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

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

PPJoy and TIR2joy does this, doesn't it?

It's a workaround, for sure, but there are still no generic head tracking inputs, when it's obvious that there should be. Some games also limit what you can input to head pose without TIR - eg limited to 2DoF when you emulate mouse movement.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

why would NP have both PPJoy and TIR2joy listed on their site, for download, if this was truly the case?

Out of interest, can you post a link? Head trackers don't pop up in the "game controllers" control panel, and games do not communicate with them like almost all other gaming hardware. So it is truly not the case. Also, without seeing the context in which the links you mentioned are posted, I'm guessing that it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3 (which cannot communicate in encrypted form like TIR 4+ does)

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The true point of the matter is exactly that of NP dealing with hackers... and please don't go twisting things around[/COLOR]

Actually, the point at any one time is the question or statement that you choose to respond to.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

[I]err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly... please don't alter the issue there.

See:

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?

And your response:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

But if you want proof of the locking out, see my link from early (post 15) in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The entire thread is at : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...080#post589080

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?[/COLOR]

They should not support a "hacking outfit". IMO they should allow discussion. What intimidation?

[julian265]

BTW I interpret the allowing of unmoderated discussion of this topic, on this forum, as a good sign.

[Wolf_Rider]

It's a workaround, for sure, but there are still no generic head tracking inputs, when it's obvious that there should be. Some games also limit what you can input to head pose without TIR - eg limited to 2DoF when you emulate mouse movement.

as mentioned before, all that is between the developer and the various headtracking people... and so it seems that FT need not violate NP copyright at all then



Out of interest, can you post a link? Head trackers don't pop up in the "game controllers" control panel, and games do not communicate with them like almost all other gaming hardware. So it is truly not the case. Also, without seeing the context in which the links you mentioned are posted, I'm guessing that it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3 (which cannot communicate in encrypted form like TIR 4+ does)

I'm sorry but you'll need to do your own homework there...




Actually, the point at any one time is the question or statement that you choose to respond to.

Things would OT rather quickly in that regard... better to just stick to the topic at hand


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
[I]err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly... please don't alter the issue there.

See:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrunch
Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?

And your response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

But if you want proof of the locking out, see my link from early (post 15) in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The entire thread is at : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...080#post589080

you should have mentioned the post above that one, which mentions an NDA.... also in your linked post, take note of the last sentence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?[/COLOR]

They should not support a "hacking outfit". IMO they should allow discussion.


why should they do that?... its the product which quite often gets hacked


What intimidation?

we could go around in circles for page after page on that one.....

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

as mentioned before, all that is between the developer and the various headtracking people... and so it seems that FT need not violate NP copyright at all then

If you think it's acceptable that NP coerces developers into restricting non-NP trackers to 2/3DoF, then yes. I don't.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I'm sorry but you'll need to do your own homework there...

I found the links, and some NP forum posts. "it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3" and also for games that don't accept non-mouse head tracking at all.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Things would OT rather quickly in that regard... better to just stick to the topic at hand

Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread has stuck to the thread topic, including myself.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

you should have mentioned the post above that one, which mentions an NDA.... also in your linked post, take note of the last sentence

Why? I'm aware that freetrack's emulating, or "hacking" as you call it, of TIR is possibly illegal, and I'm not defending it.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

why should they do that?... its the product which quite often gets hacked

Your ideals are clearly different to mine, we'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

we could go around in circles for page after page on that one.....

We could. Lets do another one:

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?

[Wolf_Rider]

Sigur_Ros, your #164... rspectfully, you don't have a clue do you?
NP doesn't want its copyrighted software violated, as would anyone else

and with your #165... "Only way to dispute Freetrack being 100% legitimate is to say BIS is corrupt, unprofessional and support breaking law and NaturalPoint TrackIR licenses don't care about other software illegally using TrackIR interface." Actually, I believe NP are taking a very dim view on other software using NP's software illegally.



#166...
andyjwest, it isn't a falsehood, your actions speak reams. You insist on 'playing the player', instead of playing the ball and in doing have missed several facts.
(eg you ask; where? - I answer; here, here and there - you respond with; I don't understand)

#167...
Julian 265

If you think it's acceptable that NP coerces developers into restricting non-NP trackers to 2/3DoF, then yes. I don't.

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?



I found the links, and some NP forum posts. "it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3" and also for games that don't accept non-mouse head tracking at all.

If the NP software wasn't being hacked, there would be no need to attempt to protect their property... 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?




Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread has stuck to the thread topic, including myself.

yet I get slammed for not adressing all points?




Why? I'm aware that freetrack's emulating, or "hacking" as you call it, of TIR is possibly illegal, and I'm not defending it.

Thank you.
The 'hacking' is though infringing NP copyright




Your ideals are clearly different to mine, we'll leave it at that.

I don't seek to force people to my opinion, like some in this thread seem want to do. DIversity of opinion is to be lauded. Some support hacking, some don't




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?

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?

[AndyJWest]

Wolf_Rider continues:

#166...
andyjwest, it isn't a falsehood, your actions speak reams. You insist on 'playing the player', instead of playing the ball and in doing have missed several facts.
(eg you ask; where? - I answer; here, here and there - you respond with; I don't understand)

You will note that yet again he offers no evidence at all to back up his statements about what I am supposed to have said. This leaves me no choice:

Wolf_Rider, either provide evidence that I suggested that "anybodies' software should just be opened up for anyone to use willy nilly, regardless of copyright" or apologise for posting this falsehood. Your repeated suggestions that I am breaking forum rules (which this would entail), combined with your reluctance to provide evidence to back this up, suggest that you have little concern for such rules yourself. If You are unable to do this, 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

[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.

[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...

[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.