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

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

Yes, it is an allegation. What's your alternative explanation?

[Wolf_Rider]

you've made the allegation, where is your proof?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

where is your proof?

So, your position is that unless I am privy to information which WOULD only be available to those involved in such a deal made behind closed doors, I am unable to conclude what I have, even if there are no other sensible explanations?
Well then, we will never agree. Have fun!

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

So, your position is that unless I am privy to information which WOULD only be available to those involved in such a deal made behind closed doors, I am unable to conclude what I have, even if there are no other sensible explanations?
Well then, we will never agree. Have fun!

so you choose to slander a company, actually a few them, by making allegation without proof?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

so you choose to slander a company by making allegation without proof?

If you want. I still invite you to provide an alternative explanation. Personally I'd consider that since I can't imagine a plausible alternative explanation, this is the most reasonable explanation. There is no other position that I can take around anything I haven't directly experienced. If you can provide an alternative explanation I'd be quite happy to consider it.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

If you want. I still invite you to provide an alternative explanation. Personally I'd consider that since I can't imagine a plausible alternative explanation, this is the most reasonable explanation. There is no other position that I can take around anything I haven't directly experienced. If you can provide an alternative explanation I'd be quite happy to consider it.

and you lable me a 'troll' lolol

from post #71

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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?

andyjwest... do you not read a thread through or choose to just jump in and reply to what is on the last page? go back and read... post #35 looks interesting and seems quite clear

[TheGrunch]

Wow, I'm a troll for applying basic logic to a situation. Brilliant.

[AndyJWest]

Wolf_Rider, I asked these questions because I was unclear from yor earlier postings where you stood:

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.

I'd have thought that a simple yes or no would clarify things more than a suggestion to read your earlier posts. Is there a particular reason why you don't consider an answer appropriate?

If you accept that generic 6DOF interfaces are acceptable, then the particulars of this case are irrelevant to PC sims in general, and the legal issue is between the parties involved, and need not concern 1C:Maddox etc. If you don't, then justify it.