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?
I'm aware that proprietary software isn't illegal,
|
err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?
okay... so you agree propriety software isn't illegal - good....I have asked: why should any developer/ publisher deal with any outfit which promotes hacking?
Why can't NP have propriety software for their own product?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrunch
Freetrack can't send a kit in because they're a free, open-source solution worked on by people in their spare time. You're right, though, a commercial competitor could do that if they could get big publishers to abandon exclusivity deals.
The reason that open standards exist is to prevent situations like that. My argument is simply that there is no reason that head-tracking should not use an open standard and that it would only benefit US if it did. That's not support for hacking, that's support for competition. I don't think that should be hard to understand.
Cam2Pan WAS around before TrackIR, they are right, but Cam2Pan relies upon mouse emulation, which is not a good solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
NP went and approached many developers to include their product, why can't freetrack do that, instead of just hacking their way in?
BIS went through a great deal of turmoil until they told the FT footsoldiers to cease and desist in their behaviour and for FT to actually make the approach. At this point, FT was considered and a poll held, which was favourable to FT for inclusion in a patch (I've mentioned patch before, yeah?)
|
See above. Like I say, this is the only occasion on which this has worked.
|
you speak of 'detail', yet contradict yourself in the above
02-20-2010, 03:05 AM
Threaded Mode