Alternate 6dof Head Tracking with FaceTrackNoIR

[V4Friend]

Read this?

 

Hi Wolf Rider,

 

I'm glad you are positive about changing the mind of Microsoft. I'm looking forward to your efforts on that department.

 

About the other thing. Have you really read this?:

 

Fake trackIR and TrackIRfixer would not be used if the developer (ED) created open track API (which they did, but it was canceled due to NP's request), that would allow every headtracking developer to use that API. That way, there wouldn't be a need for fake trackir's and whatnot. It's really simple.

 

What part of it don't you understand? (sorry, I'm trying not to be rude)

[Wolf Rider]

@V4freind...

I can see you're not being rude, neither am I... but you are dodging a question asked out curiousity, a valid question and a question which may help your cause.

 

Another question is: why is it up to game/ sim developers? I'm sorry, you appear to see MS as an unsurmountable object... wouldn't it be the preferred method to have a completely independent method of interfacing involved, one that any tracker developer could use and receive support for equally with any other tracker developer??

 

you approach them v4Friend... you want inclusion

[V4Friend]

Dodging? Not intentionally...

 

@V4friend...

I can see you're not being rude, neither am I... but you are dodging a question asked out curiousity, a valid question and a question which may help your cause.

OK then. FaceTrackNoIR supports a lot of games and flight-sims, by supporting multiple protocols. When, for instance, playing FSX, the program only uses the SimConnect interface. The quote you mention about tirviews and trackirfixer only apply to the TrackIR protocol and only in some special cases. Any newly developed protocol would (as I said) have nothing to do with TrackIR, tirviews or trackirfixer (or any of the other protocols, for that matter).

 

Another question is: why is it up to game/ sim developers? I'm sorry, you appear to see MS as an unsurmountable object... wouldn't it be the preferred method to have a completely independent method of interfacing involved, one that any tracker developer could use and receive support for equally with any other tracker developer??

 

you approach them v4Friend... you want inclusion

I agree that it is nice to have a generic solution. But, in a way, it's already there! The standard method for Inter Process Communication (and that's what we are talking about) is shared-memory-mapping. It's very simple, straightforward and can be used by anyone (so it's truly 'open'). The only thing ED would need to do, is define which data to put in it. (again, this would have nothing to do with NP's software!)

[Wolf Rider]

@ V4Friend...

 

yesss... shared memory mapping - how would it be if an alternative helicopter sim developer (or any other for matter) to DCS decided to go down that route and use that mapping to get their own game/ sim running?

What do you think the response would be?

 

 

 

 

OK then. FaceTrackNoIR supports a lot of games and flight-sims, by supporting multiple protocols. When, for instance, playing FSX, the program only uses the SimConnect interface. The quote you mention about tirviews and trackirfixer only apply to the TrackIR protocol and only in some special cases.

 

 

Thank you for that... it seems the FTNIR does make use of the NP IP, which is contrary to your earlier statement:

 

 

Originally Posted by V4Friend

@Wolf Rider: I still think you are missing the point. To make any DCS-program work with FaceTrackNoIR (or any other face-tracker for that matter), no single bit or byte of NP's software is required.

 

 

Can you and will you explain this?

Edited May 24, 2011 by Wolf Rider

[V4Friend]

@ V4Friend...

 

yesss... shared memory mapping - how would it be if an alternative helicopter sim developer (or any other for matter) to DCS decided to go down that route and use that mapping to get their own game/ sim running?

What do you think the response would be?

Hi Wolf, no, it doesn't work that way. The memory mapping would only contain info about the 6 DOF's required for face-tracking. It's not an open door to anything else.

 

Thank you for that... it seems the FTNIR does make use of the NP IP, which is contrary to your earlier statement:

 

 

Originally Posted by V4Friend

@Wolf Rider: I still think you are missing the point. To make any DCS-program work with FaceTrackNoIR (or any other face-tracker for that matter), no single bit or byte of NP's software is required.

 

 

Can you and will you explain this?

No, it's not contrary. It's like the FSX example: when you use FaceTrackNoIR with, say IL-2, the SimConnect interface is not used. If it would be, any IL-2 user would also have to install FSX... So when a new protocol is implemented, all the other protocols remain unused and thus un-required.

 

I hope this answers your questions and now you can focus on the 2 issues I mentioned?

[Wolf Rider]

ermm.. it (memory mapping) suggests it would be open to all forms ( a door, if necessary could be made) and if it is okay for one then that would be saying it is okay for any. Next thing ya know is everybody is mapping everybody else and the whole thing falls down in a shemozzle.

