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

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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.

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.

[AndyJWest]

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.

[Wolf_Rider]

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

[sigur_ros]

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?

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.

[sigur_ros]

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.

[AndyJWest]

Wolf_Rider wrote (amongst his other ramblings):

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....

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.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

If you think it's acceptable that NP coerces developers into restricting non-NP trackers to 2/3DoF, then yes. I don't.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread has stuck to the thread topic, including myself.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

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.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

Your ideals are clearly different to mine, we'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

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?

[Wolf_Rider]

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?

[AndyJWest]

Wolf_Rider continues:

#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)

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

[AKA_Tenn]

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...