Alternate 6dof Head Tracking with FaceTrackNoIR

[jireland607]

I would like to see support for another Head Tracking technology.

 

A large number of players are using FreeTrack which as you know is not fully supported by the DCS series. A 'hotfix' has to be release to allow it to use the TrackIR protocol. My main concerns, as well as the fact that FreeTrack will not work with 64bit Windows, is that the people who release the fixer may stop doing so. We need a more secure and practical method of interfacing with the game.

 

I have posted within these forums and was promptly pointed towards some threads where it looks like a certain manufacturer has asked ED to not include support for other tracking methods.

 

I have been communicating with the developer of FaceTrackNoIR, trying to learn all of the in's and out's of the technology. His product outputs using any of the following protocols:

 

FlightGear;

Free-track;

PPJoy;

fake TrackIR (evt. with TIRViews for some older games);

SimConnect (for Microsoft Flight Simulator X);

FSUIPC (for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 and 2004)

 

He explained to me also that all the programs use to interface with the game is a section of shared memory, the difference with TrackIR is they have a section of this memory that contains their encryption. FreeTrack works in the same way but does not have the encryption. As you are not using any dll's or components created by NaturalPoint, there is no fear of reprisals. You are simply reading a section of memory.

 

Another thought I had, if the memory map is too similar to that used by TrackIR is that ED implement an interface, then suggest the developers of alternate HeadTracking systems, use your implementation. After all, Microsoft and the developers of FlightGear did it. Would be nice to settle on a standard though.

 

Wim (The developer for FaceTrackNoIR has very kindly offered to discuss a way of implementing either a FreeTrack or other protocol into the DCS series.

 

If any ED developer views this post and would like to get in touch with Wim, please let me know.

 

Would an online petition help to persuade ED to integrate such and interface?

[Nate--IRL--]

ED had their own Headtracking interface but had to withdraw it, due to contractual arrangements to obtain use of the encrypted Naturalpoint API.

 

Their choice was either support Freetrack etc or TrackIR, but not both.

 

Nate

[doright]

It sounds as with the cart is leading the horse. TrackIR should be paying ED to promote their hardware in the game rather then demanding an exclusive interface. It would only take a couple of developers to stand up and say no we will incorporate a generic interface just like for mice or joysticks and this nonsense will be over.

 

ED had their own Headtracking interface but had to withdraw it, due to contractual arrangements to obtain use of the encrypted Naturalpoint API.

 

Their choice was either support Freetrack etc or TrackIR, but not both.

 

Nate

[Nate--IRL--]

It sounds as with the cart is leading the horse. TrackIR should be paying ED to promote their hardware in the game rather then demanding an exclusive interface. It would only take a couple of developers to stand up and say no we will incorporate a generic interface just like for mice or joysticks and this nonsense will be over.

 

Maybe, maybe not. But could you imagine the uproar if ED were to tell TIR owners their hardware is no longer compatible with DCS? Like it or not TrackIR is the De-facto standard.

 

Nate

[Wolf Rider]

ED had their own Headtracking interface but had to withdraw it, due to contractual arrangements to obtain use of the encrypted Naturalpoint API.

 

Their choice was either support Freetrack etc or TrackIR, but not both.

 

Nate

 

 

 

 

Thanks... now we're getting closer to what the real story was

 

 

 

Is there anyway a TIR independent "interface' can be developed using, say for instance, MouseLook?

[Nate--IRL--]

Thanks... now we're getting closer to what the real story was

 

This is nothing that isn't already known.

 

EDIT:- I must also point out that I am not speaking for ED. I am not in any sort of position to do so. I am just repeating stuff I've read on the forums.

 

Nate

Edited May 12, 2011 by Nate--IRL--

[Wolf Rider]

Sorry, read around... the most which was ever relayed was just "cancelled at NP's request"

[doright]

Maybe, maybe not. But could you imagine the uproar if ED were to tell TIR owners their hardware is no longer compatible with DCS? Like it or not TrackIR is the De-facto standard.