 

 

yes, the FSX SIMMCONNECT.... that's a good example of something independent, but, a fair few FT users bypass the FT use of that in favour of still connecting up with the TIR (even though it is still through the SIMMCONNECT gate).

il2 doesn't have SIMMCONNECT, only FSX does

 

You say FTNIR doesn't use anything NP with DCS, yet it appears quite clear that a TIR emulator and a DCS executable fix is required... could you clarify this?

Sooo on that and with regard to point 1., it appears you're still in a bit of bother and point 2., it still appears that the only acceptable form of interfacing is something which doesn't require anything NP could see as infringement, that developers could see wasn't going to put them on the spot and was avaliable to all alternatives.

 

How would you feel about removing all ability to use any fixes/ hacks (even from a third party supply) / emulators and making submission with a truly "clean" product? it could make all the difference

 

so in going back to the beginning... all forms of an alternative tracking need to be taken into account and the probably best way is for that to be done through a DirectX interface... that way, all the different alternatives developers have no advantage or disadvantage and a common interface so product quality becomes paramount), and all sim/ game developers have the same standards to work with.

 

In reality, the DirectX people are the people you should be contacting and convincing.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Wolf Rider

[jireland607]

ermm.. it (memory mapping) suggests it would be open to all forms ( a door, if necessary could be made) and if it is okay for one then that would be saying it is okay for any. Next thing ya know is everybody is mapping everybody else and the whole thing falls down in a shemozzle.

 

Anything stored in memory is accessible by any application anyway. Anyone can read what is stored in RAM with some very freely available programs. The point V4Friend is making is that if Eagle Dynamics agreed to create an area of shared memory with a particular pattern, then it could be used for these purposes. It would not open the program up any more than it currently is. Think of it like the LUA files they currently use, it would work in much the same way.

 

You say FTNIR doesn't use anything NP with DCS, yet it appears quite clear that a TIR emulator and a DCS executable fix is required... could you clarify this?

Sooo on that and with regard to point 1., it appears you're still in a bit of bother and point 2., it still appears that the only acceptable form of interfacing is something which doesn't require anything NP could see as infringement, that developers could see wasn't going to put them on the spot and was avaliable to all alternatives.

 

You are correct, it probably would help. Trouble is that the only reason we need to exploit the TrackIR protocol is because it is the only interface available for our games. If NP stopped its policy of stopping free competition, then there would be no need to include their protocol.

 

Strangely, NP's method of protecting their product is forcing people to exploit it. This is why I (and call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish) think they are not protecting their software but instead their market share.

 

As for Microsoft, inclusion in DirectX would be great. Two problems though, firstly any implementation would take a long time, maybe years to be released. Secondly, how bothered are the developers? With the DCS series, head tracking is in my opinion essential to enjoy the gameplay, therefore it's important to ED. As for Microsoft, us FreeTrack users are a tiny dot within their many millions of business as well as personal users.

 

In the short term, we need to lobby ED to include support for other systems, or at the very least it would be nice to see their stance on it and have a representative post on this thread.

[Nate--IRL--]

Strangely, NP's method of protecting their product is forcing people to exploit it. This is why I (and call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish) think they are not protecting their software but instead their market share.

 

No Conspiracy theory needed - that is exactly what they are doing. Nothing wrong with that. They have the dominant product in the market and have the means to protect its market share. Their software is the means to do so. If you don't use their software, you can't support TIR.

 

Nate

[sobek]

Nothing wrong with that.

 

I disagree. AFAIK a de facto market standard interface must not be used as leverage to further a monopoly.

 

They are actively supressing any competitors, be they open source or comercial and doing so not by the superiority of their product but by forcing developers to not support any other interfaces. This IMHO is a violation of the laws and provisions of a free market economy. I know this is a touchy subject, so i will not go into this any further, i just don't see how one can support this strategy. :huh:

[Moa]

Hmmm, anti-competitive measures to protect a dominant market share is a slipperly slope - and depending on the circumstances is not always legal. Bigger companies than NaturalPoint have been stung by this (Intel, Microsoft, IBM - who are so big that they flout the law and treat the fines as a cost of doing business).

 

US anti-trust laws apply when a company use their monopoly (which is legal to have) to leverage advantage in another area. This is not legal in US law. Monopolies are subject to stricter rules than companies in a balkanized market, so anti-competitive behaviour that would be permissible for a company with non-dominant market share is not permitted for monopolies (no matter what the size of the company is, it is the relative market share that matters).

 

Since NaturalPoint have a monopoly in consumer head tracking they are subject to different rules than their business (Optitrack) in industrial head tracking (where they are not a monopoly).

 

Anyway, the solution is to avoid NaturalPoint's license terms by using view control software that does not require NaturalPoint's developer interface.

