dslyecxi 23 Posted June 11, 2009 i hope the new OPF supports free track! Don't worry - it not only does not support Freetrack, it also doesn't support TrackIR or independent head movements at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted June 11, 2009 Hi all Untill Free Track produce drivers and an SDK of their own no one can support their nonexistant software. Kind regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fincuan 0 Posted June 11, 2009 Untill Free Track produce drivers and an SDK of their own no one can support their nonexistant software. Which they have already done, which has been mentioned in this thread numerous times. The complete source code of the software is also available on their site. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted June 11, 2009 Which they have already done, which has been mentioned in this thread numerous times. The complete source code of the software is also available on their site. Hi all Then why do they still rely on TrackIR? Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ndepal 10 Posted June 11, 2009 Hi allThen why do they still rely on TrackIR? Kind Regards walker they dont rely on NPs software. freetrack has many output options. one of them is the (old non-encrypted) trackIR interface, one of them is the FlightSim-api and one of them is their own freetrack interface. please nobody write a post saying its freetracks fault cuz they dont have their own SDK, THEY DO HAVE ONE! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fincuan 0 Posted June 11, 2009 If you mean why FT mostly functions via the TIR interface in today's games, the answer is simple: The TIR interface is far more widespread than that of FT. At the moment, with the new TIR interface, that isn't an option because it's encrypted in a way which prevents FT from working with it. That's why Freetrack's own interface is being pushed forward. It's free for anyone to use and implement and open-source, quite a difference to what Naturalpoint puts out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparks50 0 Posted June 11, 2009 Edit: beaten to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge.PT 10 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Hi allUntill Free Track produce drivers and an SDK of their own no one can support their nonexistant software. Kind regards walker Mr walker, every time freetrack is referred you come and show how ignorant you are about it, why don't you go play with your trackir and avoid saying such nonsenses. Hi allThen why do they still rely on TrackIR? Kind Regards walker And there you are again showing your ignorance on the subject, freetrack don't rely on trackir interface only, it as ppjoym, simconnect, mouse emulation and it's own SDK. Why doesn't freetrack API/SDK get included in ArmA2? Because of the same reason it didn't get in Black Shark, and Eagle Dynamics is now developing they own SDK, your dear natural point made a agreement that only their product would be supported in ArmA2. And that is what in Europe we call monopolist behaviour and it's illegal. What's the purpose of this thread, you may ask. It's to have the already built SDK/API code of freetrack in ArmA2, the same reason, that makes you ask for a "Web of Trust certificates for Multi Player" in your thread. So please mr walker, stop your nonsenses and leave this thread for those who use freetrack. We don't need your unnecessary feedback, goodbye. Edited June 11, 2009 by Jorge.PT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ndepal 10 Posted June 11, 2009 can i just ask one question: what EXACTLY is NP doing (in the black shark example)? i know they tried to shut out freetrack users but what exactly did they prohibit? did they prohibit the use of the trackIR interface by freetrack or did they prohibit any other interface to be implemented in the game? and when they finally agreed to allow 3DOF was that via a seperate API or NP's trackIR? if they allowed their software to be used for that then they actually have to be considered generous. its quite an important difference because they have every right to protect their own software. if they prohibited any other interface to be implemtented then that is to be considered monopolistic behaviour and would be illegal (in europe at least) please reply with valid sources! thank you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparks50 0 Posted June 11, 2009 Its not a monopoly. Anyone is free to make their own "Arma 2" instead of buying their game from BI, thus hurting their sales. Its a free market. Or at least, mainly a free market. