Wow, you're really reluctant to answer simple questions, aren't you? What is it about my post #73 that you'd like me to refer back to? That's what I think. NP created the situation themselves, and they'll have to deal with it. My position is that if they had thought ahead they ought to have anticipated that this would happen when they made sure their interface was closed. The error they made was in assuming that only commercial competitors would attempt to create a head-tracking solution. It's practical for them to prosecute competitors that violate their interface. It's not practical for them to prosecute everyone who uses Freetrack.
Either way allowing the use of an open standard for head-tracking doesn't directly support Freetrack any more than emergency medical attention supports murderers. Is there a logical error there? Please explain it to me.
And as long as we're playing the 30-odd posts ago game, care to explain when Freetrack developers used intimidation tactics?

Wolf_Rider, would you mind answering another couple of questions that as far as I'm aware, haven't been asked yet, but sem relevant to this debate:

(A) Are you employed by anyone who has a financial interest in NP maintaining a share of the 6DOF sim software/hardware market?

(B) do you yourself have a financial interest in NP maintaining a share of the 6DOF sim software/hardware market?

I hesitate to ask such questions, but I have difficulty in otherwise explaining your attitude.

I've wanted to ask the same myself for quite some time, but I thought it was a little bit invasive.

Hmmm.... I've been waiting for that questioning andyjwest... no I'm not, is that clear enough for you?


why won't you give a genuine reply to my question grunch (are you one of the FT team?)? you seem to be doing all you can to avoid it, including inserting rhetoric I did not make

Seems like it's just "argument on the Internet" syndrome, then. In answer to your question, I'm not. I've never been involved in software development of any kind. When did I "insert rhetoric that you did not make"?

And now what question is it that you've decided I haven't answered?

"Seems like it's just "argument on the Internet" syndrome, then. you could apply that to yourself, with or wthout your own logic.


Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies? -from #71 did you miss this?

There's no need for them to. But how is that relevant to what I'm talking about? I'm not talking about Freetrack, I'm talking about the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers. That's not support of Freetrack, that's a feature request and because I think that it is a more sound system from the point of view of competition. Anyway, this is just more evasion from you as usual, akin to your previous habits of referring to distant posts by number and making vague references to previous points instead of making your posts clear.

Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely?
2) Why is that?
3) Where do you see Freetrack developers supporting intimidation tactics?

there's no need for them to.... good, and see my response to andjwest then , grunch... it sort of makes your intimidations irrelevant, eh


Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely? yes, you've answered this one in the above
2) Why is that? see 1.
3) Where do you see [S]Freetrack developers[strikethrough and insert ->] outfit supporting intimidation tactics? on their and others sites

Well, I'm bored now, I was arguing this because it was interesting, but if you're so evasive that you can't answer simple questions I'm going to be bored again. I haven't intimidated you as you posted above (unless you meant to write intimations), you won't answer simple questions, don't recognise basic logic, have some kind of unnatural attachment to NaturalPoint and TrackIR. It was interesting for a while. :rolleyes:

Yup. The same question I asked earlier. The same question that was 'answered' by a reference to an earlier posting that confused software, hardware, copyright, R&D, and who knows what else.

Let me make my position perfectly clear. If specific copyright infringements have occured, they should be dealt with appropriately. Vague assertions are not relevent to the question, however. Neither is an assumption that 'we did it first, so we have a monopoly', particularly in a case like this where it is self-evidently untrue (military aircraft have had position-senseing equipment for helmets for at least 30 years). I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface, Unless this is incorrect, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be able to claim any legal protection from others.

Nothing I have said has made my belief about NaturalPoint's behaviour any less likely, but if you honestly can't make that connection then I can't help you. I think it's wiser to believe that a firm operates for profit than for their customers.
Now, do you have any proof of YOUR allegation about Freetrack developers? Care to provide a link?

I agree with Andy, your inability to separate Freetrack from an open standard for headtracking is very perplexing.

which is what NP are being stomped for by trying to protect it.


oh, I'm sorry, did you require the answers in a particular format? 'cause to me it definitely looks like there is a clear answer to each of your three questions

Nice one champ, why don't you take a look at the time I responded to your post, and the last time you edited your post? :)

Trying to protect what? An unoriginal interface. They invented nothing significant. All they did was create a way for their hardware to interact with other people's software. they are entitled to do this. So is anyone else. What about this is so difficult to grasp?

which post, is that?