 

Wouldn't it be better to support webcams *and* TrackIR instead of TrackIR only? This can be done, and has been done for many games other than DCS/LockOn.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Moa
typos

[Nate--IRL--]

I disagree. AFAIK a de facto market standard interface must not be used as leverage to further a monopoly.

 

They are actively supressing any competitors, be they open source or comercial and doing so not by the superiority of their product but by forcing developers to not support any other interfaces. This IMHO is a violation of the laws and provisions of a free market economy. I know this is a touchy subject, so i will not go into this any further, i just don't see how one can support this strategy. :huh:

 

I'll say morally, ethically it is not something I agree with - but legally are they in the wrong? If I had to guess I'd imagine that they are probably exploiting some technical loophole in the law (Probably like DCMA in the US). Or is it just that nobody has the clout to challenge them yet, do you think?

 

Nate

[Wolf Rider]

@ Jireland...

 

you need to lobby the DirectX people for a standard interface, in which every alternative tracker developer and game/sim developer works from one standard.

Working from one standard is best for everybody concerned

 

@Sobek...

 

you're offering an opinion, as others are offering an opinion... no-one has yet come up with an tracking alternative that doesn't infringe NP's IP.

 

 

@MOA...

 

basically we're on the same page, though is it anti-trust or is it IP protection. the only way to determine the difference is for alternative tracker developers to offer up a clean product, a product which has no capacity to exploit NP protocols in any manner

 

 

@ Nate...

 

I metioned earlier that "legal discussion" would only have discussion going 'round in circles.

Regardless of opinion, clout, rights etc... for it to end up in a court, a clean product has to go in with them, and by a clean product I mean one that doesn't allow users to be the exploiter using the alternative app as a means, instead of everything in one package.

eg some might say; "Our app doesn't infringe, it has its own protocols... the user has to get the fixer seperately and run that, as well as have suchnsuch file installed which we don't supply with our package".

Edited May 25, 2011 by Wolf Rider

[Frostiken]

Let's pretend NaturalPoint wasn't the only company making money on head tracking software for games.

 

So Company B comes out with their own product which competes (and would thus ensure higher quality and lower prices between the two of them). Unfortunately, it won't work with DCS: A-10, which is the latest and greatest flight sim everyone wants to play. Their sales suffer. Ubisoft announces the next IL2 game, and inexplicably, the product doesn't work with that either.

 

Company B's sales begin to suffer, because nobody wants to buy it - people go with NaturalPoint because their stuff works with these games, thus being the better product (because it's actually functional).

 

Behind the scenes, NaturalPoint is paying off ED and Ubisoft to simply provide exclusive head tracking APIs for their product only. Company B simply cannot compete because NaturalPoint doesn't allow them to compete.

 

NaturalPoint is in position for a very huge lawsuit and ED would be caught in the middle of it. Paying companies off to ensure you lock out hostile competition is a massive huge ****ing no-no. It doesn't matter if FreeTrack is 'free' or not, all you have to really prove is that NaturalPoint is making it impossible for anyone new to enter the market and compete.

 

Now, think about this 'deal' with ED and it becomes a lot less morally ambiguous.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Frostiken

[Nate--IRL--]

The issue isn't people 'using their stuff', it's the fact that they collaborate with ED to try to ensure that nobody could compete against them.

 

"Collaborate"?

 

You mean that NP stipulate that in order for ED to support TIR they make sure ED can not support other devices.

 

EDIT:- Sorry didn't see your edit :)

 

NaturalPoint is in position for a very huge lawsuit and ED would be caught in the middle of it. Paying companies off to ensure you lock out hostile competition is a massive huge ****ing no-no.

 

They don't have to pay anybody off. They can deny ED the ability to support Track IR - Who mentioned Bribes?

 

Nate

Edited May 25, 2011 by Nate--IRL--

[Wolf Rider]

Frostiken's post is a venture into possible slander and a venture that makes it hard for anyone (I assume) to take alternative tracking seriously, and it just makes the case "for" go limp and does their own cause damage.

[Nate--IRL--]

@ Nate...

 

I metioned earlier that "legal discussion" would only have discussion going 'round in circles.

Regardless of opinion, clout, rights etc... for it to end up in a court, a clean product has to go in with them, and by a clean product I mean one that doesn't allow users to be the exploiter using the alternative app as a means, instead of everything in one package.

eg some might say; "Our app doesn't infringe, it has its own protocols... the user has to get the fixer seperately and run that, as well as have suchnsuch file installed which we don't supply with our package".

 

The point was less about the specific implementation and more about the legality of a clause restricting the use of a separate non-proprietary interface as part of a contract. I was just curious as to how that would be legally challenged by a 3rd party.

