I got the OMAP version numbers incorrect. I meant OMAP 1XXX not
3XXX. The 2XXX and 3XXX have 3D capabilities beyond the emulator from
what I can tell so I ask forgiveness from TI people.
On Apr 29, 12:01 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Name one game that has all the features I listed then you might have
> an argument. Name 10 games with the same features then you I will say
> your correct.
>
> Until then your are full of it.
>
> Both you and Chris need to look at the competition. They still have
> not done what I have listed yet. I am sure they will but they haven't
> yet until then you're spreading fud.
>
> I don't know what Samsung your using, but it's not running Android so
> what is the point until someone has what I have now on Android.
>
> When a better device/emulator comes out I will break out the
> multiplayer and 3D. My submission is the best your going to get on
> theOMAP34XX which will be the majority of the phones for a while.
> Still the emulator is much faster than any phone I have had and that
> goes with most of the USA. So expecting every phone to have a Power VR
> and speed like your Samsung if it really is that powerful are still
> rare.
>
> On Apr 29, 7:06 am, Hielko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > tberthel: I understand that you think that you're application is very
> > cool, and that you are defensive when someone else doesn't (fully)
> > share your opinion, but I agree completely with Chris. You have some
> > cool games, but it isn't really special. There just the same type of
> > games I can run on my 2 year old simple Samsung phone. Implementing
> > stuff like progress bars/dialogs, touch screen, vibrations, the
> > lifecycle model etc etc is not really android specfic stuff. Every
> > half decent Android application will have those features.
>
> > I would be very suprised if your games, and similair games, would make
> > it to the top 50: simple because there is little innovation. Games
> > like Wifi Army or Parallel Kingdoms will have a far better probability
> > to make it in the top 50.
>
> > That said: I hope for you that the judges don't share my opinion :)
>
> > On Apr 29, 11:25 am, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Every APK has the Manifest and the others are, "other Android-specific
> > > components" which includes my whole list. So, I think I meet the
> > > "CowBay Standard".
>
> > > On Apr 28, 11:33 pm, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Ho, but you are not implementing the ones below:
>
> > > > >take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > >AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific components,
> > > > >which
> > > > >are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention those
> > > > >android-specific api "constraints".
>
> > > > CowBay says that if you are not implementing those than you've failed
> > > > criteria 2. Based on your list above seems to me like you've
> > > > failed. :)
>
> > > > I'm just messing with you. I was being sarcastic with CowBay.
> > > > I also implemented all the features you listed above except
> > > > Orientation . It just doesn't make sense that every single application
> > > > has to have LBS, or use content provider or Services. Some
> > > > applications simply do not require this features. So no, I don't think
> > > > that just because you did not implement these three things that it
> > > > necessarily means that you failed criteria two.
>
> > > > On Apr 28, 11:59 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Can you think of a submission that uses more Android features than
> > > > > mine?
>
> > > > > On Apr 28, 10:58 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I probably have the most performant and processing intensive use of
> > > > > > the Android Platform showing the most effective use of the platforms
> > > > > > 2D graphics capabilities. I also use compelling features including
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > following:
>
> > > > > > * Vibration
> > > > > > * Orientation
> > > > > > * Animations
> > > > > > * Touch Screen
> > > > > > * Progress Bars/Dialogs
> > > > > > * Lifecycle Implementation
> > > > > > * And other Android specific features
>
> > > > > > Accelerometer is the only major feature I am missing.
>
> > > > > > On Apr 28, 7:24 pm, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I think my chances are slim, but not because I'm not making
> > > > > > > effective
> > > > > > > use of Android. From Judges perspective they will not know the
> > > > > > > difference. I'm using touch functionality, a lot of the GUI
> > > > > > > components, pop ups, etc, etc. Based on your logic even tberthel
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > a worse chance of winning than me. All he is doing is using the
> > > > > > > drawing utilities from what I've seen from his demos. In fact, a
> > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > of the applications I've seen all they do is use the 3d or 2d
> > > > > > > drawing
> > > > > > > utilities and that is it. This is true specially for a lot of the
> > > > > > > games.
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 28, 9:11 pm, "Cow Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > i feel kinda sorry for your possibility to lose ADC, for it
> > > > > > > > sounds like you
> > > > > > > > fail ADC Judging Criteria 2, " Effective Use of the Android
> > > > > > > > Platform" >:{)
>
> > > > > > > > still wishing you good lucks....
