Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
Personally speaking, the bigger picture for me is not spending 150$ right now but when i feel like it, maybe a couple of months post release. What FT does with NP is between them and the longer we focus our energy on it, the longer a generic headtracking method will take to implement.
|
by the sounds of it, you've already spent $150 approx.
A consesus was reached here very early in the piece that games should be available for alternative forms of headtracking... the hack method of doing so is in question though. Solution - develop a clean product
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
I'm not hating on naturalpoint, i'm one of their customers in fact.
|
see point 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
However, i'm not going to take up their legal defence pro bono when
a) i'm not sufficiently qualified and
b) they are a big company making good money and they can afford the lawyers, seeing as how they didn't do anything up till now makes me think they don't have a reasonable chance of winning such a case
|
see second last paragraph
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
If we want the developer to have freedom in providing us with alternatives, then the developer must have a way of washing their hands clean. My solution was very simple and effective.
They give us the aforementioned interface and we decide what to do with it. They are not responsible for the way we use it.
|
see point 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
Saying that they are is like saying western digital should make sure their customers are not using their hard disks to store illegally dowloaded content: it's out of the scope of the business and totally non-enforceable.
|
subject for a different thread, not the one in hand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
If a developer provided a specific, custom tailored interface for one particular head tracking method that was dubious then yes, they could face problems.
|
we have agreement on that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
If they provide a generic instruction set that lets the end user take it from there, then they have no responsibility whatsoever...the user has it.
|
you may have mised the fact, there was a consensus reached very early on
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
I think it's the best solution either way we look at it. I don't want to have to wait for FT to settle their disputes with NP,
|
Thier disputes with NP, or NP's disputes with FT?
From you saying, it seems FT doesn't have much of a case either... how long has it all been going on for now? 2 - 3 years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt
when i can get my buddy to code me an alternative in 2 evenings worth of time that will make use of a generic interface, plus in favor of community spirit i would gladly distribute it to the rest of the community as well.
|
How much support would be offered with your bud's ap?
* Edit
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM
You really don't understand that Kinetic-like solutions will not do the HT trick just scanning your head, but can do that scanning shoulders, arms, etc. And if you use some "markers", the 3-point calculation using Kinetic can be MORE accurate and fast as TIR, FT, etc.
In a flight sim it will be great in 6DoF HT, much more natural, with much more realistic movement. It's a totaly new approach, and we will see how it will work in near future. Isn't just for "Call Of Duty" games. Open your mind and think about possibilities: with Kinetic you can have the same 3-point HT PLUS really 3D motion capture.
|
.... you whinge about the cost of TIR (the whole argument for FT you present) but jump at paying for Kinect?