 

Nate

[Frostiken]

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

 

So why wasn't IL2:COD, Falcon 4 AF, and FSX subject to the same limitations? What did ED have or not have that let NP do what they did?

Edited May 25, 2011 by Frostiken

[Nate--IRL--]

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

 

So why wasn't IL2:COD, Falcon 4 AF, and FSX subject to the same limitations?

 

No idea.

 

EDIT:- Apologies I just can't keep up with your edits.................. :)

 

"What did ED have or not have that let NP do what they did?" -We don't know.

 

Nate

[Wolf Rider]

@ Frostiken...

 

that's a bit of a straw clutch there... you need a clean product first, else it just goes to IP protection. Like it or not, this is what it will always go back to - getting it into a court?, you'll still need a clean product to go in with.

[Frostiken]

Apparently I'm missing part of this discussion because I don't see how IP protection fits into this. IP means their code and their product, not what it runs on.

 

Also the stance that NP simply would refuse ED access to TrackIR seems really bizarre. DCS is one of the very few markets that NaturalPoint has (consisting of a very slim handful of games, and only about half a dozen actually popular ones), and cutting them off from each other is in position to do NP more harm than ED. I think more people would refuse to buy TrackIR because it doesn't support DCS than the other way around. It probably would only be a matter of time before someone hacked the TrackIR to work with whatever free solution ED offered as well.

 

I don't know if anything more was involved in that, but that's like the bottle cap company telling the soda manufacturer what to do. ED should be in position to tell NP what to do, not the other way around.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Frostiken

[Nate--IRL--]

Wolf are you sure Freetrack uses NP IP?

 

Apparently I'm missing part of this discussion because I don't see how IP protection fits into this. IP means their code and their product, not what it runs on.

 

To talk to a TIR you must use NPs software - but I think this is a separate issue TBH.

 

EDIT:- Apologies I just can't keep up with your edits..................again :)

 

"I think more people would refuse to buy TrackIR because it doesn't support DCS than the other way around."

 

I would hazard a guess there are far more owners of TIRs than owners of DCS. I'd be of the opinion that any simmer with TIR would not purchase a Non TIR compatible sim these days.

 

Nate

Edited May 25, 2011 by Nate--IRL--

[Wolf Rider]

@ Nate...

 

Yes

 

Originally, it was part of the package, then on challenge, they moved the necesary bits out and now end users have to obtain the bits. FT still has in place the hook ups to make the seperately obtained work.

Similar to the quote from the FTNIR manual advice posted up earlier.

 

running the TIR camera on 3rd party software is a seperate issue and one which could probably be successfully argued (ala Seca, apps for iPhone, etc)

Edited May 25, 2011 by Wolf Rider

[Nate--IRL--]

Interesting I didn't know that.

 

Nate

[sobek]

no-one has yet come up with an tracking alternative that doesn't infringe NP's IP.

 

Sorry to be blunt, but you are clearly wrong. The whole debate centers on the interface that allows the tracking software to send position and angular data to the game. This is NOT rocket science, like NP like to make you believe, e.g. although i'm not a seasoned programmer (at least outside of signal processing), i'm pretty confident that with some c++ training i could come up with my own version of such an interface (although probably a shitty one :D).

 

FreeTrack has it's own interface (additionally to the hack for using NP's), ED tried to develop a proprietary one like Microsoft (and were coerced not to by NP). The problem is that no developer who also wants to support TrackIR is allowed to implement such an alternate interface, by NP!

 

Bohemia Interactive seemingly were big enough to not have to take NP's warped sense of business and implemented the FreeTrack interface alongside NP's, microsoft implemented a proprietary one, the problem is that ED are nowhere near that league (sales wise). I know no other dev studios that didn't have to abide by NP's adhesion contract.

 

I do agree with you that FreeTrack, for example, should not use NP's interface, but to do so NP would have to stop coercing developers into not supporting any alternatives, especially if they are open source.

Edited May 25, 2011 by sobek

[jireland607]

I have started a petition to Eagle Dynamics to include support for an alternative method of head movement tracking with the Lockon/DCS Series.

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/Tracking/petition.html

 

It was on this very petition site that support was raised to include FreeTrack on Bohemia Interactive's ArmA. I see it fitting that we launch our petition on the same site.

 

I hope you will all support the petition. I hope to raise over 1000 signatories, this will exceed the 900 for ArmA.

 

I will post a few threads on the DCS Forums to make more people aware of the petition in the coming days. Even if you do not think it will make a difference, still sign please it will only take less than a minute of your time.

 

Thank you for your support