 

Nate

 

On the other hand you can also imagine the uproar if TIR owners found their hardware is no longer compatible with many games because of NP's interface encryption? NP would be forced to compete in the same way mouse and joystick makers compete: based on the capabilities and value of their product not hiding in a legal morass.

[Wolf Rider]

I think you'll find even NP would support a "generic interface" (whatever that interfacing would be; for instance Mouselook, DXDirectinput, other, whatever) all it needs to do is stay away from NP developed software.

that's fair, isn't it?

[jireland607]

Well my campaign to include another interface looks to have been blown out of the water quite quickly. As with Wolf Rider, I also could find nothing more on the forums than "cancelled at NP's request".

 

That statement, although it did not explain the matter very well at all, made me think that it was a legal request (A threat to take ED to court for producing a similar protocol to TrackIR). I never thought that it would be that ED was held to ransom. What a strange way of doing business. If your products good then people will buy it whatever. TrackIR's is probably artificially high in price due to a lack of competitive market.

 

I can not afford the +£100 so will have to try again with ppjoy but can't get the bloody thing to work. :(

 

I'm still glad I started this thread, it has given me, and I'm sure others reading it, clarity as to the reason why we can not use FreeTrack as intended. Thanks Nate, thats cleared it up for me.

[Wolf Rider]

@jireland...

 

just out of curiousity, what are you're system specs? and you must have missed the bit on "use of the encrypted Naturalpoint API."... up until this point we were lead to believe this was to be an independent interface.

Now I don't know what "independent" means to some, but to others, "independent" means "free from reliance on".

 

is there a problem with developing a truly independent (free from reliance on other headtracking bits and pieces) generic interface/ module/ thing to make work, for any alternative headtracking?

[Druid_]

When you consider that there are body tracking devices like Microsofts Kinect (here now) and Wavi Xtion (arriving soon) by the israeli company Primesense , NaturalPoint are going to have to up their game and quite possibly release an updated version of their head tracking software as a seperate product. One that will be compatible with aforementioned devices.

 

At least I hope so! I can finally get rid of these damn antlers and headset.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Druid_

[Nate--IRL--]

No what is really needed is for Microsoft to finally include a headtracking API in DirectX, then it won't matter what device you use.

 

Nate

[Druid_]

Agreed, windows8 maybe? Anyway, the way I see it is that the next gen of tracking devices will provide some interesting changes to games and how we interact with our PCs in the future. About time something new and inovative came along!

[Speed]

Eh... the way you guys make it sound, it sounds like there could be an anti-trust case brought up against Natural Point. Only allowed to support their product? That's not right.

[jireland607]

The mad thing is, you do not need an API or anything like to support FreeTrack or other.

 

A small area of memory that is shared between the headtracking software and the game is all that is needed. In Lay terms: ... You move your head up..... Freetrack increases the Y axis value stored in a memory location, the game sees that value has changed so moves the cockpit view up. Its fairly straight forward. (Says me who can't program for toffee :D)

 

Its not like implementing a massive interface or anything, ED just need to read a section of memory which is set aside for the task. A tiny section of memory at that. Then tell the headtracking software developers which addresses they are using so they can use the same areas in their code.

 

[sorry, I got the point of what you were saying while typing that, about the API. You are saying that if its integrated into DirectX then NP have no say as to whether ED implements it or not. I've left the above paragraphs in because I think it shows a good point.]

 

I have been in contact with one of the developers of FaceTrackNoIR. He has offered to discuss and probably tailor his software to suit ED. I'm sure it would also be possible to make an interface between any new standard and FreeTrack (which it seems is no longer being developed.) so ED could literally lead us into a new HeadTracking standard if required, or use the many already available.

 

It's so simple... Its just that ED have bowed under pressure, don't take that as an attack on ED. I have seen the amazing support that they have given on these forums. The way they fix, repair and build their flight sims, in my opinion is second to no other software company. I do not know under what circumstances that decision was made or why, that is why I would like to see a response from somebody from the ED development team to get their side of the story.

