Database Info

[Q] crazy idea about porting halo

ive just realised something. halo ce's minimum requirements are 800mhz processor and geforce 2 gtx and 256mb of ram. a lot of phones have more processing power than that (im mainly thinking about tegra 2 phones like the atrix)
So aside from the direct x issue would it be possible to port halo ce onto android?

thre3aces said:
ive just realised something. halo ce's minimum requirements are 800mhz processor and geforce 2 gtx and 256mb of ram. a lot of phones have more processing power than that (im mainly thinking about tegra 2 phones like the atrix)
So aside from the direct x issue would it be possible to port halo ce onto android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...
thre3aces said:
...aside from the direct x issue...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is kind of a big issue, but maybe. It would have to run as a native application, and it would need to be ported to run on openglES, It would also involve a lot of refactoring to make a java-based interface to the game.
Possible... maybe with the source code, and some talented devs.
Not likely to be coming soon, and then there is the whole IP issue on top of the difficulty of the porting... I know I value my sanity too much to work on such a project.

Not likely. You may think that our current processors are more powerful, but that's not necessarily true. Watt for watt they are, but those non mobile x86 processors run many more instructions than these mobile chips. Also porting a game in x86 to ARM is a massive undertaking, not really worth it.
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using XDA App

ive recently started a thread here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1195712
wouldnt this help if the interface is java-based?

Yay I have a atrix
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App

This is relevant to my interests. I was wondering why a Diablo 2 style game couldn't be tried. I know my phone far overpowers my old pc. Lol

There are two main technological hurdles to overcomes when porting games from consoles/PC to a mobile platform are:
1. CPU Performance
Just because a ARM CPU has a higher clock-rate than a non-low-power CPU doesn't mean that it is more powerful. ARM is a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) CPU which means that it is ideal for low-power limited memory devices. However some operations that could be completed in one clock-cycle on an X86 CPU may take two or more clock-cycles an ARM CPU.
Even when comparing ARM CPUs to RISC PPC CPUs included in game consoles, the PPC CPUs tend to implement optimisations that aren't available in mobile ARM CPUs.
2. Graphics
As previously mentioned the main problem is that console and PC games are all developed with OpenGL (or possibly DirectX) not OpenGL ES. Whilst OpenGL ES 2.0 does have support for programmable shaders it's still very limiting compared to what can be achieved with OpenGL (even old versions).
Other Issues
There are also other issues due to the limited (or different) input mechanisms available to mobile device. The smaller physically sized screens are also potentially a issue even if resolutions are similar.

yea ive taken that into account and i know that arm CPUs are slower than an intel/amd counterpart despite higher clock speed. but surely a 1ghz dual core arm cortex a8 is faster than a 800mhz intel cpu.
the open gl thing was something i completely forgot about and know that you mention it i think the whole idea may not be possible. BUT i found this on wiki "PowerVR's Series5 SGX series features pixel, vertex, and geometry shader hardware, supporting OpenGL 2.0 and DirectX 10.1 Shader Model 4.1".
maybe it is still possible.
the screen size is another big issue. but maybe it will be ok on a tablet like the zoom.

We need to start looking into this again
Qualcomm will be releasing the snapdragon 810 soon it supports direct X, is x64, and has 2.7+ghz I think porting pc games is becoming much more of a reality and I would love for someone to give me a reason ditch my pc for gaming

I'd hate to re revive but since android practically is Linux, couldn't we focus on wine for android? That would not only allow people to install direct x in the first place on android phones and tabs but also open up many many possibilities such as a PC version of steam for android. A fun way of this could be taking advantage of Samsung's multi window support. But yes there is no halo for android before wine. Once wine is existant there will be PC on android. And Gabe's 3 will be comfirmed.

