gene wrote:But that also gives me a bit of a headache: How can we make this fact clear to our users?
Maybe we should rename this data level back to sub-platform again, and add a fourth level beneath it for the true hardware model documentation. This fourth level doesn't need to be very sophisticated for now (i.e. name, picture, description), but people will understand everything better when it's there. And starting from this fourth level, we can later build our hardware documentation from the bottom up.
gene wrote:And how can even experts distinguish between a "HardwareModel" that we do want here and and a "wrong HardwareModel" ?
When I modelled the first HWP's here
, I already noticed that this is awfully complicated (Just take a look at the ARM world.). I think we just need to accept that fact. Modelling our GE's, HWP's and sub-platforms will be subject to many discussions, changes, try and error. When Oregami will start, there will be basically only experts around, but later we should offer a detailed onboarding experience for new users to introduce them to the depths of our data.
gene wrote:Are we really serious about entering emulator software as "Hardware Models" ? I do understand what you mean, but during development this seemed a bit strange to me.
It seemed like a natural fit to me, because if HardwareModels are defined for tracking game compatibility, this facility should be easily re-usable for emulator compatibility, so I thought. Problem here is that many emulators emulate more than one HWP, or HWP and SWP together like DOSbox, which boils down to m:n connections.
So I suggest we leave them out for now, and define later how to fit them in. Thinking about game preservation and such, emulators might even be too important to hide them so deep within our data model.
gene wrote:And: What about HardwareModels like the "C64 Mini" oder "SNES Mini" ? What type of HardwareModel are those? Do wa have to distinguish between "pure software emulator" and "specific hardware with included software emulator"?
We defined an additional attribute for emulator releases, so why not define something for emulator hardware, too?