 

Even then I do not believe there is not some kind of legal loophole. What if there was an option for a "Generic Controller" within the sim which worked in a way that could be exploited to use a headtracking system perhaps?

 

Even Microsoft, yes, the allegedly, anti-competitive super company, Microsoft implemented Simconnect which allowed users to run head tracking on FSX Oh, and allowed everyone to use it, no matter the device. I think Druid is right, NP need some good competition to get the horse on the correct end of the cart. So, come on ED, listen to your users and do the right thing, I think you'd be surprised how many people use FreeTrack.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.4 Ghz | 8GB DDR3 Dual Channel | Ati HD4850 XFX | 22" Samsung TFT & NEC 17" touchscreen

Edited May 17, 2011 by jireland607

[Nate--IRL--]

The point is not how difficult it would be to do an API, in fact it would probably be very simple. The problem would be that NP could seek that DCS no longer supports TIR. ED would have to comply because to talk to a TIR device you must use proprietary NP code.

 

**Again I must point out that I am not speaking on ED's behalf here, just speaking as a lay person**

 

Nate

[Wolf Rider]

 

No what is really needed is for Microsoft to finally include a headtracking API in DirectX, then it won't matter what device you use.

 

Nate

 

 

+1

 

if the device isn't using Naturalpoint code in any way, they can have no say in the matter... the problem has arisen because of the use of the code and Naturalpoint perceive that as a copyright infringement (FSX uses the Microsoft SIMMCONNECT, which TIR must also use, no different to any other device... yet FSX is a TIR enhanced game - ie Naturalpoint supported)

 

as for memory overmapping, how would it be for an alternative helicopter sim developer to overmap on memory sections of the DCS Blackshark, to make the alternative sim run? what does anyone believe the reaction would be?

Edited May 17, 2011 by Wolf Rider

[V4Friend]

Joystick?

 

The point is not how difficult it would be to do an API, in fact it would probably be very simple. The problem would be that NP could seek that DCS no longer supports TIR. ED would have to comply because to talk to a TIR device you must use proprietary NP code.

 

**Again I must point out that I am not speaking on ED's behalf here, just speaking as a lay person**

 

Nate

Hi Nate,

 

Maybe this is a silly question, but: has NP not complained that ED supports the joystick as 'camera-controlling-device'? :joystick:

 

Wim

[jireland607]

+1

as for memory overmapping, how would it be for an alternative helicopter sim developer to overmap on memory sections of the DCS Blackshark, to make the alternative sim run? what does anyone believe the reaction would be?

 

With all due respect, that's not a very good analogy. What you seem to be forgetting is that NP would actually be the 'alternative helicopter sim developer' creating a mod for a game. Also with what you said, the gamer would already have purchased and installed BlackShark for it to share the memory with. I'm sure everybody would say "I paid for the game, I'll mod it how I like". Quite rightly so.

 

To use a better analogy:

 

Its more like Thrustmaster saying to DCS "We have a HOTAS modelled on the Warthog, loads of people have it or will want it. If you remove support for any other joystick from your game, you will be allowed to use ours. If you fail to comply however, we will not allow you to use our joystick. You will then lose customers and annoy your users." Why would they do that? To force users to spend £300 on a joystick rather than using what they already have or what they could build on a shoestring.

 

It's unfortunate that DCS have gone along with their request, and I'm sure they had their reasons but despite your negative comments, you must admit it is at best anti-competitive. If they did that over here in the UK, they would be under investigation by now.

 

I'm all for protecting your software, and that's fine, that is why they added encryption, good for them, NP users spent a lot of money for their setup so I expect them to enjoy a better piece of software than my free one. But to then stop a completely independent developer from producing a piece of software that in no way uses borrowed code from TIR then that's just plain wrong.

 

Again, I invite anyone from the ED team to post on this thread, I would like very much to see your comments.

