My version of Prisma Puzzle Timer has drifted quite a ways from where you guys are at now. It will take some effort to bring me back up to date.
And if you're interested in any changes I've made, here's the latest version. Most of my recent efforts have been in improving the Fridrich PLL practice:
http://brannenworks.com/Gravity/CarlPLL.jar
Changes that I can recall:
Added "worst" messages.
Added "oops" button: I don't use "inspection" on PLL practice so I don't know if I've screwed up a scramble until after I've hit the spacebar. Oops stops the timer and returns to the "ready" state. It also works with inspection.
Added averages for 72, 100, and 1152.
Added code so that PLL scrambles include random cube orientation. This way I'm not always starting with green pointed towards me.
Changed PLL scramble so that it is non random. There are 72x4x4 = 1152 possible PLL situations, counting cube orientation, so it goes through all 1152 before repeating any situation. The next 1152 come in a different order so you don't get used to seeing one situation following another.
Added code to keep track of your PLL times by PLL, i.e. Aa, Ab, H, U, Ga, etc.
Added code to show your best mean and worst times by PLL (from the most recent 1152 PLL solves).
Added code to show your 4 most recent times with exactly that situation.
Added code for averages over 12 so that they are kept to higher accuracy (i.e. 0.00000 instead of 0.00).
The PLL code shows up as a separate window like "history". You put it off center on the screen and can look down to see how good your last few solves were, compared to your previous solves and compared to the average over all orientations (and U rotations) for that PLL type.
Once you've done more than 1152 PLL scrambles you have a full set of all possible orientations. So from then on it computes your average PLL as taken over the most recent times over all the 1152 situations. This vastly reduces the variance; i.e. you can't get a low PLL time by getting a bunch of easy scrambles like "U2".
There's a bunch of more things I'd like to do:
Right now the solver is really slow on "E" solves. Eventually this means that I know what the next scramble is going to be. And I used to start scrambling with the previous scramble which was really annoying. So I added some code to gray-out the scramble after you start timing. To fix this I'm going to have to learn something about the solver.
I'm probably going to add some code to compute how much a given PLL is adding to your average PLL time. For instance, I'm very slower on the Na than the T, but I know that I'll improve my times a lot more by memorizing a T algorithm as you get four T's for every Na. I'd like that code to include times for expert 2-look and 1-look times so it can show which situations have the most room for improvement. When I get the code professional enough, I'll add a thread and ask members of the community to use the program to compute and share their average times for the various PLL cases. (That is, their times including recognition, as opposed to just their finger speed times.) Then a user will know exactly where he stands compared to others.
I'd also like to add code to the solver so that it doesn't always give the same scramble for the given situation. This would help me to rely on the cube rather than getting accustomed to the scrambling sequences.
I'm unsatisfied with the scrolling. I probably broke something and need to learn how to fix it.
The 3x3x3 scrambler always leaves the cube in the usual white/green orientation. It's easy to add some code to randomize the cube orientation. There are 24 cases, so just spit one of the sequences out. I.e. {y,y2,y', x,x2,x', x y,...}. I should add this but right now I'm not practicing 3x3 much.
When I get to improving my OLL times I'll undoubtedly want to add some code for that.
I'd like to add some code to help compute splits. The way this will work is that you have to hit the space-bar multiple times per solve. For Fridrich, the first will be your cross time. The next your F2L time. Then OLL then PLL. This way you can get nice averages for your splits. A disadvantage for this is that there will still be a lot of variance due to differences in OLL and PLL cases, but surely we'll get better numbers than when we ask people to just guess their splits. I haven't given this a lot of thought yet.