How many of you guys HATE using C2?

Interesting that these two comments below showed up next to each other... try this... make a new capx that does NOT use the solid behavior and code one yourself in C2 events that runs every tick which checks for overlapping rectangles and pushes any rectangle that crosses back out one pixel so it does not overlap... this will show you that it is just Logic and both code and C2 events are just Logic...and that you can either use Behaviors (code components) for speed or make your own with Logic if they do not have all the features you want.

[quote:1jj44w39]@megatronx

That's why instead of long events I break them in to smaller parts, put them in to separate event sheets and chain them with functions most of the time. Much easier to find an issue if there is one.

But what pisses me off about construct is that I just can not do certain things with events. Like the infamous solid behavior limitations.

[quote:1jj44w39]

Tokinsom

Far as I'm concerned, the behaviors and all the built in stuff are to blame. Most other engines have you make your own platform engines and such, as well as level editors, data tools, etc. With C2 you don't really learn much of anything...so if you start with C2 you'll likely always be a "noob". Not to say I don't appreciate behaviors and all, but ultimately we'd be better off with more features to make our own exactly how we want..

Sure C2 can teach some very high level programming concepts. I meant you don't learn how to do a lot of things yourself which in turn make you a better programmer and more confident in your abilities. Like...probably half of the feature requests I see are for things you can already do with events, but people don't even realize it because they rely so heavily on behaviors and never learned the code. The solid exception feature megatronx just brought up is a great example. People using other engines have already made that feature themselves decades ago with no trouble whatsoever...meanwhile we've been begging for Ashley to add it to the behaviors for 2 years now.

And sure you can still make your own behaviors with events but I bet you half this community doesn't know how because no one posts that sort of thing...they too just use the behaviors. Thus they are forever stuck in that "noob" phase and limited to the behaviors feature sets.

I just saw you stated the same thing a little later.

My question is why do people not spend the time to do this? Events is just as much a part of C2 as Behaviors.

In the game I spent the past year on I wanted a cross between physics behavior and platform behavior... everyone said "those two do not work well together"... well I spent about four weekends learning to MAKE them work together with events... I learned a lot about C2 during that process and I MADE the computer do what I wanted it to do... and that is how I got good at computer programming back in the 1980s... I refused to let the computer win... Logic + Problem Solving + Trial & Error + Experience + Bull headedness?

ANYONE can become a very good computer programmer by refusing to let a problem beat them... by time they get it figured out and working they have learned a lot and have become better for the next problem.

The biggest thorn in my foot, its complicated math, i dont know how you guys would use sin() , cubic(a, b, c, d, x), qarp(a, b, c, x) etc

i still have problem with lerp and clamp

Math is just another Logic language like coding.

Start simple. Make a capx whose only purpose is to use sin or cubic to move something around and look up simple examples on the internet and recreate them inside C2.... do it over and over until it clicks in your heard what it is doing... after first getting it to work play around with the inputs (a,b,c,d,x) and see how they change the output.

You can also go to places like (http://www.khanacademy.org/) to learn math in a more simple way.

The only time I "hate" parts of C2 are when I hit engine design choices. Yeah some times I feel something is missing or should be handled differernly. Most of the time I just code around those issues.

however sometimes there is IDE design limitations or engine issues that I can't avoid.

Such as

No extensible IDE. I cannot draw gui widgets on the editor. Many other tools let you do this.

No image atlas. I personally believe that binding the imags to the sprite is the wrong design. Instead images should be atlas by the developer and sprites then reference images in the sheet/atlsas.

Cannot unload objects. Without this developers cannot create vast streaming worlds.

There is no modularity. it's annoying to pop in designed works. I need to duplicate the objects before copy/pasting an event sheet. currently I just have a master game frame work that does a lot of the gui work done.

Plugin Reload. Would be nice if plugins after editing the edit time version of a plugin. that the change can be reloaded without closing the entire system.

Can't draw from a behavior. I tried to making a behavior related to path finding. Thought I could draw a bezier curve line from behavior. but you can't draw from a behavior.

Plugin ACE design is bulky.

There is more, but no point going on.

The way I put it

Game Logic issues. No i have no problem. What C2 doesn't have I can do myself.

Engine related issues. Makes we want to just use Unity, UDk or Anarchy. I don't because C2 library of plugins is astounding for a 2d engine.

However because of these engine related issues and the development choices of locking developers out of the nitty gritty. I have never been able to convince my company that C2 is a viable engine for 2d games.

Since I introduced to Construct Classic, my perspective about game making was change. There is a feature I could just grab and working around my expectation. Set of behaviour are sit there to play with, help new comer like me to build a game. With so many example from community I learn a lot of things. Then I came up to realize that I could just write down the code in native way through the events like a semi-pro.

Thanks to Construct for opening possibilities in game making, which bring me to learn about programming an it's apects. I never understand how to use loop & iterative like i++ before. By incorporate these loop thing often in many experiment projects, put me in zen condition how to control everything. Now it make sense & much convenient to use Events the way Construct perform them. I hate when my self can't make things works, because I know Construct is capable to.

Just like someone else in forum, I wouldn't mind called C2 is A++ language.

if there is a bug/prolem you have

just put it in the fourms i bet atleast one person will awnser

I actually really enjoy C2. There are a couple of things i wish would change to make it more streamlined but, still good.

