Freetrack interface use in IL-2:CoD

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I'm not a programmer, but it looks like these are output variables for 6DoF:


if (getData(pData))
{
printf("Record ID: %d\n" , data.dataID);
printf("Yaw: %5.2f\n" , data.yaw );
printf("Pitch: %5.2f\n" , data.pitch );
printf("Roll: %5.2f\n" , data.roll );
printf("X: %5.2f\n" , data.x );
printf("Y: %5.2f\n" , data.y );
printf("Z: %5.2f\n" , data.z );
}
else
{
printf("Nothing returned from getData\n");
break;
}
}


Why can't CoD hook off that? I guess it is "C" language format.

Yes, it is... It's how an aplication can read data from FreeTrackClient.dll interface... It's how a game can read data from Freetrack, no rocket science.

I don't know what W-R likes to know now, really. But he is strange because he thinks that's some kind of "copy/paste from Freetrack site". No, it's in Freetrack SDK, a simple command line application to get data from FreeTrackClient.dll.

What's the big deal? I want that W-R put in "layman's terms" the issues with FreeTrackClient.dll route, please, because I and ArmAII both uses FreeTrackClient.dll to get data from Freetrack. I use Freetrack interface a lot.

But he's not falling into sophistry... We are! Please W-R, point the "irreparable damage" of using FreeTrackClient.dll to get data from Freetrack, please! BIS made "irreparable damage" using and documenting this "evil route" in ArmAII patch 1.05?!?!

"[60457] New: FreeTrack support using FreeTrackClient.dll"

Ohhhhh... BIS made "irreparable damage"... You don't need to be so dramatic... Relax a bit!

[MadBlaster]

Yes, after looking at that code. I really don't think he has any leg to stand on. It is completely independent. Maybe he is just a "bitter clinger" from the past. Wants to take out revenge on us Freetrack guys for some stupid reason.

[Wolf_Rider]

I don't believe LoBi read a word you said, Blackdog sad

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Yes, after looking at that code. I really don't think he has any leg to stand on. It is completely independent. Maybe he is just a "bitter clinger" from the past. Wants to take out revenge on us Freetrack guys for some stupid reason.

No, he will made finally a CLEAR statement about FreeTrackClient.dll, put lines of code that will prove the "evil way", the abusive NP hack...

And I will wait to see W-R NP guy destroying finally any argument used to make 1C use FreeTrackClient.dll as a manner to get 6DOF HT data and use it in IL-2:CoD!

After that, W-R will transform Bohemia Interactive, the major infidels, into ashes! They used FreeTrackClient.dll in ArmAII!!! Blasphemy!!!

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I don't believe LoBi read a word you said, Blackdog sad

Oh no, he said nothing, as usual...

Funnier than ever!

Now I believe the circus is over, everybody can see how a game can use FreeTrackClient.dll route to access 6DOF data from Freetrack, don't using any "hack" of NP copyrighted - or not - material.

Everybody now knows that BIS uses FreeTrackClient.dll without any trouble.

As I said: life is simple. Using FreeTrackClient.dll to have 6DOF data is really easily, 1C team can make it in one afternoon.

Now I'm tired to discuss this obvious subject. We have ENOUGH data to use ours brains and know the truth, we don't need "half" comments about "hacks" made by some NP troll. We have the facts, show how things work, all simple.

I'm off now. Do wathever you want, 1C. I'm tired to explain simple things.

[norulz]

Pity this forum has no "ignore user" function... but you can do it by sheer will LoBiSoMeM

Maybe this week will have something about this issue... one can only hope.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

If you want to point the finger at someone else, Blackdog... take note of in which direction the other three fingers are pointing
Some just aren't falling for your sophistry and you could probably do well to err, chill out yourself.
Now, I asked a very simple question, which I thought may have helped their FT cause... too bad it didn't and did irrepairable damage instead, considering the calls made were FT no longer uses TIR.

Ok, you like to keep hearing it, so i will oblige and since you like going philosophical about it, let's also touch a bit on how you structure your arguments.

On the technical side of things, FT doesn't use the TIR implementation to track the dots, it makes your computer think it uses NP code when it's not: it reads the movements with its own interface posted here in this threa, then it has to parse them into the game. If the game doesn't support alternative trackers a user can make the game think it's trackIR so it can parse the data.

It's as simple as can be really. It's not trackIR, your computer thinks it is.

I don't know why you keep making the jump from "my PC thinks this is X" to "it thinks this is X, so that makes it true".

You've been given complex explanations, simple explanations, calm replies, offensive replies, the whole nine yards, by a variety of posters. And since i don't think you're mentally incapable of grasping the meaning of what's been said, i'll chalk it up to grasping at straws in order to not accept the explanation. Sorry, you've left me no alternative here.


Also, another thing you keep bringing up is that whenever someone uses an analogy to illustrate a point, you will invariably go "we are not talking about joysticks/AGP ports/other peripherals, but about trackIR and webcams". Maybe because if we draw the parallels it would mean that just as your line of reason implies an associated license fee for using other hardware for a similar purpose (again, this is against US copyright law if the hardware is up to the job), it would also make it reasonable for microsoft to ask a fee from everyone who makes peripherals for windows systems, NP included.

Sorry, but you either apply the same standards to everyone or not at all. If FT or any other head-tracker must pay NP to do the same job with different hardware and software, then NP must also pay the guys who came up with a movable camera in a 3d cockpit in the first place. Isn't NP mooching off the idea of a 3d cockpit by taking the basic idea and adding their own stuff on top of it? Not from where i'm standing, but definitely so according to the way you present it. Like i said, double standards won't fly.

This is all a very simple argumentative tactic on your part really. No offence at all, i'm just calling them as i see them and you're entitled to use whatever trick in the book to push your opinion, that's the meaning of any discussion forum as long as we're civil to each other. Just be prepared to be called out on it if the tactic is completely see through

Step 1: Strongly deny all kinds of explanation that back anything non-favorable to your point of view
Step 2: Since you are denying all explanation, you then make the silent, implied jump that there isn't one
Step 3: Ask for an expanation
Step 4: Go back to step 1 and repeat as necessary.

This creates tension, drives the moderate posters away, maybe even invites a mod to close the thread and generally makes the topic at hand a painful experience to discuss and debate. The objective is then accomplished: people don't want to talk about it or have it cluttering their boards, so the unfavorable opinion is nipped in the bud before it gains momentum. And you think i'm the one who's into sophistry

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by norulz

Pity this forum has no "ignore user" function... but you can do it by sheer will LoBiSoMeM

Maybe this week will have something about this issue... one can only hope.

Ignore user function or Freetrack suport into IL-2:CoD?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

On the other hand, W-R you are dragging this poll the way of the other thread.

where are your other three fingers pointing, Blackdog?


also sport... explain this - 2nd check box down from the top

Originally Posted by julian265

Interfaces available - also key output on next tab.

Latest version, 2.2.0.279

PPJoy becomes available when you have it installed. It is my preferred method, but I'm on a different computer so it's greyed out.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

also sport... explain this - 2nd check box down from the top

I explain clearly to you how the FIRST BOX DOWN FROM THE TOP works...

We just have the second because game devs don't suport the first one.

If you like to see the second one vanish, just suport the inclusion of Freetrack interface into new titles!

I'm tired of all this crap, really. That's the way NP do business...