Will ArmA 2 support FreeTrack?!

[ndepal 10]

well im not sure that they do. and even if they actually do, it doesnt seem to make all that great of an impact on them, considering they havent felt the need to reply to us in spite of several requests. by knocking on doors i mean more active "knocking" such as emailling/calling or writing a real and official letter from FT to BI, that would affect more in my eyes because its a formal request. they cant do everything anybody posts in a forum, but they can talk to people who contact them in an official manner...

[jimbojones 2]

I just finished building a nice FreeTrack setup in preparation for Arma2. At this point I may have just thrown my $$$ out the window it seems on a head-tracking kit I cannt use. At least I didnt buy Arma2 yet, I may just cut my losses now

[-=ME=-Alucard.Mex 10]

Maybe download the ilegal copy of arma 2 game and save cash for buy the IRtracker.

Plz make the game compatible with both systems....

[Placebo 29]

Talk like that will get you banned from these forums.

[Jorge.PT 10]

First' date=' 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.[/quote']

Why does every post of trackir users have always the same crap, of ignorance and nonsense in them? Do you have functional illiteracy?

I'm going to repeat myself again, Natural Point doesn't only "establish relations" with game developers, my dear friend Winder... they also don't allow the game developers to have any other SDK besides the one from natural point.

Here is the prof given by Eagle Dynamics, again...

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=3

Can you read Winderm? I'm going to put it in big letters so you can see it better "SDK has been removed from English release because of NaturalPoint request."

Isn't that a monopolistic behaviour by your dear Natural Point? Maybe not in the USA, or Russia, but it's here in the EU.

Dear Winder, I know it's hard for you... but FreeTrack doesn't rely only in trackir interface, actually freetrack is working in arma2 with the ppjoy interface.

Winder what YOU need, is to "clarify misconceptions and misrepresentations" about not only freetrack, but natural point also. It seems that you have a need to justify to us, the fact that you have paid 150$ to a company that doesn't have any competition... but we understand your pain, we really do.

That's why we have built a 30$ Head Tracking hardware, and why we are trying to have full compatibility of it in ArmA2.

We are trying it, in order to give everyone the option to choose from more then 1 tracking devise; at the moment, due to the actions of natural point, freetrack, or any other tracking devise besides theirs, doesn't work with ArmA2. You understand what that means don't you? Really, really deep inside you, you can... can't you?

EDIT: Oh and I almost forgot.

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?

Do you really think that was Natural Point who had the "newfangled idea"? Long time ago I tried a head tracking devise, that substituted the use of a mouse in Doom, so you can see how old the "newfangled idea" is...

Edited June 13, 2009 by Jorge.PT
typos and bla bla bla

[bushlurker 46]

Well said Jorge!!!! <applause>

For those just joining the discussion... full Freetrack info here.....

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

FreeTrack can output head tracking data to programs directly using its own open interface, as well as TrackIR, SimConnect and FSUIPC interfaces, programs that support these interfaces are regarded as being FreeTrack compatible. FreeTrack can also emulate mouse, keyboard, and joystick (via PPJoy) if a program does not support a direct interface.

Once again though...

That's why we have built a 30$ Head Tracking hardware...

Not necessarily.....

For anyone still playing Arma 1, those insanely hopeful loons (such as myself) who believe that BIS will implement some sort of Freetrack-compatible interface for Arma 2, and anyone else interested in trying headtracking for other games (see Freetrack website for list of compatible games, and see above for a definition of "compatible")...

Buy this camera... (£14.48 GBP + FREE postage)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/A4-Tech-A4-PK333MBWEBCAM-A4-PK333MB-WEBCAM/dp/B001IDZG1G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244909047&sr=8-1

Then throw Naturalpoint a few bucks and buy this.... (Reflective TrackClip. $9.95 and dunno about postage) ** DO take a GOOD LOOK at this component though.... this is the bit you COULD build yourself - if you want **

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/02-products/product-accessories.html

Now download Freetrack and install it...

http://www.free-track.net/english/freetrack/telechargement.php

Run Arma 1.....

You have headtracking!

