Talk:TrackIR

Criticism Section
Purpose of the section in its current form appears to have bias. The "criticisms" appear to be limited to a small number of people, lack a study or rigorous analysis to back up the claims made, and some appear trivial in nature. People complaining about a product on the internet does not mean the complaints are worthy of inclusion in a NPOV, factual article.

Recommend reviewing source criteria as well as NPOV criteria. - Criticism section currently does not meet either of these standards. That other articles fail to meet them would not seem to warrant lower standards for this article as well.

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." - The statements made in the criticism section currently are contentious, not represented fairly and not supported by reliable sources.

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute. ... By value or opinion,[2] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." " - Similar issues as stated as above.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. " - The section is entirely composed of unpublished speculation, arguments, and synthesis of published material.

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." - All of the sources in the sections current form are self published websites and user forums, none of the sources are reliable by Wikipedia standards.

It is also not clear what criteria was used for determining relevance and inclusion. One or two reviewers made a criticism? How does that warrant inclusion in a NPOV article? Minor negative comments from articles are cherry picked and presented as significant issues. Five users made a criticism? What is the threshold which determines when a supposed issue becomes important enough to be present in the article? Do any of these criticisms have momentum in a significant, mainstream source outside the article? None of the citations for any of the claimed criticisms appear to meet Wikipedia standards.

The following would be an example of what would be more likely to be considered relevant content for such a section. Note that it references a reputable source, has hard-factual numbers, and a significant reason when compared to the other statement. :


 * "Study X from reputable source Y reports that in 200x, N% of TrackIR 4 customers reported that the plastic base connector of their device broke. This is notable because N% is Z times the industry standard of failure for consumer electronics."

instead of


 * "TrackIR hardware has some notable issues. The TrackIR 4 camera has a small plastic base connector, only 2mm in diameter and prone to failure [links to a few online forum posts]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.66.140 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 21 December 2008


 * No need for replicating the article, that's what the history is for. :) Relevant edits:. You have asked many vague and rhetorical, even philosophical questions that go far beyond the material in question. If you feel NPOV is threatened you can always add alternative opinions, like awards and good reviews etc. In my last edit I made sure that, where appropriate, facts of opinions are not presented as facts. Each reference is treated separately and not synthesized into an original conclusion. Self published sources are referred to as such. You have not mentioned the basis for removing other content based on indisputable sources like the NaturalPoint website. Removal of all criticism does not give me confidence you are interested in NPOV. ShijarnocDreams (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The core issue is that controversial material has been posted which lacks acceptable sources, and has not been proven to be notable even with the current sources. The other content in the article is not making controversial claims. That the disputed content resides in a criticism section should help underscore the difference.


 * Additionally, adding different points of view is not the solution if the core statements are subjective and lack sufficient sources. "Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia demands that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.".


 * The questions posed are not philosophical, they are specific and relevant. Here is an example : "TrackIR has been criticized for its high price tag.[18][19][20] The Nintendo Wii Remote contains a camera with similar tracking technology at a considerably lower price." What problems are posed by the example statement? Three self-published, non-peer reviewed individuals stating opinions does not constitute a reliable source. The three sources are synthesized in an attempt to support the statement, this is not acceptable by way of no-original research. That the price is "high" is subjective, and it is given a pseudo comparison to a device without similar specifications and features (nor which is sold to the same market and must use after market software to achieve any of the features), these do not meet NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.66.140 (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Critical opinion may include some level of subjectivity but does not exclude it from inclusion as it is not masquerading as absolute fact. All sources being peer reviewed would be ideal but they do not have to be and in this case are extremely unlikely to be. Such requirements would be extreme and exclude a significant amount of valuable and still largely factual content from WP. Self published sources are not prohibited. Even if there is only one relevant and verifiable third party source on a matter does not preclude it from notability. Using three citations together is not original research, nor a synthesis of an original idea, just three relevant citations. Comparison with similar technologies should not affect neutrality, there should be no dispute that there is a strong Wii Remote homebrew community using the device as an optical motion tracker in much the same way as TrackIR, them having different original purposes does not make them exempt from comparison. The criticism as a whole, while by no means perfect, satisfies fundamental inclusion criteria WP:NOTE, WP:V and WP:NPOV and reflects the approach of many similar WP pages. ShijarnocDreams (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OUTSIDE OPINION BY REQUEST I went through the sources in the criticism section. Most of them are okay, but I think some do fail WP:RS. Most of the sources are forum posts, but it's a little gray because many of them are officials from NaturalPoint on their website. However, some I don't think will work. Source 20 (forum.sukhoi.ru) isn't working, but regardless, it's not the NaturalPoint forum. 21 is from the NaturalPoint forum, but it's not an official from the company. In fact, a NaturalPoint employee says in that thread that it does not have a heat problem. Source 24 (www.escuadron69.net) is also concerning- while it's unlikely, it's possible that that user faked that message. (They don't appear to be selling this item any more, but we can't be sure that's the real reason.) Additionally, while I see in source 26 the lack of 1&2 support in the Vector expansion, I don't see anything in the Richardson sources that says that 4.x software is incompatible with models 1&2 (it's not cited right now). I also don't see anything in sources 27,28, and 9 that supports the ability of 1&2 to do 2DOF and 6DOF.


