machrider's Forum Posts

  • Ok this last sentence was a joke, and i will use Advanced Grid Object if it will be available (and useful), im just saying "Not there? Make it!" but thats just my rant/opinion.

    Sure, just give me a few years to learn C++ and some time to learn the SDK first.

    Who knows, maybe by then Construct will reach 2.0 or even 3.0.

  • Yeah, but then again, the reason I use Construct (or even Multimedia Fusion in the past) is because when it comes to actual programming (one that use a language) I'm clueless. This program makes it easy to make anything I want, provided that it programmed to so. Also call me lazy, but I like to do things the fast and convenient way.

    And besides, If I had the knowledge or skill to code things by scratch in C++ or whatever, I'd make my own 3D model plugin and start working a 3D platform game by now. I wouldn't be wasting my time doing smalltime projects like the ones I'm doing now.

  • I would like this too. I've always wanted to make an Advance Wars style game and right now, while it is possible with Construct, it's harder than it should be and isn't worth the effort. I would much rather have a tile or grid object to make things easier and a lot more bearable.

  • Whoops, I can't believe I missed that. I apologize. Hah, it was there all along. I guess I'm still getting used to the menus in this program.

    Feel free to delete this topic if you want, I'll try to look before I speak from now on, sorry.

    Edit: Actually, wait a second. I hope I'm not speaking too soon again, but it seems like the physics movement doesn't have a set activated option. I guess that's why I couldn't find it in the first place. Is there any way to toggle it on and off?

  • This is just a little idea I had for a platform puzzle game where you reverse gravity to reach the goal in the level. I used Construct's physics engine to make this.

    http://machriderx.googlepages.com/gravity.zip

    This is just a demo of sorts. Just a way to test the game idea I had. It kinda sounded better in concept than it did in actuality. I'm not sure if it would make that great of a game but then again I don't know. I like how easy it is to experiment with different ideas in Construct though and to see what works and what doesn't.

  • There needs to be an ability to disable/enable movements via the Event Sheet Edtior when multiple movements are assigned.

    I think this would be rather simple to implement, yet it would be extremely useful.

    For example, say you have a game where you control a robot that can turn into a car. The object which represents this character has both 8 way and car movement assigned to it. While it is in robot form, it uses the 8 way direction movement. Then when it changes its animation to car form, it disables the 8 way movement and enables the car movement.

    Or, a platformer where your character can turn into a ball and roll down slopes. You could have both platform and physics movement assigned to it and swap between the two accordingly.

    I can think of many other examples. But I think you see what I'm getting at.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • How do I do R-Type/Gradius/etc. style scrolling in Construct? You know the type of scrolling where the screen is always moving forward (while the player moves independently) regardless of where you are on screen? I can't seem to figure it out.

  • Yeah, that's a good idea. I think the PC version of Geometry Wars has that option too by the way. But in games like GW, nothing beats the feel of using two analog sticks (one for moving and one for aim/shooting). It would be nice to use that nice, smooth, control scheme in other games.

    Of coarse, I'd be sure to add keyboard and mouse support as well if I ever make a game like this. I'd be crazy not to.

    Edit: Also, one thing. I noticed that a lot of games do this to ensure that they are compatible with anything. What they do is, you select the action/function you want to assign (jump, move up, down, etc.) and then you hit enter and it asks you to press anything, it then remembers whatever you just pressed and uses that for the action/function.

    For example, in the options menu for Geometry Wars on the PC, to configure vertical movement for the left stick, you just highlight and select "Move Up/Down" then tilt the left stick either up or down and it assigns the appropriate axis.

    If something like this can be done with Construct, I think that would be ideal.

  • Will it have dual analog support?

    A while back, I was going to make a game like Geometry Wars, however I was never able to finish it because, well, let me explain.

    I used to use Multimedia Fusion, I still do occasionally but not as much. One thing I hated about using MMF is that while it had an "analog joystick object," from what I tried, there was no way to make it recognize all the axes. It only recognized 3 preset axes (1 or 2 of which didn't even seem to work) and I wasn't able to get it to work with any of the dual analog controllers I tried it on. I managed to get one stick working but I was only able to do some slight horizontal movement and nothing else (if I remember correctly).

    That pretty much killed my project right there. My only other option was to try to learn BASIC and maybe code it in BlitzBasic (or some other program/language that would allow me to do what I had planned) but I'm very bad at coding. I'm a visual type of person. I like seeing menus and things I can click on, it's much easier for me.

    I see a lot of potential in this project. More so than I do with MMF, which hardly ever changes much between each new version. MMF2, as far I know, still has the same issues with analog support as MMF1.

    Anyway, about the gamepad support you're going to add.

    Please make sure it can recognize both analog sticks as well as extra buttons, etc. I hate being limited to only a set amount of things that a game creation tool is programmed to display, whether its only 4 buttons or whatever.

  • Amazing. Now this is the type of thing I am looking to see. Maybe if we can get some 3D model support for things other than cubes, we can start seeing games like "Contra: Shattered Soldier" on Construct. Oh man, it gets me excited just thinking about it.

  • Alright, I see. I guess I was thinking too much into the whole DirectX9 being used to power games like Half Life 2 aspect of things. I didn't know it was able to fare well on older computers too. Anyway, thanks I see that the concerns I had were unfounded and that I have nothing to worry about.

