Fimbul's Forum Posts

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • If your main use case is to run in node, then there would need to be a huge set of new features to access all of node's features from the event system (such as hosting servers, opening sockets, accessing databases etc).

    What? We just want to be able to skip draw calls so we can get 100K objects or something similar without having to recode the entire thing. Like I said, this is especially useful for multiplayer projects using the authoritative server model. There's no need to expose node's APIs, we can do that ourselves with extensions.

    If you can cut off the DOM as well (which is another source of slowdowns), we'd be able to run it inside webworkers, further extending this usecase.

    Without that you pretty much just have an interactive game with no interactivity, which isn't very useful.

    You have an easy, hassle free multiplayer server that you can keep running without wasting CPU/GPU time with drawcalls that no one wants anyways.

    So this sounds like a pretty huge feature request - almost another product by the sound of it.

    While I'd love a corporate version of construct geared towards app development, and might pitch that idea sometime in the future, I don't think this is that idea. What we're proposing is just ripping the canvas off, nothing needs to be added.

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • I'd love something like that, so consider this post a "+1" to the idea. This is similar to Clickteam Fusion's "No display surface" feature available in the developer edition.

    This request is very simple to explain, but I'll elaborate a bit more. Since Ashley likes use cases for this sort of stuff, here are a few:

    • multiplayer. It would be great to reuse game logic in the server, but ignore display for performance reasons (since rendering is usually the bottleneck).
    • App development. If construct manages to get into this (I'd love to try it), especially with construct 3's new IDE features, it would be cool to have a canvasless script (frontend or backend, doesn't matter) that could handle logic.
    • Workers/widgets. This is akin to "sub-layouts", that is, layouts that run inside one another. This is especially useful for handling UI screens and similar. When that feature arrives (it's desperately needed), people will want to spawn certain layouts as "workers". This is a bit complicated so I'll elaborate more. Think about this: you have a strategy game like risk, and each battle is a mini-game. You could have the option to "auto-resolve battle", and the engine would just run the minigame without a display surface (to save processing and make it go faster, while simultaneously sparing the developer from making a displayless/event-only version of the mini-game) and report back the results.

  • This is posted on the wrong section.

    Moderators please move this to website issues and feedback

    Also tagging Tom which is responsible for this sort of issue.

  • Hopefully this will all be sorted when we have a more extensible IDE

    I'd love to integrate something like this directly in the editor.

  • grossd, I run into this problem a lot, where construct's primitive (flat) data structures aren't adequate to express many many things. Thankfully we have the SDK.

    What I usually end up doing is use the SDK to create a plugin or behavior that hides the data structures, as well as any functions required (push, pop, map/reduce, splice).

    Those objects are usually not documented, niche and/or too complex for general use, so I don't release them to the public.

  • Fimbul

    [quote:20430o7r]It's a bit broken, crashes often, and sometimes requires several restarts.

    Sounds like an old banger. lol

    Still worth it

  • I think the main problem is just: how do you cram all the UI and features of a relatively complex piece of editing software like Construct 2 on to a tiny screen? Would it even be useful even if you could do it, compared to the speed and precision of a mouse and keyboard?

    Implementing an interface that allows for coding on mobile is a hard issue, but "layouting" (changing level's order, moving enemies around, editing a tilemap, etc) not so much.

    Maybe an argument for construct 3 having the layout editor as a separate program?

  • I use this tool to simulate latency, jitter and drops: http://www.tmurgent.com/appv/index.php/ ... ation-tool

    It's called "TMNetSim". Downloads are at the bottom (you do not need to use the demo on the page!). You set it up as a localhost proxy and tweak the settings until you get your preferred flavor of network-shittyness.

    It's a bit broken, crashes often, and sometimes requires several restarts. Still a golden tool for multiplayer gaming, though!

  • I disliked the movie, and the more I think about it, the more I hate it.

    It's a nonsensical movie from start to finish.

    **SPOILERS BELOW**

    • It starts with a "dustbowl" scenario for earth collapse (which is insane since lack of food is the least likely problem to wipe out the human race, and even if it were, there would be "bubble-cities" before talk of interplanetary travel), so negative points for lack of creativity and huge wasted opportunities.
    • Then it moves on to a "society doesn't care about science anymore" plot that is presented as the reason for the earth being as shit as it is. I'm sorry I wasn't aware I was watching idiocracy.
    • Then, a badly done "Saturn V launch scene" that they just ripped off from old NASA tapes. They could have CGI'd something way better, or even used
      Subscribe to Construct videos now
      . This is ultimately wasted anyways, as later in the movie it is revealed that their ship can "millenium-falcon takeoff" out of 130% gravity planets.
    • A ton of wasted time with boring space scenes (could be enhanced by better music, cool interfaces, futuristic-looking docking mechanics). The CGI on those scenes reminds me of the 90's era (i.e. you can almost see the strings). Apollo 13 had not only more, but also better looking, space scenes.
    • We are shown ridiculous-looking spacebots that are completely impractical (I admit that they are funny, though), and are clearly made to look like the 2001 obelisk. They are so ridiculous that they move by dragging themselves around, have a CRT-monitor displaying random bits of code, and when they speak you barely know it's the computer talking.
    • The rest of the ship isn't much better. Looks like they recycled some old movie props that were lying around discarded:
      • The doors are impractical and we never get to see a full opening sequence (which are a staple in this genre). Even games routinely do better.
      • The cryopods, which could have looked cool, ended up looking like Ziploc bags for people
      • The ship controls are outdated, they look like old military hardware and game-console bits. There is no HUD to speak of.
      • The ship itself looks dumb for a sci-fi flick, appears to be based on lifting-body X-series SSTO craft of the early 90s (see the x-30)
    • The black hole scene is cool up until they warp, then we get the worse "tunnel travel" CGI ever (even star wars did better). We would have been better served with winamp visualisations.
    • Then the movie starts with the planets, which fly in the face of everything we know about exoplanets, with impossible geological formations that are never explained, such as this shit right here (but there are many other examples). Also a huge wasted opportunity, since we only get to see 3 barren planets in the entire movie, and we have impressive tools at our disposal, such as Terragen 3, that can render beautiful-looking planets on the cheap (seriously that tool is as easy to use as Construct 2).
    • Then we get to the "meat" of the plot, which is the same tired hollywoodian "love overcomes all barriers" trope (warning: TVTropes link). I wasn't expecting this bullcrap in a "serious" scifi movie.
    • After this, the movie starts rushing to the end blazing fast (probably because Nolan suddenly realized he couldn't make an 8-hour movie and he had already taken up 2 hours), ignoring plot points along the way and becoming a disjointed trainwreck, due to the director/writers desperately trying to introduce new elements but running out of time.

    I can go on and on, but I'll stop now.

    I seriously don't get how a movie like this can take more than $2mil to produce. This is serious garage quality. An indie studio could have done better, and for much less money.