No fuss, no building, no modifications, no homebrew, no added cholesterol :D

B

PS - if you feel like having a go at a DIY reflective hatclip, check the Naturalpoint link above.... NaturalPoint market a range of "raw materials" and reflective material suitable for making DIYhatclips! - yup! Good old "we are professional and not DIY scumbags" NaturalPoint!

wheres a totally-burst-with-laughter-at-the-blatant-hypocracy icon when u need one..... :D

Edited June 13, 2009 by Bushlurker

[Jorge.PT 10]

Then throw Naturalpoint a few bucks and buy this.... (Reflective TrackClip. $9.95 and dunno about postage) ** DO take a GOOD LOOK at this component though.... this is the bit you COULD build yourself - if you want **

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/02-products/product-accessories.html

Now download Freetrack and install it...

That's another thing that natural point failed to see, that even them can profit with freetrack being supported. People who can't, or aren't willing to pay 150$ for a head tracking system and don't have the tools to build one, would for sure go to that option. And even in the future they would be one step closer to buy a trackir, since they already own a trackclip.

But those are natural point decisions, what I really want to see is BI taking a position about this subject.

[bushlurker 46]

"Aye, There's the rub"...

B

[kremator 1065]

I wonder if reporting NaturalPoint to the Monopolies and Mergers commission in the UK would help BIS to change their minds ?

[Jorge.PT 10]

I wonder if reporting NaturalPoint to the Monopolies and Mergers commission in the UK would help BIS to change their minds ?

Pssst... don't type that here, or that way they will never recognize what shady deal they have with natural point (like Eagle Dynamics did), and wait for the 505 games version, so you can put it froward in your country.

And don't tell anyone but there is this cool link: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/index_en.html

[sparks50 0]

This is not a monopoly, and no sane court would ever rate it as it either.

BI made the deal(if there is one) to make headtracking NP exclusive.

If you want to protest, dont buy Arma 2.

If you want headtracking In Arma 2, TrackIR are the only ones providing the service(though overpriced, as we all know.) Thats the price you pay for the product you are given.

Edited June 13, 2009 by sparks50

[ndepal 10]

im affraid this wont rate as illegal monopolistic behaviour.

a monopolistic situation would be if you were forced to use the product of one company and there would be no other options. but THATS NOT THE CASE HERE! because while TrackIR is the only system supported by ArmA2, you dont have to use headtracking to play the game and more importantly you dont have to play that game!

an example of a company that has gotten close to being in trouble for this is microsoft. since theyre so big apple was losing to much market share and MS got legally too big. in order to prevent that they actually had to "donate" a rather large sum of money to apple, so that they could regain a little more of the market, in order to be allowed to stay in business. it sounds kinda weird but they had to do that because of these laws. and in the long run they end up with more money because they can keep making their products and making money.

with NP we dont have this kind of situation because there are other solutions that NP istn generally preventing from existing (in the overall market) but they made a contract which states (or so we believe) that NP is to be the exclusive partner for BIs ArmA2, which is nowhere illegal, albeit not that great for the FT community. but honestly, as a businessman, woundnt you do the same to ensure the most profit with your product?

[Jorge.PT 10]

Sparks, ndepal, when you make deals in order to keep competition of the market, or that don't give consumers a choice besides your product, it's a monopolist behaviour.

I'm no jurist, but there are two big cases similar to this (in my optic), intel and microsoft. Since natural point as a market share superior to 40-50%, it's seen as having a dominance position on the market, and as so it's very similar to both cases on the antitrust accusations.

The European Commission has imposed a fine of €1 060 000 000 on Intel Corporation for violating EC Treaty antitrust rules on the abuse of a dominant market position (Article 82) by engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs). The Commission has also ordered Intel to cease the illegal practices immediately to the extent that they are still ongoing. Throughout the period October 2002-December 2007, Intel had a dominant position in the worldwide x86 CPU market (at least 70% market share). The Commission found that Intel engaged in two specific forms of illegal practice. First, Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs. Such rebates and payments effectively prevented customers - and ultimately consumers - from choosing alternative products. Second, Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors’ x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products. The Commission found that these practices constituted abuses of Intel’s dominant position on the x86 CPU market that harmed consumers throughout the EEA. By undermining its competitors’ ability to compete on the merits of their products, Intel’s actions undermined competition and innovation. The Commission will actively monitor Intel’s compliance with this decision. The world market for x86 CPUs is currently worth approximately €22 billion (US$ 30 billion) per year, with Europe accounting for approximately 30% of that.

(...)

(...)

Consumer Choice and Innovation

The development of new online services makes web browsers an increasingly important tool for businesses and consumers, and a lack of real consumer choice on this market would undermine innovation.