  • Oh, I didn't know that. I thought DirectX9 required special hardware or at least current hardware (I mean DirectX10 does, and it requires Vista).

    I didn't know it was responsible for all of the things you listed as well. In that case, I think I'll stick with it. I might need rotation effects, etc.

    But I'm concerned about how games will run on slower computers that aren't up to date and probably are running on DirectX8 or even DX7 hardware or even integrated graphics.

    Now that you told me, I know that DirectX9 will run on any computer... but how well does it run? I don't to cause any unnecessary slowdown on certain computers just because of DirectX9 performance (or lack thereof).

    And in case DirectX9 has any effect on performance. Well, if I don't use any of the shaders or other DirectX9 specific features, will the game perform better on average on older machines?

    Also, by the way, I'm not saying to disable DirectX entirely but maybe have an option to use an earlier version of it so it'll be compatible with more computers. But if that isn't necessary then never mind.

    SDL sounds like a good option for making things compatible with older computers but it also looks like it loses a lot of features in the process. I'm not sure, I'll have to see what it's like when it's implemented into Construct.

  • DirectX9 support is great, but without any major 3D support as of yet, I don't really see the point in using it.

    If a game is going to be 2D, I might as well have it be able to run on computers that don't support DirectX9. I don't really see the need for it. Most people who are going to be playing a 2D game aren't going to be looking for the latest in graphics (and some may not even have a computer capable of such graphics).

    Not to mention, the extra effects seem unnecessary for most 2D game concepts I can think of. I don't need shiny photo realistic walls in a 2D console (SNES, etc.) style platform game for example.

    So, I was wondering. Could there just be an option to use plain old DirectDraw or make a game that supports everything from DirectX1 and up (sort of like the functionality BlitzPlus has)?

  • [quote:3oye5rpe]We could have competed against games coming out at that time!

    Interesting point - millions of dollars and whole production teams including directors and writers go in to modern games these days. Making a 3D game creator that could compare in any way whatsoever with something like Crysis (which is amazing, btw) is simply impossible from a resources point of view. On the other hand, in something like Construct, once finished I aim for it to be possible for an indie gamer to rival the top 2D games.

    This isn't the only reason I hesitate to move further in to 3D - it's a nice rosy idea that it could one day be possible to make impressive 3D first person shooters as easily and flexibly as Construct - but there are significant or even prohibitive technical and design challenges to get around. It's simply out of scope right now.

    Well, I personally don't want full 3D. I mean, it might be possible if you had the resources but it's just unrealistic to try to make the next Crysis with a point and click game tool.

    Just the ability to use some 3D features in the 2D world would be great and that alone would be enough to give games like Shadowgrounds a run for their money.

    But even if that doesn't happen soon, Contruct seems much more capable of making better, more professional looking games than most of the other simplified game makers can so far. The engine doesn't feel as "cheap" as the ones you find in freeware games made in GM or the click tools. It's just feels a lot more fluid, so to say. It can definitely make games that can compete with most other not very computer intensive shareware 2D games.

    I just think that being able to incorporate SOME limited amount of 3D would make it even better though. To the point where it can compete with more than shareware but even mainsteam commercial titles. I don't mean Crysis now, but more realistically games like 2.5D top down shooters like Shadowgrounds or RTS games like Warcraft III (and of coarse, 2.5D platform games like Contra: Shattered Soldier but I've mentioned that already).

    If I knew how to code or anything about programming for that matter I would help out in every way imaginable to see this happen. But for now I'll just wait and see what happens. I wish people who knew how to do this stuff would try to mess around with the SDK a bit and see what they can do.

    Maybe I'll try to learn how to program again but I've tried in the past so many times and bought all these books and learned nothing. I just can't understand how to do anything in terms of programming, it's too hard. If I ever learn to program someday within the next few years (or decades), I'd give it a shot, considering if Construct is still around by then.

  • I know you sort of answered this before, but a 3D sprite object would work right?

    I mean an object that works like a sprite but uses a 3D character model (and animations) instead?

    Would that have problems being implemented (such as collisions and such)?

    I'd imagine not since it would behave like a 2D sprite (collisions and all) but use a model instead of a sprite. But then again, I'm no genius.

    That's one of the things I hated most with you know who's product, oh what the heck, actually I mean MMF. They had a 3D sprite object, but it was very poorly implemented and they never did anything with it (but then again, their engine couldn't really handle 3D in the first place while Construct is made for Direct X9).

    Like I mentioned before, I want to make a game like Contra: Shattered Soldier (2.5D platformer). I don't like working with sprites. I'd rather use a 3D model (and I don't mean one prerendered as a 2D sprite, because that looks.. yuck) because it would be a lot easier to work with. I would rather animate a 3D model (easier) then try to animate a sprite (very hard for me). Plus I think it looks better and much more "modern", which suits my style better.

    Anyway, sorry to ramble off like that but to get back to the point: Would a psuedo-3D type of sprite object would have the same collision problems as a full 3D implementation? You know, just a 3D model that works like a sprite object (except displays a polygonal model rather than pixels)?

    Because if anything (as far as 3D goes), if this program could have a feature like that (and I know it CAN, but rather if it DOES if not anything else), it would make my life a lot easier and make me one happy camper.