psmoveapi for Windows 8.1 x64

[betonme]

I've started working on a port for Windows 8.

Now it could be compiled.
The calibration is working.
Added basic support for the navigation controller.

Tested with Win8.1 x64
mingw32-i686-4.8.3-release-win32-sjlj-rt_v3-rev0
cmake-2.8.12.2-win32-x86

[thp]

If you are uncommenting this, please just remove the #if 0 and corresponding #endif instead.

[thp]

Basic review done. Please check the comments. Also, please stick to the code style guidelines (keep indentation and spacing / braces aligned with the rest of the surrounding code).

[betonme]

Hi, thanks for Your review. I've added the requested changes.
Frank

[thp]

Sorry for taking so long to respond. Can you fix the indentation? There are still some issues with the coding style, please keep the indentation the same as the surrounding code.

Also, maybe @nitsch and @whitingjp can take a look at this patch to see if it works for them?

[nitsch]

I suggest you move the Navigation-related commit to a separate feature branch. It is not specific to Windows and it also makes it easier to test and improve.

[thp]

@nitsch what do you think of the current pull request?

[nitsch]

As far as I can tell the thing that is left after the recent changes and revert only targets the calibration. But I have no idea what problem it is trying to solve (and what exactly makes this workaround work compared to the current implementation).

I could not find any problems with accessing the calibration data on Windows. I cannot test on Windows 8 though, so it might be something specific to this version. Some clarification (and ideally some documentation) would be nice.

[betonme]

On Windows XP and 7, I have also no problems accessing the calibration data. With Windows 8 I can access it only via the

On all Windows Versions I can access the calibration data onlvy with the existing ugly workaround:
Convert "col02" path to "col01" path.

But with the changed handle the function call
hid_get_feature_report(move->handle, btg, sizeof(btg));
fails on Windows 8. If the handle is unchanged it is working as expected.

[thp]

How does this relate to #149 ? Should we aim to get both pull requests merged into a single pull request? This pull request looks cleaner, the other has indentation issues, but both try to solve the same problem? // cc @cboulay

[cboulay]

@thp They do both try to solve the same problem and #149 uses the basic same technique that this one did. However, this one never worked for me. There is a small difference that I can't recall right now and I don't have time to reinvestigate because I have to take my daughter to swimming. By the time I get back to working on this, Europe will be asleep.

[thp]

So this is superseded by #149 then, and #149 should be reviewed/merged instead of this one?

[cboulay]

Yes, I believe so. But, as @betonme mentioned in #149, the changes in #149 (and I suspect this PR, too) expose another problem. I have a question for you about that, but I'll ask it in #149.