The Commission’s preliminary concerns are set out in detail in a Statement of Objections sent to Microsoft in January. The specific circumstances of Microsoft’s tying of IE to Windows in this case would appear to lead to significant consumer harm.

The SO sets out the preliminary view that, should the Commission conclude that Microsoft’s conduct was abusive, any remedy would need to restore a level-playing field and enable genuine consumer choice between Internet Explorer and third-party web browsers, in order to bring the infringement effectively to an end. A potential remedy to these concerns, which the Commission considered in the SO and which would not require Microsoft to provide Windows to end-users without a browser, would be to allow consumers to choose from different web browsers presented to them through a 'ballot screen' in Windows.

The common situation in both cases is the one that I pointed above, the clear attitude from natural point to avoid other tracking devises to work with BlackShark, and probably ArmA2, therefore negating consumers the right to choose from the other existing solutions.

It as been openly assumed by Eagle Dynamics that they engaged in such agreement with NP, but gladly, their ethic values were superior to the "compromise" they had, and they are now developing their own SDK to allow Black Shark to support other tracking devises.

Again, I'm no jurist, but it seems clear to me that NP is crossing the line.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Jorge.PT

[ndepal 10]

Sparks, ndepal, when you make deals in order to keep competition of the market, or that don't give consumers a choice besides your product, it's a monopolist behaviour.

The common situation in both cases is the one that I pointed above, the clear attitude from natural point to avoid other tracking devises to work with BlackShark, and probably ArmA2, therefore negating consumers the right to choose from the other existing solutions.

im sorry but your not seeing some very important differences here. the first one being that in the example of intel:

Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel [...]Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors’ x86 CPUs

NP isnt doing anything comparable, as they dont sell anything to BI

the second one is the scope of the "monopolistic behaviour" if you will. while intel and MS tried to exclude compeditors from the whole market this is not what NP is doing with these contracts.

as i stated in my previous post, nobody forces you to play ArmA2, there are many other games you can play. also you dont really need to play any games, its completely voluntary. in comparison: MS provided only one browser in their very popular OS. so many many people were forced to use IE with windows (the key differences being that windows was very widely spread (over 50% - not the case with Arma2) and that people had to use the internet via windows (you dont have to use tir with arma2)

another important point is that you can fully play arma2 (with freelook) without needing a track ir (not the case in either of your examples: if you want to use a computer you need a cpu, you were pretty much forced to use an intel model. if you want to use the internet you were pretty much forced to use IE)

so all of this summed up means that NP isnt doing anything illegal. ist just a contract they made that NP is the exclusive headtracking supporter for arma2. this is comparable to a game developer (i.e. BI) exclusively distributing their product (arma2) via one publisher (505 games or sth, in england right?). nobody is complaining about that, but its also a contract of exclusivity.

i hope i was able to write down all of my thoughts understandably...

take care

[Jorge.PT 10]

Ok... I'm getting really tired of this, so I'll make it really simple. I'm no jurist, and those cases, were just to give examples of monopolist behaviours and how they can be legally addressed.

As long as natural point keeps making exclusivity agreements, as eagle dynamics clearly stated that they do, there won't be any other head tracking devises supported in games with freelook. That's monopolistic behaviour. Natural point is closing the market of the head tracking devises, and therefore you can't choose from any other company besides them...

NP isnt doing anything comparable, as they dont sell anything to BI

Intel doesn't sell directly to the consumers either... what they did was manipulate the market so the consumers only had the option to buy theirs CPUs, that's the similarity with natural point. If you can't see it, I can't do anything more.

the second one is the scope of the "monopolistic behaviour" if you will. while intel and MS tried to exclude compeditors from the whole market this is not what NP is doing with these contracts.

Hmmm... so natural point is making agreements with game developers, in order to not allow any other SDK besides theirs to be included in games, and they are not trying to keep competitors out of the market? Ok... :rolleyes:

as i stated in my previous post, nobody forces you to play ArmA2, there are many other games you can play. also you dont really need to play any games, its completely voluntary. in comparison: MS provided only one browser in their very popular OS. so many many people were forced to use IE with windows (the key differences being that windows was very widely spread (over 50% - not the case with Arma2) and that people had to use the internet via windows (you dont have to use tir with arma2)

The old "if you don't like it, you can leave" argument?

Let me just ask you this:

Why did EC fined Intel, if the costumers only bought PCs because they wanted and weren't obliged to?

Why did the EC made a ultimatum to MS? You only use Microsoft operating systems if you want, and you don't have to buy one at all, you have the Macintosh!