[nscode]

Forget unfortunate and wrong... how is it even legal?

[Panzertard]

Forget unfortunate and wrong... how is it even legal?

 

As a Layman I would guess:

- EULA. We all agree to the terms of the software usage when we buy TIR. We're not allowed to reverse engineer it.

NP has the IP for the software, and are in their full right to dictate the terms.

We have the right to choose not to use the products.

 

Which means, as unfair as it may sound, not to be able to use it with other hardware devices:

- It's NP's property - it cannot be used for any other products except their own.

 

If someone wish to do a antitrust case out of it, please try, but I really cannot see anyone can deny a software vendor protecting their IP.

 

A comparison which may be relevant:

- Apple protects their software in a similar manner, to be used for their own platform only.

[Moa]

There is a misconception that there is a legal construct called "Intellectual Property". This is incorrect, there is no such construct. It is a useful 'umbrella' term for the following legal constructs:

* Copyright

* Trademarks

* Patents

* License agreements.

 

This is not me being pedantic, it is trying to get the discussion based on how the legal system works, rather than a undefined and nebulous term (good work for bringing it up Panzertard).

 

Copyright does not apply here, as no Natural Point (NP) code or executables would be required.

 

Trademarks do not apply, unless you use terms and colours which are similar to NP's.

 

Patents may apply in the US. They may or may not apply for compatible hardware. In much of the developed world they do not apply for software (although the sneaky ACTA trade treaty is being pushed by the US Government to try and get their trading partners to kowtow to the US system/corporates).

 

So we are left with the End User License Agreement (EULA). This cannot override the laws of the state you are in (and different sovereign states have different laws, of course). Most developed countries (including the US) have laws that explicitly allow reverse-engineering for compatibility reasons, and this has precedent cases which have ruled it is allowed. Therefore, despite what the EULA says its provisions are not guaranteed to be enforceable. If you can prove you are only trying to make a compatible implementation (which appears to be the case here) then NP are unlikely to get a court ruling that would stop you. What they can do is be a nuisance with suits (which cost a lot of money until the court rules in your favor) and exploit the fact they have deeper pockets than you.

 

However, they would probably try and get you to settle (pay them) out of court, as they would be aware that if the enforceability of their license provisions were ruled on in court then an unfavorable ruling would mean everyone else was covered by the same ruling.

 

In short, you could build something with a compatible interface provided you didn't use any of NPs files (not even their header files provided for linking, you have to get the signature from the DLLs). Compatible 'cleanroom' independent development is pretty much always allowed.

 

Disclaimer: IANAL (not a lifestyle choice - webbish for "I am not A lawyer", I just read Groklaw from time to time). If you have doubts then engage a lawyer and see what applies in your own country/state/jurisdiction.

 

nb: unauthorized copying the Natural Point software (or LockOn) is not allowed, it is covered by Copyright (so don't do it!).

Edited May 20, 2011 by Moa

[nscode]

But if I understand correctly, it is not about other software being compatible or not. It is about NP saying we will not allow you to use our software if you support any other software that offers similar functionality.

 

As for patents, afaik they haven't been granted any. And it's to no surprise. They haven't invented anything remotely new (look no further than your MiG or Su).

[Moa]

Yes, but if you write software with similar functionality you don't need the TrackIR software. Many years ago I developed an application with the TrackIR SDK - it was a medical application where head and eye tracking was required. The TrackIR solved the head part.

 

The SDK is pretty simple (from the outside, and what it is doing internally is not that hard, hence all the Open Source equivalents springing up). In fact, most if the hassle with programming the TrackIR is getting you license key registered, otherwise TrackIR refuses to work with your application (more bollox from Natural Point). Game companies are waking up to the fact that there are alternatives to being locked-in; 'exclusive' is generally a bad word in business (you don't want an exclusive supplier, as in this case; or as a supplier you don't want a client that demands exclusivity).

Edited May 20, 2011 by Moa