I have DREAMED of Halo in my pocket, and this is why I started developing. I thought I could put in the hours to at least get it off to a good start and get people involved. Here are the main issues, and the reasons that I (and I bet any others who have tried) eventually gave up.
It's been pointed out the difference in processing and graphics. X86 processors just run many more instructions than mobile processors. Mobile processors are catching up, and have been more powerful for a long time, but even if one runs a comparitively adequate number of instructions it still communicates differently with graphics processors and ram etc. This alone is intimidating because means that the entire game would have to be redone from scratch and the assets either stolen (yikes) or a partnership arranged with Microsoft.
Enter Microsoft. I love ole Mikey Soft I do, but they are defensive about their Halo. They recently made it almost impossible to install a fan project rework of Halo 1 CE. Any attempts to port to Android would be met with similar treatment. *Cough* they don't trust fans, but they gave Master Chief to 343, killed Cortana, and then made her evil.* That was a long cough. In their defense they have probably not pursued this because of the last point here: porr end product = poor user experience.
So processor, graphics, Mike, and finally porting itself. Borderlands 2 was recently ported onto an arm (mobile) processor. I bought a PS Vita+BL2 bundle specifically to see if I could learn anything about porting other pc games, like Halo. If you've played it you know that it is AWESOME, but has a great deal of glitches, frame rate drops, and even later loading textures than the PC/console version. To be fair I'm SHOCKED that BL2 and all its dlc run as well as it does on Vita. Bravo yo!
My conclusion was that it would have to be completely remade which would require using assets from a zealously guarded IP, and if a partnership was struck the final product would likely be extremely hard to optimize leaving all of us nostalgic fans with dissapointment as we are trying to launch each other to the top of blood gulch but run into such low fps that we can't coordinate the required wart hoggery. This is also why there are several Halo-ish games on Android. It's tough to Port, but much easier to imitate. Sad pandasaurus.

sorry to revive an older thread but heres an apk. i found however its in Spanish if someone can change the language it would be great.

[Q] Why our generation cant support WP8?

I dont understand much about the architecture of software, im asking this because i dont get it, why the processors of our devices cant understand the new kernel and the instructions of WP8. in my head, its exacly the same saying that our pc desktops processors couldnt run the new Windows 8. i would like to know what are the barriers in this case. So guys, what they would be in your opinion?

This was posted by a dude on Reddit.
Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft. But not on Windows Phone.
Windows Phone 7 was built on top of Windows CE kernel (the same as Windows Mobile, and for those who are young enough to remember, Pocket PC and Windows CE Handhelds - this was in 1997).
Windows Phone 8 is moving to NT kernel, the same one as your desktop operating system is using. NT kernel requires radically different hardware - specificaly, TLB mappings in pre-v7 ARM CPU contained logical addresses and this does not work very well on symmetric multiprocessor OS.
So older ARM CPUs did not work with NT kernel, and move to the different OS kernel required radical redesign of the OS. Also, of course the desktop/server OS kernel requires significantly more RAM.
With the large generational shifts it is not uncommon for OS to lose compatibility with old software. These shifts do not happen very often, but they do happen.
For example, Windows NT did not support PCs with 286 CPUs (which were rather common when it shipped), or with less than 12MB RAM (something that is easily upgradeable on a PC, but much more difficult with the phone). Similarly, Windows NT 3.5 dropped support for 386 family entirely.
For Microsoft to have, as you call it, "foresight", it would probably have to drop Windows Phone 7 altogether and go to NT-kernel based solution. It would not have made Phone 8 to appear any faster, however - it would just have lost 2 years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/vdjwe/designed_to_fail_all_windows_phone_7_handsets/c53rh01
I think that answers your question.

Beautifuly!!! Thanks!!

m125 said:
This was posted by a dude on Reddit.
I think that answers your question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This answer is a complete bull****! MS already run NT kernel on the arm cpus for a years! This guy is referred to the "desktop" kernel but of course Apollo/WinRT/ (whatever the MS ****heads will call it in the future) has a different (from the desktop OS-es) kernel.
What the "older arm cpu" he's mentioned about??? Nokia Lumia 900 has Qualcomm APQ8055 Snapdragon cpu (google or wiki for that). What the hell "pre-arm"???
Sorry, it's not an explanation, just a stupid bull**** from ignoramus. He definitely needs a "radical redesign" of his brain

Oh c'mon, if our CPUs were the same old Qualcomms from Android 1.6 days I would believe it, but they are last-gen Snapdragons, goddamit!
I'm pretty sure Microsoft could support it as easy as adding two drivers, but it won't. Specially since all phones are the exact same hardware, with WP7.