There is an 18 minute interval between when you posted #108 and when you last edited it to add the whole second section. If you're going to respond to people who posted in between that time, you have to take into account when you made your edits. I posted #109 14 minutes before your last edit of #108. Now can we get back to the discussion?

its nothing difficult to grasp at all if you maintain your original "creating an particular interface" line of your first quote, which you seem to have changed to 'unoriginal interface' in your second quote.

no wonder you don't understand anyone, when you don't seem to be able to follow your own train of thought.....

is that all you have left grunch? talk about hardpressed


lets see what we've got so far....

allegations without proof
an agreeance that developers/ publishers don't need to cater to hackers
an agreeance that there should be some sort of interface that software writers can use for headtracking, without hacking into someone else's
an admonishment of one company for wanting and endeavouring to protect its software access, without affecting any other
a freesource team, who won't approach developers for inclusion in the product but would rather hack and support hacking


interesting

No, I've asked you a question. You answered a post I made between edits of one of your earlier posts, for some reason. Would you care to answer my question as to whether you can provide a link that proves your allegations about the Freetrack developers? All this evasion you're trying is very boring.

keep trying grunch, you're the troll you've acused others of being ;)

as for a link?, yes there are many links

Is that so? Why is it this time?

If it's due to what I've said about post #108, why don't you look at the times on the posts? They're very visible. The time at the top is the time the post was made. There is a piece of text which appears at the bottom of a post after an edit that displays the last time the post was edited. That usually solves most of my questions as to why some posts don't seem to take account of the previous ones. It's because I don't have a time machine.

Once that misunderstanding is done with, it's apparent that I'm just asking you a question, not trolling.
Would you care to provide a link? That was my question. Are you tired? Is your reading comprehension suffering?

Quote... Ok, don't bother this is getting convoluted enough as it is.
To explain it as simply as possible: NP invented a new interface for their hardware. This was unnecessary, as the existing interface was perfectly capable of handling the inputs. They have since tried to claim that they 'invented' the interface for 6DOF, rather than implementing (badly) a particular instance of such an interface. They are probably entitled to stop other hardware manufactures from using their interface, IF they accept that it isn't original, protected by any particular copyright etc beyond being an instance of an implementation of a particular solution to a generic problem. I've little doubt that a better interface could be arrived at with a little consultation between interested parties, though why they'd need to do more than state that the existing MS joystick interface was suitable for 6DOF input is beyond me.

It is noticeable that NP seem to wish to remain ambiguous as to what exactly they are claiming 'intellectual property rights' on. If it is the general principle of 6DOF input, they clearly aren't the first, and if it is their interface, it is open to others to provide alternatives.

It's lines of code, Andy. The code is copyrighted.

tired? nah, I'm fine thanks.....


yes, I can provide a link

Would you care to do so within the next few minutes?

NP developed an interface for their hardware...do you have something which can prove NP only implemented (badly) a particular instance of such an interface?

The Freetrack code is public. It's published here. If NaturalPoint had any copyright claims against the code, they were dealt with several releases ago. They have access to read the code as often as anyone else. There is not a lot of code and NaturalPoint have made requests for lines to be removed before, which were complied with. So it would appear that there's no longer any code that's original to TrackIR in there anyway. And in any case, infringing copyright would be essentially impossible given that the TrackIR programs and drivers are supplied as binaries. To say that they've "hacked" the interface is just to say that they've worked out how to provide the correct input to the game. There's certainly nothing illegal about that. Sani's FOV Changer is more of a hack than that, it changes data in memory to change the FOV in Il-2.