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fincuan 0 Posted June 11, 2009 its quite an important difference because they have every right to protect their own software. That's given. They do business with it so of course they'll do everything they can to protect it. If they want to shut users with certain type of hardware or software out of the loop then that's their decision, and we can't do anything but to express our opinions against it. FYI apart from preventing FT users from using the new NP-api it's the same thing for TIR1 and 2 users: their devices won't work with it. Hence why a common head-tracking interface, akin to how joysticks, mice or keyboards work, would be better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge.PT 10 Posted June 11, 2009 ndepal your answer is in the 1st page and 4 pages back. Direct quote from Eagle Dynamics forums: Guys, we already told you multiple times to stop the FT vs TrackIR accusations (against both sides). As you proably know, ED are working on a compromise:Every joystick has standard software interface, that's why every joystick works in every game. For now there is no standard for head tracking devices software interface. We were going to add vendor-independent SDK in English release to allow every head tracking vendor (including FreeTrack) implement support of their devices for BlackShark. SDK has been removed from English release because of NaturalPoint request. Now we make agreement with NaturalPoint and we will release 3DOF version of our head tracking SDK soon. source:http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=35002&highlight=freetrack&page=3The problem is that natural point encrypted their SDK (that I don't have any problem with), but doesn't allow games supported by TrackIr use any other SDK besides theirs. It's like you couldn't use your joystick in ArmA2, because only brand X is supported. The difference between Eagle Dynamics and BI, is that ED assumed the nature of their compromise with natural point and provide a solution, while BI doesn't say a word about this subject. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andreher 10 Posted June 11, 2009 Its not a monopoly. Anyone is free to make their own "Arma 2" instead of buying their game from BI, thus hurting their sales. Its a free market. Or at least, mainly a free market. wtf dude... stop saying BS..... its like microsoft encrypt their sdk, u wont be able to use any other keyboard or mouse in arma 2 but microsoft ones... how would u feel about that? thats what natural point did... their sdk do not allow any other headtrack device to work... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
'Winder 10 Posted June 11, 2009 it worked in arma 1. cant be that hard to implement it in arma 2.... you have the files and the knowhow... "It" was TrackIR. FreeTrack wasn't "implemented" in ArmA 1, like it's never "implemented" in any game. It hacked into the game, like with almost every other "FreeTrack Supported" game, through the TrackIR API. i dont buy a track ir cause its overpriced and i dont want to support their monopolist behavior.... oh btw arma1 is listed in the compatible title list. some kinda advertisment for you? imagine armed assault 2 appears in this list.. it will get you "some" additional customers. First, do you know what part of NaturalPoint's "monopolist behavior" involves, which you could be helping to support? Establishing relationships with game developers, convincing them to integrate the technology, and giving them technical support on said integration. Because, you know, they're a real company with actual responsibilities, accountability to their product, and so on. Those efforts take time and money. The result is that some game devs do integrate head tracking. Do you think that BIS just came up with this newfangled idea on their own? Like essentially every game that TrackIR and FreeTrack users enjoy head tracking in, NaturalPoint proposed the integration and supported it with their own time and resources (taking nothing away from BIS and others that "got" the concept and ran with it). As far as the "compatibility" list--it's rather misleading, as the vast majority of the titles are really only compatible with TrackIR. FreeTrack and it's community just happens to piggyback on this compatibility. Bi had a good working interface in Arma1 but replaced it with a broken encrypted interface in Arma2. This makes it pretty clear they are willing participants in the head tracking cartel. Oh, Quarrion. You're so poetic. "Head Tracking Cartel." Clever. I can't wait for the sequel to Blood Diamond, exposing how the powerful NaturalPoint Cartel uses all of it's dirty blood money from TrackIR sales to entertain rich, fat Americans at the expense of the indigenous Africans that harvest them. Buuuuut... you're wrong. The new interface isn't "broken." You just can't access it unless you pay for it by purchasing a TrackIR. How unreasonable. I don't know how BI is associating itself with such company, it seems that trackir is still only supporting 4DOF in ArmA2, and they are advertising full support (6DOF) in their website. As I mentioned in the other post you made about this... any reasonable person would expect that this was a mistake. What do they possibly have to gain from deceiving us about such a small detail? And would they really expect to "get away" with it? Please. I guess we can only start ignoring games from BI and wait for better ones from EA (Battlefield).This really sucks. Good thing that Battlefield supports