Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

how does the interface work in ArmAII and how many pass it over in favour of the NP route?

You don't know there is a problem with other developers, only they have not committed any comment

Talk more, please, NP guy... It's begginig to became REALLY funny now!

"how does the interface work in ArmAII and how many pass it over in favour of the NP route?"

"NP route"? You are a sick person, really... Maybe because NP hire this kind of people their solution is so overpriced... I'm using the FREETRACK ROUTE, as in any game with Freetrack interface suport!

[Blackdog_kt]

Lobisomem, i can understand your desire to see freetrack supported in CoD, but you really are not helping by calling this guy things that you don't have proof if he is
As for the debate at hand:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Thank you, you've admitted (bold section) that the Freetrack has to use NP software, which negates everything you've put earlier. You've contradicted yourself before BD and so many times...

Excuse me for getting tired and not responding to everything, i just picked this one because you're clearly putting words in my mouth now.

What i said was:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

The game doesn't need to use any kind of NP software for headtracking to work. What it needs is to think it's using NP's dll because there's no alternative standard in the industry yet, but the actual file can be substituted by any suitable software.

If you can't understand that using my own dll is using a dll other than naturalpoint's, then i either wasted 9 years of my life and an enormous amount of my parent's money studying the English language and getting two proficiency degrees in it that actually allow me to teach it to others, or i don't know what else is happening.
My bet is on the "unknown something else" as a reason however and no, i don't imply you lack the brains to understand.

Also,

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

there's this little thing you're forgetting called the End User Licensing Agreement... you don't "own" the product, you own the right to run it (as supplied)

when i pay money, open the box (which makes the product non-refundable) and have to click "yes" on a dialog box to use something i already paid for and can't return, the argument tends to become a bit iffy. That's part of the reason that bits of certain EULAs don't usually hold much water in an EU court of consumer law. Let's not be hypocrites here, how many in this forum use a modded version of IL2? That's a breach of the EULA as well

No hard feelings whatsoever, like i said we'll just have to agree that we disagree on the finer points.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

What i said was:

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?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

If you can't understand that using my own dll is using a dll other than naturalpoint's, then i either wasted 9 years of my life and an enormous amount of my parent's money studying the English language and getting two proficiency degrees in it that actually allow me to teach it to others, or i don't know what else is happening.
My bet is on the "unknown something else" as a reason however and no, i don't imply you lack the brains to understand.

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,

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

when i pay money, open the box (which makes the product non-refundable) and have to click "yes" on a dialog box to use something i already paid for and can't return, the argument tends to become a bit iffy. That's part of the reason that bits of certain EULAs don't usually hold much water in an EU court of consumer law. Let's not be hypocrites here, how many in this forum use a modded version of IL2? That's a breach of the EULA as well

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

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

No hard feelings whatsoever, like i said we'll just have to agree that we disagree on the finer points.

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.

[MadBlaster]

BUMP...skull made me do it.

[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).

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

Clearly, there is no communication breakdown, in any form but you have made attempt to "convert" to your opinion, there isn't any problem with that in itself. Knock yourself out on that one, however what that opinion represent may one of question.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

Agreement on that you have, no doubt, subject to the licensing arrangements and copyright considerations though and method of access.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

If by that you mean Mouse Look (aka Freelook), then that has around since the early 90's

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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

We've been over the "legalities" before

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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 you mean free of charge, or free of licensing conditions?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

see above

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

will the TIR package wortk without that DLL?

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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

No, there you are attempting to call an apple a banana to justify your stance on modifying a dll supplied as part of a copyrighted software package.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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

misunderstanding? nah, you know what is going on and also realise that it isn't part of the front row of a Guns 'n' Roses concert present.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

Undoubtly, you may even recall that a consensus was reached that other headtrackers should be accommodated, the sticking point being on how they go about doing what they do.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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).

you have the right to use the software conditionally and after all your comment earlier on 6DoF being already in games you go on to say that? there isn't a need for a "workaround" and FT should be able to remove from its sofware, any and all method of access to the TIR interface.





*Edit

Something for your consideration there BD... http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=18723&page=8 post #70 ~ #78 inclusive -enjoy

[MadBlaster]

W-R, what do you think about that script? I stare at it a bit, I think it would take OM about 30 minutes or less to write a C script in game to get it hooked up. All he has to do is map those variables to the game. That's it. This NP encryption thing is an illusion. If I can figure out what's going on just by googling, then any programmer weetod can figure it out too.

[Wolf_Rider]

Blaster, what it keeps coming back to and what people keep moving away from is;

We have a consensus that the use of alternative forms of headtracking should available

Some sort of generic interface should be available (perhaps there is already?)



The makers of alternative headtrackers should play nice by copyright and patent holders

[sigur_ros]

You continue to make up stories Troll_Rider, it is shown over and over again there are no issued patents and no longer copyright issue.

Ever heard of "IBM compatible" computer? "Sound Blaster compatible" sound card? Microsoft Office compatible software like OpenOffice? Non-Adobe PDF compatible software before it became open standard in 2008? It is possible for TrackIR to become open standard like PDF today, but if not it will still be used regardless as it is unlikely majority of game developers will support anything else (imagine trying to establish open PDF alternative from scratch).

The consensus is more like (most ideal to least):

1. TrackIR should be made open - already a standard, easier and better for everyone, developers and users, better maintained.
2. TrackIR should not actively block competition from gaining access.
3. TrackIR should not deter developers trying to support alternative interfaces.
4. Game developers should support open alternative interface - this is the least ideal because developer will need to waste time supporting two standards and the commercial TrackIR will always be better maintained and supported.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

You continue to make up stories Troll_Rider, it is shown over and over again there are no issued patents and no longer copyright issue.

also shown over and over again that that is not the case.

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

Ever heard of "IBM compatible" computer? "Sound Blaster compatible" sound card? Microsoft Office compatible software like OpenOffice? Non-Adobe PDF compatible software before it became open standard in 2008?

IBM split off basically into another two entities... Apple and Microsoft/ PC. As for the others, have you heard of Linux?

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

It is possible for TrackIR to become open standard like PDF today, but if not it will still be used regardless as it is unlikely majority of game developers will support anything else (imagine trying to establish open PDF alternative from scratch).

I suppose it is quite possible TrackIR could become an open standard... why should they?
Mouse Look is already another standard

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

The consensus is more like (most ideal to least):

1. TrackIR should be made open - already a standard, easier and better for everyone, developers and users, better maintained.
2. TrackIR should not actively block competition from gaining access.
3. TrackIR should not deter developers trying to support alternative interfaces.
4. Game developers should support open alternative interface - this is the least ideal because developer will need to waste time supporting two standards and the commercial TrackIR will always be better maintained and supported.

The consensus (major) is; Alternative headtrackers should be available in games.

1. they are already suffering cries of monoply, now you want them to become one? (see point 2)

2. argued endlessly and no proof provided that this is the case (see point 1)

3. see point 2

4. see Consensus (Major) which is meant for more than just two, it is meant for all alternative forms of headtracker - currently available, or yet to come