|
|
|||||||
| Controls threads Everything about controls in CoD |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
02-14-2011, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
No problem at all. 
|
|
#2
02-14-2011, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, i'm glad the discussion has reached a more civil tone because the more we all bitch and moan, the more the people with a different opinion get defensive or retaliate in kind and this drives the discussion away from the actual content of our posts.
Lobisomem, i too support the inclusion of a generic interface for free headtracking alternatives, especially since the basic functions are already there. There was a post by a guy who tried out CoD in one of the game shows and he said that you can control 3 of the 6 total axes with the mouse: the forward/backward motion is controlled by rolling the mousewheel, keeping the mouse wheel pressed and moving the mouse sideways enables to lean left/right and so on. I guess the traditional 2DOF axes are already controlled via the joystick hat, so the game seems to already have 6DoF built into it regardless if the player uses headtracking equipment or not. The only thing we need to use FT or a similar program is to have these axes as a mappable option in the simulator's control panel. However, i would urge you to refrain from attacking other posters with a different opinion, especially now that the discussion is finally getting somewhere and has stopped moving around in circles. There's no use going back to the way it was during the last 10-15 pages, W-R has calmed down and it seems he's not opposed to having a free head tracking alternative, he's just opposed to using the hacked NP dll, it would be nice of you to calm down as well and stop calling him a paid instigator. Let's all drop the conspiracy theories, stop focusing on the 2-3 points that we disagree on and start focusing on what we do agree on and being a bit reasonable, it will help us all get more options in the new simulator 
|
|
#3
02-14-2011, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
02-14-2011, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you Blackdog
All it would take gents, is a show of good faith *Edit Blackdog, I did forget to mention though, I did make my views " ~ he's not opposed to having a free head tracking alternative, he's just opposed to using the hacked NP dll, ~ " known well before the silliness began. I apologise for the actions of those who missed that. Last edited by Wolf_Rider; 02-14-2011 at 09:26 PM.
|
|
#5
02-15-2011, 05:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Some in face of monopoly don't give a darn about "meanings" of fighting it... Is not "ethical"? Monopoly is not ethical either. That dll was used cause it was available... NP seeing their position attacked induced the idea that the "gate", the interface the programs give headtracking solutions to the game is the main problem... and since their dll was in used at that time they locked it then convinced devs to use only their own encrypted "gate". Thus... forcing the others to take "other" route. Then complaining... If a game is including all the interfaces available... and adds them as they are getting born by necessity then NP knows they have no chance. No one would give them 180$ on some fancy webcam with a chip when they could do the same with a 20$ webcam and the enormous (by the day) CPU power they already have. Especially... when the alternative does not lock the client into a money milking product line, gives more options to the user and works better in general. The problem is not that darn dll... As it is neither that darn "tracking clip". NP could still sell their 3point clip that works ok with FT but they know they cannot have a bussiness with just that 2$ clip sold to 40$ when that can be made if necessary by "Chinese" for 1$. Sure it can be made in house also... but it is meaningless to the issue. Isn't it nice that you don't have to buy a mouse from just one manufacturer? Would you like to have same discussion about the "huge" effort went into developing the pathetic mouse interface? How about Joysticks? Or audiocards... So... NP TIR does their calculations by a chip and software FT does its calculations only by software and is different, more complex in options and free.... opened also. The interfaces NP locked theirs FT is free (other interfaces exists) Devs use only NP interface... problem. That is the issue of this thread. Last edited by norulz; 02-15-2011 at 05:57 AM.
|
|
#6
02-15-2011, 06:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And I can clearly understand why NP troll fakes jump in this kind of discussions screaming "HACK", but I saw a lot of others that I believe that are regular posters with a lot of misconceptions regars all this subject, and that is sad! It's a matter that's important to all that like simms, and want better and cheaper options of hardware. It's sad that someone thing it's just a stupid "crusade" of some Freetrack users... I have the money to buy the most expensive TIR, but I can buy a cheaper PS3eye cam, build a simple 3 point IR clip and have the same results. And as I like MP games, I will really enjoy if EVERYBODY can have some kind of HT solution, will be nice! But I'm the wrong. Maybe I born in the wrong world... 
|
|
#7
02-15-2011, 06:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
there is no monopoly, Blaster you fool, and you know it... mouse look has been used before and you nailed it LoBi, a crusade by FT users...
Last edited by Wolf_Rider; 02-15-2011 at 06:43 AM.
|
|
#9
02-15-2011, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cachya interfaces through mouse look, LoBi
Seeing Machines has an API out Your "monopoly" claims are a product of your own imagination and your claims of "cheaper and better hardware" are a furphy.
|
|
#10
02-15-2011, 07:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In IL-2 there is no monopolly yet. This is the question of the initial poster of this thread. Will it be?
Cause in DCS A10c 64bit version it is. The only native headtracking interface is the encrypted one from NP. Anyway... this throll is very funny  . At some point acknowledges an argument then just flies over it like nothing happen.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