>
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Incognito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > To: "Android Challenge" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:05 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
>
> > > > > > > > >sounds like your apps were originally designed and implemented
> > > > > > > > >platform-agnostic. that is, they were not originally for
> > > > > > > > >android because,
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >they had been, imho, it would not seem so easy as you describe.
>
> > > > > > > > True, that was my goal. I wrote my code so that it would
> > > > > > > > initially
> > > > > > > > work on J2SE, J2ME, and Android. This forced me to write the
> > > > > > > > business
> > > > > > > > layer platform-agnostic and just write interfaces that were
> > > > > > > > platform
> > > > > > > > specific.
>
> > > > > > > > >take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > > > > > >AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific
> > > > > > > > >components,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention
> > > > > > > > >those
> > > > > > > > >android-specific api "constraints".
> > > > > > > > >>how did you convert those?
>
> > > > > > > > I'm not using LBS so no problem there. However, if I were I
> > > > > > > > would just
> > > > > > > > put that behind a generic interface.
> > > > > > > > Services - My application does not require to be running on the
> > > > > > > > background so I didn't need to convert this.
> > > > > > > > Android Intent, content provider - I didn't have to use this
> > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > so I did not have to create an interface for it. IPhone does has
> > > > > > > > something very similar to this though.
> > > > > > > > They pass URL's between applications.
>
> > > > > > > > What I did have to create interfaces for are the drawing
> > > > > > > > utilities,
> > > > > > > > Threads, GUI objects, like buttons, text fields, text buttons,
> > > > > > > > touch
> > > > > > > > and key event handling, etc.
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 8:32 pm, "Cow Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > sounds like your apps were originally designed and implemented
> > > > > > > > > platform-agnostic. that is, they were not originally for
> > > > > > > > > android because,
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > they had been, imho, it would not seem so easy as you
> > > > > > > > > describe.
>
> > > > > > > > > take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > > > > > > AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific
> > > > > > > > > components,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > android-specific api "constraints".
>
> > > > > > > > > how did you convert those?
>
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Incognito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Android Challenge" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:02 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
>
> > > > > > > > > >>So, I'd guess if you want an iphone app in its native
> > > > > > > > > >>platform, you're
> > > > > > > > > >>going to have a much easier time just manually building it
> > > > > > > > > >>after your
> > > > > > > > > >>java version is done, then update it based on diffs.
>
> > > > > > > > > At first glance that sounds like a really good idea. It would
> > > > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > be true for small apps. i.e. A couple of thousand lines.
> > > > > > > > > I have tens of thousands of line of code written
> > > > > > > > > (distributted among
> > > > > > > > > several applications), easily close to 100,000 lines, and
> > > > > > > > > more than
> > > > > > > > > 1000 automated unit test cases.
> > > > > > > > > Trying to manually convert all this code to objective C would
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > extremely tedious. I would never have the patience to rewrite
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > that I already wrote once in a language and that has been
> > > > > > > > > tested and
> > > > > > > > > debugged thoroughly. Automating this is the best route for
> > > > > > > > > me. Then
> > > > > > > > > when I want to make changes to my code I make the changes
> > > > > > > > > only in Java
> > > > > > > > > and then I run the utility to convert the code to
> > > > > > > > > Objective-C, thus
> > > > > > > > > porting the changes over to Objective-C.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>Even if objective-C has every language feature of Java, and
> > > > > > > > > >>is syntactially very similar (or easily transformable), you
> > > > > > > > > >>have all
> > > > > > > > > >>the dependent libraries to worry about.
>
> > > > > > > > > Is not as bad as you think. For the IPhone specific
> > > > > > > > > functionality,
> > > > > > > > > i.e. drawing, touch events, key events, I'm using interfaces
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > abstract or hide the actual API. So my applications speak to
> > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > interfaces and then my interfaces speak to the actual
> > > > > > > > > platform APIs.
> > > > > > > > > Very similiar to what Java Standard Edition does.
> > > > > > > > > So all I have to do is connect my interfaces with the actual
> > > > > > > > > hardware
>
> ...
>
> read more ยป
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Android Challenge" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