Why did women fight for the right to vote, when they could just leave their countries and vote in others?

Why do all brands of joysticks use the same SDK? You don't need a joystick to fly in games, you have a keyboard, or better, you don't have to play them at all!

Why did people lose time doing the ISO standards, for screws for example? You don't have to use screws if you don't want to, you can use nails, pins or weld!

Why in the hell there are so many suggestions threads? People don't have to play ArmA2, or any other game at all!

You want me to keep going, or you can see already how ridiculous your argument is?

this is comparable to a game developer (i.e. BI) exclusively distributing their product (arma2) via one publisher (505 games or sth, in england right?). nobody is complaining about that, but its also a contract of exclusivity.

Does BI or 505 games, prevents people from other countries to order and buy the game and play it? I can't the connection there, but again, I'm a little crazy, and I keep comparing asses to pants...

Just to end my intervention on this thread, at this moment, natural point is making agreements with game developers in order to keep other head tracking devises of the market, it as been proven by Eagle Dynamics. If you only have the option to buy trackir, in order to have head tracking in games, that is a monopoly, and that monopoly is not gained by the merit of natural point, but by those agreements that prevent any other equipments to work with those games!

I want to buy ArmA2, I want to play any new game that as freelook and I want to be able to choose my tracking devise!

I can choose the brand of my joystick, of my mouse, keyboard, monitor, motherboard, graphics card, etc. Why can't I choose my head tracking devise, why do I have to buy trackir?

Don't worry I'll answer that for you, it's because natural point doesn't allow me, only their SDK can be used in this game...

Edited June 14, 2009 by Jorge.PT
Typos and bla bla bla

[bushlurker 46]

Until/unless we actually have some sort of Reliable Statement of the state of play from BIS, all we can do is speculate... So thats what we're doing....

Is there a contract or isn't there.... lets speculate that there is...

Is it exclusive? - Given the BlackShark debacle, lets presume they pulled the same stunt and it is...

Lets speculate about the contract... NP actually persuade BIS to effectively sign over exclusive rights to and control of an aspect of their game to them ("our API and NOBODY elses, or you're in breach of contract")...

A sweet deal for NP...

I create the occasional texture - I wonder if I strolled by BIS HQ with a contract that demanded exclusive rights to control the textures of all.... cars, say... in Arma 2 - would they sign it?

Question 1 is gonna be.....What's in it for them?????

Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors’ x86 CPUs

NP isnt doing anything comparable, as they dont sell anything to BI

Perhaps not "sell to" - but you don't get a plum contract like that for nothing!

You get that sort of contract by handing over Fat Wads Of Cash

If that is the case here - and remember, until we get SOME sort of break in BIS's current Stonewall Silence On This Topic here - all we can do is speculate - then BIS are bought and paid for on this subject and we're really all just wasting our time...

In the absence of ANY concrete info we'll continue to speculate more and more wildly, tempers will get frayed, some of the Rich Kids from the TrackIR school over the road will wander in and get beat up, run cryin' to Placebo (who is BIS an therefore follows BIS policy or, on this subject, NP policy)...he'll come along in Angry Dad mode and shut us down.... again...

More speculation??? why not? until BIS give us at least even a simple yay or nay it's all we got...

Here's another perhaps not so wild one.....

This is the BIS Community after all, and what do we do BETTER than any other Game Loons??? We Mod the LIVING HELL outa it..... :D

Can you think of any major aspects of OFP or Arma 1 that someone didn't have a go at modding, improving, adding..... We're packing people like Kegetys on our team... we whine about blur - BIS stonewall silence the subject - Kegetys just goes ahead and fixes it! - Next Problem Please.,....

Even if we get a definitive NAY from BIS tomorrow on the subject... how long do you really think it's gonna take till someone just goes ahead and fixes it... ???

If we have to hack the game to use the joysticks of our choice - then that's what we'll do.....

B

Edited June 15, 2009 by Bushlurker

[ndepal 10]

ok, apparently you didnt hear a word i said. I AGREE with you when you say that NP is blocking other headtracking devices from being used in Arma.

