Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Julian, Blaster please... it can't be that difficult to digest what is on this page alone, can it?

You asked "Julian, there is a standing question at the moment; Did DCS develop their own method or did DCS use the NP SDK?"

I referred to the ED quote:
"Every joystick has standard software interface, that's why every joystick works in every game. For now there is no standard for head tracking devices software interface. We were going to add vendor-independent SDK in English release to allow every head tracking vendor (including FreeTrack) implement support of their devices for BlackShark. SDK has been removed from English release because of NaturalPoint request. Now we make agreement with NaturalPoint and we will release 3DOF version of our head tracking SDK soon."

So the answer to your question is "DCS was developing their own, however NP requested that it not be included in the English version".

If you disagree, explain why, rather than pretending that everyone else just doesn't get it.

[MadBlaster]

What did you do W-R? Buy off Stipe with a new TrackIR? You are cunning. I"ll give you that.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by julian265

"~ We were going to add vendor-independent SDK in English release to allow every head tracking vendor (including FreeTrack) implement support of their devices for BlackShark. ~"

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

which I linked on page 14:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=135

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

Post 193:

Originally Posted by julian265

The statement gets "trundled out" because it's clear enough. The likelihood that ED's SDK would have had anything to do with NP's software is extremely low, for two reasons:
- It would have been illegal, and TIR probably would have been patched to no longer work with ED products (fair enough).
- There was no reason to the steal code to perform such a simple task.

Either way, ED did the right thing and exposed A-10C's head control axes for assignment (which I think is all that is needed). Whether they did for BS or not, I can't remember.

If you disagree with my assessment of the likelihood of ED using NP software without permission, please explain why.

[Stipe]

Yey, we are humans again.
I must say, that i got really defensive because i thought W-R is a track ir fanboy. But now i get the point. The question about DSC is to see if:
1.) they tried to use completely own interface and NP is indeed trying to run a monopol
or
2.) They used part of NP SDK to build their own code on and NP was simply defending their code

[Wolf_Rider]

that's right Stipe, I'm not a fanboi - not by a longshot.

Perhaps I could best put my views this way, in the form of two quotes?


oh well, here goes

"The greatest tenet of Democracy, is transparency of Government"

and

"The greatest tenet of Freedom, is honesty"



I'm really hoping that helps

[Stipe]

Let's say that DCS tried to do their own thing and NP asked them to stop.
I wonder on what ground did DCS cave?
Thats why some people hate NP. We don't know if the rumors are true or not.
If it's comfirmed then God knows whats ahead. COD 2 running with Saitek pedals only?

[Wolf_Rider]

Rumours do feature in a large part of any kerfuffle, at least that is what I've found in my journeys around the traps and unfortunately, the rumour mill can be nigh on impossible to shut down, once fired up.
Its why we need level heads, we need facts and we need clarity.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Stipe

Let's say that DCS tried to do their own thing and NP asked them to stop.
I wonder on what ground did DCS cave?
Thats why some people hate NP. We don't know if the rumors are true or not.
If it's comfirmed then God knows whats ahead. COD 2 running with Saitek pedals only?

Speculation (Fyi, I've posted the definition in this thread):
DCS and NP do a deal for the game. NP draws up a contract and DCS signs it. There is a clause in the contract that may not be legally enforceable, but it is there anyway that says there is a big financial penalty/withdrawal of support...etc. that will be exercised by NP if DCS decides to develop an in-house headtracking functionality, vendor independent or otherwise. Just the threat of court action is enough to intimidate most companies. Going to court costs lots of money. Since TrakIR dominates this market, DCS probably couldn't justify spending money on legal costs to defend going independent at this time. It's a risk/reward decision. So, the artificial monopoly stays in place.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

Here's perfect example of why we struggle with you W-R troll. "Vendor independent" = "SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK."

Please look up the word "independent" in the dictionary. Maybe you simply don't "trust" the word "independent" in the quote. And that is easily understandable, given your agenda. So what is your rate, 5 cents a word?