1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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?

[Wolf_Rider]

which post, is that?

[TheGrunch]

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?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

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?

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

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

is that all you have left grunch? talk about hardpressed

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.

[Wolf_Rider]

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

as for a link?, yes there are many links

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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?

[AndyJWest]

Quote... Ok, don't bother this is getting convoluted enough as it is.

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

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.

[TheGrunch]

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

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

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

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