I AGREE with you when you say that that means that tir is the only solution supported by arma... BUT:

Hmmm... so natural point is making agreements with game developers, in order to not allow any other SDK besides theirs to be included in games, and they are not trying to keep competitors out of the market? Ok... :rolleyes

you have to be careful about what you say. THEY ARE trying to keep compeditors out of that patricular game, yes. BUT ARMA ISNT THE WHOLE MARKET. THATS THE BIG DIFFERENCE YOU FAIL TO SEE! thats why your comparisons to MS and intel arent good. its the sheer scope of the companies. when a company the size of MS/intel does things that they did, they are effectively preventing competitors from existing IN THE WHOLE MARKET. NP is preventing FT from being in arma, which is ONE GAME and you have lots and lots of other options

The old "if you don't like it, you can leave" argument?

im kinda too lazy to reply to the rest of your post too carefully because im affraid you wont get what im saying anyways.

i would just like to clarify:

I DONT LIKE THAT NP IS BLOCKING OUT FT

I WOULD LIKE TO USE FT IN ARMA

WITH THEIR AGREEMENT NP IS CREATING SOMETHING YOU COULD CALL A (SMALL) MONOPOLY but

SINCE "NP'S MONOPOLISTIC BEHAVIOUR" IS ON SUCH A SMALL SCALE IT DOES NOT RATE AS ILLEGAL

THE COMPARISONS YOU MADE WERE BOTH NOT SUITABLE BECAUSE THE COMPANIES ARE SO LARGE AND THEIR ACTIONS HAD A SEVERE EFFECT ON THE WHOLE MARKET. THATS THE KEY DIFFERENCE! (while this issue only affects arma, which makes up for a relatively small percentage of the videogame market)

i cant make it any more clear than this. if you still dont understand there is nothin i can do. you may reply to this post telling re-telling me your opinion if you like, i wont care too much since i believe the rest of the readers will understand the problem at hand as well as what im trying to communicate.

[bushlurker 46]

THEY ARE trying to keep compeditors out of that patricular game, yes. BUT ARMA ISNT THE WHOLE MARKET. THATS THE BIG DIFFERENCE YOU FAIL TO SEE!

while this issue only affects arma, which makes up for a relatively small percentage of the videogame market)

Blackshark, arma 2, what other currently developing games??? u bet anything with freelook capability....

Jorge said that.... did you read his post ndepal?? Properly???

I want to play any new game that has freelook and I want to be able to choose my tracking devise!

Its a Monopoly In Progress...

b

Edited June 14, 2009 by Bushlurker

[Jorge.PT 10]

ndepal, it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the company, but with it's market share, and as Natural Point holds more of 50% of it for sure, it's considered to have a dominance position in the head tracking market.

Those are the key words, ndepal.

When you say that a company is too big, or too small, it's subjective, you only can measure that by comparison with other companies, and therefore it as no clear objectivity (legal or factual). In the opposite, a market share and it's correspondent position, can me measured without the need of comparison with others, and that is what makes Natural Point equivalent to Microsoft and Intel.

Those are legal definitions that are present in the EC treaty, market share and dominance position.

When you talk about the games market, you are talking about it as trackir was meant to be supported in all games, but as Bushlurker already said, the games market of head tracking devises, is only the ones with "free look" in them, mainly flight simulators. And when you see it from that perspective, natural point IS trying to control the market and therefore monopolizing it.

I understand your doubts, but you have to open your mind and alienate yourself from the size of the companies, or the game market as a whole. You have to focus on the real head tracking market (as that is what is at stake), to understand how the attitudes of natural point are affecting the same.

PS - As Bushlurker already said, the assumptions that I make regarding BI and Natural Point "compromise", are pure speculation based on the analogue situation of BlackShark and Eagle Dynamics.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Jorge.PT
typos

[Arrowhead 0]

I wish someone would start another headtracking company and sell the accessories and software at a more competitive price. I'm so sick of NP being the only ones in this biz, charging a fortune for 3 LEDs and a webcam with an IR filter. What's worse is that NP thinks it has to dictate to companies how to implement their encryption and companies like BIS just say "Yes suh, you da boss NP".

It's ridiculous. Enough is enough!

[Planck 1]

Seems to me this is continually drifting off-topic despite occasional reminders from Placebo to keep on-topic and refrain from discussing NP business.

I can only see this topic getting locked if something doesn't change .... soon.

Planck

[Jorge.PT 10]

I understand that Planck, but it's hard, to almost impossible, not to discuss NP business when talking about other tracking devises and their availability in ArmA2. But I'm sorry, I'll stop posting here.

By the way, being you a BI studios forum moderator, what do you suggest we should do in order to have freetrack and others available in ArmA2?

