Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
So, one more time, freetrack can work on its own as long as there are 6 mappable axes of a generic interface within the game.
|
not all games though offer full 3D modelling (outside quite often has gaps and bits missing, when in cockpit view. This point may have esacaped a few FT adherents though
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
Also, your points about FSX are invalid because freetrack has a simconnect output that bypasses the NP software and interfaces directly with FSX.
|
I did mentioned this and also mentioned, in the same post, that the simconnect gets passed over in favour of running the NP hack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
There's two links to the DCS forum in this thread alone, where two separate members of the staff openly admit they stopped working on an independent head tracking solution at the request of NP (i think one also phrased it as "pressure"?).
|
I'll look for those links
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
Well, i certainly don't think the DCS guys just got up one morning with the intention of p*ssing off a substantial portion of their customer base and said "hey i'm bored to code this, let's stop working on it and blame it on NP for sh*ts and giggles". First of all, NP would be all over them for spreading false accusations.
Also, if it was destined to be an independent interface that didn't rely on the NP SDK, then they shouldn't really have much ground to legally stand on. The only thing they would be able to do is threaten to stop trackIR support for future releases of DCS, at which point the devs would obviously cave in.
|
which is the basis of my question (which seems to be continually ignored, yet unverified claims made) of whether DCS did use the NP SDK or develop their own method. NP can't stop them using their own method.
Have NP stopped support for ARMA ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
Now i don't like basing my arguments on assumptions, so if someone has a link to answer this by all means provide it. So, was the DCS interface independent of the naturalpoint SDK? Again please, i'm not looking for hearsay but a clear and valid forum post from an eagle dynamics staff member that say they were working on an interface that was independent from naturalpoint's SDK. If such a thing exists, the only way NP would be able to force the DCS devs to stop working on it would be through "shady" means (aka "stop it or the next version of trackIR won't work with your games). That's why i'm asking for it, i want to be fair to them have some info that would indicate a high possibility of NP blackmailing eagle dynamics before i start accusing them of it on my own.
|
I am and have been asking the same thing, but hang on... what's this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
There's two links to the DCS forum in this thread alone, where two separate members of the staff openly admit they stopped working on an independent head tracking solution at the request of NP (i think one also phrased it as "pressure"?).
|
?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
It's dead simple, if you really want FT to stop using the NP software, which is something i would like as well, you really should be asking for a generic interface with 6 mappable axes in the new sim like the rest of us, instead of forcing us to go around in circles for 20 pages in an effort to answer the exact same questions that you repeatedly posed 3-4 times despite receiving a multitude of answers to choose from.  |
I don't disagree with a "generic interface" or method of access at all. In fact, I welcome it.
but why should any developer entertain FT whilst they run a hack?
Perhaps, if FT and other tracker softwares removed the hack, developers
may begin to take a more responsive countenance?