Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by David603

Does it hurt anybody? I paid for my copy of Il2 1946, infact I have boxed versions of most of the Il2 series sitting on my shelf. Nor would I have brought TIR even if there was no way to get 6DOF in Il2 with FT,

that just goes back to the; you don't own the software, you have a license to run the software. Does it hurt anyone? well, yes it does... using FT with NP software/ interface is theft. same as stealing from next door because it has an item your house doesn't.

Originally Posted by David603

I would have ended up using FT with mouselook and 2DOF.

we'd only have to trust and take you at word on that one...

Originally Posted by David603

So, my conscience is clear on this matter.

you'd be surprised of the amount of people, who, have a clear conscience on what they've done

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

that just goes back to the; you don't own the software, you have a license to run the software.

we'd only have to trust and take you at word on that one...

I don't bought anything from NP.

I run IL-2 1946 - that I bought - and Freetrack - free.

Freetrack don't use NP software to do the HT. Freetrack uses the data format of TIR to stream data to IL-2 1946.

You, W-R, as NP, have SEVERE problems to keep this "hack" talking! Is really fun to see!

[Wolf_Rider]

you know full well FT uses NP software

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

you know full well FT uses NP software

Besides the old unnencrypted interface? No, FT don't use NP software! And even that don't qualify use of "NP software"...

And YOU know full well, loser. Pathetic NP employee...

[David603]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

that just goes back to the; you don't own the software, you have a license to run the software. Does it hurt anyone? well, yes it does... using FT with NP software/ interface is theft. same as stealing from next door because it has an item your house doesn't.

Yes, I understand the court of law version of software use, but this isn't a court of law, so take my statement at face value or dismiss it as you wish, its my opinion, nothing else.

we'd only have to trust and take you at word on that one...

Why would I lie? Again, this isn't a court of law.

you'd be surprised of the amount of people, who, have a clear conscience on what they've done

Sure, and as an atheist I don't even believe in a conscience in biblical terms(a fixed sense of right and wrong "built into" every person), but I know if I hurt someone who doesn't deserve it or steal etc I will feel bad about it (and yes, I will use the court of law interpretations of this as a rough guide in this case).

However, given all that I don't feel bad about using software I paid for as I wish for my personal use (and I don't believe that FT using the open version of the NP interface falls outside that).

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by David603

Yes, I understand the court of law version of software use, but this isn't a court of law, so take my statement at face value or dismiss it as you wish, its my opinion, nothing else.

you "understanding" seems to differ from your 'opinion" though

Originally Posted by David603

Why would I lie? Again, this isn't a court of law.

Sure, and as an atheist I don't even believe in a conscience in biblical terms(a fixed sense of right and wrong "built into" every person), but I know if I hurt someone who doesn't deserve it or steal etc I will feel bad about it (and yes, I will use the court of law interpretations of this as a rough guide in this case).

hmmm... a touch of selectivity there

Originally Posted by David603

However, given all that I don't feel bad about using software I paid for as I wish for my personal use (and I don't believe that FT using the open version of the NP interface falls outside that).

too much inconsistency for anything to taken seriously at face value or otherwise

(Pol Pot, and similar, had clear consciences too)

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Besides the old unnencrypted interface? No, FT don't use NP software! And even that don't qualify use of "NP software"...

And YOU know full well, loser. Pathetic NP employee...

Running again, liar?

[David603]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

you "understanding" seems to differ from your 'opinion" though

Understanding the law and opinion of what is right and wrong may differ. Can you honestly say your opinion of right and wrong and your understanding of the law are 100% compatible? If yes, you would find it impossible to live in the US, where each state has its own laws, or where I do in Scotland which has its own legal system separate from the rest of the UK.

hmmm... a touch of selectivity there

too much inconsistency for anything to taken seriously at face value or otherwise

(Pol Pot, and similar, had clear consciences too)

Well, yes, part of my understanding of atheism is that there is no intrinsic right and wrong, so I would not hold up the conscience as being anything other than an indicator of contextually suitable behaviour. As such, if the conscience if not infallible, your conscience probably differs from mine, and if conscience is nothing more than a result of your culture and upbringing then there is no reason why it cannot be selectively examined.

And yes, I'm aware this could be used to justify to your conscience more or less anything, but for all practical extents and purposes my conscience is probably very close in values to for example a Christian's, barring of course that I don't believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God.

However, we are going way off topic here, so lets drop the discussion of conscience and stick to discussing whether it is legal for FT to use the open version of the NP interface.

[Wolf_Rider]

@ LoBi...
you're getting pretty hard up, when you have to quote yourself, LoBi... is this what you're going to do the next while? just quote yourself??

Originally Posted by David603

Understanding the law and opinion of what is right and wrong may differ. Can you honestly say your opinion of right and wrong and your understanding of the law are 100% compatible? If yes, you would find it impossible to live in the US, where each state has its own laws, or where I do in Scotland which has its own legal system separate from the rest of the UK.

furphy

Originally Posted by David603

Well, yes, part of my understanding of atheism is that there is no intrinsic right and wrong, so I would not hold up the conscience as being anything other than an indicator of contextually suitable behaviour. As such, if the conscience if not infallible, your conscience probably differs from mine, and if conscience is nothing more than a result of your culture and upbringing then there is no reason why it cannot be selectively examined.

And yes, I'm aware this could be used to justify to your conscience more or less anything, but my conscience is probably very close in values to for example a Christian's, barring of course that I don't believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God.

sorry, I don't do "god" conversations and as such, they have no place in this thread

Originally Posted by David603

However, we are going way off topic here, so lets drop the discussion of conscience and

nooo... you were going off topic

Originally Posted by David603

stick to discussing whether it is legal for FT to use the open version of the NP interface.

that would be nice, except, your "legal understandings" and your "conscience" would seem to preclude that... besides which, all the arguments are contained between posts 1 ~ current.

[Sven]

Take cover! Handbags flying around!