Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[CharveL]

As a long-time beta tester with NP I just wanted to raise a couple points with the caveat that, despite what might seem like a conflict of interest, I think free tracking alternatives are a great thing because not everyone can afford a TIR.

My personal experience with the NP guys is they are a really dedicated group of innovators in a smaller company that have managed to carve out a niche for themselves by creating a product that improves our simming experience. From what I've seen they are always willing to help their customers personally and often beyond what's called for, and seems a bit unfair when they are made out to be villains simply for protecting their work. Either way, that's for anyone to make their own opinion based on their own experience.

Anyway, I think it comes down to what works best for you considering the tradeoffs. FT has the benefit of being less expensive or even free if you already have a webcam and don't mind fashioning your own clip/reflector system. It's a great way to introduce yourself to head-tracking and see the benefits it provides for immersion!

Obviously the TIR gives the benefit of a more comprehensive and intuitive setup being specifically designed and supported by developers for seamless integration. The software gives better control over all axes and key-binding options, not to mention auto-detection of whatever game/sim you start which also adds to convenience, although perhaps minor for some.

The other factor to keep in mind is that the hardware itself relieves the CPU from much of the heavy lifting, providing up to 120hz refresh rate depending on the model, which improves your apparant in-game framerate considerably from the 24fps - 30fps (give or take) of your webcam. On a CPU intensive sim like CoD you need all the spare cycles you can get. With that said, some people can't tell the difference between a framerate of 20fps and 60fps so YMMV.

NP did all the legwork to make headtracking possible including wooing developers into adding the necessary hooks into their software, otherwise there would be no Freetrack, so I don't exactly blame them for not wanting to let others ride off of their work. On the other hand, if developers will support FT using FT's hooks then power to them and everybody is happy.

[TheGrunch]

You can achieve much the same CPU-offloading effect with a $30 Wiimote, to be fair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

TIR is very good, it's just becoming easier and easier to duplicate its functionality for a fraction of the cost. FaceAPI is another example of a piece of software that could do this very cheaply (not so cheaply for developers, however) using a $30 webcam. The only real caveat is that ideally the camera must capture at a high fps, not necessarily a high resolution, so a Playstation Eye or EyeToy camera is an ideal choice (320x240 @ 120 fps).

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by CharveL

As a long-time beta tester with NP I just wanted to raise a couple points with the caveat that, despite what might seem like a conflict of interest, I think free tracking alternatives are a great thing because not everyone can afford a TIR.

My personal experience with the NP guys is they are a really dedicated group of innovators in a smaller company that have managed to carve out a niche for themselves by creating a product that improves our simming experience. From what I've seen they are always willing to help their customers personally and often beyond what's called for, and seems a bit unfair when they are made out to be villains simply for protecting their work. Either way, that's for anyone to make their own opinion based on their own experience.

Anyway, I think it comes down to what works best for you considering the tradeoffs. FT has the benefit of being less expensive or even free if you already have a webcam and don't mind fashioning your own clip/reflector system. It's a great way to introduce yourself to head-tracking and see the benefits it provides for immersion!

Obviously the TIR gives the benefit of a more comprehensive and intuitive setup being specifically designed and supported by developers for seamless integration. The software gives better control over all axes and key-binding options, not to mention auto-detection of whatever game/sim you start which also adds to convenience, although perhaps minor for some.

The other factor to keep in mind is that the hardware itself relieves the CPU from much of the heavy lifting, providing up to 120hz refresh rate depending on the model, which improves your apparant in-game framerate considerably from the 24fps - 30fps (give or take) of your webcam. On a CPU intensive sim like CoD you need all the spare cycles you can get. With that said, some people can't tell the difference between a framerate of 20fps and 60fps so YMMV.

NP did all the legwork to make headtracking possible including wooing developers into adding the necessary hooks into their software, otherwise there would be no Freetrack, so I don't exactly blame them for not wanting to let others ride off of their work. On the other hand, if developers will support FT using FT's hooks then power to them and everybody is happy.

It's not NP technology, please! That's because NP never can put your "company face" and said what's wrong with Freetrack.

The same to some game devs. Why in hell can't Oleg or Ilya come to this forum and answer costumers questions about suport for Freetrack interface?

Bohemia Interactive GIVE FULL FREETRACK SUPORT INTO ARMAII AND O:A, so, please stop the stupid talking about legal or "moral" issues regards NP and Freetrack. We aren't stupid, respect our intelect. Or you really believe that BIS have the risk to be sued for Freetrack native suport? Read this line of the changelog of ArmAII 1.05 patch:

" [60457] New: FreeTrack support using FreeTrackClient.dll "

Other thing is the fact that NP give some kind of "help" to devs, and they have SHAME to come into public and assume a lot of things...

Isn't hard to create a clear picture about that, sorry. And it's a shame. The next step to NP will be bother Madentec?!?!?! Or better: "proprietary math"?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...10.1.1.50.9280

By the way, 120FPS here with PS3Eye... A cheap cam.