[ndepal 10]

since were not even supposed to be discussing this here, ill try to keep it short.

ndepal, it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the company, but with it's market share

ok now your just being finicky. when i compare sizes of compaines i of course mean the size in the whole market, i.e. the market share. admittedly i didnt use the perfect word but if you had used a little common sense you would have realized that thats what i meant...

in the intrest of a short post im not going to comment quote by quote, but it boils down to this: i dont think that by monopolizing BS and Arma1 (actually only Arma2, really, since BS has some FT-support now) NP is monopolizing a big enough share of the Freelook-games-market. there are qite some games who have TIR-independent FT support (FlightSim, a rather important title in the (flight)sim community, comes to mind)

thats why i believe that what NP is doing isnt "bad eough" to be illegal. but if you believe otherwise then why dont you report NP to that comission you quote? they should be interested in this then...

i would once more like to clarify the following:

i am no NP-Fanboy

i have an FT-setup that i would like to see supported in Arma2

i dont want the situation to be the way i describe, i just believe that it is

i would really like to see some legal actions confirming your opinion

@ Planck: for one thing i agree with Jorge.PT, its kind of hard not to talk about NP when discussing this topic. also i dont see much else to talk about, we dont really need another bunch of people writing whats been written so many times before, saying that they want FT in arma. we know, and if BI were interested in our concerns they could have commented on this already. in oder to find out how many people of this forum would actually use FT in arma2, a poll would be much more effective than another hundred "i want FT in arma2 and NP is mean" posts... so i guess what this means is that if what were discussing is the only thing to discuss and isnt wecome here they might as well close the thread...

have a god day everybody

[bushlurker 46]

I suggested a poll about a week ago....

Otherwise - as ndepal says... what else is there to talk about?

Freetrack can't be used in Arma 2 - We'd like it to be usable please... tick the box and move on... no loitering, no discussion, no speculation, no information, no feedback from BIS...

JorgePT...

it's hard, to almost impossible, not to discuss NP business when talking about other tracking devises and their availability in ArmA2

Ndepal...

its kind of hard not to talk about NP when discussing this topic. also i dont see much else to talk about, we dont really need another bunch of people writing whats been written so many times before, saying that they want FT in arma. we know, and if BI were interested in our concerns they could have commented on this already. in oder to find out how many people of this forum would actually use FT in arma2, a poll would be much more effective than another hundred "i want FT in arma2 and NP is mean" posts

Me...

In the absence of ANY concrete info we'll continue to speculate more and more wildly, tempers will get frayed, some of the Rich Kids from the TrackIR school over the road will wander in and get beat up, run cryin' to Placebo..............he'll come along in Angry Dad mode and shut us down.... again...

Planck...

Seems to me this is continually drifting off-topic......... I can only see this topic getting locked if something doesn't change .... soon.

What actually IS the topic???

Will ArmA 2 support FreeTrack?!

Thats not a topic - thats a question... An Unanswered Question.....

Short of "ticking a box and moving on" what else is there to actually type if you're concerned about this issue - not much, except to speculate about WHY it's an UNANSWERED question...

Personally... I don't give a tuppenny damn about NP or their deals or their market share or any of that horses***...

I'm no gamer, I ain't a kid either - I'm a 48 yr old archaeologist and the only thing even close to a game I ever play is OFP/Arma/Arma2... Its all the same game as far as I'm concerned - just every now and then BIS issue a new box and a heavy revamp and I buy it so they'll have the cash to revamp further... and WOW! it HAS come a long way since 2000...

Perhaps we could start a new topic...

"Does anyone have any idea how we can implement Freetrack in Arma 2 ourselves, by any means necessary?"

Lets look at the "blur" issue from a week or so ago...

An AWFUL lot of people hated it... there was a poll, endless discussion, pleas to make it optional in a future patch - NO COMMENT whatsoever one way or the other from BIS...

Suddenly its a non-issue... Kegetys fixed it... End of story...

Sound familiar???

Lets do it again.....

Anyone with any ideas???

I dig up old bones, I aint a programmer...

B

Edited June 15, 2009 by Bushlurker

[ndepal 10]

Does anyone have any idea how we can implement Freetrack in Arma 2 ourselves, by any means necessary?

well there is one means, PPJoy. since that program istn very new and not compatible with 64bit systems, it would be great to have something like a newer version of PPJoy.

i posetd a while ago that arma2 keeps reseting my PPJoy joystick to the fefault mapping, does anybody else have that issue or a way to stop that from happening?

thanks