1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Wolf_Rider continues:

~ Your repeated suggestions that I am breaking forum rules ~

err, you're off the ledge on this one andyjwest... I have never said that




I will request that this topic be closed, and that appropriate action be taken against you. How the moderators react is of course up to them, but I'd think it difficult for them to allow your dishonest tactics to continue.

You are free to do as you wish, andyjwest, but as with your calling for people to be ignored, the above also says more about you than anyone else. As for your claim of dishonest tactics... well, I can only say you are looking at yourself in your mirror there. "If you can't play them, badger them... if you can't badger them, do all you can to shut them down, eh? That's what you seem to be employing here, andyjwest.

Originally Posted by AKA_Tenn

basically... to use an analogy... to say freetrack is illegal is like saying... because one company makes TV's all other companies need to ask that one for permission if they want to make TV's too... or if one company makes fly swatters, any other company that makes something that also kills flies needs to as for permission...

yes... t hats right i used TV's and flyswatters as analogys...

I don't believe anyone has said FT is actually illegal... they have said though, that FT is infringing another company's copyright. Also said was; why couldn't FT come up with their own necessary bits, approach the developers for inclusion in the production, whilst leave NP's property alone?

Your TV analogy is spot on for describing how copyright and patents work. Does "manufactured under license" or "used under license", ring any bells??

[AndyJWest]

Rule 9:

9. Discussions concerning illegal use of copyrighted software, registration key generators and other illegal ways of circumventing copyright laws are strictly prohibited...

I suppose this depends on the precise interpretation the moderators put on this.

You might also like to consider this rule, for you own benefit:

18. Dissemination of false information is prohibited regardless of the poster's awareness.

Since you still have offered no evidence to back up your false information regarding my attitude to breaches of copyright (there isn't any), you have broken the rules yourself. I am now informing the moderators of this.

[Wolf_Rider]

The evidence is in your actions, shrillness and attitude, andyjwest, as mentioned before... as for the other, it looks like I was right with what you are employing here,... so knock yourself out, sport.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The evidence is in your actions, shrillness and attitude, andyjwest, as mentioned before... as for the other, it looks like I was right with what you are employing here,... so knock yourself out, sport.

Or to put it another way, the 'evidence' is entirely in your imagination.

Since you have now admitted there is no real 'evidence' to back up your allegations, are you going to apologise?

[Wolf_Rider]

are you always so quick to put words in peoples' mouth andyjwest?

bear in mind, I could ask the same of your...

"Originally Posted by AndyJWest (in post #169 and currently unedited at this time)

Wolf_Rider continues:

~ Your repeated suggestions that I am breaking forum rules ~ "

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (in post #169 and currently unedited at this time)

I am not in the habit of editing posts to change their meaning. In any case the moderators will have access to the original posting.

Still no evidence at all to back up your false claims about my attitude to copyright, I note.

[Wolf_Rider]

how did you go?

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

how did you go?

It's not how, its where: to bed.

No doubt you'll try to come out with a 'witty' response or two, rather than backing up your drivel with evidence...

[Wolf_Rider]

I think you've diverted the topic off course enough now andyjwest... how about acting as you requested (neigh... insisted) others do and just stick to the topic...

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

If what they do violates NP NDA or software copyright, then there is a problem... there is however, no reason why a third do as you've suggested and write something to tap into MS joystick API, and not accessing NP software in any shape or form... is there?

A third? 2/3DoF was 2 or 3 Degrees of Freedom - as distinct from full 6DoF. And actually there is a reason - some games have BLOCKED OUT the methods that you mentioned, for controlling in-game head pose, which is the ONLY reason behind this thread's existence.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

SNIP ...if it is possible to use PPjoy, MS joystick API etc, why does the rhetoric continue in the vein of forcing NP to delete their copyright?

This is an odd thing to be asked, 18 pages into the thread about exactly this topic. The "rhetoric" continues because it simply isn't possible in some games, or isn't possible with 6DoF, which is equally unacceptable. I created this thread to try to get 1C to state their stance - whether or not they would restrict non-NP trackers, which would negate the use of PPJoy etc.

Originally Posted by me

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?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I've already said several times, what happens with third parties seeking inclusion in developer's product is between the developer and the third party. I've also already said, there should be no problem with any third party software accessing simconnect. devicelink, joystick api, or similar. The problem lies with a third party infringing another company's copyright.
Why do people keep on "forgetting" what was said earlier?

Because you didn't actually answer the question, and have avoided it previously. The topic of this thread, and my "yes or no" question, was about BoB 'listening' for head positions on standard interfaces - not tracking software using standard interfaces (which is, or easily can be, a given). Do you understand the difference? If TIR, or freetrack, or any other tracker sent head position as normal joystick axes, many games would ignore it - and I'm wondering if BoB will too. But either a 1C rep didn't read the first post of this thread, or they won't comment.