The point about TLB mappings might be valid... if it weren't for the fact that these are all single-CPU, single-core processors (in WP7 devices). There's no need for a kernel to support SMP. In fact, you don't *want* a SMP kernel on such a processor; there are performance optimizations you can make for single-hardware-thead systems.
Historically, Microsoft has actually shipped two copies (per architecture) of the NT kernel on their desktop OS install media, one for SMP and one for single-core. The installer would use the correct one for the hardware. There is no technical reason that they couldn't do similar with WP8, shipping one NT kernel for single-core phones (which would be able to run on ARM v6) and one for multi-core (which would require ARM v7).
As for the RAM issue, that's a red herring. The RAM requirements of a basic MinWin system are far below the half-gig of WP7 devices. Even adding the phone's extra libraries and user interface, it should still be possible to implement msot if not all of the software features of WP8 while leaving a comfortable overhead for running and app or two at a time (that being all that WP7 officially allows anyhow).
@sensboston: The first that I'd heard of Microsoft running NT on ARM was 2010, when multi-core ARM v7 was already available.
Actually, I agree that the guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about; according to Wikipedia (unreliable but in this case I see no reason to expect incorrectness), the Snapdragon processors use the ARM v7 instruction set anyhow.

@GoodDayToDie, last two days I've heard a lot of very different (but all BS and incompetent) explanations from MS employees... Seems like guys in marketing department don't have enough engineering knowledge, and can't announce any realistic-looking reason. But may be they don't have to: for general public some unknown "martian" words like "TLB mapping", "GDT and IDT" etc. sounds very "reasonable"

guilhermedsx said:
Oh c'mon, if our CPUs were the same old Qualcomms from Android 1.6 days I would believe it, but they are last-gen Snapdragons, goddamit!
I'm pretty sure Microsoft could support it as easy as adding two drivers, but it won't. Specially since all phones are the exact same hardware, with WP7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really agree with that!! how loudly do we have to yell? But in my point of view nothing about it will be done, microsoft need money and need for yesterday, and yes they will sacrificate the poor white sheeps (that would be us) and watch them bleed just to launch "a completely new OS" that our phones "doesnt support".

[Q] Combines SGS III Mali Drivers from Kernel with RK3188 Kernel

Howdy all,
I am a bit new around here but I stay pretty busy on some other forums and I run a site called rockchipfirmare.com. I don't consider myself a developer in the true sense of the word but rather I mix-n-mash roms primarily without getting into too much actual coding.
So I have a question that is slightly out of my league and I am hoping someone with a bit more knowledge can lend a hand.
I have two chipsets in front of me.
One is the Samsung Exynost 4412 (Quad-Core A9 with Mali-400 MP4 gpu)
The other is a Rockchip RK3188 (Quad-Core A9 with Mali-400 MP4 gpu)
Basically, I have noticed that Exynos pretty much runs EVERYTHING just a little bit smoother than the RK3188 does, even though the RK3188 actually does better in most synthetic benchmarks.
I think it -might- be a driver optimization issue as I am sure Samsung does a heck of a lot more with their drivers than Rockhip. I also suspect that the Mali-400 GPU in the RK3188 is running at a lower clock than Rockchip claims. Thus far I haven't found a way to figure out what the GPU specifically is clocked at.
Anyhow, here is my question....
Would it be possible to get the Samsung Mali drivers from the Siyah kernel and import them into the RK3188 kernal for a specific device?
I think I have most of the tools to do so already as I can unpack and repack boot images for the RK3188. Although I never have gotten into the extracted kernel image.
I guess I am asking if I should spend time on the above or whether it is a fools errand and if I do spend time on it what exactly am I looking to get from the SIyah kernel once I get into it?
Any thoughts our help someone would like to throw my way are most welcome.
Kind Regards,
Roman

Would be wonderful if someone can do this

Well, that is what I am try to learn, how to combine different modules drivers.
If the module is compile with the same kernel version (Linux 3.0.36), then maybe it could work.
How is going so far? I really would like to learn about that to be able to recollect all the modules for different RK3188 tablets and the be able to recompile new version of the kernel.
I am going to start playing with a PIPO M6 but any help will be much appreciated.
Note: If the GPU driver are integrated in the kernel I don't know you are going to be able to use them, as you cannot build a complete kernel for your RK8188 tablet.
For mali, the source code is open source and it can be found at http://malideveloper.arm.com/develo...source-mali-gpus-linux-kernel-device-drivers/

Overclock ?