The standard MS joystick interface is perfectly adequate, as I've already said. An axis is an axis, whether it is derived from head movement or a joystick pot. It is a digital input derived from a sensor. I don't have to 'prove' anything. If NP want to claim propritary rights, it is down to them to offer proof. what exactly are NP claiming rights to? Unless they can offer an explanation as to why the existing interface was unsuitable, any claim to 'originality' should be treated with suspicion. Intellectual property rights are only supposed to be enforced to encourage new developments, not to support a monopoly of the obvious.

full circle and back to the beginning




exactly right and it is only licensed to be used with TIR


The license states "The TrackIR software product is composed of...and dll components", ""NaturalPoint...grants...license...to use the TrackIR software ONLY with NaturalPoint TrackIR Hardware"" and "Use of the TrackIR software with...anything which emulates a TrackIR is prohibited"[12]


Most TrackIR Enhanced software need to be provided with text strings which bear notice of "EyeControl Technologies" copyright (former name of NaturalPoint, Inc.) in order to activate the TrackIR Enhanced interface. Software which requires these text strings for interface activation also contain the strings themselves. At NaturalPoint's request, FreeTrack project members removed the strings from the software they provide to end users. FreeTrack then implemented a workaround which creates a local copy of these strings from the client software when used with TrackIR Enhanced titles. - wikipedia



here's your link... http://www.bing.com/search?q=bis+fre...ox&FORM=IE8SRC

I think the processing of the image is done by the software and ergo the CPU of the consumer's PC, not by the device itself, so it couldn't be passed straight to the HID interface, but still, there would have been no obstacle to creating a virtual joystick as part of the device's software like PPJoy does.
Anyway, what Andy is saying, W_R, as I have been, is that there is no adequate reason to create the proprietary interface EXCEPT if you consider the creation of the device as an attempt to create a monopoly.

I don't think that to be the case grunch and you know it, else you would be whinging that you couldn't use ATI drivers/ control panel on an nVidia card and visa versa, or any driver with similar product those drivers were developed for, or any joystick programmer with any joystick, interswap Intel and AMD cpus, etc..... you've made allegations without proof, admit to having no proof and agree that developers/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.

Yeah, but I also understand the principle of reasonable doubt. I don't see how your link supports your allegations about the Freetrack developers, either. How could a bunch of free software developers "intimidate" a game developer? I thought you were going to bring up something more substantial than people bitching in a forum thread. I thought game developers had thicker skins than that.
I understand enough about the way that joystick devices work to know that there was no need to create the proprietary interface. They could have even kept their software as it is, all they had to do is pass the output to a virtual joystick instead of via an encrypted datastream as it is most recently. They wouldn't even have to make the virtual joystick device themselves, they could just use the freely available PPJoy, although they would likely be wise to make their own solution to avoid infringing copyright themselves.
The other benefit to this is that developers wouldn't even have to code in support for TrackIR specifically, they would just have to make view position accessible to a joystick device, so it would even make developers' lives easier.
Incidentally, I didn't know that NP broke older TrackIR hardware in newer games just to break Freetrack, so that at least was informative. I wonder if my TrackIR 3 would work with Arma II?

EDIT: In fact, it seems like the cause of the controversy in that thread was the developers' insistence on ignoring the fact that Freetrack has its own API that developers are free to use.

Round and round we go...

Tesll us what it is that you think NP have intellectual property rights over. Is it:

(A) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer.

(B) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer using the particular protocol they developed.

(C) something else entirely.

If it is (A) they were not original. If it is (B) then anyone can develop an alternative - or use the existing standards.

If it is (C) then for god's sake tell us what it is.

NP are just protecting their code and the product's good name in quality.

I've basically said before there is nothing wrong with someone developing their own interface, its just when the hack into someone else's that there is a problem. So why all your hoo har?

for your edit... perhaps the developers have never been approached to include the api via a patch. You've already said earlier that the first was BIS and you've agreed that developer/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.



yes well tell us about it, you've been running a right merry-go-round.

what is it exactly, you don't understand now?

You'd understand why it's possible if you understood a bit more about computer hardware. ATI and NVidia make their own proprietary drivers because their drivers are a direct interface between hardware and software, their drivers communicate directly with the card. TrackIR's software communicates with the TrackIR device via USB, which first of all does a lot of the interfacing itself, and secondly is too slow a protocol for the speeds required by a 3D engine. It's then passed to the game via their encrypted datastream. The TrackIR software can recognise the head position on its own, so it would be quite possible to pass that information from the TrackIR software to a virtual joystick instead of encrypting it and sending it to the game. In fact, the TrackIR software has to be running for the device to work anyway so I don't see how that could ever be a problem.

which means?

