Now that IS weird.
It's like a bicycle mechanic who buys a bike off the shelf.
You do build your own computers, right?

Huh?

That's business - of course you'll try to dominate the market and kick your competitions ass - in order to make money.

1. DCS was either stupid or there was indeed a patent infraction.

2. Would you like it better if NP shoved some cash over the counter to DCS in order to get the same result?

right but i offer a better product and don't force a company to use only my product... maybe this is called free market??

It's like discussing the mods and teh cracking of the IL2 source code. People have already decided which side they take, are not really going to debate impartially and in the end are just going to bash each other and flame.

It is not really a debate in the sense that either side will actually change their mind because of logical points made by the opposition.

cant follow you, sorry.

Isn't that the whole point. NP claim that free track did NOT make a better product they just a found a way to use the NP interface without paying for it.

From the NP point of view free track should have designed their own interface and encouraged game developers to implement it and not used the proprietary NP one. What NP then did was encrypted their own interface so freetrack etc would have to design their own interface instead of freeloading on NP.

But seriously this is a waste of space. Its not an issue that people ever listen to reason about.

Why does TrackIR not use DirectInput? Because it does not support head trackers? Oh look, it does support head trackers.

"DI8DEVTYPESUPPLEMENTAL_HEADTRACKER

Device that tracks head movement."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&hl=en&ct=clnk

So why does TrackIR interface exist? I wonder...

Biggest NP lie ever. FreeTrack have own interface and SDK. You can use even the raw data of head tracking... Ft software is really open.

But NP "forces" some companies to use your proprietary API.

And it isn't fair. NP lies, NP didn't "created" nothing new, etc.

We FreeTrack users don't care about anything NP does, if our games don't get blocked to use FreeTrack API. ArmAII uses FreeTrack API, DCS : BS don't. Why?

If people want to make a stand for NP, be better informed, please. Whe FT users aren't whinners without a reason: we have to deal with unfair market policies by NP.

Fairness exists only in protected environments!
And NP influencing Game developers is like the tail wags the dog.

Applying for a 'Patent' is extremely complex due to the definitions and restrictions as to what is considered 'intellectual property' and 'inventions'. The technology and software was already well established in terms of 'optical tracking' and thus 'headtracking' is an 'adaptation' rather than an 'invention'. Optical tracking has been used in manufacturing for many years, Nintendo WI remote is an optical tracker as is an optical mouse. NP can of course protect their products and registered trademarks from being used by 'another' and, quite rightly, have done exactly that.

The replies to the thread indicate that not every one feels that 'headtracking' is needed and some even dislike it. If nothing else, Freetrack gave me as an 'undecided and curious simmer' an opportunity to delve into 'headtracking' on the 'cheap'! Headtracking is now an accessory that I consider 'essential' and I owe a big thanks to FT. Would I buy TrackIR if that was my only option in a future SIM?.........probably yes! There in lies the problem and why NP will give incentives for developers to use their API.