Wow, you're really reluctant to answer simple questions, aren't you? What is it about my post #73 that you'd like me to refer back to? That's what I think. NP created the situation themselves, and they'll have to deal with it. My position is that if they had thought ahead they ought to have anticipated that this would happen when they made sure their interface was closed. The error they made was in assuming that only commercial competitors would attempt to create a head-tracking solution. It's practical for them to prosecute competitors that violate their interface. It's not practical for them to prosecute everyone who uses Freetrack.
Either way allowing the use of an open standard for head-tracking doesn't directly support Freetrack any more than emergency medical attention supports murderers. Is there a logical error there? Please explain it to me.
And as long as we're playing the 30-odd posts ago game, care to explain when Freetrack developers used intimidation tactics?

Wolf_Rider, would you mind answering another couple of questions that as far as I'm aware, haven't been asked yet, but sem relevant to this debate:

(A) Are you employed by anyone who has a financial interest in NP maintaining a share of the 6DOF sim software/hardware market?

(B) do you yourself have a financial interest in NP maintaining a share of the 6DOF sim software/hardware market?

I hesitate to ask such questions, but I have difficulty in otherwise explaining your attitude.

I've wanted to ask the same myself for quite some time, but I thought it was a little bit invasive.

Hmmm.... I've been waiting for that questioning andyjwest... no I'm not, is that clear enough for you?


why won't you give a genuine reply to my question grunch (are you one of the FT team?)? you seem to be doing all you can to avoid it, including inserting rhetoric I did not make

Seems like it's just "argument on the Internet" syndrome, then. In answer to your question, I'm not. I've never been involved in software development of any kind. When did I "insert rhetoric that you did not make"?

And now what question is it that you've decided I haven't answered?

"Seems like it's just "argument on the Internet" syndrome, then. you could apply that to yourself, with or wthout your own logic.


Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies? -from #71 did you miss this?

There's no need for them to. But how is that relevant to what I'm talking about? I'm not talking about Freetrack, I'm talking about the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers. That's not support of Freetrack, that's a feature request and because I think that it is a more sound system from the point of view of competition. Anyway, this is just more evasion from you as usual, akin to your previous habits of referring to distant posts by number and making vague references to previous points instead of making your posts clear.

Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely?
2) Why is that?
3) Where do you see Freetrack developers supporting intimidation tactics?

there's no need for them to.... good, and see my response to andjwest then , grunch... it sort of makes your intimidations irrelevant, eh


Now there are three questions I have asked you...will you answer them?
1) Do you think that my belief about NaturalPoint's business practises is unlikely? yes, you've answered this one in the above
2) Why is that? see 1.
3) Where do you see [S]Freetrack developers[strikethrough and insert ->] outfit supporting intimidation tactics? on their and others sites

Well, I'm bored now, I was arguing this because it was interesting, but if you're so evasive that you can't answer simple questions I'm going to be bored again. I haven't intimidated you as you posted above (unless you meant to write intimations), you won't answer simple questions, don't recognise basic logic, have some kind of unnatural attachment to NaturalPoint and TrackIR. It was interesting for a while. :rolleyes:

Yup. The same question I asked earlier. The same question that was 'answered' by a reference to an earlier posting that confused software, hardware, copyright, R&D, and who knows what else.

Let me make my position perfectly clear. If specific copyright infringements have occured, they should be dealt with appropriately. Vague assertions are not relevent to the question, however. Neither is an assumption that 'we did it first, so we have a monopoly', particularly in a case like this where it is self-evidently untrue (military aircraft have had position-senseing equipment for helmets for at least 30 years). I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface, Unless this is incorrect, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be able to claim any legal protection from others.