That there was no good reason to create the interface in the first place except to cause other implementations difficulty once theirs was in use. It made developers' lives harder as well since they had to add TrackIR support specifically.

As to BIS, given what's written in that thread it seems like the Freetrack developers were tearing their hair out about showing their API to BIS and BIS saying that they couldn't implement it because it used the NP API. Which it didn't. Sounds like a misunderstanding, but it looks like it got pretty out of hand.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm off out, talk to you guys later.

err did sim connect or devicelink exist when TIR first came out?

Following your "logic" why couldn't other people interested in headtracking write their own and approach developers for inclusion, or take advanatge of what was available? its what I've said before.. its between the developer and the particular tracker people... nothing to do with NP

Why hammer NP?

The BIS biz didn't read like you were suggesting at all... they say quite clearly; no-one approached them about inclusion... quite clearly the FT does use the TIR side of things (if nothing else is available) and that goes against NP licensing and copyright.

Perhaps FT should just get rid of anything NP, in any form and go about taking an honest approach?

BIS set a precedent by supporting both TrackIR and Freetrack so it is clear there is no license problem or legal issue with Freetrack. The only unclear thing is your motivation for spending a 14 page thread slandering Freetrack.

I don't believe anyone has said there is any issue with FT (or any other) and TIR running side by side Sigur... where did this come from?
Also pointed out were the means of having a camera run as tracker, without having to hack into NP software.

Wow.... I go out for the day and the thread doubles in length!

Wolf_Rider, you'd make a great politician or lawyer.

Neither AndyJWest or TheGrunch have an issue with NP developing their own interface.

We all have a problem with games not accepting standard axis inputs for head tracking, for the nth time. We also have a problem with businesses which lobby game devs, to get them to not accept standard axis inputs.

You seem to avoid making comments directly about the above issue, instead changing the question, or choosing to comment about businesses protecting their interests instead, or a completely unrelated issue, regarding NP dealing with "hackers".

Also, Wolf_Rider, you asked for proof of NP being in a financial arrangement with Ubi, in order for them to "moderate" discussion of freetrack. I'll accept that this is not proof, however I have read it on the Ubi forum that there is a "sponsorship" arrangement between Ubi and NP which causes the issue to be "moderated". I'm looking for the post now, but it's a bit hard when the search terms needed have all been "moderated" out.

Wow.... I go out for the day and the thread doubles in length!

Wolf_Rider, you'd make a great politician or lawyer.

thank you for your kind words, but neither take my fancy

Neither AndyJWest or TheGrunch have an issue with NP developing their own interface.

I have noticed that, and I don't believe anyone has indicated otherwise

We all have a problem with games not accepting standard axis inputs for head tracking, for the nth time.

PPJoy and TIR2joy does this, doesn't it?

We also have a problem with businesses which lobby game devs, to get them to not accept standard axis inputs.

why would NP have both PPJoy and TIR2joy listed on their site, for download, if this was truly the case?

You seem to avoid making comments directly about the above issue, instead changing the question, or choosing to comment about businesses protecting their interests instead, or a completely unrelated issue, regarding NP dealing with "hackers".

The true point of the matter is exactly that of NP dealing with hackers... and please don't go twisting things around

Also, Wolf_Rider, you asked for proof of NP being in a financial arrangement with Ubi, in order for them to "moderate" discussion of freetrack. I'll accept that this is not proof, however I have read it on the Ubi forum that there is a "sponsorship" arrangement between Ubi and NP which causes the issue to be "moderated". I'm looking for the post now, but it's a bit hard when the search terms needed have all been "moderated" out.

err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly. grunch stated he had no proof, yet continues to make allegation... please don't alter the issue there.

regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?

That is a pretty serious allegation, Wolf_Rider. I don't suppose for one minute you are going to back it up with evidence?

check the link supplied to grunch yesterday...

