Spring RTS Engine

also, afaik, you can only make android apps in Java. Google might have changed this by now, i haven't really been paying attention, but if not, it sounds like a pretty big problem xD.

not that i think the idea is feasible right now

android has an option to compile native code for performance iirc

Pxtl wrote:To me it seems like Moore's Law is grinding to a halt.

Moore's Law is about number of transistors. They are still increasing.

I have a couple of phones (im a HTC fanatic) and pdas sitting around, but the best thing I have is something some crazy chinese kid did to a touch involving the dual snapdragon config that htc keeps mentioning. Battery life is a bit bad, but with an extended battery and a thicker cover, and a piece of black duct tape to hold it all together, its pretty sick. Hardly a phone anymore lolz.

Anyway I have gotten ubuntu running on it, missing a few features such as bluetooth and gps.

Guys, I only came here to ask cause I had warcraft 2(wargus) and starcraft on my htc 6800(playable install). Since I have the moto droid now I wanted to see if there was a better rts for the droid.

Sry the folks here have no intrist in a project like this. But I was not troling.

I guess ill poke around on irc to see if any one wants to join a project for an online rts for the android platform.

And if this thread started that much trouble then please delete/remove/purge it

Best regateds

Sorry, it's just that every other month somebody says "hay guise you know wat would be awesome if ba was on the psp and it cud play starcraft 2 cuz my mom wnot by it 4 me k thx when will it be rdy"

and we get a little cranky about that.

It isn't a problem, elio, it is simply something beyond present capabilities.

In a few years' time, Spring on a handheld device like an Android phone isn't at all out of the question really. I'm more confused by how you'd control the game and fit all the interface (etc) onscreen.

IMO there will probably soon (2-3 years) be x86 chips suitable for ultra-mobile device use and probably just as fast as an entry-level desktop PC. Better to just wait for the technology to come to us, rather than try to encourage the waste of precious developer-hours for something that would likely be useful to only a few people.

Neddie wrote:

Jazcash wrote:I'd prefer to get a version of Spring running my netbook. Just a trimmed down graphical version of Spring which is compatible with online gameplay...

The problem, though, is reducing the CPU footprint. As bad as the integrated graphics are, they are not what prevents me from 1v1 on my EEE.

I'm using the 1005HA EeePC which I thought was a fairly newish model. But apparently I can't even start Spring cause my gfx card is so bad?

Jazcash wrote:

Neddie wrote:

Jazcash wrote:I'd prefer to get a version of Spring running my netbook. Just a trimmed down graphical version of Spring which is compatible with online gameplay...

The problem, though, is reducing the CPU footprint. As bad as the integrated graphics are, they are not what prevents me from 1v1 on my EEE.

I'm using the 1005HA EeePC which I thought was a fairly newish model. But apparently I can't even start Spring cause my gfx card is so bad?

I'm on a 1000HE and can start Spring on very low settings but cannot play or spectate for more than a few minutes without massive slowdown due to complete CPU choke. Yes, our integrated graphics are miserable, but the heavy CPU load is what really damns the hardware.

I can run Quake3 at good 25 fps on Nexus One.

==Troy== wrote:I can run Quake3 at good 25 fps on Nexus One.

Yeh I had Quake Live running alright on my netbook the other day. Was getting 50 FPS or so but now for some reason it's dropped down to about 20 ¬_¬

Jazcash wrote:

==Troy== wrote:I can run Quake3 at good 25 fps on Nexus One.

Yeh I had Quake Live running alright on my netbook the other day. Was getting 50 FPS or so but now for some reason it's dropped down to about 20 ¬_¬

windows?

==Troy== wrote:I can run Quake3 at good 25 fps on Nexus One.

You have a Nexus One?

./jealousy

I'd think for iPad sized devices spring would be fine given some time and effort streamlining the codebase and revamping the GUI

Atom's a complete crock of shite though. It's designed to be cheap to manufacture above all else. Once we're down to 32/28 nm and smaller in common chips (65/45/40 are all common right now), AMD and Intel are both planning on ultra-low-voltage chips that actually have some number crunching power.

After all, 1.6 ghz Atom CPUs were found to be on par or worse than 900 mhz Celeron CPUs in most situations back when netbooks were the latest thing. The only thing that keeps Atoms in use is the fact that they cost practically nothing.

There will be a huge upset in the PC industry come 2011/2012, something like when Core 2 was launched if not bigger than that. For starters, AMD's first genuinely new architecture since K8 will start to reach consumers in early 2011, undoubtedly followed by a counter-punch from Intel. It will be a make-or-break year to say the least. Fermi 2, ATI's successor to the 5xxx series (6xxx later this year is only a refresh)... now we just need some games that aren't console ports.

ARM isnt that bad, its got a nice instruction set, it avoids a huge swathe of nonsensical cruft present in x86. They're easier to design, and easier to make, and easier to maintain.

The problem is, ARM is currently being marketed at markets where low power consumption is key, and high performance isnt necessary, e.g. circuit boards acting as intermediaries, routers, smart phones, etc, as such the only other major factor is price, which they've pushed and pushed.

Its not that ARM can't do high performance, its that nobodies shown much interest in it until quite recently.

AF wrote:ARM isnt that bad, its got a nice instruction set, it avoids a huge swathe of nonsensical cruft present in x86. They're easier to design, and easier to make, and easier to maintain.

The problem is, ARM is currently being marketed at markets where low power consumption is key, and high performance isnt necessary, e.g. circuit boards acting as intermediaries, routers, smart phones, etc, as such the only other major factor is price, which they've pushed and pushed.

Its not that ARM can't do high performance, its that nobodies shown much interest in it until quite recently.

With Apple wanting to buy arm
With ARM servers coming up as cheaper and faster per volume than Intel
With Google netbook claiming to implement dual-core 2.0Ghz ARM chipset
and many more.

I understand that x86 is a bloated, outdated, inferior technology designed in another era, but I hate the idea of widespread adoption of anything else. I mean, unless there's a way to emulate x86 with reasonable speed, then screw it.

Even the incremental attempt at leaving x86 that is x64?