FreeTrack, huh? Not to mention TrackIR. i wish all the bad to NP, and i will never buy a trackir in my life!!trackir users dont want free track to work because they feel bad after wasting 180euros on something that i got for free... so they become jelous ...instead of payinga ridiculous overloaded price for a trackir... Just remember that all the while that you're "wishing all the bad to NP," they're still investing their own time and money to get head tracking in games. Something that FreeTrack's developers do not do. TrackIR users aren't jealous of your low resolution, high-latency, bluetooth homebrews. Just like we wouldn't be jealous if you cooked up your own homebrew keyboard out of Legos and some copper wiring you stole out of an abandoned warehouse. We defend the idea that it's good for a small company that provides a device uniquely helpful to our niche gaming interests to be supported instead of demonized and ripped off by a bunch of whiners. Oh, and the "ridiculous overloaded price" of a TrackIR 4 is now $99. Not terribly more than a high-end webcam, and it's manufactured in the US instead of an Indonesian sweat shop. they dont rely on NPs software. freetrack has many output options. one of them is the (old non-encrypted) trackIR interface, one of them is the FlightSim-api and one of them is their own freetrack interface.please nobody write a post saying its freetracks fault cuz they dont have their own SDK, THEY DO HAVE ONE! Hahahahahahahahahaha.... ahhhhhhh. Hah. If FreeTrack doesn't rely on NaturalPoint's API, how do you explain this ("spoilered" to save space): Supported Titles TrackIR API TIRViews SimConnect FreeTrack SDK FSUIPC HeadTracker 18 Wheels of Steel: Haulin' x - Aces High II x - Air Battles: Sky Defender x - America's Army x - ArmA: Combat Operations (Armed Assault) x - Arvoch Conflict x - Rowan's Battle of Britain x - Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory x - Battleground Europe: World War II Online x - Beyond the Red Line x - Colin McRae Rally 2004 x - Combat Flight Simulator 3 x - Condor: The Competition Soaring Simulator x - Crashday x - Cross Racing Championship 2005 x - DCS: Black Shark* - x Descent: D2X-XL x - DiRT x - Driver's Republic x - Enemy Engaged: RAH-66 Comanche vs. KA-52 Hokum x - Enemy Engaged 2 x - Euro Truck Simulator x - EVE Online x - Evochron Alliance 2.0 x - Evochron Legends x - Evochron Renegades x - F1 Challenge x - Falcon 4.0 x - Falcon 4: Allied Force x - First Eagles: The Great Air War 1918 x - Flight Simulator 2002 - x Flight Simulator 2004: A Century Of Flight x - x Flight Simulator X x - Flyboys x - Future Pinball x - FreeSpace 2 Open x - GTR x - GTR 2 x - GT Legends x - Grand Prix Legends x - GRID x - Harrier Attack II x - IL2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles x - Insurgency x - iRacing x - Jane's F/A-18 x - JetPakNG x - Jumpgate x - Jumpgate Evolution x - Live For Speed x - Lock On: Modern Air Combat x - Lock On 1.1: Flaming Cliffs x - LunarPilot x - Mediterranean Air War (MAW) x - Micro Flight x - MiG Alley x - NASCAR Racing 2003 Season x - NASCAR SimRacing x - netKar PRO x - Nitro Stunt Racing x - Orbiter x - Over Flanders Field (OFF) x - Pacific Fighters x - Project Torque x - RACE: The WTCC Game x - RACE 07: The Official WTCC Game x - RealFlight G3 x - Red Baron 3D x - rFactor x - Richard Burns Rally x - Rise of Flight x - Rise: The Vieneo Province x - Ship Simulator 2006 x - Ship Simulator 2008 x - Silent Wings x - Simax Simulation Driving Simulator x - Space Shuttle Mission 2007 x - Starshatter x - Star Wars Galaxies: Jump to Lightspeed x - Strike Fighters: Project 1 x - Superkarting Demo x - Targetware Series x - Test Drive Unlimited x - thriXXX Technology Series x - ToCA Race Driver 2 x - Tower Simulator x - Trainz Railroad Simulator 2006 x - Trainz Classics x - Turismo Carretera x - Vehicle Simulator x - Virtual Sailor x - WarBirds x - Wings of War x - Wings Over Europe: Cold War Gone Hot x - Wings Over Israel x - Wings Over Vietnam x - WWII Battle Tanks: T-34 vs. Tiger x - X Motor Racing x - X-Plane / X-Cockpit x - "Unsupported" Titles Tom Clancy's HAWX x - ArmA 2 x - *6 DOF available through hacked beta .dll created by Quarrion for FreeTrack Let me know if I've tabulated these incorrectly. If you take the time to count it up, there are a grand total of 4 titles that FreeTrack accesses through means other than either the TrackIR API or a NaturalPoint view mod. Three of them are versions of Flight Simulator, and the other is Black Shark. The only one that had FreeTrack somewhat in mind was Black Shark. Microsoft just uses an aggregated peripheral API for all third party input devices. FreeTrack uses it like TrackIR and any number of joysticks, rudder pedals, etc. It's not like this can be attributed to the FreeTrack devs though. The TIR interface is far more widespread than that of FT. Why do you think that is? I wonder if it has anything to do with which API has been promoted over the course of many years with time, money, etc? freetrack don't rely on trackir interface only, it as