You can't mean this one, surely: http://www.bing.com/search?q=bis+fre...ox&FORM=IE8SRC

That is a link to Bing, with the search string 'bis freetrack abuse'. What is that supposed to prove?

oh do keep trying andyjwest... haven't you shot enough holes in your own foot yet? :)

A simple yes or no question. Was that the link you were referring to?

that's the only link I've given to grunch yesterday andyjwest... is there something you don't understand again?

Yes, I don't understand what the heck this has to do with intimidation. Do yo not understand how a search engine works? Just because it found articles with the words you entered in it, doesn't indicate that they are even referring to what you are, never mind 'proving it. When I looked, this was the first article on the list: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...ogId=439120001

It is in German:Or from Google Translate:
Now provide proof of 'intimidation'.

now you're just being deliberately silly and predictable, andyjwest... grunch didn't have any problem

linking directly would, in my opinion, put me in breach of the stated guidelines for this forum... or is that what you are hoping for?

It's a workaround, for sure, but there are still no generic head tracking inputs, when it's obvious that there should be. Some games also limit what you can input to head pose without TIR - eg limited to 2DoF when you emulate mouse movement.

Out of interest, can you post a link? Head trackers don't pop up in the "game controllers" control panel, and games do not communicate with them like almost all other gaming hardware. So it is truly not the case. Also, without seeing the context in which the links you mentioned are posted, I'm guessing that 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 (which cannot communicate in encrypted form like TIR 4+ does)

Actually, the point at any one time is the question or statement that you choose to respond to.

See:
And your response:
But if you want proof of the locking out, see my link from early (post 15) in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The entire thread is at : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...080#post589080

They should not support a "hacking outfit". IMO they should allow discussion. What intimidation?

BTW I interpret the allowing of unmoderated discussion of this topic, on this forum, as a good sign. 8)

I'm not being 'deliberately silly', I'm asking you to provide proof. You claimed that you had posted a link to such proof. You didn't. You provided a link to a search engine.

And no, I'm not 'hoping' to get you to breach forum guidelines. Since I don't have a clue as to what it is you are alleging, there is no way I could know whether such a breach was a possibility. Once again you seem incapable of providing straight answers to simple questions, but instead have to add another layer of complexity and confusion.

Now, I'll ask again, where is the proof of 'intimidation'. If you can't provide a link, at least provide a search string that doesn't come up with random irrelevance. If you are struggling with this, PM me, and I'll show you the easiest way to do it. Come to that, why not just PM me the link...

Or maybe an indication of the name of the link to be clicked from your search?

It's a workaround, for sure, but there are still no generic head tracking inputs, when it's obvious that there should be. Some games also limit what you can input to head pose without TIR - eg limited to 2DoF when you emulate mouse movement.

as mentioned before, all that is between the developer and the various headtracking people... and so it seems that FT need not violate NP copyright at all then



Out of interest, can you post a link? Head trackers don't pop up in the "game controllers" control panel, and games do not communicate with them like almost all other gaming hardware. So it is truly not the case. Also, without seeing the context in which the links you mentioned are posted, I'm guessing that 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 (which cannot communicate in encrypted form like TIR 4+ does)

I'm sorry but you'll need to do your own homework there...




Actually, the point at any one time is the question or statement that you choose to respond to.

Things would OT rather quickly in that regard... better to just stick to the topic at hand


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
[I]err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly... please don't alter the issue there.

See:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrunch
Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?

And your response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

But if you want proof of the locking out, see my link from early (post 15) in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The entire thread is at : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...080#post589080

you should have mentioned the post above that one, which mentions an NDA.... also in your linked post, take note of the last sentence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?[/COLOR]

They should not support a "hacking outfit". IMO they should allow discussion.


why should they do that?... its the product which quite often gets hacked


What intimidation?

we could go around in circles for page after page on that one.....

err, grunch had no trouble andyjwest and rest assured, the confusion is of your own making.

You've got your link, so have a read



yes, that is good :)

Read what?

Grunch, if you are still bothering to follow this nonsense, can I ask whether you know what the heck Wolf_Rider is referring to?

