackShark. ~"

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

[Stipe]

If I may add something. We all need to cool down. Blaster as you see, the aggresive route leads nowhere. W-R, i'm sorry, but your answers sometimes come forward as arrogant. If this continues, we will throw fecies at each other before the game comes out. At the end we wont have nothing.
I know, "you are the one to talk", but i deleted my messages or edited them in this topic and i call you guys to do the same. Don't want to sound patronizing or poetic, but we are a dying breed. The flight sim community that is.
And MadBlaster, don't call me a sell out. I'm not that cheap. Sometimes one needs to take a deep breath and think if his words represent his age. Let it go.