 * One big thing about the good sources, though- I'm not sure that things that showed up in only one review warrant inclusion. If it were up to me, I'd cut the hardware section down to:
 * expense (I don't think it's necessary to quote on that either; high price is high price)
 * getting hot (not the drilling of holes, though I'd add that NaturalPoint claims it to be normal, citing the current source 21)
 * loose joints
 * The software section is problematic- cutting away what isn't properly sourced leaves the simple fact that newer software features aren't supported in older cameras. This is common with many new models of peripherals, and it's also not cited as a "criticism"- no reviewers cited it as some type of problem. I'd say to scrap that whole section, and remove the "hardware" sub-head. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After reviewing all of the referenced sources, the following criticism entries only have a single source. Additional sources should be provided to give weight and credibility, otherwise they should be removed : (TrackIR build quality, TrackIR weaker IR filter, TrackIR heat generation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.66.140 (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FreeTrack controversy
Links to alternative solutions have been repeatedly removed.       This is clearly against Wikipedia policy; pages should not be deliberately censored to create a bias in the interests of commercial promotion. There are many other pages that have links to alternative solutions, notably the Microsoft Windows page has a section on free open source alternatives, Microsoft Office links to the free Open Office and AutoCAD links to numerous  competitors, just to mention a few.

Kestrel7e7 (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely incorrect comparison. As you're well aware the developers of FreeTrack violated NaturalPoint copyright by using the TrackIR Enhanced interface without authorization to gain view control in games which support the TrackIR. Text strings bearing explicit notice of NaturalPoint copyright can be found within the FreeTrack executable. (Is this inaccurate?)

A better comparison would be if there was a See Also section listing the various mod chips that help users play copied games on consoles. If you look at those wikipedia pages, there is nothing of that nature.

Efforts to continually update the TrackIR page with an alternative which violates copyright law will continue to be removed.66.182.52.168 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Still haven't answered questions as to the legality of FreeTrack, the fact that there isn't promotional bias when comparing to an illegal alternative. Changing the title. 66.182.52.168 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't only FreeTrack that was censored, but Cachya as well (undo links 3 and 4).

Microsoft Windows is an ideal comparison, it has a free open source alternative called WINE which occupies a generous part of the locked Microsoft Windows page. Software designed for Windows is compatible with WINE because it satisfies their requests, in a similar way, FreeTrack satisfies the requests of TrackIR enabled software. For what it's worth, there are no 'text strings bearing explicit notice of NaturalPoint copyright' in the FreeTrack executable.

It is important that any criticism, especially anything of a controversial nature, be done in a way that conforms with Wikipedia policy. Like other pages, criticism should be in an appropriate section of the page topic being criticised, not placed in referral links and page summaries. It is one thing to say that a company believes copyright has been violated and another thing to say that it actually has. Controversial legal claims that could be regarded as legal threats are a clear breach of Wikipedia policy, yet alone unverified claims.

Kestrel7e7 (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't verify if Cachya also violates copyright. Perhaps you could explain where the TrackIR enhanced interface comes from, if not from TrackIR? There's no legal threat in my edits. 66.182.52.168 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Still no grounds for censorship; bnetd was ruled as illegal in the Californian court of law but is still listed in the See Also section of Battle.net. Kestrel7e7 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(Independent backedit: it was listed at the time of this statement being made, but is no longer on the See Also on the current version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle.net&oldid=197486625 March 11/08)

It is not the responsibility of editors to determine the legality of FreeTrack, nor do any of us have the judicial authority to do so. Consider that the FreeTrack wiki page doesn't even mention the proposed illegality of using it with TrackIR-enabled software, as it has not been ruled to be illegal. Also consider that what is illegal in one jurisdiction is not necessarily illegal in another. Even if it was proven that FreeTrack is illegally reverse-engineering or infringing upon TrackIR's products or IP, that fact that users are using the illegal product is still noteworthy and directly relevant to the product. As it stands now, though, it is absolutely obvious speculation on the part of the editors removing references to the alternative, and it's easy to imagine that it's bias. As such, I'm adding in a reference to FreeTrack, which other editors should expand upon. 100DashSix (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The string use smells of Sega_v._Accolade; though this is irrelevant to the article unless someone somewhere else has noted this (WP:OR), I thought I'd mention it. 24.76.178.14 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Images
These external images were placed on the page. Maybe someone can upload it to WP.

