Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[robtek]

So finally you are speaking the truth, great.

As long as the game-devs dont use the freetrack.dll you don't care about pirating NP products.
You still failed to proof, as i knew that you couldn't, that NP influences the game-devs.
So your whole tower of depending opinions has crashed.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by robtek

So finally you are speaking the truth, great.

As long as the game-devs dont use the freetrack.dll you don't care about pirating NP products.
You still failed to proof, as i knew that you couldn't, that NP influences the game-devs.
So your whole tower of depening opinions has crashed.

"My whole tower has crashed"...

You guys like drama a lot!

Yes, as long game-devs don't use FreeTrackClient.dll I don't care about "pirating" NP products, and you know why?

Because Freetrack don't "pirate" nothing from NP using TrackIR interface to send data to games. NP achieve that Freetrack REMOVED suport for NP hardware, just that!

I'm tired, really tired of read people that believe know a thing about "copyright" talking nonsense and crap.

I'm not an idiot. It's plain obvious that NP "influences" game-devs. Why they can't even came here and write a word about the subject?

By the way, Robtek, my tower is stronger than ever, because you too ignore the BIGGEST POINT ABOUT ALL THAT:

- Why IN HELL Bohemia Interactive can use FreeTrackClient.dll in ArmAII and O:A - two MAJOR titles of a company that have even military contracts - without big issues?!?!?!?! Maybe because they are a BIG company now? Maybe because ArmAII sells very good? Maybe because they don't need extra money from some hardware company now and can suport their loyal customers?

If any of the "NP defenders" can write a sentence talking about that, I'll be really glad! "My whole tower has crashed"... Please, crash BIS tower too!

[robtek]

No, LoBiSoMeM,

what you don't seem to understand is that especially the BIS situation speaks in favor of my point of view!
BIS proves is that game-devs can use the freetrack.dll, and as BIS is really not the biggest company with the the best selling games, the bigger and even more successful companies should have even less restrictions to use this dll!
Yet, they don't!
You might speculate as much as you want about the influences from NP, as long as you can't prove it, thats just opinions. Nothing more and nothing less.
When you see the poll i mentioned, that means they offend less than 10% of their possible customers.

[MadBlaster]

Craps. The “infringement” argument is pure fallacy. There is no copyright infringement. Freetrack can use the TrackIR interface because it falls under the “Fair Use” clause of the Copyright Act. The usage is "non-commercial". It is that simple.

P.S. I wasn’t here.

[Wolf_Rider]

guess again, Blaster... FT wouldn't pass the Berne 3 step test

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by robtek

No, LoBiSoMeM,

what you don't seem to understand is that especially the BIS situation speaks in favor of my point of view!
BIS proves is that game-devs can use the freetrack.dll, and as BIS is really not the biggest company with the the best selling games, the bigger and even more successful companies should have even less restrictions to use this dll!
Yet, they don't!
You might speculate as much as you want about the influences from NP, as long as you can't prove it, thats just opinions. Nothing more and nothing less.
When you see the poll i mentioned, that means they offend less than 10% of their possible customers.

At least you stop taking this crap about "hack".

If any game-dev can use Freetrack Interface, what's about this?

You write this:

"Yet, they don't!"

Why? You can't "speculate" a thing? I go further: they don't and they can't do a lot of things...

And if you think that 10% is little... Well, maybe some companies like to keep all customers they can, and "please" Freetrack users is really an easy task!

Of course, if a game company don't receive some cash from NP.

By the way, maybe you don't think that BIS is a big software company and don't sell a lot, but in HT marketing I can assure that ArmAII and O:A creates a new market to this kind of thing, and Freetrack suport by BIS is really a landmark.

If BIS can, all that don't have ant contract of exclusivity with NP can. And give Freetrack suport in IL-2:CoD is easy, as for a lot of HT solutions. This is the point: why don't suport these multiple solutions and TALK about the subject?

This "you can't prove" is poor... I'm trying to understand WHY game-devs do what they do, and can't find a logical reason besides NP influence. If anybody from 1C can speak...

But they can't... Why? Strange, isn't?

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

guess again, Blaster... FT wouldn't pass the Berne 3 step test

I suppose you support the new world order as well. Really, what a stretch. LOL.

[Wolf_Rider]

@ Blaster...

The New Secular Order? get your little dictionary out and look up the test, perhaps?

@ Lobi...

You've been shown many times reasons for why not, and you've also never explained "the what".
Have you made a presentation to any developers yet?

[swiss]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Yes, as long game-devs don't use FreeTrackClient.dll I don't care about "pirating" NP products, and you know why?

I see: if the NP interface is the only one available, you use it with FT.
It's justified because you got the moral "right" too have a second option of your choice?

What W-R wants is basically FT 2.3 without the option of being able to use the np interface.
Yes, that would mean you couldn't use in games like IL2 anymore, but at least there would be nothing left to argue about and this discussion could finally end.

[Wolf_Rider]

and developers may find that a bit more attractive to look at