ppjoym, simconnect, mouse emulation and it's own SDK.... Why doesn't freetrack API/SDK get included in ArmA2? The idea that FreeTrack isn't overwhelmingly buoyed by hacking into the TrackIR API is so laughable. See my response to ndepal. How long has ArmA 2 been in development? How long have a couple of FreeTrack users been lobbying for integration of the FT SDK? How long ago do you think NaturalPoint supplied BIS with the TrackIR SDK? Just because BIS doesn't have the time (or, likely, desire) to integrate a new API in response to your forum posts--a couple of weeks before the game is released--doesn't mean there are nefarious goings on in the background between BIS and NP. can i just ask one question:what EXACTLY is NP doing (in the black shark example)? i know they tried to shut out freetrack users but what exactly did they prohibit? did they prohibit the use of the trackIR interface by freetrack or did they prohibit any other interface to be implemented in the game? and when they finally agreed to allow 3DOF was that via a seperate API or NP's trackIR? if they allowed their software to be used for that then they actually have to be considered generous. its quite an important difference because they have every right to protect their own software. if they prohibited any other interface to be implemtented then that is to be considered monopolistic behaviour and would be illegal (in europe at least) please reply with valid sources! thank you If you followed all of the Black Shark drama, several things became pretty clear. NaturalPoint encrypted their data stream to prevent FreeTrack users or anyone else from hijacking their API without permission. Somehow, FreeTrack users (namely Quarrion, it would seem) got a hold of a hacked up .dll that bypassed the encrypted TrackIR .dll. It seems likely that it was a modified beta .dll, which means that it could have been supplied by a BS beta tester. NP and ED seemed to have some discussions behind the scene, and as a result, ED released their own 3 DOF head tracking interface--apparently with NP's approval. But, the "fix" (hacked .dll) still works, so most FreeTrack users that don't mind hacking Black Shark a bit have 6 DOF. Beyond that (and even including some of that), it's speculation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ndepal 10 Posted June 11, 2009 "FT isnt reyling on TrackIR-api"Hahahahahahahahahaha.... ahhhhhhh. Hah. If FreeTrack doesn't rely on NaturalPoint's API' date=' how do you explain this ("spoilered" to save space): Let me know if I've tabulated these incorrectly. If you take the time to count it up, there are a grand total of 4 titles that FreeTrack accesses through means other than either the TrackIR API or a NaturalPoint view mod. Three of them are versions of Flight Simulator, and the other is Black Shark. The only one that had FreeTrack somewhat in mind was Black Shark. Microsoft just uses an aggregated peripheral API for [i']all[/i] third party input devices. FreeTrack uses it like TrackIR and any number of joysticks, rudder pedals, etc. It's not like this can be attributed to the FreeTrack devs though. first of all thank you for this great long TrackIR-fanboy (i assume) post, we really needed one of those. no but serisously: i dont think you understood what i meant to say. i was simply trying to point out that FT actually does have their own SDK that could be used to make FT compatible with ArmA2, for example. i just wanted to clarify this because people kept saying stuff like "well FT is just stupid if they had their own SDK then all their compatibility issues would be gone" or things to that effect. just so you dont feel like you have to post this big reply where you try to make me look like a fool: i dont unconditionally support the FT side of this. if NP wants to protext their own software then by all means i think they should, its what i would do. but i would still like to see FT implementation in games such as ArmA2. my guess is that the future holds head tracking support like we have joysticksupport now. *keeping fingers crossed* regarding the lag comment of yours: FT setups arent necessarily laggy at all, actually. if you just use the cheapest webcam there is, then maybe. but there are several options (WiiMote, PS3Eye) that give you great framerates and ping. so dont just bash the FreeTrack idea if you havent tried it to its full extent... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
