Freetrack interface use in IL-2:CoD

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Lobisomem i understand your point of view, i am favourable to free track support and voted the same way. But you need to be polite and political or people ll be angry and ll vote contrary to you. If you want your requests respected you need to be respectfull and use good arguments, not verbal violence.

If some people are not intelectually honest or acting by interest leave them so, just defend your view and not use "ad hominem" arguments. Try to put things in a constructive way, ever.

If I flood this forum with polite and logical arguments the same will happen: no dev can even post a word about that, and the NP faketrollguys will write the same old lies and nonsense.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to "raise this cause" in a "polite" manner: devs can't even discuss the subject, it's pathetic!

What is sad is that some people "don't care" and "don't bother" with this kind of thing. That's too much stupidity for me...

What a world...

[Wolf_Rider]

if FT operated in an honest clean manner, you'd find arguing your part a lot easier

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

if FT operated in an honest clean manner, you'd find arguing your part a lot easier

Probably true regarding FT. But why the absolute silence about allowing ANY controller (stick etc) to control the head axes?

[julian265]

Interfaces available - also key output on next tab.

Latest version, 2.2.0.279

PPJoy becomes available when you have it installed. It is my preferred method, but I'm on a different computer so it's greyed out.

[Wolf_Rider]

At least by the silence, there is no way they can be subject to abuse?




*Edit

Originally Posted by julian265

Interfaces available - also key output on next tab.

Latest version, 2.2.0.279

PPJoy becomes available when you have it installed. It is my preferred method, but I'm on a different computer so it's greyed out.

what is the TrackIR Interface tick box for, what's the file listed on the same line... and why was Blaster hiding it?

[WTE_Galway]

I vote for using XBOX 360 Kinect instead

... or maybe a Wii mote.

[Wolf_Rider]

@ Galway

I'd wait for the VR helmet... screen resolution on touchphones, etc are really good now, so it shouldn't long.

VR Helmet with a wrap around curved high res screen, incorporated speakers and mic. and best of all - offering proper peripheral vision... yum!. Set the zero reference and hit the virtual skies in full real full real.



*Edit

Originally Posted by julian265

Rubbish. They'll cop more flak for not doing the logical thing and allowing access to the head control axes.

Why should they when it hack/ sponges off anothers' copyright and hard work? (I could explain "logical" to you, but I don't think you'll like it ?)

Originally Posted by julian265

You know perfectly well what it's for. Why you have to keep making the same point (amongst a bunch of other strange questions and straw-man arguments) that you don't like the way FT interfaces/uses/emulates NP software is beyond me.

See point above

Originally Posted by julian265

Until game devs do the logical thing (apart from those who already have!) and allow head axes to be assigned to, like joystick axes, I just don't care how head pose is communicated.

Mouse Look (aka Freelook) is available, as you well know... and why should any legitimate developer entertain the incorporation of a product which attracts abuse and threats from its users, or deal with liars, or incorporate a program/s which has/ have questionable ongoing support?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

and why should any legitimate developer entertain the incorporation of a product which attracts abuse and threats from its users, or deal with liars, or incorporate a program which has questionable ongoing support?

Because the USERS of both Freetrack and the game in question demand?

Maybe you can ask to Bohemia Interactive these questions... Or you can't?

But maybe ArmAII and O:A don't have the same standards that IL-2:CoD will have... You can tell this to BIS too... They are a company who does "crap" military sims... LOL!

You talk a lot of crap. We can't be "polite", the "normal" path is a "moderator" close the topic without A WORD form devs.

Shame!

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Why should they when it hack/ sponges off anothers' copyright and hard work? (I could explain "logical" to you, but I don't think you'll like it ?)

Windows game controller axes do not need any NP software to interface with. Allowing anyone to control head axes with any game controller is absolutely not a hack, and absolutely not sponging of anyone's copyright or hard work:
1. Head control in games is under no-ones copyright (ie mouse/POV hat/whatever device moving the in-game head).
2. The method that windows game controllers use to interface with games is a Microsoft thing, nothing to do with NP.

I suppose you'll now tell me that the sky is red?

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

At least by the silence, there is no way they can be subject to abuse?

Rubbish. They'll cop more flak for not doing the logical thing and allowing access to the head control axes.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

what is the TrackIR Interface tick box for, what's the file listed on the same line...

You know perfectly well what it's for. Why you have to keep making the same point (amongst a bunch of other strange questions and straw-man arguments) that you don't like the way FT interfaces/uses/emulates NP software is beyond me.
Until game devs do the logical thing (apart from those who already have!) and allow head axes to be assigned to, like joystick axes, I just don't care how head pose is communicated.