How about you start playing the ball, instead of the player??... there's a good boy

Ok, I'll take a wild guess, since Wolf_Rider isn't being very helpful, and assume that I'm supposed to be looking at the forum the search finds that actually refers to FreeTrack. Now what am I supposed to do? Read every posting to look for evidence of 'intimidation'? Why the heck should I? He made the accusation, so it is up to him to provide the evidence. He need not provide a link to the site if he provides a reasonable length quote from the relevant postings - I can search for them myself (though quoting from them shouldn't breach forum rules anyway).

I've had this sort of internet 'debate' before. First, the 'evidence' is supposedly so obvious that a link isn't needed, but I ask for it anyway. And surprise surprise, it isn't obvious at all, but is to be found somewhere or other, and if I can't find it, it is clearly my fault. The punchline in such 'debates' usually turns out to be that there is no 'evidence', just the unverifiable interpretation of some minor bit of text posted by no-one of consequence.

The only real mystery in the is why Wolf_Rider is so concerned with NPs 'property rights', given his assurances that he has no involvement with them.

Is this supposed to mean something?

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...

err, you're off the ledge on this one andyjwest... I have never said that
:-P



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.

You are free to do as you wish, andyjwest, but as with your calling for people to be ignored, the above also says more about you than anyone else. As for your claim of dishonest tactics... well, I can only say you are looking at yourself in your mirror there. "If you can't play them, badger them... if you can't badger them, do all you can to shut them down, eh? That's what you seem to be employing here, andyjwest.


I don't believe anyone has said FT is actually illegal... they have said though, that FT is infringing another company's copyright. Also said was; why couldn't FT come up with their own necessary bits, approach the developers for inclusion in the production, whilst leave NP's property alone?

Your TV analogy is spot on for describing how copyright and patents work. Does "manufactured under license" or "used under license", ring any bells??

Rule 9:
I suppose this depends on the precise interpretation the moderators put on this.

You might also like to consider this rule, for you own benefit:
Since you still have offered no evidence to back up your false information regarding my attitude to breaches of copyright (there isn't any), you have broken the rules yourself. I am now informing the moderators of this.

The evidence is in your actions, shrillness and attitude, andyjwest, as mentioned before... as for the other, it looks like I was right with what you are employing here,... so knock yourself out, sport.

Or to put it another way, the 'evidence' is entirely in your imagination.

Since you have now admitted there is no real 'evidence' to back up your allegations, are you going to apologise?

are you always so quick to put words in peoples' mouth andyjwest?

bear in mind, I could ask the same of your...

"Originally Posted by AndyJWest (in post #169 and currently unedited at this time)

Wolf_Rider continues:

~ Your repeated suggestions that I am breaking forum rules ~ "

I am not in the habit of editing posts to change their meaning. In any case the moderators will have access to the original posting.

Still no evidence at all to back up your false claims about my attitude to copyright, I note.

how did you go?

It's not how, its where: to bed.

No doubt you'll try to come out with a 'witty' response or two, rather than backing up your drivel with evidence...

I think you've diverted the topic off course enough now andyjwest... how about acting as you requested (neigh... insisted) others do and just stick to the topic...

A third? 2/3DoF was 2 or 3 Degrees of Freedom - as distinct from full 6DoF. And actually there is a reason - some games have BLOCKED OUT the methods that you mentioned, for controlling in-game head pose, which is the ONLY reason behind this thread's existence.

This is an odd thing to be asked, 18 pages into the thread about exactly this topic. The "rhetoric" continues because it simply isn't possible in some games, or isn't possible with 6DoF, which is equally unacceptable. I created this thread to try to get 1C to state their stance - whether or not they would restrict non-NP trackers, which would negate the use of PPJoy etc.

Because you didn't actually answer the question, and have avoided it previously. The topic of this thread, and my "yes or no" question, was about BoB 'listening' for head positions on standard interfaces - not tracking software using standard interfaces (which is, or easily can be, a given). Do you understand the difference? If TIR, or freetrack, or any other tracker sent head position as normal joystick axes, many games would ignore it - and I'm wondering if BoB will too. But either a 1C rep didn't read the first post of this thread, or they won't comment.

A third? 2/3DoF was 2 or 3 Degrees of Freedom - as distinct from full 6DoF. And actually there is a reason - some games have BLOCKED OUT the methods that you mentioned, for controlling in-game head pose, which is the ONLY reason behind this thread's existence.

