Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

and the question I asked was, did DCS use their own proprity interface or did they use NP SDK to allow that/ your response to that question would be.....?

For the Nth time, they were developing their own, then ceased at the request of NP. GET IT NOW?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

well, there is something in your statement which is contradictory... you say FT has its own API (great, but I keep asking how this works and no serious anwer is the response - only silliness is) and you go on to say that the FT has to use NP software to work. This is as plain as day on the FT site and quite possible for the blacklisting. Admittedly you offer ignorance, well that's cool... all FT has to do is make the approach to the developers with their own stand alone product. One that doesn't use any part of anyone elses' copyright protected software.

There is no contradiction in Blackdog's post. FT does have its own API, in fact you can enable or disable each of the methods FT uses to output head pose data. If you only enable the FT API, then FT only uses it, and does not use NP's DLL. If you only enable PPJoy, then FT outputs the six axes to a PPJoy virtual controller, which looks to windows like a six axis joystick, which you then map to the head axes in the game... Again, without the NP DLL. DO YOU GET IT??? When games accept six the FT API, or allow the assignment of joystick axes to head controls, FT has no need for the NP DLL. It's only when the head control axes are mysteriously kept hidden (unlike EVERY other one used in games) that people tick the trackIR box, to make the game think it is receiving data from one. GET IT NOW?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

can't copyright basic maths after all? well, then I guess that leaves Microsoft, and everybody else/ every developer, up the creek with regard to their software copyrights, eh?
let us know how you get on there, with that one

Maths != software. Nice straw-man, by the way.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

another question... can FT work without NP software being installed?

Again, yes. However it is relevant to your question that the installation of FT will install the NP DLL, which is only used if the trackIR interface is enabled. GET IT NOW?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Has anyone thought of using facetracking... its much cheaper than FT?

Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by julian265

For the Nth time, they were developing their own, then ceased at the request of NP. GET IT NOW?

what is the proof of this? if you mention DCS, then refer to my earlier question

Originally Posted by julian265

There is no contradiction in Blackdog's post. FT does have its own API, in fact you can enable or disable each of the methods FT uses to output head pose data. If you only enable the FT API, then FT only uses it, and does not use NP's DLL. If you only enable PPJoy, then FT outputs the six axes to a PPJoy virtual controller, which looks to windows like a six axis joystick, which you then map to the head axes in the game... Again, without the NP DLL. DO YOU GET IT??? When games accept six the FT API, or allow the assignment of joystick axes to head controls, FT has no need for the NP DLL. It's only when the head control axes are mysteriously kept hidden (unlike EVERY other one used in games) that people tick the trackIR box, to make the game think it is receiving data from one. GET IT NOW?

There is a contradiction... read it again, and it looks clear by your own admission that FT uses the NP software.

Originally Posted by julian265

Maths != software. Nice straw-man, by the way.

take that up with Blackdog, it's his entry

Originally Posted by julian265

Again, yes. However it is relevant to your question that the installation of FT will install the NP DLL, which is only used if the trackIR interface is enabled. GET IT NOW?

no, you got it backwards there, matey That's not what I was enquiring about

Originally Posted by julian265

Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

Once again, let's get some facts into the thread... what proof do you have that NP is lobbying for exclusion of other products? (go back to the first of your quotes here)

[wannabetheace]

Originally Posted by Royraiden

Freetrack
Pros:
-FREE software
-Easy to set up and use once you got the setup built correctly
-Easy to replace(if the camera fails)

Cons:
-Support(not all games supporting track ir support freetrack, correct me)
-Bothersome to make clip(at least to me)
-Requires a dark room to work properly most of the time

TrackIR
Pros:
-No need to build
-More complex software(im assuming)
-Comes with reflective clip(does not need a dark room to work properly)
-Better support on games

Cons:
-Expensive!

I guess there are more cons but since I dont own a TIR setup I dont know which ones.

If I decided to go for the TrackIR I would try to get the TIR4 but it isnt available on amazon and theres just a few on ebay.Where is the cheapest place I could get one?Feel free to correct my mistakes, if there's any.Give me some advice/suggestions/experience.And most importantly,is Freetrack going to be supported at release?Im fairly new to the forum so maybe this was discussed earlier.

How about Hat-Track
it is much cheaper and looks good as TrackIR

[albx]

Originally Posted by wannabetheace

How about Hat-Track
it is much cheaper and looks good as TrackIR

NOOOOOOO are you kidding? They also stoled NP ideas, software, hardware, everything

[Blackdog_kt]

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

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

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?

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

Anyway, the main question here seems to be this:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

can FT work without NP software being installed?

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.
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.

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.

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.
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?

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.

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. 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

Originally Posted by julian265

Yes. There are also other free programs for dot tracking - but since games often don't expose the head control axes for assignment, they can't be used. This is really the only issue I care about. I don't approve of the FT devs using NP's protocol, however if NP is going to lobby for the prevention of all but the TIR interface, then I don't mind using it. GET IT NOW?

[blampars]

Originally Posted by Royraiden

Having already ordered a HOTAS+Rudder pedals for this sim(thanks to all the kind members for sharing your thoughts and experience on my other thread),now its time for me to consider upgrading my head tracking setup.I've been using Freetrack for the past year with almost no complaints regarding the software.On the other hand, due to my poor craftsmanship, my 3 point clip started failing on me,something I was expecting because that thing was held on by layers and layers of duct tape(yes it was a pretty cheap build).So I've read several times that I could use the Natural Point Track Clip Pro with Freetrack, and went to their website to order one.I can get it shipped for $60.00.If I would have know these from the start I would have saved the money I spent on the webcam+ tools and parts and go all out for a TrackIR solution.My main concern is,how can I be sure that Freetrack is going to be supported when the game comes out?If I could choose I would stay with freetrack because its a great piece of software,and the fact that it is free.Though there are a few advantages to owning Track Ir.The most important for me is the reflective Clip.Having the 3 point clip with Freetrack means that I need to have my headphones on in addition to another cable hanging around my face.I guess I could build a reflective clip for Freetrack but I honestly dont want to fiddle more with parts.....

I took a peek at my next paycheck yesterday, and happily noticed that it was more than double what is usual. Thank you Michigan winter for snowing and bringing me overtime.

I just sprung for Track IR 5, it should be here Tuesday. Interested to see how it compares to FTnoIR that I've been using.

[MadBlaster]

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.

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

[Stipe]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!




Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

+1000000
Hat's off to you!

[ElAurens]

You people are all crazy.

I'm done with this thread.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Excellent troll deflection strategy used here. Let W-R type his crap till hell freezes over. Simply respond, "I don't have time to respond to your post W-R...". It sound perfectly legit. Future posters, take note!




Truth is NaturalPoint is a pirate at this point. Latches on to 1C software to create an artificial monopoly on headtracking. It was okay 10 some odd years ago because it was new. But it is not new now and their are way more affordable alternatives. It will certianly imply guilt to 1C if they allow this to happen again with CoD. Why they put themselves into this position, I don't know. Maybe NP needs to create their own flight sim instead of pirating off of CoD? Yes, I think so. But of course, NP "works hard" at their job. So we non-TrakIR guys are expected to fork over the cash to NP for no rational reason other than to be on the same playing field as others who willingly buy into TrackIR marketing scheme. Fortuneately, there is still time before the game is released to break this pirate monopoly! That is what this thread has become imo. Hear us 1C! Hear us! No more NP pirating. Oh, and W-R, I don't have time to respond.

This irony is biting!!!
But i am afraid you really meant it that way.