Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

BD, you can dance around your words anyway you like, but at the end of the day, they are your words, and mine still stand.

Tell me does the FT software still have means of using TIR interface inherent in it's program?




I don't know what any of that has to do with the topic under discussion and it most certainly doesn't absolve you from your contradictions or prvent them... but here we digress

Also,




an EULA is just that a Licensing Agreement.. now you've stated your views on "owning the software", you no more own the software, which is under copyright (or in some cases patent) than you own the story of a book you've bought.

this is a subject for another thread though





No hard feelings here at all and I'm than happy to agree to disagree, but if you want go dragging things around in circles, using conjecture, hypothesis and sophistry, I'm more than happy to bring it back to centre and point them out.

This is my last say in the matter, brought about not by a wish to convert anyone to my opinion, but my amazement at having a communication breakdown over such a simple explanation.

First of all, let me say that if 6DoF camera movement is made with the trackIR SDK you have a point that even when not using NP software but interfacing with something that's made with NP software, then there is ground to stand on.
My disagreement with you comes in the case that a game already features the smooth camera transitions needed for 6DoF in the relevant axes, coded by the developers themselves into the game without the help of such an SDK, which let's face it, is a given in most modern games.

In this way the situation resolves itself regardless of what either of us believes:
a) for old games where smooth camera movement is made with the NP SDK, anyone can use the old non-encrypted interface because there is no enforceable legal drawback for doing so
b) for new games where the camera movement is coded by the developers of the game, people can just instruct their PC to work with an alternative DLL

The first case is a bit iffy due to the use of the SDK, to make a judgment call on that we'd have to know if something made with proprietary software is legally equal to using that company's software or not. For example, if i code a small OS kernel on C/C++ and distribute it for free, do the people running my test OS violate any of the C/C++ copyrights if they don't have a license for the programming language or not? I'd hazard a guess that it's not, otherwise the whole industry would be a circle of royalty fees going from one company to the other, but i don't know for sure so i reserve judgment on that.

However, it's the second case the confusion is mostly about and what prompted me to post. You say that making one's PC "think" it's using NP software when it's not, is equal to actually using that software. So let's have the simplest example possible following the same principles of thought:
if i grow up in an environment where people call apples bananas and an "outsider" gives me an apple, i'll say thanks for the banana. Your reasoning implies that me thinking it's a banana actually makes it one

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you somewhere along the line, but it does look that weird from where i'm standing.

In the end, no matter what we say we both know there will be a working alternative within a few weeks/months, one way or the other.
And the best part of it is, being a naturalpoint customer myself means that no matter if the workaround uses NP software or not i'll be able to use it with a clear conscience (i already paid for the right to use it after all).