1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[AndyJWest]

A simple question, Wolf_Rider: Would you be in favour of PC games supporting generic 6DOF devices by allowing the existing MS Joystick API to be used as an alternative?

Another one: Would you object if 1C:Maddox/TD incorperated 6DOF into the existing DeviceLink interface?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, I'd like to see your reasoning.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

A simple question, Wolf_Rider: Would you be in favour of PC games supporting generic 6DOF devices by allowing the existing MS Joystick API to be used as an alternative?

Another one: Would you object if 1C:Maddox/TD incorperated 6DOF into the existing DeviceLink interface?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, I'd like to see your reasoning.

read some of my earlier comments, and you may see your questions are redundant

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

The monopoly was created by using a proprietary interface and making deals with publishers and developers to support the NP API exclusively for head-tracking.
The only exception to this so far has been Arma II.
Regardless of Freetrack's behaviour, NaturalPoint's practises do not support a competitive environment. That's why it's important that developers and publishers support setting head position as a joystick axis position. That's got nothing to do with Freetrack at all, maybe you should try seeing the big picture. I don't care if developers support Freetrack, I've got no stake in it myself, I've never tried it. In fact I have a TrackIR 3 with the Vector Expansion. It's NaturalPoint's recent behaviour that I object to.
Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem.
So, what is it that I've failed to address in your little riddle? Maybe you should explain it better instead of making the above response, since I see you've resorted to baiting instead of addressing my points, which is quite a predictable troll tactic. Unless you start actually arguing my points you'll get no more responses from me. I don't object to a discussion if you can actually make a decent argument without resorting to questioning my intelligence and failing to explain where you think I'm wrong other than "you've missed the second part" and "nice try, but you've misinterpreted what you're quoted", both blatantly incorrect.

propriety software isn't illegal grunch... look at Apple, or Dell, or Compaq Do you have some proof of the allegations you make, regarding payments, etc?

as for the rest of your post (and I don't particular give a toss if it is a format which you understand or not), it reeks of 1, trollish beviour yourself and 2. gives full support for hacking. You say "Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem., yet others say the means to do so has been around for way longer than NP, ... so who's right there?
Is there some reason FT can't send a "kit" over to game developer's for evaluation?

NP went and approached many developers to include their product, why can't freetrack do that, instead of just hacking their way in?
BIS went through a great deal of turmoil until they told the FT footsoldiers to cease and desist in their behaviour and for FT to actually make the approach. At this point, FT was considered and a poll held, which was favourable to FT for inclusion in a patch (I've mentioned patch before, yeah?)

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

propriety software isn't illegal grunch... look at Apple, or Dell, or Compaq Do you have some proof of the allegations you make, regarding payments, etc?

Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?
I'm aware that proprietary software isn't illegal, but this isn't just about software in general, this is about software interfaces with a whole class of input device. Abusing a leading position to make games exclusively compatible with their products is, however, illegal.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

as for the rest of your post (and I don't particular give a toss if it is a format which you understand or not), it reeks of 1, trollish beviour yourself and 2. gives full support for hacking. You say "Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem., yet others say the means to do so has been around for way longer than NP, ... so who's right there?
Is there some reason FT can't send a "kit" over to game developer's for evaluation?

Care to explain where I've been trollish? I've explained my position in detail and I have not attacked you personally unless you count observing the fact that your responses are quite often devoid of detail and responses to people's actual points.
Freetrack can't send a kit in because they're a free, open-source solution worked on by people in their spare time. You're right, though, a commercial competitor could do that if they could get big publishers to abandon exclusivity deals.
The question is whether publishers should decide on which products are compatible by how much the respective product developers are willing to pay them for an exclusive? I don't believe so.
The reason that open standards exist is to prevent situations like that. My argument is simply that there is no reason that head-tracking should not use an open standard and that it would only benefit US if it did. That's not support for hacking, that's support for competition. I don't think that should be hard to understand.
Cam2Pan WAS around before TrackIR, they are right, but Cam2Pan relies upon mouse emulation, which is not a good solution.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

NP went and approached many developers to include their product, why can't freetrack do that, instead of just hacking their way in?
BIS went through a great deal of turmoil until they told the FT footsoldiers to cease and desist in their behaviour and for FT to actually make the approach. At this point, FT was considered and a poll held, which was favourable to FT for inclusion in a patch (I've mentioned patch before, yeah?)

See above. Like I say, this is the only occasion on which this has worked.

See, it's much easier to have a discussion when both people are actually participating.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?

I'm aware that proprietary software isn't illegal,

err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

okay... so you agree propriety software isn't illegal - good....I have asked: why should any developer/ publisher deal with any outfit which promotes hacking?

Why can't NP have propriety software for their own product?

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Freetrack can't send a kit in because they're a free, open-source solution worked on by people in their spare time. You're right, though, a commercial competitor could do that if they could get big publishers to abandon exclusivity deals.

The reason that open standards exist is to prevent situations like that. My argument is simply that there is no reason that head-tracking should not use an open standard and that it would only benefit US if it did. That's not support for hacking, that's support for competition. I don't think that should be hard to understand.
Cam2Pan WAS around before TrackIR, they are right, but Cam2Pan relies upon mouse emulation, which is not a good solution.

See above. Like I say, this is the only occasion on which this has worked.

you speak of 'detail', yet contradict yourself in the above

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

Yes, it is an allegation. What's your alternative explanation?

[Wolf_Rider]

you've made the allegation, where is your proof?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

where is your proof?

So, your position is that unless I am privy to information which WOULD only be available to those involved in such a deal made behind closed doors, I am unable to conclude what I have, even if there are no other sensible explanations?
Well then, we will never agree. Have fun!

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

A simple question, Wolf_Rider: Would you be in favour of PC games supporting generic 6DOF devices by allowing the existing MS Joystick API to be used as an alternative?

Another one: Would you object if 1C:Maddox/TD incorperated 6DOF into the existing DeviceLink interface?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, I'd like to see your reasoning.

this was your question... it has been answered and as you can see your question to me is a redundant one.

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

I've already answered yours and said that I have no proof.

so you choose to openly slander several companies....

grunch... post #71 might refresh your memory for the other question. When you answer that, you will be answering your own question

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

grunch... post #71 might refresh your memory

Wow, that post is supremely relevant to my above questions.
Unless you're referring to the fact that I haven't answered your question as to why developers should support Freetrack, and the answer is that you've made another major logical mistake. Freetrack head-tracking does not equal ALL open head-tracking. To say that an open interface for head-tracking supports hackers because Freetrack hacked NP's interface is like saying that giving people free emergency medical attention is supporting murderers because some of the people who will receive emergency treatment will be murderers.

[Wolf_Rider]

it will do you no good to twist things around grunch... refer your post # 73