[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

It's not NP technology, please! ~

its NP software, and that is what they are protecting, with every right to do so

Originally Posted by GHarris

Regarding Wolf_Rider's comments that Freetrack developers should "make the approach" or "seek inclusion - professionally"... "Professonal approaches" are what people with something to sell do. The Freetrack developers are not in it to make a profit. I don't understand why they *should* be expected to "approach" a sim developer. Freetrack is out there, it's open source, that's all that is needed. Oleg and his colleagues have heard of Freetrack (they must have done) and all they need to know about implementing it is readily available to them.

I am a supporter of Freetrack because I simply prefer an open and free (as in speech) implementation of head tracking to a proprietary one. A proprietary implementation will inevitably be abused by the people in control of it at the expense of current and past customers. As was the case when TrackIR started encrypting its data stream and made versions 1 and 2 of its TrackIR hardware incompatible with new games when they could otherwise still work. The controllers of a proprietary implementation might also seek to stifle competition from other proprietary or open implementations. As was the case when "Implementation of the "HeadTracker" interface <was> canceled at the request of NaturalPoint." in DCS: Black Shark.

wot, use somebody elses' (FT) gear without their permission, or include a method of FT gear getting stuck into somebody elses' (NP) software.

nah... the professional thing to do is to make the approach and seek inclusion, offering a proper product.


NP were protecting their rights... if the FT software did its own work, instead of syphoning off from somebody elses', you'd find it would have been a completely different ballgame - be sure

Originally Posted by julian265

They've wooed developers into implementing an interface which ONLY ACCEPTS TIR, which was the logical thing for them to do.

correct and completely understandable for NP to professionally make the approach to seek inclusion and then protect their software, after all, they made the effort. Would it have been too hard for FT to develop their own interface in the beginning, instead of hacking another?

Originally Posted by julian265

However, they're still lobbying for the exclusion of a generic interface (like mice/joysticks/throttles/wheels/pedals use) - which is holding back competition and development.

do you have some proof of that?

and

how does that gear get to work in the games at the moment and has been for many years now?