Epicenter posted on Dec 9 2006 at 11:06 PM said:
Yes, I have that document and I've been through it. It's not terribly useful. Yes, it does give you some information, but an enormous amount of it is inexplicably (or .. expectedly..) left out.
I haven't found a single thing left out that's pertinent to actual development of the machine.
Epicenter posted on Dec 9 2006 at 11:06 PM said:
As I said at it prefers long feature lists to real thorough explanation.
I doubt you really read through it indepth.
Epicenter posted on Dec 9 2006 at 11:06 PM said:
While it is better than documentation provided to the public from Nintendo or Sony (they'd rather save such info for licensed developers, of course)
I was in fact referring to the documentation they give developers, which is often incomplete/inaccurate and with much worse English.
Epicenter posted on Dec 9 2006 at 11:06 PM said:
, it pales in comparison to documentation of SoCs by companies such as Samsung or Texas Instruments.
The documentation is meant for programmers, not engineers, and it contains everything necessary to program the machines. There's no point giving electrical or implementation information that is not needed to actually use it.
Epicenter posted on Dec 9 2006 at 11:06 PM said:
But suffice to say, I've delved enough into the machine, and what documentation does exist, and determined the functionality I require isn't there.
Yes, and this should have been plainly visible to you as soon as you first considered the platform, since the documentation was all there (and even if it were nothing but "feature lists" it doesn't claim to have any features that it lacks). Of course, you've claimed it lacks features that it actually has, like intra-surface blits (don't blame the machine if SDL doesn't support it) and solid color fills. But even if it lacks what you want, which I'm sure it does, it's not fair to fault it for that. It'd be just as fair to fault it for not having 3D acceleration. It's your problem that it doesn't have the features you want for developing your game, that doesn't mean they did anything wrong when developing it.
Epicenter posted on Dec 9 2006 at 11:06 PM said:
But no, apparently that's not good enough for you, and you need to pelt me with a deluge of words until I agree with your inane statements of mindless fanboyism and devout worship of the holy GP2X name. As long as it involves GPH/GP2X, you'll view the situation always through rose-colored glasses.
Say what? You're not talking to ME, are you? If so, have you completely lost your mind? I'm not even a GP2X developer, I don't even have a GP2X yet. I'm a
PSP developer, let me spell that out for you a little clearer because it seems you might have missed this fact. In no way do I think a platform like GP2X is without glaring flaws, it has its pros and cons though, and the fact that it lacks some of the things you want doesn't make it useless. What is a shame that people don't seem to be using the features it has that are actually heavily documented.
Besides that, who are you to talk about drowning people in words
Epicenter posted on Dec 9 2006 at 11:06 PM said:
I used to give them a lot of credit too, you can see it in my post history. But eventually reality set in. Maybe someday that happens for you too. Maybe not. I suspect it will, once a half-decent system similar to the GP2X comes along to topple this miserable heap of poorly-designed plastic and silicon from its ill-deserved throne. I personally don't need such an event to transpire to possess such perspective, it's a pity that you do.
Okay, you are way too critical and obsessed with this. By this thread it's obvious to me (and hopefully everyone else) that you have a vendetta against this
platform because of the bad experiences you've had with certain
people. Why don't you stop for a minute and ponder what's wrong with that. The way you carry on here I'd swear you thought every last person using GP2X is under a spell that you need to break them out of. The platform doesn't have the features you want and didn't meet your expectations. Fine. Obviously the same thing doesn't hold for everyone else, and you may not have realized this, but fancy 2D/3D acceleration and floating point performance aren't the key to success for absolutely every project, many games included. The 2D acceleration that the GP2X DOES give is 100% sufficient for developing simple games that don't rely on rotation/scaling and blending, which many actually don't. Besides that, GP2X mostly caters to emulators, and it looks like it does a pretty decent job with all of that. You don't like the fact that it has 2 CPUs, fine; obviously neither do a lot of people, but with some work they can be put to good effect.
What I really don't get is how you can be so hard on GP2X when you seem to be a GP32 fan. GP2X might not be perfect but it definitely improves upon GP32, which had almost no video hardware at all. The video acceleration hardware for GP2X is obviously useful when using the platform as a media player (which I'm sure many people do), and the 2D acceleration and dual CPUs would be useful if more people actually bothered to use them. Other than that, GP2X improves upon GP32 vastly by adding much more memory and utilizing a much cheaper/extensive memcard format. I could swear that you're just heavily biased against GPH, and biased towards GP. This is further evidenced by your statements that GP2X can never do PS1 at decent speed, while XGP Kids can probably do GBA fullspeed without problem..
Bottom line: you have personal issues here ;P