Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[vicinity]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

well until it actually does go to court (if it does), as with anything legal before that goes to court, all you have is only an opinion. :-p

Well, actually Blackdog_kt's post shows the law is very clear. It is NP and not FT breaking the law. You don't have to go to court to see how the law works, case studys obviously make things a lot clearer but that's not going to happen until another company decides to get in on the head tracking market.

Also, mouselook is not 6dof - mouselook moves in two axis x and y.

Originally Posted by SEE

I would prefer to use FT in any software that supports Headtracking but it would also be understandable if a developer were to limit headtracking to NP given its support and continual developments as a bespoke product guaranteed to function.

Actually FT is at 2.2 something atm and future updates are still planned. If there was a standard interface for headtracking in games anyone could come into the market. NP obviously don't want that though because you can charge for much more your product when there is no competition. Most of their updates are just to allow you to use their software on the most recently supported games and that is only because of the encryption they added to prevent other headtrackers entering the market and as they see it, using their hardwork (of getting developers to support headtracking).

What really should happen is for developers to leave headtracking options for all, rather than only supporting TrackIR and allowing NP to keep their monopoly.