This one was at the top:

Image:http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/02-products/0-resources-products/TRACKIR4-photo.jpg

This one was under the History section:

(TrackIR 1, 2, and 3) http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/02-products/0-resources-products/trackir-3pro-front-whiteBG.jpg

Leedeth 06:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Resolution
Reporting resolution is a strange and unconventional way of representing subpixel precision, since it has no dependency on resolution at all. It is more conventional to present it independently, like the manufacturer does here 1/20=0.06 pixels, 1/150=0.007 pixels. I cannot find a single commercial mocap camera besides TrackIR that advertises a reporting resolution. For the sake of clarity, the most conventional representation should be used. Seemoss (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) You have provided nothing to substantiate your position that your alternate unit is more conventional or preferable. The reference you site has the manufacturer listing reporting resolution alongside sub-pixel information, there is nothing there to indicating one is more more conventional than the other.


 * 2) There are *no other* commercial head tracking game controllers for which the manufacturer lists *any* resolution information, so of course you can't find one that advertises "reporting resolution. Additionally, the TrackIR is not a "mocap camera", that is an entirely different field of devices. It is a gaming input device. Please provide examples of commercial head tracking gaming controllers which have specifications listed in sub-pixels.


 * 3) Reporting resolution is relevant and useful because it indicates the maximum functional resolution provided by the device. It is a unit of measure which the manufacturer has provided to compare different models, and is therefore reasonable to include on this page which compares the same models in its original format.


 * 4) If anything you're position simply points toward adding all of the unit specifications provided by the manufacturer. I will integrate those now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.66.140 (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Reporting resolution and Sub pixels per degree of view columns are redundant, they contain information already in the table, being combinations of subpixel precision with resolution and angle. You appear to be aware of this redundancy because when you first added the TrackIR 5 to the table, to represent subpixel precision, you only added the single reporting resolution column. Subpixel precision is a better choice, allowing the cameras to be compared on this quality alone, independent of anything else, instead of a confusing combination of subpixel precision and sensor resolution. The redundant columns should be removed to make the table as concise as possible.


 * TrackIR may have an unconventional application, but is otherwise a conventional optical motion tracker. The manufacturer does not advertise reporting resolution for any of their other trackers, nor it seems, do any other manufacturers of optical tracking devices. It is most unconventional to treat subpixel precision as a resolution, for the simple reason that it could be easily confused with sensor resolution, when in actual fact it is entirely independent of it and rather a product of image analysis. Reporting resolution also disguises the subpixel precision property when making comparisons between cameras that have different sensor resolutions. Reporting resolution should be avoided as it is an unconventional and confusing representation of the clearer underlying subpixel precision. Seemoss 20:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Being able to locate blob centroids on a subpixel basis isn't anything related to the hardware. 2001:470:600D:DEAD:2DBB:C615:2E54:471D (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Supporting TrackIR"
Can anyone explain this part's second paragraph (as of ), and maybe clarify it? It seems to say that OptiTrack will do 6DOF for all NaturalPoint cameras, then contradicts itself by saying that it won't do 6DOF at all and won't work with some NatualPoint cameras (TIR 3+). 24.76.178.14 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Check Natural Point website. Their products were updated in 2013 and special bundle are offered since 2014.

Supported games
A category should be made and the list should be eliminated. Cky2250 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

opentrack/facetracknoir
As a forker and committer of ftnoir, I request that you add information that we support *all* games that TIR5 supports.

Also, could you add opentrack, the fork? Got COI here. 2001:470:600D:DEAD:BEAE:C5FF:FEE1:4407 (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No action needed. This is unrelated to this article.Cky2250 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TrackIR ClipPro
This article is NOT updated. I tried to update it but a user systematically delete my comments !!!

Comments refer to a review published in 2008 and do not list improvements done in 2013 and 2014 !! Why to mention a criticism in the article ? It is not its place. Personally I use the ClipPro in Falcon 4 BMS 4.32 update 7 and its work perfectly, even for X, Y and Z axis.

I recommend it and many users of the Benmchmarksims.org forum do as well in 2014.

I updated the article with an updated link. Hope the comment will remain.

Last check :

The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Solarra delete my comments. Bravo !!:-(

Solarra is not an objective user, it is realy a pity, all the more she claim that her info is relevant.

She only forget it is obsolete and has not been updated !

She does not merit to be a so called moderator for wikipedia. She is rather a censor !!

In these conditions, I do no more cooperate anymore on this page if her opinion prevails on objectivity. I think that your attitude will be bring to the attention of Natural Point sale team and of Benchmark sims forum.

Solarra, you should read again the quality objectives defined by Wikipedia....

I just had a contact with Natural Point. The responsible of the sale team confirmed that a few people from wikipedia are "controlling" this article, and that it is impossible to any external writer to add any objective comment related to TrackIR products. When a senior moderator from Wikipedia will correct this problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.17.170 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC) --Luxorion

Article trim and cleanup
I chopped large portions of this article, as well as statements without sources and items tagged CN. In one case the CN tag was for 2009! I removed about five or six sources that were non-RS, as they were user forums. It still sounds like an advertisement, but it is improved. Head tags updated. I think what this article really needs is to be nominated for deletion.104.163.150.250 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)