1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB? - Page 13

TheGrunch · #**121** 02-20-2010, 06:42 AM

Quote:

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 · #**122** 02-20-2010, 06:45 AM

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

Quote:

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 · #**123** 02-20-2010, 06:47 AM

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

Wolf_Rider · #**124** 02-20-2010, 06:49 AM

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

yes, I can provide a link

TheGrunch · #**125** 02-20-2010, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

yes, I can provide a link

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

Wolf_Rider · #**126** 02-20-2010, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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.

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?

TheGrunch · #**127** 02-20-2010, 06:59 AM

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.

AndyJWest · #**128** 02-20-2010, 07:04 AM

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.

Wolf_Rider · #**129** 02-20-2010, 07:06 AM

Quote:

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

TheGrunch · #**130** 02-20-2010, 07:09 AM

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.