Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[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?

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

you have also quoted my reasons for disagreeing with your assessment.

ROFL. Here are my only quotes of you, since I posted my assessment and asked for your opposite reasoning:

"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."

"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?"

If you have forgotten, the issue was (to quote you) "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?"

I still think it's extremely unlikely that ED would try to use NP's software without permission. You still disagree, apparently with the reason: "just because".

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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?

The ED quote implies that more than 3DoF was originally intended, and as 6DoF is the current standard, and also the number of DoF required for fully featured human head movement, it's a safe deduction to make.

Anyway, if you're not going to discuss the issue, but rather write circuitous and irrelevant questions, I'll leave you to it.

[Wolf_Rider]

Julian, sorry mate but your assessmnet I dismissed in favour of waiting for some facts. You can imply and deduce and theorise as much as you like, but that is all you are doing. None of that really, is going to get anyone anywhere... is it? That in itself is what drives things around in circles.

[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.

[Stipe]

Originally Posted by 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.

No,no. I want to know whats in the agreement clause.
I know it's not possible since that is a business secret. But i'm curious.

[Wolf_Rider]

Fair enough... I'm curious too

[MadBlaster]

Agreement means contract and/or an addendum to an existing contract/agreement. This is how vendors do business with each other. They put out RFPs (request for proposals). Vendors respond with what they can provide and how much it will cost...etc. In this case NP is the vendor to ED/DCS for the headtracking piece of the game. In that agreement it is likely a "covenant not to compete" type clause is present that protects NP's interest. That is pretty standard stuff. Now that clause may be enforceable, non-enforceable or partially enforceable. You don't actually know until you get to court. All you have is your attorney's opinion, as he is the one who drew it up for you. Now these two companies may have a long history of working together, so this agreement just keeps getting pushed to the next game and updated as their is no competition when they put out the RFP since NP is the only player.

Also, in real life, departments in a company are not always in sync. Guys in software development department of a company aren't necessarily worried or cognizant of what's in a vendor contract. So, if they get an idea to do something in-house and then someone in legal department says, hey you better not do that or we might get sued because of our agreement with NP. Yes, this seems rational, reasonable, albeit speculative, reasoning.