Cheez's Forum Posts

  • isn't there a checkbox somewhere in the sprite properties that does automatic mirroring, or does that do something else that doesn't help you in this situation?

  • Approximate it with a series of straight lines.

    I never said it had to be a true curve.

    Since we're now talking about using straight lines anyway, why not include that type of option? I used to mess around with a Doom level editor that could take a line and curve it with an adjustable amount of precision by adding extra vertices equally along the line. Would it be too much to eventually add a feature to approximate a curve of one's choice automatically? By hand it's doable, but for the sake of accuracy there should be an option like that in the end... Maybe even an option to approximate the outline of an object as my original concern was?

    And one last thing while i'm posting this: Can a hollow object be made, either now or eventually, using these custom masks? This isn't anything that would be of use to me, but I may as well ask.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • If you want more precision while placing the points, hold down the control button and use the scroll wheel to zoom into the layout. That will allow you to place them more precisely.

    see. That would have to do for now, but it won't do anything for curved lines.

  • There's not really a need to get sour at Ashley cause he isn't turning construct into what you want it to be. Give the guy a break, he already has a million things on his plate to do for construct, I'm sure he could find a way to do what you want, but construct IS currently in beta and i think, for general use purposes, the custom mask works quite well, i mean i'm glad we even HAVE a custom mask cause we didn't before.

    Just be patient, I'm sure there will be some alternative/solution on its way, plus he does kinda know what he's talking about when it comes to all the cpu stuff, i trust his judgement on what should and shouldn't be in construct

    But the thing is the way it's being brought to me, it's being said "this can't and never will happen". I probably wouldn't be so ticked if the suggestions weren't being brushed off so quickly.

  • The custom mask has to be user defined because while it is possible to automatically generate a pixel-perfect mask, it would be incredibly wasteful on the CPU. If you just click the approximate shape by a custom mask, it is much faster than an automatic mask, and probably closer to what you want as well.

    For one, the custom mask is already very frustrating to use, not the least of the reasons being that I can't edit it afterwards and there doesn't seem to be a zoom for any precision. For two, if an object happens to have a quarter circle in it or something along those lines, what do I do about that? Actual games apparently don't have any difficulty doing these things, so why should construct?

    As for straight lines only - that's just the way it is - straight lines are fast to process.

    o that's it then? "It won't do it because if someone chooses to do it this way the system requirements for their game will go up and therefore nobody must be able to do anything remotely useful as long as it takes processing power"? I've already had this argument before and it makes no sense, since you're so into using pixel shaders and all that fancy stuff but you're not into anything actually useful in creating games. I prefer functionality over gimmicks.

    As for different animation frames - that's true, there's currently no way to do that. But it's tricky - if you switch to a different animation frame with a different mask, which results in the object being stuck halfway through something else, what do you expect to happen?

    hen whoever made it that way just do it properly. I don't see why we shouldn't have to deal with design bugs we create on our own.

    You missed the multiple mask bit that I mentioned but i'll assume it was the one thing you didn't object to.

  • I think the collision choices don't give a very good result for anything that isn't a square, a circle, or otherwise polygonal. Should there not be a mask for the outline of an object, or at the very least a more advanced custom mask that does more than just place apparently immovable points that all connect only in straight lines?

    And while i'm on the subject of collisions in general, how about an option for multiple simultaneous masks for sprites/frames? I had a few ideas in mind and that seemed like the most convenient way to do such a thing without working around the lack of the feature. Granted I didn't get to explore much so there may already be an easy solution for THAT problem...

  • I suppose that'll have to do, I guess. Thanks.

  • How do I have objects that aren't on any particular layout until they're created? I've got stuff that needs to appear later (or sometimes not at all, really) and I don't know how to do such a thing without just keeping some off to the side, which is not the best idea in this case.

  • Hey, I think I'm perfectly justified in saying that. It's not hard to understand "finding the angle between 3 points". I need the actual angle that makes up those 3 points, so I can use the angle as a variable. From the looks of it though, it doesn't seem like there's any simple way out than doing the whole thing by hand.

  • The problem is, you're not making any sense, because an angle doesn't face any particular direction. You can say anything you want about "real" angles, but a 30 degree angle isn't going to change if you turn it. I'm now beginning to wonder if you people ever even went to school, as you have no idea what I'm talking about even WITH the subject.

  • er, scratch that. No, that wouldn't work at all. I already tried it and it should've been obvious in the first place because "angles" in construct (and many other maker program) don't even work that way.

    That is, when I did it, depending on which way it was facing caused drastic changes in the variables.

  • While I forgot this stuff from school and can sort of look it up, is there any better way of working this out? I need to be able to calculate this relative angle because it changes some variables and I need to have them handy.

  • The particles object is designed to be a faster alternative to using sprites. By using a single image and no rotations, the GPU can render particles about four times faster than with sprites. As soon as you start rotating them and changing textures you lose these advantages. We could add the features you ask for, but then the Particles object offers no advantages over using ordinary sprites, which would make it a bit redundant.

    I hardly see how you can say that, given that I wouldn't have a clue about the first thing to do if I had to do it without that particle object. Maybe you could offer an "advanced" particle object to make it easy to do those things without detracting from the original particle object's specialties?

  • I can see that you can make particles use an image, but it doesn't seem like you can make them rotate the same way you can make them move around. it would be nice to have various features, like having particles rotate in the direction they're moving, or spin them, and other things. Another seemingly useful addition would be to use any number of random images for a single particle generator instead of using just one or none at all.

    Another thing I'd like to point out and ask about is the picture editor. It seems really badly put together, with most buttons lacking descriptions (especially ones that do need them), scroll bars not actually staying in the window (they're half under the rest of the window!) and the "style" list for the shapes seems cut off, with only 4 selectable styles and what looks like a small piece of a 5th fill style. The rectangle that should be surrounding the style list is cut off like that as well.