Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[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.