Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
> On 4/22/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think we won't be able to make the transition in independent way
>> due to unspecified meaning of the torques.
>>
>
> With phantom it still seems doable - if I understand correctly ther is
> one point of containct
On 4/22/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/19/07, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
> > > If we are interested in using FF API we need to come up with a way
> > > to express this effect
Hi Jiri,
On 4/23/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
> For devices that require tailored application (for example that glove
> - I am not sure how a generic application could control it) old
> phantom way of controlling via ioctl will suffice. The device may
>
Hi Jiri,
On 4/23/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
For devices that require tailored application (for example that glove
- I am not sure how a generic application could control it) old
phantom way of controlling via ioctl will suffice. The device may
still
On 4/22/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/19/07, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
If we are interested in using FF API we need to come up with a way
to express this effect without exposing
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
On 4/22/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we won't be able to make the transition in independent way
due to unspecified meaning of the torques.
With phantom it still seems doable - if I understand correctly ther is
one point of containct and one
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
> For devices that require tailored application (for example that glove
> - I am not sure how a generic application could control it) old
> phantom way of controlling via ioctl will suffice. The device may
> still use input layer to report back coordinates.
And how
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
For devices that require tailored application (for example that glove
- I am not sure how a generic application could control it) old
phantom way of controlling via ioctl will suffice. The device may
still use input layer to report back coordinates.
And how about
On 4/19/07, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
> > If we are interested in using FF API we need to come up with a way
> > to express this effect without exposing implementation details of
> > one particular
On 4/19/07, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
If we are interested in using FF API we need to come up with a way
to express this effect without exposing implementation details of
one particular device.
On 4/19/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
> I have been thinking about this and I don't think that exporting motor
> data is a good idea, at least not in case of Phantom driver. The fact
> that there are 3 motors is a hardware implementation detail and it
> is
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
> I have been thinking about this and I don't think that exporting motor
> data is a good idea, at least not in case of Phantom driver. The fact
> that there are 3 motors is a hardware implementation detail and it
> is not interesting for general application.
Ok, so
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
I have been thinking about this and I don't think that exporting motor
data is a good idea, at least not in case of Phantom driver. The fact
that there are 3 motors is a hardware implementation detail and it
is not interesting for general application.
Ok, so what
On 4/19/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a):
I have been thinking about this and I don't think that exporting motor
data is a good idea, at least not in case of Phantom driver. The fact
that there are 3 motors is a hardware implementation detail and it
is not
Hi,
On Thursday 19 April 2007 00:25, johann deneux wrote:
> On 4/18/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > johann deneux napsal(a):
> > > Jiri,
> > >
> > > Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
> > > last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an
On 4/18/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
johann deneux napsal(a):
> Jiri,
>
> Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
> last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an effect, then
> combine several effects to achieve complex effects.
I think you
johann deneux napsal(a):
> Jiri,
>
> Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
> last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an effect, then
> combine several effects to achieve complex effects.
I think you mean motor instead of axis, because I don't push
Jiri,
Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an effect, then
combine several effects to achieve complex effects.
The implementation would specify the axis using the upper bits of the
effect type.
The patches you
Jiri,
Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an effect, then
combine several effects to achieve complex effects.
The implementation would specify the axis using the upper bits of the
effect type.
The patches you
johann deneux napsal(a):
Jiri,
Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an effect, then
combine several effects to achieve complex effects.
I think you mean motor instead of axis, because I don't push real
On 4/18/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
johann deneux napsal(a):
Jiri,
Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an effect, then
combine several effects to achieve complex effects.
I think you mean
Hi,
On Thursday 19 April 2007 00:25, johann deneux wrote:
On 4/18/07, Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
johann deneux napsal(a):
Jiri,
Which solution did you chose to implement? From what I remember, we
last discussed Dmitry's idea of specifying an axis for an effect, then
So fellows, what about these ones?
--
ff, add FF_RAW effect
Add new FF_RAW effect for devices such Phantom. The new model has up to 6DOF
torque force feedback independent on any 3d-or-so value.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
commit 759e7f172031959f49e5d3a7282379e7d73621b3
So fellows, what about these ones?
--
ff, add FF_RAW effect
Add new FF_RAW effect for devices such Phantom. The new model has up to 6DOF
torque force feedback independent on any 3d-or-so value.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
commit 759e7f172031959f49e5d3a7282379e7d73621b3
24 matches
Mail list logo
