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

[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?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by 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?

is that all you have left grunch? talk about hardpressed


lets see what we've got so far....

allegations without proof
an agreeance that developers/ publishers don't need to cater to hackers
an agreeance that there should be some sort of interface that software writers can use for headtracking, without hacking into someone else's
an admonishment of one company for wanting and endeavouring to protect its software access, without affecting any other
a freesource team, who won't approach developers for inclusion in the product but would rather hack and support hacking


interesting

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

is that all you have left grunch? talk about hardpressed

No, I've asked you a question. You answered a post I made between edits of one of your earlier posts, for some reason. Would you care to answer my question as to whether you can provide a link that proves your allegations about the Freetrack developers? All this evasion you're trying is very boring.

[Wolf_Rider]

keep trying grunch, you're the troll you've acused others of being

as for a link?, yes there are many links

[AndyJWest]

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

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]

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

[Wolf_Rider]

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?