sensors-swift VS RVS_BlueThoth

- Comes with ready-to-use models and textures

To generate roads, I downloaded .gpx files from my Strava activities, then implemented a parser to take coordinates and elevations and build roads in-game using EasyRoads3D. These tools combined worked quite well but required some manual work. I had to go over the entire length of the road to smoothen it up (due to GPS noise in .gpx files). The terrain also didn’t always perfectly align with the road, so I had to manually modify it.

I figured that steering would be a good way to keep the user engaged in the gameplay, instead of just sitting on the bike and pedalling. With required steering, you need to be engaged to not drive off the road.

There are some solutions to virtual steering in other smart trainer games, but they are hardware-based - e.g., for Zwift, you need to buy their hardware controller. I really wanted to keep it as simple and inexpensive as possible, so I used a smartphone mounted to the handlebars as a steering controller.

I implemented native apps for both iOS and Android. They use the gyroscope to get the steering value and broadcast it as a BLE peripheral. Implementing Bluetooth in Unity was a little tricky as there is no built-in solution. The implementation depends on the platform the game is running on. It boils down to writing a native plugin for each platform you support.

For macOS, there is an open-source library written in Swift - https://github.com/codeinversion/sensors-swift. It already has the necessary services and characteristics implemented. I had to modify it a little and compile it into a Unity plugin.

For Windows, there also is a library - https://github.com/adabru/BleWinrtDll, but it wasn’t working too well. Because I targeted UWP, I was able to implement my own Bluetooth logic in C# and compile it directly in Unity.

Overall, it was a really fun project to work on. I’m particularly happy that I was able to release it starting from scratch in just a couple of months, and I hope to continue working on it.

I generally have a “What Problem Does This Solve?” section in my READMEs.

https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/LGV_TZ_Lookup#what-probl...

https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/LGV_MeetingServer#what-p...

https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_Spinner#what-probl...

https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_BlueThoth#what-pro...

https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_PersistentPrefs#wh...

etc.

> I had one developer take 6 months to build a (relatively simple) top nav for a web app. This shouldn't have taken more than 1-2 weeks, even with a careful eye for detail.

Oh, you mean "bikeshedding."

Here's an example of the difference between basic quality, and High Quality:

If you look at most of the repos for SPM modules in my portfolio[0], you'll see that the vast majority have test harnesses. I prefer using test harnesses[1].

These test harnesses tend to be pretty damn robust apps. Many are "ready for app store" robust. A lot of folks would just publish them, "as is." I've been writing apps for a very long time. I'm fairly good at this.

I can write a fairly good test harness, with full app capabilities, in less than a day. If I take the time to localize it, maybe add a day or so.

Here's an example of some test harnesses[2]. Note that there are four of them. These represent the four different target environments for Apple (iOS/iPadOS, WatchOS, TVOS, and MacOS). I'll probably need to fork iOS and iPadOS, in the future, but we're not there, yet. A single codebase is still good for both.

They test a Bluetooth framework[3].

It probably took me around a week or so, to write each one. They are pretty damn good. I think they are all "App Store ready."

I decided to actually go ahead, and create a set of apps, based on these[4], [5], [6].

I spent well over a month, on each, after merging over the test harness codebases, to make them ready for the App Store. Lots of UX testing, removing code that only applied to testing, and adding "friendlier" user interface.

I'm working on an app that I started about a year ago. Actually, I started it over ten years ago, if you include the two servers that I wrote, upon which it depends.

One of the reasons that it has taken so long, is that I have truncated months of work, and tossed them in the garbage, because they were not the proper way to go. I have an "evolutionary design" process[7], that means this can happen. I plan for it. I've probably shitcanned three months' of work.

Another thing that I do, is have an "always beta" approach to Quality. I maintain the product at "incomplete, but ship Quality" status for as much of the project as possible. In fact, I've been sharing it with the team, using TestFlight, since Oct 3, 2020 at 7:47 AM (I got that from the TestFlight metadata).

That means that the app has been stable and robust enough for user testing, and approval for basic App Store release (TestFlight External Testing is a more relaxed standard, but try pushing out a crasher, and see how far that goes).

I add localization support, accessibility, Dark Mode support, leak testing, etc., at every turn. It's very useful, because I can solicit immediate feedback from non-tech team members. It also means that the "basics" for App Store release are constantly being tested and validated.

Even more useful, if we want to ask for money, it's dam easy. We just loop the person we're begging from, into the TestFlight External Tester pool, and they can run the app without a Marketing chaperone, or sacrifices to the demo gods. We can also get valuable feedback from them.

It's really, really nice, and it has been, for many months.

I feel like we are now at a "starting point." Even though it has been a fully-functioning, release-ready app for the last couple of months, it need the "MVP treatment," where the testing pool is expanded, and we start applying it to "in the wild" scenarios.

Lots of companies use their customers as guinea pigs for the first several releases; usually by shoving baling-wire-and-duct-tape junk down their throats (and making them pay for it), before hitting their stride. It's a deliberate strategy. Some months ago, I read a post, here by a founder, declaring that "if you don't get physically sick at the quality of the code in your MVP, then you are spending too much time on the code quality."

Basically, deliberately write garbage, and force it on your users.

One of the reasons that I took on this project, was the founder is a friend of mine. He is running it as an NPO (501c3), and putting his own money into it. He doesn't really have much of it, to begin with. Also, more alarmingly, he didn't actually have a particularly good idea of what, exactly, he wanted the app to be. That's a recipe for disaster.

He asked me to help him vet some development shops he was approaching, to realize his vision.

It was eye-opening. He got a number of ridiculous quotes. I know what is necessary for this type of project (not small). For example, when one said that they'll deliver a full multi-server, multi-client app for MVP in three months (firm), upon getting a vague, hand-wavy requirements spec, it was hard for me to keep a straight face.

After a few of these, I just got disgusted, and said "Screw this. I'll do it." I've been developing it for free, as a native iOS/iPadOS app.

He has to pinch himself.

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/story/chrismarshall

[1] https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/testing-harness-vs-u...

[2] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_BlueThoth/tree/mas...

[3] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_BlueThoth

[4] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blue-van-clef-for-mobile/id151... (iOS -Includes Watch app)

[5] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blue-van-clef/id1529005127 (Mac)

[6] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blue-van-clef-for-tv/id1529181... (TV)

[7] https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/evolutionary-design-...