to all watch face creators in the group, why do you still use the clockskin format
here is the issues i found
all the feature is poorly documented, and confi file uses magic number insted of self-explainatory tags
lack of a modern editor(unless there is one i dont know)
features is very limited
inefficient use of files cause worse performance
compared to watchmaker format which is only composed of few basic object type but you can use wildcard everywhere and literaly run arbitrary code in the watchface, it gives much more freedom for development
I’ve created almost all of my watch faces in both the clockskin and .watch formats. I think the clockskin format offers a low-barrier entry point to watch face creation. Because it consists almost entirely of images, it’s very accessible for people with no programming experience whatsoever.
A good example is the popular moon phase: In the clockskin format, array type 19 is used in combination with 8 images. While the moon phase display in the “.watch” format is more precise, the required formula:
is certainly not readily understandable for every layperson.
I think the clockskin format has its merits, as it offers easy access for beginners without programming experience.
Furthermore, many users use their full Android watch with the stock launcher. Since these use the ClockSkin format, only custom faces available in this format can be used.
As you say, it’s an outdated method. It was just an easy way for basically anyone to create their own design watch faces. It’s basically historical and simple….but very inefficient.
As @G1NT0N1C said, I think a lot more people would move to a better solution if it was not complex for them to learn. I remember when Isicle designed a new launcher and a simple solution to convert existing clockskin format faces to the new format he adopted. Sadly, it never went anywhere, but it was very efficient and easy.
I guess the easy way to promote change is to provide a transition path including knowledge transfer. @AILIFE if you would like to have a category for your apps etc and another for new watch face design information.
By the way, are you using your own proprietary code for some watch faces, or are they basically from the watch face designer tools? Like @G1NT0N1C mentioned?
Anyway, the main point is that I can see how engaged you are and I strongly believe that there is a future for your work. I really want to support you in any way that I can. Including the development of future watch solutions (only if you are interested of course).
Currently, my friends in China have used quite a few Unisoc / Spreadtrum solutions, but unfortunately not the w537. I think that is the one that you have been focusing on? I have suggested that we should maybe look at this chipset very soon.
How would you like to get into the alps Android 15 code for MTK chips? I realise it is not what you have been used to, but once I have the git setup - you might find it interesting?
i could add the featre to convert clockskin into watchmaker in wftools
but i am already thinking about rewriting entire wftools as the current solution is not easy to exppand because it require none standard compiler
and i will prepare watchmaker editor for pc
the thing is, ease of use and customizeability is never on the same line
*w527
is very energy efficient and powerful enough for daily use
mtk power draw especially baseband is not suitable for a wearable and greatly increased bom cost
i primarily can provide system app solution but i have a team can do other things
Not sure what ancient watchmaker version are you using, the one I use is not latest either because can’t find crack and are too lazy to crack my self(and the latest have a bug the watch face can not change to square), but it already have {wmp} tag so no need for the math
