Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
It seems clear that Natural Point is not going to support Prepar3D. So, I am wondering if there are any other replacement devices that perform the same task that might be good options for Prepar3D?
Ken
Ken
Replacement for Track IR?
- Thread starter Skyhawk_310R
- Start date
I think you will find it's more likely to be the other way around, i.e. Prepar3d is not supporting TIR. The Natural Point SDK is available which describes how games can be hooked up to run the TIR hardware/software but it's up to the game/sim developer to implement it as Natural Point does not have access to the necessary developer code.
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
Well, I am totally certain that is how the folks running Natural Point want people to see it.
But, let me ask this simple question:
If a third party vendor wanted to leverage the open architecture of FSX but sent Microsoft a requirement that before they could get their product to work in FSX that Microsoft would have to spend time and money to integrate the vendor's chosen software into FSX, do you think Microsoft would have been as cooperative as Lockheed Martin was to Natural Point?
Without question, it is the duty of the vendor to facilitate his own product to work in the platform, not the other way around. Natural Point has decided they don't wish to integrate their product using Sim Connect. Yet, Sim Connect is a very common integration method with FSX and by consequence Prepar3D.
Ken
But, let me ask this simple question:
If a third party vendor wanted to leverage the open architecture of FSX but sent Microsoft a requirement that before they could get their product to work in FSX that Microsoft would have to spend time and money to integrate the vendor's chosen software into FSX, do you think Microsoft would have been as cooperative as Lockheed Martin was to Natural Point?
Without question, it is the duty of the vendor to facilitate his own product to work in the platform, not the other way around. Natural Point has decided they don't wish to integrate their product using Sim Connect. Yet, Sim Connect is a very common integration method with FSX and by consequence Prepar3D.
Ken
Other games do not have SimConnect. FS2004 doesnt have SimConnect and it works fine in that. There are racing games that have it. Does X-Plane have SimConnect? No.
Its basically the same as FSX and ESP, so maybe TIR have the issue. It should work fine with FSX drives or perhaps even a FS2004 route.
I would think P3D would be wanting this bad for students, so I cant see why this is at an empass.
I wouldnt get upset with people on it though, my humble opinion. That seems to be like throwing gasoline on fire to put it out. Maybe try to work a way out, a ploy for a way to get it going working with both sides, perhaps?
Its basically the same as FSX and ESP, so maybe TIR have the issue. It should work fine with FSX drives or perhaps even a FS2004 route.
I would think P3D would be wanting this bad for students, so I cant see why this is at an empass.
I wouldnt get upset with people on it though, my humble opinion. That seems to be like throwing gasoline on fire to put it out. Maybe try to work a way out, a ploy for a way to get it going working with both sides, perhaps?
Natural Point has no issue with Simconnect and Prepar3D. The problem from their point of view is that LM is continuously upgrading SimConnect in each minor version ( the number in 1.x or 2.x). They claim that this makes Simconnect unstable for their purposes and refuse to use it.
LM has stated that Simconnect is the only approved way to connect with Prepar3D and that they won't use 3rd party SDKs in the software.
LM has stated that Simconnect is the only approved way to connect with Prepar3D and that they won't use 3rd party SDKs in the software.
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
I totally agree with what you wrote there. Which is why I asked that Natural Point just do what they can to get Track IR working for v 1.3 or even v 2.0 and then if future revisions make it bad, then tell the customers that. But, Natural Point has every right to make their call. Personally speaking, I would accept the risk that it might work for version XYZ but then not future version ABC. Other customers may not.
Anyway, I take it that since no one could offer an alternate hardware option for IR tracking that no other options exists.
Bummer!
Ken
If LM are indeed trying to force all hardware to use SimConnect then my guess is no head tracking system will work (yet) as they all use their own, proprietary, code to do what they do.
The problem in this issue is that LM is heavily investing resources in upgrading Prepar3D. They have ver 2.0 scheduled for next year, so they very likely are checking and upgrading Simconnect until they feel that it will provide the support they want. I believe and hope that when ver 2.0 comes out, the Simconnect issue will be stable and then Natural Point will be able to provide support.
Probably LM feels that technically any other way to access the information from the program involves reverse engineering. In this way they are providing the software "hooks" that developers can use to work with Prepar3D. They have made great strides with it. These are the claims that LM is making for Prepar3D ver 1.3:
Most of these make use of an upgraded Simconnect.
I havent heard of EZCA until now. Sounds like that program we had years ago in FS9 that did the same thing, before TIR though.
If this gets the Track IR working 'now' and the sim means alot to you, I would say its worth it. $35.00 isnt a small amount, but dang, it does do alot of things and has full adjustments.
If this gets the Track IR working 'now' and the sim means alot to you, I would say its worth it. $35.00 isnt a small amount, but dang, it does do alot of things and has full adjustments.