'Winder 10 Posted June 11, 2009 first of all thank you for this great long TrackIR-fanboy (i assume) post, we really needed one of those.no but serisously: i dont think you understood what i meant to say. i was simply trying to point out that FT actually does have their own SDK that could be used to make FT compatible with ArmA2, for example. i just wanted to clarify this because people kept saying stuff like "well FT is just stupid if they had their own SDK then all their compatibility issues would be gone" or things to that effect. just so you dont feel like you have to post this big reply where you try to make me look like a fool: i dont unconditionally support the FT side of this. if NP wants to protext their own software then by all means i think they should, its what i would do. but i would still like to see FT implementation in games such as ArmA2. my guess is that the future holds head tracking support like we have joysticksupport now. *keeping fingers crossed* regarding the lag comment of yours: FT setups arent necessarily laggy at all, actually. if you just use the cheapest webcam there is, then maybe. but there are several options (WiiMote, PS3Eye) that give you great framerates and ping. so dont just bash the FreeTrack idea if you havent tried it to its full extent... We (those of us that are interested in ArmA 2, head tracking, and top-tier sims), do need these kinds of posts, because they clarify misconceptions and misrepresentations by some (granted, not all) FT users that confuse reasonable people with red-herring arguments. If your intention was just to communicate the fact that there is a FreeTrack SDK available to game devs, you shouldn't write things like, "they dont rely on NPs software," which communicates something much larger and much less truthful. I agree with you that it's not fair to assume that just having an SDK will solve FreeTrack's problems. You need to get it in the game! And that takes time, and often someone "knocking on doors" on a relatively full time basis. Plus, what are prospective devs supposed to do when evauating the technology? "So, uh, Marek, I'd like you to consider putting FreeTrack in your new title." "Ah, OK, that sounds interesting. How can I test it out in our game?" "Well, first you'll need to put our API in. You can get it from our SDK, here. Then, you're going to need to get a Wii Remote. If your PC doesn't have the right bluetooth stack, you're going to need to buy BlueSoleil. Next, build an attachement to connect your Wii Remote to your monitor. I used some wire hangers and paperclips, but feel free to use whatever you like..." "Um, let me stop you there. I don't have time to cook up some contraption. Get back to me when you have ready made kit for me to check out." Homebrew enthusiasts have to accept the fact that one inherent obstacle to popularizing this kind of setup with professional game developers is simply that you don't have much organizational structure and support, and hardware-dependent software with no actual hardware isn't very compelling. Oh, and by the way, don't assume that I haven't tried FreeTrack. I'm not talking out of my backside here. I've tried FT 2.2 with a Wii Remote, PS3 Eyetoy, and a high-end Logitech webcam. They all suffer either from a lack of resolution, low framerate, or poor image processing. But, that's not what this thread is about. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bushlurker 46 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Actually the conversation with Marek could go more like this..... "So, uh, Marek, I'd like you to consider putting FreeTrack in your new title." "Ah, OK, that sounds interesting. How can I test it out in our game?" "Well, first you'll need to put our API in. You can get it from our SDK, here.... <snip> Since we're not actually selling anything here we don't have nicely boxed tracking systems for everyone... our software is completely free, and people are free to use the hardware of their choice with it... so lets choose some, shall we? Lets buy a webcam from Amazon... that $20 A4Tech Nightvision with the built infrared will do nicely... (when you're not using it for headtracking you can use it as a regular webcam, just as a bonus)... Now we need a reflective hatclip, lets choose one sold by those Nice Naturalpoint chaps.... there we go - $9.95 to you, Sir... You DO have a hat handy, don't you?? Now... Install our software, and off you go... No modifications, no "homebrew" - perfectly adequate headtracking for $29.95... "Any alternatives???" "Well if you really want the clip and the cam to arrive in the same box you might want to consider the TrackIR, though we're talking over 3 times the cost.... their stuff IS a bit more sophisticated and precise - a lot of people prefer it... you get what you pay for... thats the choice." I think I made this point before - Freetrack IS an Out-the-box alternative - it just isn't Freetrack themselves selling the "box"... they aren't actually selling anything. I DID "homebrew" a headphone clip for my Freetrack setup - mainly because I wanted a sideclip that used the reflect system - I considered buying a Naturalpoint clip, but didn't want the hassle of LED's and powering them.... sadly, Naturalpoint don't actually offer a reflective SIDEclip - as far as I'm aware... so I chose to build one... Including an API in a future update isn't the greatest chore in the world, and BIS are just as loyal to their community as the community is to them and their games... unusually so, in fact... So - the API could be implemented, it basically comes down to whether they decide to do it or not... and if theres considerable support for the idea in "their" community, it's the sort