Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

which I linked on page 14:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=135

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

Post 193:

Originally Posted by julian265

The statement gets "trundled out" because it's clear enough. The likelihood that ED's SDK would have had anything to do with NP's software is extremely low, for two reasons:
- It would have been illegal, and TIR probably would have been patched to no longer work with ED products (fair enough).
- There was no reason to the steal code to perform such a simple task.

Either way, ED did the right thing and exposed A-10C's head control axes for assignment (which I think is all that is needed). Whether they did for BS or not, I can't remember.

If you disagree with my assessment of the likelihood of ED using NP software without permission, please explain why.

[Stipe]

Yey, we are humans again.
I must say, that i got really defensive because i thought W-R is a track ir fanboy. But now i get the point. The question about DSC is to see if:
1.) they tried to use completely own interface and NP is indeed trying to run a monopol
or
2.) They used part of NP SDK to build their own code on and NP was simply defending their code

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

the part of the quote addressed... and yes, thank you for that full quote.

The question still remains though... was the (to be clearer) "vendor independant" SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK?

Here's perfect example of why we struggle with you W-R troll. "Vendor independent" = "SDK, developed purely by DCS without reference to or use of NP's SDK."

Please look up the word "independent" in the dictionary. Maybe you simply don't "trust" the word "independent" in the quote. And that is easily understandable, given your agenda. So what is your rate, 5 cents a word?

[Wolf_Rider]

that's right Stipe, I'm not a fanboi - not by a longshot.

Perhaps I could best put my views this way, in the form of two quotes?


oh well, here goes

"The greatest tenet of Democracy, is transparency of Government"

and

"The greatest tenet of Freedom, is honesty"



I'm really hoping that helps

[Stipe]

Let's say that DCS tried to do their own thing and NP asked them to stop.
I wonder on what ground did DCS cave?
Thats why some people hate NP. We don't know if the rumors are true or not.
If it's comfirmed then God knows whats ahead. COD 2 running with Saitek pedals only?

[Wolf_Rider]

Rumours do feature in a large part of any kerfuffle, at least that is what I've found in my journeys around the traps and unfortunately, the rumour mill can be nigh on impossible to shut down, once fired up.
Its why we need level heads, we need facts and we need clarity.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Stipe

Let's say that DCS tried to do their own thing and NP asked them to stop.
I wonder on what ground did DCS cave?
Thats why some people hate NP. We don't know if the rumors are true or not.
If it's comfirmed then God knows whats ahead. COD 2 running with Saitek pedals only?

Speculation (Fyi, I've posted the definition in this thread):
DCS and NP do a deal for the game. NP draws up a contract and DCS signs it. There is a clause in the contract that may not be legally enforceable, but it is there anyway that says there is a big financial penalty/withdrawal of support...etc. that will be exercised by NP if DCS decides to develop an in-house headtracking functionality, vendor independent or otherwise. Just the threat of court action is enough to intimidate most companies. Going to court costs lots of money. Since TrakIR dominates this market, DCS probably couldn't justify spending money on legal costs to defend going independent at this time. It's a risk/reward decision. So, the artificial monopoly stays in place.

[Stipe]

But guys behind DCS must have a legal department for crying out loud(hey guys,what NP is trying to do is illegal.We wont be fooled).Or am I a romantic? Money investment in development of the game or bribery is likely. But still, in today's world i wouldn't be suprised if something like that is going on. We know how business runs. Can't NP go to court becouse something like that? Monopol. Remember Microsoft?

[Wolf_Rider]

could I make a genuinely polite comment at this point?

all that just written, is just feeding rumours, it is what gets them big and fat and out of all proportion. This is what makes it hard to get clarity

[julian265]

So you're just going to ignore post #201?