[MadBlaster]

Johnny Chung Lee rocks. At ~3:50 when he puts on those glasses, gives a quick "check this out" glance and then does the bop and weave...that just makes me LOL!

[robtek]

Good Luck, LoBiSoMeM, with your crusade against the evil empire of NP.

Each of your posts pushes me a bit to the NP side, you're much too enthusiastic in promoting FT.

[GHarris]

I don't see how these arguments, about the ethics or legality of Freetrack implementations in old games, are relevant to the question of whether Freetrack should or will be supported in Cliffs of Dover. If it is supported in Cliffs of Dover it will be done by an entirely legal and open API. Whether other uses of Freetrack are appropriate has no bearing on that.

But I feel like waffling a bit so here comes a wall of text.

Regarding Wolf_Rider's comments that Freetrack developers should "make the approach" or "seek inclusion - professionally"... "Professonal approaches" are what people with something to sell do. The Freetrack developers are not in it to make a profit. I don't understand why they *should* be expected to "approach" a sim developer. Freetrack is out there, it's open source, that's all that is needed. Oleg and his colleagues have heard of Freetrack (they must have done) and all they need to know about implementing it is readily available to them.

I am a supporter of Freetrack because I simply prefer an open and free (as in speech) implementation of head tracking to a proprietary one. A proprietary implementation will inevitably be abused by the people in control of it at the expense of current and past customers. As was the case when TrackIR started encrypting its data stream and made versions 1 and 2 of its TrackIR hardware incompatible with new games when they could otherwise still work. The controllers of a proprietary implementation might also seek to stifle competition from other proprietary or open implementations. As was the case when "Implementation of the "HeadTracker" interface <was> canceled at the request of NaturalPoint." in DCS: Black Shark.

A minor claim I'd like to assert would be that Naturalpoint created the market for head-tracking. They did not create head-tracking itself (and they have been awarded no patents on TrackIR). Naturalpoint's business model was fundamentally based on marketing - advertising of one kind or another - not technical innovation. They hyped the idea of head-tracking up, to sell the head-tracking kits they manufactured. They have been well paid for creating the market... for a while they were the only big player in the market, so all of the sales in the market they had created went to them.

In other words, they have already been paid for their hard work. They are not "entitled" to further income on anything head-tracking-related like the holder of a patent would be. In my opinion.

If they can still make money selling a proprietary head-tracking implementation when other viable head-tracking implementations exist then fair play to them. If they succeed in doing so it will probably be the case, much of the time*, that they are being paid for their marketing efforts rather than for their technical brilliance. It would be wrong if their continued success was due to monopolistic practices - marketing taken too far.

*(I say "much of the time" because (I don't know whether it's the minority or majority, and because) many people buy TrackIR rather than, say, setting up their own Freetrack kit, not based on a carefully considered weighing up of the options but because they have been advertised to (in one of many ways) by Naturalpoint. Blackdog_kt, who wrote a thorough explanation of his preferences on the first page of this topic, would be a clear exception to this. And good for him.)

I'd like to respond to a few of CharveL's points.

Originally Posted by CharveL

I think free tracking alternatives are a great thing because not everyone can afford a TIR... It's a great way to introduce yourself to head-tracking and see the benefits it provides for immersion!

I can afford a TrackIR and don't want it. Philosophical disagreement with TrackIR aside, I would consider Freetrack to be more than an "introduction" to head-tracking. I'm looking at building myself a Freetrack setup and do not see how NaturalPoint's head-tracking implementation would be an upgrade for me, even if money wasn't a factor.

Originally Posted by CharveL

The other factor to keep in mind is that the hardware itself relieves the CPU from much of the heavy lifting, providing up to 120hz refresh rate depending on the model, which improves your apparant in-game framerate considerably from the 24fps - 30fps (give or take) of your webcam. On a CPU intensive sim like CoD you need all the spare cycles you can get.

A Wiimote, when used with Freetrack, does the tracking in hardware. It also has a rather high refresh rate of 100Hz. Using a Wiimote, of course, is just one way of using Freetrack. People are free to use other devices as they see fit because Freetrack is open source.

Originally Posted by CharveL

NP did all the legwork to make headtracking possible including wooing developers into adding the necessary hooks into their software, otherwise there would be no Freetrack, so I don't exactly blame them for not wanting to let others ride off of their work.

I disagree. NP did the legwork to make headtracking popular. And they have already been paid for that work. They don't have a divine right to be the only head tracking implementation available. It's a little bit like saying "Apple did all the legwork to make MP3 players popular". Yes, they did a lot of the legwork of making MP3 players popular by advertising the heck out of the iPod, but they were given their reward for it in iPod sales. And they'd have been irrational to think that this means that no competing MP3 players should exist, or that the iPod should retain its market share forever in spite of competition.