of thing BIS might just do... (unless of course, they're bound by some sort of "agreement" not to)... Thats a different issue, and it's NOT the topic of this thread... neither is it about the relative merits of FT vs T_IR... I think our statement here is basically... Dear BIS - An awful lot of us use *this* head tracking system, and for Arma 2 it really needs its own API included within the game... Could you please include it in a forthcoming patch and make a LOT of loyal customers VERY happy...??? It's down to them, and if they're as polite as usual they will let us know what they decide..... If theres another Q&A session we can ask then! ;) B Edited June 12, 2009 by Bushlurker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hyp3rdyn3 10 Posted June 12, 2009 Mr. 'Winder, what you've just typed out, is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who has seen your post is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Please keep the topic away from FT vs TIR and concentrate on FreeTrack support in Arma2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fop 10 Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) ... ... ... what are your personal benefits if freetracks own api is not supported in arma2. Edited June 12, 2009 by fop Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonsai 10 Posted June 12, 2009 now we have here hundrets of posts, why isnt the freetrack topic even in the suggestions sticky? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge.PT 10 Posted June 12, 2009 Why bonsai, is it usual to a thread to became a sticky when it reaches 100+ posts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nutlink 10 Posted June 12, 2009 I was so close to building a Freetrack set for myself using the TrackIR clip and a webcam, costing me roughly $50. That I can justify for one game. However, having to spend $100 for a TrackIR4 or $160 for a TrackIR5 just to use in one game? No thanks. I don't have the money to justify that kind of spending, as much as I'd love it. So now TrackIR loses my business (the little bit I can afford to give them at any rate) and I'm without any sort of tracking. Lose-lose situation, although of course I'm the minority here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kremator 1065 Posted June 12, 2009 Could we get a comment from the Devs as to when FreeTrack could be implemented please? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ndepal 10 Posted June 12, 2009 If your intention was just to communicate the fact that there is a FreeTrack SDK available to game devs' date=' you shouldn't write things like, "they dont rely on NPs software," which communicates something much larger and much less truthful.[/quote']that was actually my intention. what i meant by "they dont rely on NPs software," was that thats not their only interface-option, albeit the most commonly used one what are prospective devs supposed to do when evauating the technology?"So, uh, Marek, I'd like you to consider putting FreeTrack in your new title." "Ah, OK, that sounds interesting. How can I test it out in our game?" "Well, first you'll need to put our API in. You can get it from our SDK, here. Then, you're going to need to get a Wii Remote. If your PC doesn't have the right bluetooth stack, you're going to need to buy BlueSoleil. Next, build an attachement to connect your Wii Remote to your monitor. I used some wire hangers and paperclips, but feel free to use whatever you like..." "Um, let me stop you there. I don't have time to cook up some contraption. Get back to me when you have ready made kit for me to check out." ok sorry but im sure you dont even believe that thats actually a considerable choice. i mean just because most FT-setups are DIY doesnt mean that if the FT team wants to present it they cant present a kit already put together. obviously if you went and said hey try our software but before please spend a bunch of time glueing stuff together, they would laugh at you. but you could just as well say please try our software with the hardware kit provided (precisely what NP or any other comercial company does). wether that kit be one "homebrewed" by FT or one out of the box (or boxes...) like Bushlurker described doesnt really matter. so as far as that goes FT doesnt have less of a chance of being considered. although, i agree, it needs a lot of time and effort to get your software to be considered, sth a company like NP can afford, FT probably cant. so thats really (one of) the reasons we dont have FT-support in our games. so if you really want that i suggest you make your request be heard by FT and donate a bunch of money so they can afford to take time off of their jobs and do some "knocking on BI's doors" :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bushlurker 46 Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) ... aren't WE "knocking on BIS's door" - en masse - right here and now???... They DO read this stuff y'know... (don't they??) :rolleyes: Edited June 12, 2009 by Bushlurker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
