I'm surprised you didn't address all that with "observe, gentle reader", in your little 'play to the gallery' there ;) ... you've also contradicted yourself in your first paragraph.

Right, Wolf_Rider, now you have proved totally incapable of actually providing any direct evidence of 'intimidation', I'm going to have to assume it is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

I'd suggest everyone else does the same, and ignores him.

Can we get back to the subject now. Is there any reason why 6DoF input devices can't use the standard MS joystick API? And if not, why don't games publishers just do the sensible thing and use them? Problem solved.

Right, Wolf_Rider, now you have proved totally incapable of actually providing any direct evidence of 'intimidation', I'm going to have to assume it is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

Right, andyjwest... well, you've not understood anything in the past, so I wouldn't hold much hope for you understanding anything in the future... even with the use of crayon and butcher's paper. (you've really sunk yourself on that one, eh?)

I'd suggest everyone else does the same, and ignores him.

Your problem seems to be that some just don't agree with you that anybodies' software should just be opened up for anyone to use willy nilly, regardless of copyright and it has gotten you into a tiz. Making calls to ignore people, andyjwest, says more about you than anyone else.

Can we get back to the subject now. Is there any reason why 6DoF input devices can't use the standard MS joystick API? And if not, why don't games publishers just do the sensible thing and use them?

suggestion along those lines was made way earlier in the thread, andyjwest, before your rants started. Clear discussion on some programs which allow exactly that, without the use of anything copyrighted by NP, occurred only a few posts ago, programs which even allowed for NP's TIR to be used... did you miss that?

Problem solved.

sticking to the thread topic usually does that

BIS would never have supported Freetrack interface in Arma if there was license problem or legal issue with any part of Freetrack software or it's use. They are in good position to judge, they make software and work with software licenses, copyright and patent law. They would never support, by your description, 'outfit' of 'punk hackers' that 'promote hacking' 'deserve contempt' use 'intimidation' do not respect copyright and break the law.

I just now notice you never directly say Freetrack break the law, but imply it over and over, seems you are too afraid to directly say it because you know it is not true.

Because BIS use TrackIR they follow NaturalPoint licenses, so if NaturalPoint do not like Freetrack interface they could have stopped BIS from using it. But not so.

So to conclude, there is professional respected game studio BIS who have supported Freetrack and there is NaturalPoint TrackIR developer licenses that permit support of Freetrack interface. Evidence is clear that Freetrack is 100% legitimate.

Only way to dispute Freetrack being 100% legitimate is to say BIS is corrupt, unprofessional and support breaking law and NaturalPoint TrackIR licenses don't care about other software illegally using TrackIR interface.

Wolf_Rider wrote (amongst his other ramblings):
This is an outright falsehood. I never suggested anything of the sort. That he can come out with such drivel indicates how little concern for facts he has, and why my suggestion that he is best ignored should be taken seriously.

If you think it's acceptable that NP coerces developers into restricting non-NP trackers to 2/3DoF, then yes. I don't.

I found the links, and some NP forum posts. "it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3" and also for games that don't accept non-mouse head tracking at all.

Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread has stuck to the thread topic, including myself.

Why? I'm aware that freetrack's emulating, or "hacking" as you call it, of TIR is possibly illegal, and I'm not defending it.

Your ideals are clearly different to mine, we'll leave it at that.

We could. Lets do another one:

YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"? Note that the question is independent of freetrack and it's developers practises. The outcome of 1C's decision will affect non-NP, non-freetrack trackers. How about it, yes or no?

Sigur_Ros, your #164... rspectfully, you don't have a clue do you?
NP doesn't want its copyrighted software violated, as would anyone else

and with your #165... "Only way to dispute Freetrack being 100% legitimate is to say BIS is corrupt, unprofessional and support breaking law and NaturalPoint TrackIR licenses don't care about other software illegally using TrackIR interface." Actually, I believe NP are taking a very dim view on other software using NP's software illegally.



#166...
andyjwest, it isn't a falsehood, your actions speak reams. You insist on 'playing the player', instead of playing the ball and in doing have missed several facts.
(eg you ask; where? - I answer; here, here and there - you respond with; I don't understand)

#167...
Julian 265

If you think it's acceptable that NP coerces developers into restricting non-NP trackers to 2/3DoF, then yes. I don't.

If what they do violates NP NDA or software copyright, then there is a problem... there is however, no reason why a third do as you've suggested and write something to tap into MS joystick API, and not accessing NP software in any shape or form... is there?



I found the links, and some NP forum posts. "it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3" and also for games that don't accept non-mouse head tracking at all.

If the NP software wasn't being hacked, there would be no need to attempt to protect their property... if it is possible to use PPjoy, MS joystick API etc, why does the rhetoric continue in the vein of forcing NP to delete their copyright?




Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread has stuck to the thread topic, including myself.

yet I get slammed for not adressing all points?




Why? I'm aware that freetrack's emulating, or "hacking" as you call it, of TIR is possibly illegal, and I'm not defending it.

Thank you.
The 'hacking' is though infringing NP copyright




Your ideals are clearly different to mine, we'll leave it at that.

I don't seek to force people to my opinion, like some in this thread seem want to do. DIversity of opinion is to be lauded. Some support hacking, some don't




YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"? Note that the question is independent of freetrack and it's developers practises. The outcome of 1C's decision will affect non-NP, non-freetrack trackers. How about it, yes or no?

I've already said several times, what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party. I've also already said, there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect. devicelink, joystick api, or similar. The problem lies with a third party infringing another company's copyright.
Why do people keep on "forgetting" what was said earlier?

Wolf_Rider continues:

You will note that yet again he offers no evidence at all to back up his statements about what I am supposed to have said. This leaves me no choice:

Wolf_Rider, either provide evidence that I suggested that "anybodies' software should just be opened up for anyone to use willy nilly, regardless of copyright" or apologise for posting this falsehood. Your repeated suggestions that I am breaking forum rules (which this would entail), combined with your reluctance to provide evidence to back this up, suggest that you have little concern for such rules yourself. If You are unable to do this, I will request that this topic be closed, and that appropriate action be taken against you. How the moderators react is of course up to them, but I'd think it difficult for them to allow your dishonest tactics to continue

basically... to use an analogy... to say freetrack is illegal is like saying... because one company makes TV's all other companies need to ask that one for permission if they want to make TV's too... or if one company makes fly swatters, any other company that makes something that also kills flies needs to as for permission...

yes... t hats right i used TV's and flyswatters as analogys...