HI! im glad to see that you guys have a lot to say n.n

fisrt of all, I LOVE C2 im not putting my faults on c2 , in fact im very good at fixing bugs and problem solving, but sometimes i see things made by programmers, and it puts everything i have done into shame, for example how would you make the AI of Age of Empires 2 on C2? game like Transistor wich has some extremely complicated mechanics? its a pain in the butt make an isometric game in C2, let alone all the mechanics of Transistor.

The biggest thorn in my foot, its complicated math, i dont know how you guys would use sin() , cubic(a, b, c, d, x), qarp(a, b, c, x) etc

i still have problem with lerp and clamp

im doing my best, but im afraid that when my game come out, people will make fun of me for making the game on Cosntruct 2.

many people see engines like Contruct2 and Game Maker as baby toys, i dont like it :/

if i could find a programmer to take my place, i would do it, i think im putting in danger all the work of my boyfriend, the pression sometimes crushes me

When your game is completed, there is no way anyone will know what you used to create the game. A game made in Construct can look and play exactly the same as a game from game maker, rpg-maker, unity, or even custom made engines. The issue comes from people advertising what engine they used which then starts stereotyping games. These engines get bad reputations because sadly, it is very easy to make a bad game. I always advise keeping the engine you used confidential. No need to tell the people you sell your product to how it was made. All they need to know about and see is the final result.

The thing I HATE about construct, is I can't create my set of controls/behaviors/game logic without art. I'm the type that likes to get the logic done and working and connect the art to it later. Construct does not allow this. What is worse, is it is very difficult if not impossible to reuse events/"code" between projects.

In unity/game maker for example I can script/code entire game elements and easily swap and use those with any game and any set of art materials.

No image atlas. I personally believe that binding the imags to the sprite is the wrong design. Instead images should be atlas by the developer and sprites then reference images in the sheet/atlsas.

There is no modularity. it's annoying to pop in designed works. I need to duplicate the objects before copy/pasting an event sheet. currently I just have a master game frame work that does a lot of the gui work done.

Agree 1 million percent with these.

The thing I HATE about construct, is I can't create my set of controls/behaviors/game logic without art. I'm the type that likes to get the logic done and working and connect the art to it later.

What does this mean?

I built my game with placeholder art (static single images instead of full animations) until recently when I bought / made all the art and replaced the placeholders with the final art.

Do you mean something different from that?

The thing I HATE about construct, is I can't create my set of controls/behaviors/game logic without art. I'm the type that likes to get the logic done and working and connect the art to it later.

Just do what I do and work with blocks of different colours. And for animations just have different events sheet with those, which you call with functions.

>

>

> The thing I HATE about construct, is I can't create my set of controls/behaviors/game logic without art. I'm the type that likes to get the logic done and working and connect the art to it later.

>

What does this mean?

I built my game with placeholder art (static single images instead of full animations) until recently when I bought / made all the art and replaced the placeholders with the final art.

Do you mean something different from that?

Placeholder images are still less than ideal. I work with spriter files for almost all my animations. Changing these files to final animations can be tricky. I have to copy all the events, delete the spriter file and events, import the new animation with the same name as the deleted, paste the old events and hope everything carries over properly and no events were accidentally missed.

I have seen projects on these forums with thousands of events. Having to copy and go through many lines and pages of events would become a huge chore just to copy and change a single file. Even a small change to an animation can become a big job in itself.

This is a limitation I don't have with any other engine.

There is no easy way to replace one object with a new object and have all the events properly change over.

There is also no way to create the events without the art asset(placeholder or not).

There is no easy way to replace one object with a new object and have all the events properly change over.

There is also no way to create the events without the art asset(placeholder or not).

I have not tried using Spriter yet so I cannot speak to how that effects things.

I do have thousands of events and do use the "replace object" option from time to time... mostly I do not need to because most of my events are in functions that refer to a Family and Family instance variables / behaviors instead of a specific Sprite or whatever even if the Family has only one Sprite in it... that allows me to separate the logic from the individual object types.

>

> There is no easy way to replace one object with a new object and have all the events properly change over.

> There is also no way to create the events without the art asset(placeholder or not).

>

I have not tried using Spriter yet so I cannot speak to how that effects things.

I do have thousands of events and do use the "replace object" option from time to time... mostly I do not need to because most of my events are in functions that refer to a Family and Family instance variables / behaviors instead of a specific Sprite or whatever even if the Family has only one Sprite in it... that allows me to separate the logic from the individual object types.

I may have to put more things into families perhaps. A few things I don't typically bother with due to only having a single object that would go in the family, but I may need to form a new habit as a workaround to issues down the road.

Replacing spriter objects won't work sadly. It may in some cases but I doubt it, there are a large number of files imported and associated with a spriter object (a number of images, the object itself, and two spriter files)

In general however, if I have a number of events and wish to change them all to instead of applying to object/family A and change them all to object/ family B, I don't believe there is an easy way to do this.

I also don't believe there is an easy/viable way of using events from one project in another.

It would be interesting to be able to import and export event sheets. Possibly generating blank assets to associate with them.