Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - 1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - 1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=13227)

Quote:

...post #35 looks interesting and seems quite clear

Post 35:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

Quote:

Hacking isn't evil by definition.

If we speak of hacking as in cracking software protection or interfacing with software on our computers without express permission of the original creator (instead of hacking into someone's home network and reading things from their private hard drives): I just don't see anything ethically wrong with it. It's like if I buy a car and then interface with the engine computer unit (ECU?) to alter it's behaviour. Sure, they may void my warranty which is reasonable. But to say I can't do that?

I think the biggest evidence that IC/Maddox Games' policy is to support not just TrackIR, is that ArmA 2, who did special promotion for TrackIR on youtube now has native support for FreeTrack. They are also a major player and they could do it. Surely our Storm of War can too.

EDIT:
From thefreedictionary.com. I'll look up some others. Wikipedia too.

so you support hacking then, eh?

modding your ECU is illegal in some countries and yeah the vehicle manufacturer is flexing its copyright by voiding the warranty

As I said before, if freetrack (or other) support is totally between freetrack and the game/ sim, then there is no problem, except for maybe on the hardware side of things... the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D - have you got it now Mikkowl??

and yeah... do keep looking it up, there's a good boy

Interesting, yes. Clear, no. I have no idea what 'flexing it's copyright by voiding the warranty' could mean - they are two entirely different legal issues. As for 'R&D', if you think that NP were the first in the field, can you explain why they haven't taken on MicroSoft over the issue, given that they have had a 6DOF inteface in their flight sims for some time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 144944)

...and still you evade my honest question - good onya :rolleyes:

Your honest question? In a situation where it is impossible for me to know for sure, you want me to ignore by far the most probable explanation? I know there is some kind of agreement between Ubisoft and NaturalPoint. I know that it is against the rules to speak about Freetrack on the Ubi forums. Therefore, I believe that it is very likely that there is an exclusivity agreement between NaturalPoint and Ubisoft. It's a completely reasonable conclusion to make given the circumstances.
Either way, the current situation where developers support only the closed standard provides the opportunity for abuse, and that is why developers should support joystick view positioning by axis.

andyjwest...

you must have read this "As I said before, if freetrack (or other) support is totally between freetrack and the game/ sim, then there is no problem, except for maybe on the hardware side of things... the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D - have you got it now Mikkowl??", which answers your question. You must have read it seeing as you quoted it in your post.... you do read, don't you?

grunch, that is all purely allegation. now seriously, we're not really going to go 400 posts of this crap from you are we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 144951)

grunch, that is all purely allegation. now seriously, we're not really going to go 400 posts of this crap from you are we?

Okay, but answer me two questions. Do you think my allegation is unlikely, and why?

after you answer mine grunch... they were asked first

Quote:

...the problem is where freetrack (or other) takes advantage of NP software or hardware R&D

Is this where you think the issue really lies, Wolf_Rider? As far as I'm aware, the only protection against taking advantage of someone else's 'R&D' are patents (which NP doesn't have), and copyright (which is only relevant where NPs proprietry interface is concerned). Can I assume form this that provided 'other' doesn't use NPs interface, they will be in the wrong if they try to prevent this? You seem strangely reluctant to answer this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 144953)

after you answer mine grunch... they were asked first

I've already answered yours and said that I have no proof. I've already said that I made my conclusion because I believe it is the most likely and reasonable explanation. Have you been reading my posts?
If you seriously believe that it's practical to live by a theory of absolute positivism, there's no point in having arguments or opinions about anything you haven't directly experienced, so I don't see why you became involved in this argument to begin with.
So, will you answer my questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 144918)

A simple question, Wolf_Rider: Would you be in favour of PC games supporting generic 6DOF devices by allowing the existing MS Joystick API to be used as an alternative?

Another one: Would you object if 1C:Maddox/TD incorperated 6DOF into the existing DeviceLink interface?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, I'd like to see your reasoning.

this was your question... it has been answered and as you can see your question to me is a redundant one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGrunch (Post 144955)

I've already answered yours and said that I have no proof.

so you choose to openly slander several companies....

grunch... post #71 might refresh your memory for the other question. When you answer that, you will be answering your own question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 144956)

grunch... post #71 might refresh your memory

Wow, that post is supremely relevant to my above questions. :rolleyes:
Unless you're referring to the fact that I haven't answered your question as to why developers should support Freetrack, and the answer is that you've made another major logical mistake. Freetrack head-tracking does not equal ALL open head-tracking. To say that an open interface for head-tracking supports hackers because Freetrack hacked NP's interface is like saying that giving people free emergency medical attention is supporting murderers because some of the people who will receive emergency treatment will be murderers.

it will do you no good to twist things around grunch... refer your post # 73