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
Keep in mind folks that the primary reason LM is developing Prepar3D is to function as a commercial platform for flight simulation training for a cost that is substantially less than the cost of a traditionally sourced flight simulator -- like orders of magnitude less!
This is why one of the prime modifcations that LM did on the FSX platform were enhancements in flight modeling to promote feasible options for a far more realistic simulation of an actual aircraft. This being the case, LM's entry vision is that he who builds the simulator using Prepar3D will spend enough money for multiple monitors that each have a fixed view dedicated to it. When you think of the costs of PC's, video cards, and monitors today, you can truly build a rig for something on the order of $20,000 that would either have monitors wrapping around your head, or else spend a bit more and literally have projectors project the images onto a wrap around ceiling. Even if you spent $30,000 on such a rig, compare that to the millions it used to cost to develop a more traditional simulator with graphics no better than what Prepar3D can give you! And while overall I love Track IR and think it's an essential and marvelous piece of hardware for FSX, I must say it is beaten to a pulp by wrap around monitors.
Truthfully, we are ancillary customers and I think LM is perfectly happy to see us come onboard. I don't have any insight into what the Prepar3D staff is thinking about as I only did unpaid beta testing for a limited timeframe. That said, it would not shock me that LM sees a potentially larger market and works up something for people like us.
Ken
This is why one of the prime modifcations that LM did on the FSX platform were enhancements in flight modeling to promote feasible options for a far more realistic simulation of an actual aircraft. This being the case, LM's entry vision is that he who builds the simulator using Prepar3D will spend enough money for multiple monitors that each have a fixed view dedicated to it. When you think of the costs of PC's, video cards, and monitors today, you can truly build a rig for something on the order of $20,000 that would either have monitors wrapping around your head, or else spend a bit more and literally have projectors project the images onto a wrap around ceiling. Even if you spent $30,000 on such a rig, compare that to the millions it used to cost to develop a more traditional simulator with graphics no better than what Prepar3D can give you! And while overall I love Track IR and think it's an essential and marvelous piece of hardware for FSX, I must say it is beaten to a pulp by wrap around monitors.
Truthfully, we are ancillary customers and I think LM is perfectly happy to see us come onboard. I don't have any insight into what the Prepar3D staff is thinking about as I only did unpaid beta testing for a limited timeframe. That said, it would not shock me that LM sees a potentially larger market and works up something for people like us.
Ken
Ken, you took the words from my mouth.
LM has been heavily working on multithread. Prepar3D can now support a 360° bubble.
I also agree that we are an ancillary market for LM, but one that it is nevertheless very important because we bring aboard the 3rd party developers.
LM has been heavily working on multithread. Prepar3D can now support a 360° bubble.
I also agree that we are an ancillary market for LM, but one that it is nevertheless very important because we bring aboard the 3rd party developers.
SkippyBing
Charter Member
From a training point of view they may think Track IR is a bad idea.
Broadly any form of simulator, be it part task or a full motion flight deck, should resemble as closely as possible the real thing down to switch position and action. When you carry out a task you should be looking where you’d look in the real thing, moving your hand to the same position you would in the real thing etc. That all helps develop muscle memory and task familiarisation and is why even the limited devices you see in some flight schools, which look like the cockpit section of a light aircraft with a PC in, have the controls etc. in the right place as far as practical. You don’t get that with Track IR.
Additionally a training aid shouldn’t require you to learn a new skill that’s unrelated to the task you’re learning how to do*. Now a lot of you will say Track IR doesn’t, but actually moving your head one way and your eyes the other to keep looking at the screen isn’t natural and some people will never get it, now do they fail the course because they can’t use the simulator?
Combine that with Ken’s reasoning above and I think you can see that Track IR support isn’t a logical thing for LM to be chasing.
*For some reason I’ve actually done a course in designing training courses...
Well, by adding TIR, you increase the training you get from a desktop sized simulator.
For boom operator training at units that do not have the room for a full sized BOWST, the lite version was developed for use on a laptop. I immediately recognized that this was less than satisfactory as you lose much of the SA from the full sized trainer. My suggestion was TIR or an equivalent head tracking program.
So by cutting out head tracking, LM IMO, has reduced the training they can provide to a user without the huge full sized sim.
This too is a show stopper for me.
-Jeff
The current problem with Track IR is due to an impasse betwee Natural Poiny (Track IR developers) and LM. NP wants LM to use the SDK and APIs that they have developed. LM wants NP to use simconnectM NP says that they cannot use simconnect because the specifications change with each new P3D 1.X version.
LM is happy to have Track IR but under their own terms.
LM is happy to have Track IR but under their own terms.
SkippyBing
Charter Member
Well Face Track NoIR seems to work fine using SimConnect and the FSX profile so maybe Natural Point just aren't that good at coding?!
You can get it free from http://facetracknoir.sourceforge.net/home/default.htm
You can get it free from http://facetracknoir.sourceforge.net/home/default.htm