Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[CharveL]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Okay, for a moment I allow you to exist.

Do you realize that your two years of posting on this board on this subject has brought it to the forefront and likely aided in getting the NaturalPoint business model flushed down the toilet? So, W-R, you are not the enemy. You are our friend. Freetrack users worldwide thank you for your services. Ah, I gotta go. Run out of time again as I am very busy. But before I do, I recommend you change your virtual name at some point. NP guys might come looking for you. Good day.

Is this guy for real??

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by CharveL

Is this guy for real??

Of course I'm real. See for yourself. I posted a picture of myself at response #280 of this thread. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=280

[vicinity]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

well until it actually does go to court (if it does), as with anything legal before that goes to court, all you have is only an opinion. :-p

Well, actually Blackdog_kt's post shows the law is very clear. It is NP and not FT breaking the law. You don't have to go to court to see how the law works, case studys obviously make things a lot clearer but that's not going to happen until another company decides to get in on the head tracking market.

Also, mouselook is not 6dof - mouselook moves in two axis x and y.

Originally Posted by SEE

I would prefer to use FT in any software that supports Headtracking but it would also be understandable if a developer were to limit headtracking to NP given its support and continual developments as a bespoke product guaranteed to function.

Actually FT is at 2.2 something atm and future updates are still planned. If there was a standard interface for headtracking in games anyone could come into the market. NP obviously don't want that though because you can charge for much more your product when there is no competition. Most of their updates are just to allow you to use their software on the most recently supported games and that is only because of the encryption they added to prevent other headtrackers entering the market and as they see it, using their hardwork (of getting developers to support headtracking).

What really should happen is for developers to leave headtracking options for all, rather than only supporting TrackIR and allowing NP to keep their monopoly.

[SEE]

Originally Posted by vicinity

What really should happen is for developers to leave headtracking options for all, rather than only supporting TrackIR and allowing NP to keep their monopoly.

I completely agree, I have both but prefer FT, unfortunately, the developers and their views or intentions have never been made public regards a definitive 'yes' or 'no' to 'can we use our FT set-ups in COD?' which was one of the original questions by the poster.

CoD Release is only a matter of weeks away and that question will finally be answered.

[LoBiSoMeM]

What I really don't understand is why ArmAII and O:A can have TIR and Freetrack suport, BIS devs can talk about the subject, and here we speculate a lot of things...

Why? Someone of 1C staff can please answer me that question?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by vicinity

Well, actually Blackdog_kt's post shows the law is very clear. It is NP and not FT breaking the law. You don't have to go to court to see how the law works, case studys obviously make things a lot clearer but that's not going to happen until another company decides to get in on the head tracking market.

It quite possibly would be if there are no alternatives, but, alternatives have shown

Originally Posted by vicinity

Also, mouselook is not 6dof - mouselook moves in two axis x and y.

You mention one of those alternatives here and Mouse Look (aka Freelook) offers the full 6DoF

Originally Posted by vicinity

Actually FT is at 2.2 something atm and future updates are still planned.

last maintenance release was on 200 Nov 2008

Originally Posted by vicinity

If there was a standard interface for headtracking in games anyone could come into the market.

I don't see anyone as disputing that


[QUOTE=vicinity;224950]

NP obviously don't want that though because you can charge for much more your product when there is no competition. Most of their updates are just to allow you to use their software on the most recently supported games and that is only because of the encryption they added to prevent other headtrackers entering the market and as they see it, using their hardwork (of getting developers to support headtracking).

[QUOTE=vicinity;224950]


Many have agreed that a software author has every right to protect the work and efforts

Originally Posted by vicinity

What really should happen is for developers to leave headtracking options for all, rather than only supporting TrackIR and allowing NP to keep their monopoly.

refer back to Mouse Look comments

[vicinity]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

It quite possibly would be if there are no alternatives, but, alternatives have shown

You mention one of those alternatives here and Mouse Look (aka Freelook) offers the full 6DoF

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, mouselook is 2dof, not 6.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

last maintenance release was on 200 Nov 2008

Yes, and what has that got to do wtih what i've posted?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I don't see anyone as disputing that

Yes, i'm making a point that I think that it is how it should be.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Many have agreed that a software author has every right to protect the work and efforts

Yes, they have a right to protect their work and efforts, but I don't think they should stop anyone from trying to enter the market, and that they should make it easier for developers and gamers by supporting a standard way of providing headtracking i.e. like we have with joysticks, as others have already posted in this thread.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

refer back to Mouse Look comments

refer back to the that not being 6dof comment earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom

[Stipe]

What do you pay when you buy track ir? I'm not talking about the camera and the clip. Every Chinese company can make that for 5$. You pay software.
Is it worth the money? It cost's 3 times as much as COD will. Is the code more complicated then COD? I don't think so. Why other company's don't sell their HT product but make it free you ask? Because they have some dignity and are not trying to sell you bottled air. Why devs include only track ir then?
Use your logic.
We can bit.h as much as we like, but until the devs realize, that track ir is not the only solution that work, we are wasting our time.

[Novotny]

Um, for what it's worth, here's my onion.

I'd like freetrack, or any other variant, to be really good.

I bought TrackIR4 when really drunk, but have never regretted it. It's brilliant, and does what it says on the tin, as some UK readers may appreciate.

Clearly, NP ask for as much money as they can. They are a business, and so try to get as much cash from their users as they will pay. I can understand that, despite wishing their product didn't cost as much.

And, er... is there anything else to say? If TrackIR is too pricey, use an alternative. Better still, develop an alternative. But mouthing off about it doesn't really do much, other than perhaps encourage others to develop said alternative.

Maybe if people spent less time posting and more time developing, they could create an alternative too.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by vicinity

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, mouselook is 2dof, not 6.

Yaw, Pitch, Zoom, Strafe, Lean, Crouch and Jump looks an awful lot like 6DoF

Originally Posted by vicinity

Yes, and what has that got to do wtih what i've posted?

It is a clear response to what you posted; "Actually FT is at 2.2 something atm and future updates are still planned." ... the last update was 2.5 years ago

Originally Posted by vicinity

Yes, i'm making a point that I think that it is how it should be.

and you have agreement on that, so is there a problem?

Originally Posted by vicinity

Yes, they have a right to protect their work and efforts,

excellent

Originally Posted by vicinity

but I don't think they should stop anyone from trying to enter the market, and that they should make it easier for developers and gamers by supporting a standard way of providing headtracking i.e. like we have with joysticks, as others have already posted in this thread.

"they" aren't trying to stop anyone from entering the market, Vicinity..."they are trying to protect their work, their efforts and you agreed earlier that protecting the work and efforts was okay

Originally Posted by vicinity

refer back to the that not being 6dof comment earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom

Thank you, you've just decribed Yaw, Pitch, Zoom, Strafe, Lean, Crouch and Jump







*Edit

@ Novotny... well said