One problem with this analogy is that it refers to hardware rather than software. Another problem is that Apple might very well have some MP3 player-related patents whereas Naturalpoint do not have any patents on TrackIR.

[MadBlaster]

What I don't understand is why the web cam manufacturers don't exploit the Freetrack bandwagon. I think there is money to be made for them and game developers like 1C. A large manufacturer like Logitech could simply take one of their existing cheap azz cameras, remove the IR filter, call it a "Freetrak Camera", and make some money on volume sale. A game developer like IC could approach Logitech and maybe pick up a royalty on the Logitech camera sales of those types of cameras by including the Freetrak functionality in CoD and advertising as such. Heck, 1C/Ubisoft could even sell it as a CoD/Logitech Cam bundle. Maybe even get RadioShack in on the deal to supply the infrared LEDs. And since the IR filter would be gone, it's not like Logitech would be displacing a future sale on another normal web cam.

[imaca]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

nah... its obvious there is copyright infringement

not really, NP were within their rights to stop people using their dll, but when they stop developers from using their own way of relaying information to other devices this is simply anti-competitive behaviour (don't do it or you wont get TIR).
Unfortunately, this sort of crap is bogging down the planet these days, it's often dressed up as "IP" protection, but what it often really is is "my company has more money and better lawyers, don't p*ss with us".

[julian265]

Originally Posted by CharveL

From what I've seen they are always willing to help their customers personally and often beyond what's called for, and seems a bit unfair when they are made out to be villains simply for protecting their work. Either way, that's for anyone to make their own opinion based on their own experience.

"simply for protecting their work" - does this extend to lobbying developers to exclude compatibility with other people's work (not just FT)? (this is my only problem with them, apart from screwing TIR 1 and 2 owners)

Originally Posted by CharveL

The other factor to keep in mind is that the hardware itself relieves the CPU from much of the heavy lifting, providing up to 120hz refresh rate depending on the model, which improves your apparant in-game framerate considerably from the 24fps - 30fps (give or take) of your webcam. On a CPU intensive sim like CoD you need all the spare cycles you can get. With that said, some people can't tell the difference between a framerate of 20fps and 60fps so YMMV.

FT 6dof @ 30 FPS plus frame interpolation took less than 1% of CPU time on an E8400 - it won't have any noticable effect on the frame rate of any game.

Originally Posted by CharveL

NP did all the legwork to make headtracking possible including wooing developers into adding the necessary hooks into their software, otherwise there would be no Freetrack, so I don't exactly blame them for not wanting to let others ride off of their work. On the other hand, if developers will support FT using FT's hooks then power to them and everybody is happy.

They've wooed developers into implementing an interface which ONLY ACCEPTS TIR, which was the logical thing for them to do. However, they're still lobbying for the exclusion of a generic interface (like mice/joysticks/throttles/wheels/pedals use) - which is holding back competition and development.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

It's not NP technology, please! ~

its NP software, and that is what they are protecting, with every right to do so

Originally Posted by GHarris

Regarding Wolf_Rider's comments that Freetrack developers should "make the approach" or "seek inclusion - professionally"... "Professonal approaches" are what people with something to sell do. The Freetrack developers are not in it to make a profit. I don't understand why they *should* be expected to "approach" a sim developer. Freetrack is out there, it's open source, that's all that is needed. Oleg and his colleagues have heard of Freetrack (they must have done) and all they need to know about implementing it is readily available to them.

I am a supporter of Freetrack because I simply prefer an open and free (as in speech) implementation of head tracking to a proprietary one. A proprietary implementation will inevitably be abused by the people in control of it at the expense of current and past customers. As was the case when TrackIR started encrypting its data stream and made versions 1 and 2 of its TrackIR hardware incompatible with new games when they could otherwise still work. The controllers of a proprietary implementation might also seek to stifle competition from other proprietary or open implementations. As was the case when "Implementation of the "HeadTracker" interface <was> canceled at the request of NaturalPoint." in DCS: Black Shark.

wot, use somebody elses' (FT) gear without their permission, or include a method of FT gear getting stuck into somebody elses' (NP) software.

nah... the professional thing to do is to make the approach and seek inclusion, offering a proper product.


NP were protecting their rights... if the FT software did its own work, instead of syphoning off from somebody elses', you'd find it would have been a completely different ballgame - be sure

Originally Posted by julian265

They've wooed developers into implementing an interface which ONLY ACCEPTS TIR, which was the logical thing for them to do.

correct and completely understandable for NP to professionally make the approach to seek inclusion and then protect their software, after all, they made the effort. Would it have been too hard for FT to develop their own interface in the beginning, instead of hacking another?

Originally Posted by julian265

However, they're still lobbying for the exclusion of a generic interface (like mice/joysticks/throttles/wheels/pedals use) - which is holding back competition and development.

do you have some proof of that?

and

how does that gear get to work in the games at the moment and has been for many years now?