Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[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.

[Stipe]

But guys behind DCS must have a legal department for crying out loud(hey guys,what NP is trying to do is illegal.We wont be fooled).Or am I a romantic? Money investment in development of the game or bribery is likely. But still, in today's world i wouldn't be suprised if something like that is going on. We know how business runs. Can't NP go to court becouse something like that? Monopol. Remember Microsoft?

[Wolf_Rider]

could I make a genuinely polite comment at this point?

all that just written, is just feeding rumours, it is what gets them big and fat and out of all proportion. This is what makes it hard to get clarity

[julian265]

So you're just going to ignore post #201?

[Wolf_Rider]

I'm very sorry, but I didn't realise there was an assessment, by you, there Julian.
I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment, on the grounds of; I wait for fact concerning DCS and the SDK. Fact, not rumour, not assessment, not speculation, not Chinese whispers but fact.
Thank you for the link, which is obviously the second of the two mentioned by Blackdog. That post (which also says "by agreement" with NP) is also two years old. Are DCS still got their vendor (seller) independent (not under the control of any one, or group of, seller/s) underway yet? This is a fair question, I think... what do you think, Julian?

Originally Posted by Stipe

I agree. But what else could be the reason for DCS to remove their SDK if you think. I try to emerge myself in their position. NP calls me:"please remove your SDK and use our product only".

I would ask; "On what grounds?" but to go any further until some fact turns up,and you can see yourself the "by agreement part". in the link, is only surmising.
You might not mean to be doing this, but that is how it is coming across.

Originally Posted by Stipe

Just that. What would you do? Like I said. If that from above is the actual quote from the developer that's a good enough proof for me that something is not right. I do hope I'm mistaken though. If that's how things work now we are all screwed. The problem is: yes it was removed for sure and yes it was independent SDK, but why it was removed then?

mate, it still comes back to the standing question... which is; how did DCS go about it?
Until then, what else can we do?

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment, on the grounds of; I wait for fact concerning DCS and the SDK. Fact, not rumour, not assessment, not speculation, not Chinese whispers but fact.

Logically impossible. If you reserve judgement until "facts" arrive, then you neither disagree or agree. However you have just said that you are disagreeing. You can't hold a view point without having some reasoning behind it, whether you're willing to post it or not.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Are DCS still got their vendor (seller) independent (not under the control of any one, or group of, seller/s) underway yet? This is a fair question, I think... what do you think, Julian?

I assume you mean "is DCS still developing an independent 6DoF interface?". My answer is "I doubt it".

[Wolf_Rider]

fact is Julian, I stand by my disagreement and you can argue that all you want, or not, and that is entirely up to you and you have also quoted my reasons for disagreeing with your assessment. If it clearer to you, I could probably change "disagree" to "dismiss". Anyway, lets see what turns up in the wash, eh?

DCS, Julian, only ever (at least in going by the link) mentioned 3DoF, may I ask you; where did the 6DoF come into it from?

[Stipe]

That's what's bugging me. "by agreement" part. What's in the agreement?
Hehehe. I'm loosing my sanity. It's really early in the morning.

[Wolf_Rider]

its in the link Julian put up in his 201, Stipe. It still doesn't explain the "how or what" though, so lets see what answers we get back.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Page 22 and nobody form 1C even can talk a word about 1C commercial agreement with NP.

I'm not stupid... If W-R, one of a lot of NP fakes over internet forums wants to pose as "the average consumer", we aren't blind as he is.

Shame Oleg. Really, a shame. Other FT topic without any clear answer...