Have anyone tried to overclock the shield tablet?

First off there is really no need. It is the fastest tablet on the market currently. Secondly you would need a custom kernel with overclocking built in. No one has done a kernel yet.
Sent from my VS985 4G using XDA Premium HD app

nrage23 said:
First off there is really no need. It is the fastest tablet on the market currently. Secondly you would need a custom kernel with overclocking built in. No one has done a kernel yet.
Sent from my VS985 4G using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"It is the fastest tablet on the market currently" WITH Android. There are tablets with Windows and Intel Core i7 and a better GPU than the one of K1. Price is extortionate, yes.

perfectslim said:
"It is the fastest tablet on the market currently" WITH Android. There are tablets with Windows and Intel Core i7 and a better GPU than the one of K1. Price is extortionate, yes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly i'm not so sure about those i7s. Look again and you'll see that they all have a "U" at the end of the model number. That denotes that it's an ultrabook version of the i7, not the normal version you're used to seeing on the desktop. Also, those all use embedded intel graphics chips. I'm not necessarily saying one is less/more powerful, but that it's a lot less straightforward than it might seem.

djuniah said:
Honestly i'm not so sure about those i7s. Look again and you'll see that they all have a "U" at the end of the model number. That denotes that it's an ultrabook version of the i7, not the normal version you're used to seeing on the desktop. Also, those all use embedded intel graphics chips. I'm not necessarily saying one is less/more powerful, but that it's a lot less straightforward than it might seem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel's embedded graphics have impoved, but they are still pretty poor compared to a gpu (in most reasonable cases). Even my desktop i5's embedded I wouldn't use for anything more than watching a video. My laptops core2duo can't really even do that lol. The mobile/ultrabook versions of the i7s have a much wider range of cpu's and specs and many aren't very powerful, so I agree on it not being so clear on performance capabilities.
I haven't had any issues with the K1 so far that I felt it needed to be overclocked. It will probably be a little bit before you see tons of extra's like that anyway because there aren't a lot of people developing for this right now and there are other things that need work.

djuniah said:
Honestly i'm not so sure about those i7s. Look again and you'll see that they all have a "U" at the end of the model number. That denotes that it's an ultrabook version of the i7, not the normal version you're used to seeing on the desktop. Also, those all use embedded intel graphics chips. I'm not necessarily saying one is less/more powerful, but that it's a lot less straightforward than it might seem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The K1 is almost as fast as an Intel HD 4000 (3DMark), but the 4400 and 5000 in new Intel chips are definitely much better. CPU-wise, there is no comparison in both single-core and multi-core performance. Obviously there is a huge price difference though.

How to do Virtualization on Android

Disclaimer: This is an open discussion thread for How to do virtualization on Android! It's not a reference or guide! But hope this thread can lead us towards making a way to do it!
Intro: Once phones was a tiny piece of electronic device which was mainly used to talk and sending text messages! (I am talking about mobile phones off course! )
Then here comes smartphones like the symbian one and then iphones and Android!
They opened a lot more way to do on a device rather than only talking or texting!
But still we needed to rely on laptops or desktops to do extensive tasks which we couldn't do (yet) on smartphones!
The main reason was the lack of technology or the memory and processing power limitations on these device!
I remember I bought my first Redmi 2 at a cost of 200$ back in April 2015 which featured quadcore Qualcomm processor, 1GB of RAM and 8 GB of internal storage space!
But now the time has changed! Technology advanced exponentially! After 3 years of my first Xiaomi device, I bought another one (Mi A1) with almost the same price! Whuch features double (on the basis of cores) processors and 4X RAM and 8X internal spaces!
In the mean time on the mainstream computing counterpart, virtualization technology becomes so popular that if not all but most of the servers runs based on it! We have also docker now!
We can now use or test any software/OS on any device (mainstream computers off course) by the grace of virtualization!
On the other hand, Android devs still needs to do the hard work to port ROMs let the OS itself! And yet we can't run Windows on a Android device!
But wait! Android is also a Linux! Isn't it?
So, if Linux can run QUEMU/KVM, why not Android?
And most of the Android SOCs now are 64bit!
So, can't we just make it happen? Can't we just find a way to do virtualization and run any OS on a virtual environment right in our hand?
May be!
I don't know if any guys working on this or not!
But here's how to:
1) Enable virtualization support on kernel
2) Make an apps for Android for manging the virtual machines (like VirtualBox, VMWare etc.)
I think the Android kernels (most of them) supports virtualization already!
The hardest part is to make it compatible with the frontend Android! Which brings the apps and interfaces!
I know there's wine exist for Android! But that's just a complete different thing what I am talking about!
And I wasnt able to run wine on my tissot (Xiaomi Mi A1)!
Thanks everyone who is reading!
Give your valuable opinion and ideas!
Hope someone like @CosmicDan can make it!

