Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
as mentioned before, all that is between the developer and the various headtracking people... and so it seems that FT need not violate NP copyright at all then
|
If you think it's acceptable that NP coerces developers into restricting non-NP trackers to 2/3DoF, then yes. I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
I'm sorry but you'll need to do your own homework there...
|
I found the links, and some NP forum posts. "it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3" and also for games that don't accept non-mouse head tracking at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
Things would OT rather quickly in that regard... better to just stick to the topic at hand
|
Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread has stuck to the thread topic, including myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
you should have mentioned the post above that one, which mentions an NDA.... also in your linked post, take note of the last sentence
|
Why? I'm aware that freetrack's emulating, or "hacking" as you call it, of TIR is possibly illegal, and I'm not defending it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
why should they do that?... its the product which quite often gets hacked
|
Your ideals are clearly different to mine, we'll leave it at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
we could go around in circles for page after page on that one.....
|
We could. Lets do another one:
YES or NO, Wolf_Rider: Should "BoB accept generic axis inputs for head angle and position"? Note that the question is independent of freetrack and it's developers practises. The outcome of 1C's decision will affect non-NP, non-freetrack trackers. How about it, yes or no?