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

[Wolf_Rider]

"Seems like it's just "argument on the Internet" syndrome, then. you could apply that to yourself, with or wthout your own logic.


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? -from #71 did you miss this?

[TheGrunch]

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? -from #71 did you miss this?

There's no need for them to. But how is that relevant to what I'm talking about? I'm not talking about Freetrack, I'm talking about the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers. That's not support of Freetrack, that's a feature request and because I think that it is a more sound system from the point of view of competition. Anyway, this is just more evasion from you as usual, akin to your previous habits of referring to distant posts by number and making vague references to previous points instead of making your posts clear.

Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely?
2) Why is that?
3) Where do you see Freetrack developers supporting intimidation tactics?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

There's no need for them to. But how is that relevant to what I'm talking about? I'm not talking about Freetrack, I'm talking about the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers.

Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely?
2) Why is that?
3) Where do you see Freetrack developers supporting intimidation tactics?

there's no need for them to.... good, and see my response to andjwest then , grunch... it sort of makes your intimidations irrelevant, eh


Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely? yes, you've answered this one in the above
2) Why is that? see 1.
3) Where do you see [S]Freetrack developers[strikethrough and insert ->] outfit supporting intimidation tactics? on their and others sites

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

see my resonse to andjwest then , grunch... it sort of makes your intimidations irrelevant, eh

Well, I'm bored now, I was arguing this because it was interesting, but if you're so evasive that you can't answer simple questions I'm going to be bored again. I haven't intimidated you as you posted above (unless you meant to write intimations), you won't answer simple questions, don't recognise basic logic, have some kind of unnatural attachment to NaturalPoint and TrackIR. It was interesting for a while.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

3) Where do you see [S]Freetrack developers[strikethrough and insert ->] outfit supporting intimidation tactics? on their and others sites

Nothing I have said has made my belief about NaturalPoint's behaviour any less likely, but if you honestly can't make that connection then I can't help you. I think it's wiser to believe that a firm operates for profit than for their customers.
Now, do you have any proof of YOUR allegation about Freetrack developers? Care to provide a link?

I agree with Andy, your inability to separate Freetrack from an open standard for headtracking is very perplexing.

[AndyJWest]

...the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers.

Yup. The same question I asked earlier. The same question that was 'answered' by a reference to an earlier posting that confused software, hardware, copyright, R&D, and who knows what else.

Let me make my position perfectly clear. If specific copyright infringements have occured, they should be dealt with appropriately. Vague assertions are not relevent to the question, however. Neither is an assumption that 'we did it first, so we have a monopoly', particularly in a case like this where it is self-evidently untrue (military aircraft have had position-senseing equipment for helmets for at least 30 years). I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface, Unless this is incorrect, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be able to claim any legal protection from others.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface,

which is what NP are being stomped for by trying to protect it.

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Well, I'm bored now, I was arguing this because it was interesting, but if you're so evasive that you can't answer simple questions I'm going to be bored again. I haven't intimidated you as you posted above (unless you meant to write intimations), you won't answer simple questions, don't recognise basic logic, have some kind of unnatural attachment to NaturalPoint and TrackIR. It was interesting for a while.

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

[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?