I'll pay $300, maybe more, for Construct 3

The $300 was just a random number to kinda/sorta indicate how excited I am about Construct 3 and what it could be if the devs will seriously consider our wish-lists

> You use "Families" extensively yes?

>

Um... no?

Do you mean I could use families as sort of a proxy to avoid tying events to objects directly?

Yes, basically. As long as the Objects you're wanting to swap are very similar. For instance you could create a family called FamCars, put a few Car objects in there, take few out, put a few others back in. But then later if you decided to put a few Fruit objects in that Family, that would likely fail. The object behaviors and properties (instance vars) wouldn't line up.

But if you try to always use Family refs in your code, you can swap similar objects in/out of the Family and never have to edit any code. And your Functions and Events work for many object types.

I don't think a Family can have zero (0) objects so this may not do what you want.

Not sure if you guys have all used Sublime Text 3 for code editing. If not, you should. If you have, you will whole-heartedly agree with my #2 C3 feature wish

4) Some way to have Object "methods" or perhaps some way to link an Object method to call a Function Event?

5) Function definition markup/tags to define what params a Function needs and is visible in Action Function call dialog

6) Return multiple values or an array from function

Love the suggestions!

A few additions:

1 - Start treating arrays as a proper type, instead of an object. We have string, number and bool, why not array?

2 - Same goes for dictionaries (AKA hashmaps, AKA associative arrays), so that you can do array["position"] as well as array[1]

3 - Pointers as a type. This means you can store references to an object inside another object, as a property. Right now you can do this by storing the object's ID, but you can't do stuff like player.weapon[1].destroy() in a single event

4 - First class functions. You should be able to return functions as well as store functions as properties of an object. This is something that javascript can already do, so why not?

5 - N-Dimensional arrays, as well as arbitrarily nested arrays. This, combined with the points above, would allow you to express things like player.inventory[0]["quantity"] = 1

locohost

Thanks for the tip I think I have some restructuring to do..

Not sure if you guys have all used Sublime Text 3 for code editing. If not, you should. If you have, you will whole-heartedly agree with my #2 C3 feature wish

I've been using Atom/WebStorm to do things like you mentioned in #2, but I agree that it would be nice to have built-in to Construct 3.

> Not sure if you guys have all used Sublime Text 3 for code editing. If not, you should. If you have, you will whole-heartedly agree with my #2 C3 feature wish

>

I've been using Atom/WebStorm to do things like you mentioned in #2, but I agree that it would be nice to have built-in to Construct 3.

Never tried Atom, that was always a Mac IDE. Did they ever make a Win version? I'll have to check. I also have a licenced WebStorm IDE. I like WS, but sometimes it feels like too much "stuff". Know what I mean?

I would kill to have that fast fuzzy search find-jump-to-anything in C2 and hopefully C3. It has to be in C3.

this can be very usefull :

making behaviors with eventsheets and share theme together !

see this : for example i want to create pin behavior, i will do this :

object1

object2

everytik >> set object1 pos to object2 pos

__

so in this way we can have unlimited behaviors

we can make so many behavoris and share them and scirra doesn't have to make them

1-1000000 : Better Exporting options

>

> 4) Some way to have Object "methods" or perhaps some way to link an Object method to call a Function Event?

>

> 5) Function definition markup/tags to define what params a Function needs and is visible in Action Function call dialog

>

> 6) Return multiple values or an array from function

>

Love the suggestions!

A few additions:

1 - Start treating arrays as a proper type, instead of an object. We have string, number and bool, why not array?

2 - Same goes for dictionaries (AKA hashmaps, AKA associative arrays), so that you can do array["position"] as well as array[1]

3 - Pointers as a type. This means you can store references to an object inside another object, as a property. Right now you can do this by storing the object's ID, but you can't do stuff like player.weapon[1].destroy() in a single event

4 - First class functions. You should be able to return functions as well as store functions as properties of an object. This is something that javascript can already do, so why not?

5 - N-Dimensional arrays, as well as arbitrarily nested arrays. This, combined with the points above, would allow you to express things like player.inventory[0]["quantity"] = 1

All these would be very useful. Also some kind of vector type for 2D/3D (3D would be viable to anyone doing anything isometric), so that vectors can be properly manipulated rather than having TONS of different variables and long expressions. support for angle / distance / dot / cross / normalization on these vectors, and the ability to recognize when the expression would have a scalar vs a vector result. The vectors can probably just be implemented as 1D arrays, so basically just add support for scalar products on any 1D array, cross products on 1D arrays (with dimension less than 4), and euclidean distance / normalization functions for any 1D array. It's not that difficult.

These are all very basic features and the argument that construct users "dont need" this kind of functionality is kind of weak, games use data types to simplify code, whereas construct forces you to build things in boilerplate using floats and ints and basic types, and makes using proper complex data-types extremely annoying.

+1 for the last post , at least give experienced programmers the familiarity and standards we are used to , 1 + about cc was the ability to integrate Python scripting which gave more control and functionality .

Also some kind of vector type for 2D/3D

I think there was a vector type, but Ashley removed it due to it generating too much garbage (if I recall correctly, it was instantiating a new object every time you wanted a vector), and therefore overworking the GC.

This was a long time ago, though, and things have probably improved now that we have JIT compiling and smarter GCs.

These are all very basic features and the argument that construct users "dont need" this kind of functionality is kind of weak, games use data types to simplify code, whereas construct forces you to build things in boilerplate using floats and ints and basic types, and makes using proper complex data-types extremely annoying.

Amen to that.

Having to store references to other objects by storing their IDs as a number, then having a sub-event pick them out is garbage. Same goes for polluting your function namespace by creating pseudo "methods" that take an object ID as a parameter.

Also having to attach arrays to objects, having to dynamically spawn dictionaries, having arrays storing references to dictionary IDs, it's all horrible hacks everywhere if you want to implement a proper data structure, you usually end up reaching for the SDK all the time, which is not ideal since it breaks your flow and saps motivation.

I ask the following having done zero 3D game dev: Wouldn't the 3D stuff need some sort of native compile/export? I can't imagine JavaScript running in the browser having anywhere near the horsepower to handle 3D games.

I would pay more only if there's native mobile export..

I'm pretty much at my wit's end with Intel XDK and the third party plugins that work 30% of the time.

Having to store references to other objects by storing their IDs as a number, then having a sub-event pick them out is garbage. Same goes for polluting your function namespace by creating pseudo "methods" that take an object ID as a parameter.

I'm gonna use the word "easy" very loosely here but couldn't Object types be defined as one (or multiple) of the Function params? Then they're passing UIDs (or whatever, underneath) so that in the Function, we immediately have the "picked" reference to our Objects. Seems like this would be an "easy" extension and improvement on what we already have in C2.