|
|
#21
05-03-2005, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: PlayerView/GameTime+ Alternative
[ QUOTE ]
Only support one database (PostgreSQL is around the corner). It won't be much more work to support multiple databases. It keeps it backwards compatible with older versions of PT too. [/ QUOTE ] I think supporting multiple databases may be more trouble than it is worth, especially with a flexible/user-defined query. Perhaps my concerns are easily fixed, but here they are: If the SQL query calculates PFR multiple queries must be combined weighted by pre-flop observations. If it calculates turn aggression, it must be weighted by turn observations. If the query doesn't calculate these items, then there needs to be another facility for users to define the calculations. Good luck with the development. 
|
|
#23
05-03-2005, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PlayerView/GameTime+ Alternative
[ QUOTE ]
Ideally avoid .Net and Java. C++ is really the best way for this app which has to make so many calls to system dll's. [/ QUOTE ] http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...l/win32map.asp Get a clue newb.
|
|
#25
05-03-2005, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PlayerView/GameTime+ Alternative
PM kross and ask him directly, or go to his forums.
|
|
#26
05-03-2005, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PlayerView/GameTime+ Alternative
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ideally avoid .Net and Java. C++ is really the best way for this app which has to make so many calls to system dll's. [/ QUOTE ] http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...l/win32map.asp Get a clue newb. [/ QUOTE ] This would have been a better article. I'll pull out some of the important parts. [ QUOTE ] In this column, I'll tackle Windows hooks from the perspective of .NET applications and discuss how to build .NET Framework wrapper classes for them. Before continuing, I should point out that a managed C++ approach would be more straightforward, if your project allows for it. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The .NET Framework provides no built-in facilities or infrastructure to handle hooks. Right now, hooks are considered merely a special breed of callback functions and their implementation is left to P/Invoke (the .NET Framework infrastructure to call unmanaged APIs residing in the underlying operating system). [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In other words, don't wait for the hooks to be implemented in the .NET Framework. It could take a while because of the nontrivial implications they'd have, due to the architectural changes introduced in the transition from Win32 to the .NET virtual machine. [/ QUOTE ] In my reading it seems that you can choose to use hooks in .NET and work hard to overcome the obstacles that nature of .NET puts in your way, or you can do this in C++ more easily. I imagine if you don't use hooks, it wouldn't be that much of an issue.
|
|
#28
05-03-2005, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Crossposted from the Zoo
This is freaking hilarious. I am also a developer and see the price for PV as quite acceptable. This has been a one man project with an extremely limited market. I would love to know exactly how much time Amir has devoted to PV. After providing support, updates, new feature since last October.. I would be suprised if it was less then a few hundred hours. Selling a thousand thousand copies, to make 50k (pretax) is peanuts, considering the amount of work he will have to put in to keep it up, add new poker room support, deal with PT modifiacations etc etc etc...
Good luck with your imitation. The way I see it, 1 of 3 things will happen: 1) You start work on this a realize how much time and effort it will require and then realize that you will be giving it away and it becomes "vaporware". 2) You scratch out a vastly inferior product with no updates or support and no one cares or uses it. 3) You make a kick ass, superior application that everyone loves and can't live without, and you realize that you deserve to make at least $50k for the amount of time and ingenuity you put into it for the 1000 or so copies you could potentially sell.
|
|
#29
05-03-2005, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Feature request
If you are smart you will charge an extremely low price for it. If it is good, and i mean really good (better than gametime, which is free), most people would be more than happy to pay something like $5 for it. I can't imagine any of us not buying something of that quality because of that price. You would get payed for your efforts, and we would get a kick tushy program.
A few suggestions on the program itself: Make sure it has the hole card function, that is super cool. Auto detect tables Make it so that it updates fequently. I hated that PV would only update every 5 mins. But only as long as it doesnt bog down the comp. A pot odds calculator for those of use who dont have the time to figure it while mulitabling.
|
|
#30
05-03-2005, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Feature request
[ QUOTE ]
If you are smart you will charge an extremely low price for it. If it is good, and i mean really good (better than gametime, which is free), most people would be more than happy to pay something like $5 for it [/ QUOTE ] LOL what a cheapskate. Are you serious? How big a market do you think there is in this software? If you sold 1,000 copies which is probably a lot for the small subset of online poker players that would use this application, you make $5,000, and commit yourself to having to help 1,000 incompetent low limt players with support and diotic questions daily, and then keep the cheapskates happy by continously adding new features for free. They expect that because they paid their $5, and should not have to pay for upgrades. Oh, and dont forget to give Uncle Sam his 25% and Neteller or Paypal their 5% of those $5 transactions. Or you could pay for credit card proccesing and pay Visa 2% plus another 2k in setting up and SSL certs... Yeah, a $5 program, thats the "smart thing" to do.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
