Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrunch
Yeah, but I also understand the principle of reasonable doubt. I don't see how your link supports your allegations about the Freetrack developers, either. How could a bunch of free software developers "intimidate" a game developer? I thought you were going to bring up something more substantial than people bitching in a forum thread. I thought game developers had thicker skins than that.
I understand enough about the way that joystick devices work to know that there was no need to create the proprietary interface. They could have even kept their software as it is, all they had to do is pass the output to a virtual joystick instead of via an encrypted datastream as it is most recently. They wouldn't even have to make the virtual joystick device themselves, they could just use the freely available PPJoy, although they would likely be wise to make their own solution to avoid infringing copyright themselves.
The other benefit to this is that developers wouldn't even have to code in support for TrackIR specifically, they would just have to make view position accessible to a joystick device, so it would even make developers' lives easier.
Incidentally, I didn't know that NP broke older TrackIR hardware in newer games just to break Freetrack, so that at least was informative. I wonder if my TrackIR 3 would work with Arma II?
EDIT: In fact, it seems like the cause of the controversy in that thread was the developers' insistence on ignoring the fact that Freetrack has its own API that developers are free to use.
|
NP are just protecting their code and the product's good name in quality.
I've basically said before there is nothing wrong with someone developing their own interface, its just when the hack into someone else's that there is a problem. So why all your hoo har?
for your edit... perhaps the developers have never been approached to include the api via a patch. You've already said earlier that the first was BIS and you've agreed that developer/ publishers shouldn't have to cater to hackers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
Round and round we go...
Tesll us what it is that you think NP have intellectual property rights over. Is it:
(A) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer.
(B) Any device that measures head movement and uses that to interface with a computer using the particular protocol they developed.
(C) something else entirely.
If it is (A) they were not original. If it is (B) then anyone can develop an alternative - or use the existing standards.
If it is (C) then for god's sake tell us what it is.
|
yes well tell us about it, you've been running a right merry-go-round.
what is it exactly, you don't understand now?