ARMv8 (every phone) doesn't have hardware virtualisation extensions, so it would be as slow as emulation.
For that, we already have QEMU and KVM. But it's too slow to be of any practical use.
If you want proper virtualisation, you need ARMv8.1, which no phone has.

CosmicDan said:
ARMv8 (every phone) doesn't have hardware virtualisation extensions, so it would be as slow as emulation.
For that, we already have QEMU and KVM. But it's too slow to be of any practical use.
If you want proper virtualisation, you need ARMv8.1, which no phone has.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm! I just realised the hardest part: it's ARM and not x86_64!

ProttoyX said:
Hmm! I just realised the hardest part: it's ARM and not x86_64!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's emulation, not virtualisation.
You can use QEMU, Bochs or DOSBox to emulate x86 (x86_64 is probably impossible, idk but it's pointless to try). But it's dog slow and always will be.

CosmicDan said:
That's emulation, not virtualisation.
You can use QEMU, Bochs or DOSBox to emulate x86 (x86_64 is probably impossible, idk but it's pointless to try). But it's dog slow and always will be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm! Got it! This thing came into my mind when I was reading about servers based on ARM! Wondered if they provides virtualization/container service or not! And ARM provides more cores than x86_64! I guess it's it's related to RISC/CISC thing! Not sure though!
ARM servers uses ARMv8.1?
AND PLEASE DON'T MIND ABOUT ENDING EVERY SENTENCE WITH (!)! PLEASE!
No one can always be rude! ?
I am surely not!
Again thanks for what you’ve done for the tissot and other staffs! You are genius! ?

ProttoyX said:
Hmm! Got it! This thing came into my mind when I was reading about servers based on ARM! Wondered if they provides virtualization/container service or not! And ARM provides more cores than x86_64! I guess it's it's related to RISC/CISC thing! Not sure though!
ARM servers uses ARMv8.1?
AND PLEASE DON'T MIND ABOUT ENDING EVERY SENTENCE WITH (!)! PLEASE!
No one can always be rude! ?
I am surely not!
Again thanks for what you’ve done for the tissot and other staffs! You are genius! ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes those ARM servers would be 8.1. It's not so much a RISC vs CISC thing but more an SoC vs CPU thing. Our devices are SoC's - sure they have many GHz and cores but they're still a lot slower that a proper CPU which has countless of extensions designed for accelerating tasks, and have more IPC capability and other such things (in short GHz/core count is comparable across different platforms or architectures, it's more relative than that). Our SoC's simply don't have those extensions that would make this feasible.

CosmicDan said:
ARMv8 (every phone) doesn't have hardware virtualisation extensions, so it would be as slow as emulation.
For that, we already have QEMU and KVM. But it's too slow to be of any practical use.
If you want proper virtualisation, you need ARMv8.1, which no phone has.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every ARMv8,and even ARMv7 has.On v8 it's called EL2 while on v7 it's HYP mode.However the biggest headache is that most SoC vendors do not allow users to enter it even with bootloader unlock.
On Qualcomm there are no way except a low level powerful exploit. On Exynos it is possible,needs a specific SMC to trustzone,and can be done only with an unlocked bootloader with custom kernel.

fxsheep said:
Every ARMv8,and even ARMv7 has.On v8 it's called EL2 while on v7 it's HYP mode.However the biggest headache is that most SoC vendors do not allow users to enter it even with bootloader unlock.
On Qualcomm there are no way except a low level powerful exploit. On Exynos it is possible,needs a specific SMC to trustzone,and can be done only with an unlocked bootloader with custom kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
do you have any references links on this? maybe a cve for the qualcomm exploit?