1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[Letum]

Of course, as long as 1C implement the Freetrack API, there is no controversy at all.

[sigur_ros]

Letum, in that case there is still controversy, NaturalPoint's greedy actions hurt 1C who now has to implement two interfaces that do the same thing. NaturalPoint is counting on 1C sticking to TrackIR and not bothering with any others, of course this could backfire if 1C abandons the TrackIR altogether. It makes sense that there should be one standard head tracking interface that anyone can use, TrackIR interface is already standard so it is prime candidate, NaturalPoint's efforts to stop others using it is wrong.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

Letum, in that case there is still controversy, NaturalPoint's greedy actions hurt 1C who now has to implement two interfaces that do the same thing.

The freetrack interface is free for any program to use.
TrackIR included.

Only one interface needed if NP update their software to interface with the
freetrack interface.

Besides, adding an additional interface is a very quick job. It's just one line
of code pointing to the interface .DLL once you have already set up the
headtracking in game.

[Wolf_Rider]

Why should NP "update" their interface, when their interface is being "tapped into" by freetrack?

freetrack don't have the interface... hence their need to use NP's

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Why should NP "update" their interface, when their interface is being "tapped into" by freetrack?

freetrack don't have the interface... hence their need to use NP's

Freetrack does have it's own interface totally independent of NP.
Recently Bohemia Interactive implemented the Freetrack interface into it's
games.

Freetrack uses it's own interface (freetrack.dll) when ever it is available.
Anyone can use this interface.

When it is not available, freetrack will use NP's old interface if it is there.
Freetrack never uses NP's new interface.

NP should update to use the freetrack interface so that the game Devs don't
need to implement several interfaces, one for each headtracking program.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Letum

Freetrack does have it's own interface totally independent of NP.
Recently Bohemia Interactive implemented the Freetrack interface into it's
games.

Freetrack uses it's own interface (freetrack.dll) when ever it is available.
Anyone can use this interface.

When it is not available, freetrack will use NP's old interface if it is there.
Freetrack never uses NP's new interface.

NP should update to use the freetrack interface so that the game Devs don't
need to implement several interfaces, one for each headtracking program.

the .dll recreates NaturalPoint strings, does it not?

err hang on a mo', apparently it does...

"Most TrackIR Enhanced software need to be provided with text strings which bear notice of "EyeControl Technologies" copyright (former name of NaturalPoint, Inc.) in order to activate the TrackIR Enhanced interface. Software which requires these text strings for interface activation also contain the strings themselves.At NaturalPoint's request, FreeTrack project members removed the strings from the software they provide to end users. FreeTrack then implemented a workaround which creates a local copy of these strings from the client software when used with TrackIR Enhanced titles" - wikipedia

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

the .dll recreates NaturalPoint strings, does it not?

No. Not so.
Freetrack's own interface does not use, latch on to or in any other way have
anything to do with NP's software. No recreation of strings; nothing.

However, the game must be designed to use the freetrack interface.
Only one mainstream game currently uses the freetrack interface: ARMAII.

When the freetrack interface is not there, then freetrack will use NP's
interface by the creation of strings that match NP's. Hopwever, Freetrack will
only ever use the old NP interface that NP no longer use.
Freetrack never uses the new NP interface.
Freetrack will always use it's own interface whenever it can.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

no-one is preventing anyone from writing their own software... it is when that software interfaces with someone else's software or hardware without authorisation that there is a problem.

Indeed, however that's what I read Brando as saying. I also think that there is a problem with preventing more open protocols from developing as they have with sticks and mouses. Do you not have a problem with this?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

TIR is quite cheap, considering the amount of R&D which had to be done to protect their property and considering the cost of games and other computer componetes... the cost is a furphy, a red herring.

My opinion differs on all points. If you want to pay more for the extra development time required to run things on a special microprocessor, rather than the computers CPU, that's your choice.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

err no... freetrack should have done the correct thing in the first place and developed their own interface, instead of tapping into NaturalPoint's.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

freetrack don't have the interface... hence their need to use NP's

They always had their own interface. Their "need" was due to games not accepting the usual inputs for use with head pose.