jbadams's Forum Posts

  • If you're ready to move on from the free version, you would want the Standard Licence; if you look at the comparison of the different versions on the purchasing page you'll notice that the Standard and Business licences have exactly the same features -- you only need the business licence rather than the standard if you have made more than $5000 with your Construct projects, at which point you can easily afford to upgrade.

    If you're still young, you should probably discuss the purchase with your parents, and show them the purchasing page with the comparison of the products as well as some of the cool games you've already been able to make.

    Hope that helps! <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle">

  • Would starting a html5 gaming website be a good source of income for my games

    Yes, creating your own HTML5 gaming website is certainly one potentially good way of making some money from your games.

    Advantages include having total control over both the games and website, not having to share the income as you typically would with a portal (where you usually get x% of any money made), and not having to share the site with other games unless you choose to do so.

    Potential disadvantages are that you'll need to host the site yourself, you'll need to work hard to gain an audience (popular portals already have a massive player-base), and you'll be doing all the work yourself -- any problems with the website will be your job, as well as making and maintaining the games, marketing, implementing monetization, etc.

    I would normally suggest a hybrid approach where you host games on your own website and submit to popular portals such as Kongregate. Mobile platforms (iOS, Android) can also be a good potential market, although for more complex games performance can currently be a significant issue -- this will only get better with time however.

    Hope that's helpful! <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

  • Have you tried out the free version?

    Are you happy with how the software works, and what it's able to do?

    If the answers are both "yes" then purchasing a licence is probably worth it to you -- it'll remove the couple of limitations from the free version, and as the others have mentioned above you'll have the opportunity to sell your work in order to make back the money.

    The best way to sell your games really depends a lot on how you're planning to make your money (Pay-to-play? In-game purchases? Ad revenue?) as well as the type of game you're planning on making, but Android, Facebook and Kongregate would all be potential good starting points -- and there's no reason a good game might not be adapted for all 3 with a small amount of extra work!

    If you haven't tried the free version, get it now -- there's no cost to you, and you can see if you really like the software. Personally, I think it's a great package and that the licence is very affordable; it has a great feature set, with more being added or things being improved all the time, great documentation, an excellent and very active community, and a growing set of opportunities to earn some cash by selling your work!

  • I hope this isn't perceived as rude, but I'm just going to give this topic a single bump, because I think it may have dropped off the first page without being seen by Ashley

    <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

  • Just try the free version, and you'll see how good it is!

  • ...and a quick related suggestion -- could we possibly get an option to "view collision polygons" when working with a layout in the editor, which would overlay each object with a transparent outline of it's collision polygon?

    This might help to debug problems where the collision polygon isn't exactly where you think it is -- it would certainly have made my current situation a lot easier to figure out at a glance, as I needed to line up the collision polygons of a number of objects, and it wasn't immediately obvious based on the image of the objects exactly where that was.

  • Just a small suggestion:

    When editing animations in the image editor, could we have the mouse coordinates shown as they are when working with a layout?

    I've just been editing the collision polygons for a couple of animations, and knowing the actual coordinates of the mouse would be a real help in getting things to line up properly. <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

    Thanks!

  • You shouldn't need to apply an impulse manually (although you certainly can!) if the car and cone are both physics objects.

    Make sure both items have the physics behaviour applied, that neither object has "immovable" set to yes, and that both objects have an appropriate density (the car's should be quite a bit larger than the cone) specified.

  • Thanks!

  • You should be able to get this effect by disabling gravity -- that is, setting it to 0.

    If you set up an event to trigger "on start of layout", and then add an action to ANY item with the physics behaviour to "set world gravity" to 0 (under the "physics: global settings" header) you should be good to go. <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

    Does that help?

  • Hey,

    I just had a quick performance related question about the event system: do the conditions on an event "early out"?

    Say for example I have an event triggered by the following conditions:

    • MouseClick on Sprite
    • if someVariable = true
    • if someOtherVariable = true

    So logically, the event triggers when the mouse is clicked on a sprite object if someVariable and someOtherVariable are both true.

    If someVariable is false in my example, would construct bother to check the value of someOtherVariable, or will it be clever enough to early-out and skip that check?

    I ask because I have a couple of events with reasonably complicated conditions and I'm wondering if I should bother arranging the conditions in an order that could take advantage of an early-out to skip un-needed checks.

    I am aware that the performance impact would be fairly minimal, and that where possible it's better to design less complicated events or break things down to sub-events anyway, but small differences can add up on a mobile platform and I'd like to know if this is an area worth spending (and admittedly minimal amount of) effort on?

    Lastly, if conditions don't early-out, consider this a suggestion that if it is not overly difficult to make them do so they should! <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

    Thanks for your time! <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

  • It should e fairly easy to come up with sensible defaults should't it? The only difficult ones should e position related, and those are supplied during creation.

    It is a fairly minor annoyance though -- keep up the great work with other new features, love your work!

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Aha -- I hadn't actually thought to work-around by sticking default instances in a default layout rather than hiding them or putting them off screen. Still a bit of a kludge, but a much nicer fix, thanks!

  • Any update on this one? It's relatively easy to work-around, but I'm finding myself having to work around it a LOT... obviously not something that deserves high priority, but it would be nice to have fixed. <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

  • Yes, via the use of PhoneGap or AppMobi, which convert HTML5 games into mobile apps. Performance on mobiles can be an issue at the moment, but it is constantly improving and should only get better over time. If your games are relatively simple and you keep your mobile platforms in mind you can normally achieve reasonable results; for anything more complex you may run into problems on some (particularly older) devices.