Thanks and my bad... I did leave out the word 'party' where your question mark is. NP took the time and the effort to create their system (interface and tracker module), when there was no other product around... why can't others go and do the same?
TrackIR in games only came about because of few people who saw what handicapped people were using (that being SmartNav) and thought to themselves; "this is a damned good idea, can it be adapted to a gaming environment?"

This is an odd thing to be asked, 18 pages into the thread about exactly this topic. The "rhetoric" continues because it simply isn't possible in some games, or isn't possible with 6DoF, which is equally unacceptable. I created this thread to try to get 1C to state their stance - whether or not they would restrict non-NP trackers, which would negate the use of PPJoy etc.


I guess some games only recognise one joystick... one input? which goes back to my earlier comments regarding approaching developers for a patch. Have any actually been approached in a civilsed manner?


Because you didn't actually answer the question, and have avoided it previously. The topic of this thread, and my "yes or no" question, was about BoB 'listening' for head positions on standard interfaces - not tracking software using standard interfaces (which is, or easily can be, a given). Do you understand the difference? If TIR, or freetrack, or any other tracker sent head position as normal joystick axes, many games would ignore it - and I'm wondering if BoB will too. But either a 1C rep didn't read the first post of this thread, or they won't comment.



"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?"

the above is your original question...

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?

Once again, they can and have. But it is a bad way for head tracking to go... It should go the way joysticks/keyboards/mouses have, and use a standardised interface - which already exists. I've been saying this since the first page.

Most games recognise a few joysticks, Il-2 included, each with up to 8 axes and at least 32 buttons. There should be no need for any negotiation or approaches - IMO using the joystick or mouse interface is simply THE way to do it. I've been saying this since the first page also. I am unaware of the manner in which other trackers' creators have approached game devs.

My question: "YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"?"

Your answer: "what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party." - Which is true, but not an answer to the question. So why write it?

Your second answer: "there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar." - Which also avoids the question.

Do you understand the difference between trackers "accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar", and games listening to these protocols?

Once again, they can and have.

except FT hacks into NP software

But it is a bad way for head tracking to go... It should go the way joysticks/keyboards/mouses have, and use a standardised interface - which already exists. I've been saying this since the first page.

and I'm not disagreeing there


Most games recognise a few joysticks, Il-2 included, each with up to 8 axes and at least 32 buttons. There should be no need for any negotiation or approaches - IMO using the joystick or mouse interface is simply THE way to do it. I've been saying this since the first page also.

again, personally, I'm not in disagreement there. A lot of earlier (but still popular) games only recognise one though... they were made before pedals, throttles, etc came along.
All that would be need is for there to be some way of having some way for the "webcam tracker" talk to the joystick/ mouse interface? or develop an original interface?

I am unaware of the manner in which other trackers' creators have approached game devs.

It would be interesting to learn of exactly what has happened with regard to this... I know (from reading) BIS stated nobody approached them in an official and civilised capacity at first. It was only after the onslaught (basically) from a few was told to cease and desist... then a poll was held to determine if there enough users interested

My question: "YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"?"

Your answer: "what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party." - Which is true, but not an answer to the question. So why write it?

Your second answer: "there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar." - Which also avoids the question.

it answers your question perfectly and is actually all the one answer... and respectfully - live with it, if it is not in the format of which you demand

Do you understand the difference between trackers "accessing simconnect, devicelink, joystick api, or similar", and games listening to these protocols?

do you understand there is a difference between your original question and the modified one which you have tried to put forward?

Well I'll be. Your posts certainly made me, and others, think that you were.

Please show both questions that you refer to.

Well I'll be. Your posts certainly made me, and others, think that you were.

well I'm sorry for peoples' reactions, if they either 1. couldn't read the thread properly or 2. got het up into a such a rage because of my comments regarding copyright, which had them seeing no further than that.
my answer to your question, which you obviously read judging by your treatment of it by splitting it, states my clear position.




Please show both questions that you refer to.

seriously now, your memory can't be that short, lolol... go back to the top of the page.