makedit's Forum Posts

  • will test it later

    edit: it worked for xp sp2, i guess its good for small demos

    (although i dont think its another legal level than zipping the .dlls with the .exe)

  • how i read that this only indicates that there would be problems with the installation and game running afterwards, no that it is illegal to skip 1 or 2 files in the installation process. didnt find anything otherwise when searching for it, of course this isnt a legal advise <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

    im pretty sure ive encountered alot of aaa title installations where there were filecheck for the directx version and/or options to skip the installation. so i dont worry about it - only including 1 or 2 .dll files seem to be uncommon - although there are commercial games who made that too!

  • mentioned this link in another thread:

    msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee416805(v=vs.85).aspx

    scirra.com/forum/suggestion-directx_topic44119.html

    a "Small Installation Packages" silent install "Installation of DirectX by the Game's Installer" could be the best way to distribute cc game with directx in a legal way.

    any good solution is welcome :p

    hf gl

  • msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee416805(v=vs.85).aspx

    found this article when searching for methods of solving the directx requirements for construct classic.

    maybe its possible to include a minimum version of the construct required directx files with a silent install. (Small Installation Packages, Launch setup in silent mode)

    there are games that have included the required .dlls only in their install, but that is some sort of a more risky way legally from what ive read. although this would be the most effective i guess.

    as ive seen that many people are developing high quality games with cc and thinking of distributing, i would like to suggest that we would find a way to include a silent minimum install package in either the exporter or a streamlined way to integrate it afterwards.

    what are the exact required files to make games run on an outdated machine, which directx update is the minimum which have to be included with a silent install ? so the filesize and the os and driver requirements can remain as small as possible.

    an internet link is not a solution for distributed games imo.

  • got through the free bundle:

    its good work, i like it (and the pictures of the 2nd spritepack).

    -in case i buy the standard version can i use everything in the bundle and sell a game with it (including editing the sources) without any restictions ?

    -are there any planed/regular updates to the pack ? or more to see as an extra ?

    found some things that could be optimized:

    (i have not that much experience with .gif so i assume that it is possibly not a bug but just the gif rules. if thats the case so be it.)

    Exp_type_B.gif: can be noticed as a square - the edges should be transparent.

    Exp_type_C.gif: can be noticed as a square - the edges should be transparent.

    thrust_orange_big.gif: can be noticed as a square - the edges should be transparent.

  • as a system admin i would probably do the same.(be on the sure side of things some may call it)

    but as a user i wouldnt like to install the update myself only to run

    1 software more than before when everything is working like it should.

    do i like to use or sell software that forces to install new hardware/software until really necessary for quality ? and no option even to start or run maybe with scaling renderquality or 1 or 2 missing extra features ?

    one good example for that are imo the wc3/wow or guildwars engine. i think most people prefer it that way. so i try to keep the dependency

    low in general.

    guess we all agree a sp2 install maybe with a directx update is

    the general minimum standard atm for most high end studios.

    i read of dx10 only games, but there are more xp sp1 compatible games in development overall than games that work only with vista. even if that isnt the case i still like it more because the hardware is still there - a software only lock from xp standard install to sp3 is not my thing. same hardware same performance, software should be scaleable unless theres a good explanation.

    most would rather experience a slower software/game with some gfx missing than a starting error.

    of course every dev has to make her/his reasonable min. requirements.

  • its a messagebox:

    ---------------------------

    Construct 2 Check failure

    ---------------------------

    Check failure! This is probably a bug:

    Failed to create font or default Arial font

    Condition: <unavailable>

    File: <unavailable>

    Line: -1

    Function: assert2

    Build: release 51 (32-bit) checked

    Component: Plugin 'Text' in HTML5 exporter

    (Last Win32 error: 2)

    -------

    reduced the fontfolder manually some time ago to speed up booting.

    but if arial font is included in all os and you have to first delete them to get this error it seems pretty custom

    tried it again:

    the message appears 5 times even when theres only one text

    object in the layout. dont know if there are people who have the skill

    to delete the arial font and then dont remember it. so just in case hehe

    about the source:

    strange to read that, because it says construct 2 check failure in the header. maybe some included library ?

  • failed to create font or default arial font.

    this message appears 5 times when i load a game project and

    have no arial font installed.

    maybe an option to set it to default system font ?

    afaik: tahoma

    or dunno if courier can be removed.

    thought i should at least mention it. games are loading normaly

    after you clicked through, no big deal.

  • thanks for the clarifying answers !

    tested the service pack requirements with 3 fresh installs:

    xp no sp: entry point Encodepointer in kernel32.dll not found

    xp sp1: the same error

    xp sp2: working out of the box

    xpsp1 was tested in a virtual machine, the others normal.

    no hw acceleration activated in virtual pc.

    hardware was p4 3ghz with igp.

    no extra drivers installed on all 3 installs.

  • hey

    congrats on the release !

    ---

    c2 looks and feels improved to cc in the first few tests.

    useability is somehow same and i had the same tool performance overall,

    except exporting took longer with for example space blaster (biggest project i tested)

    edit: exporting is fast without png recompressing.

    sceneeditor seemed faster.

    editor overall was alittle bit faster on older pcs (only tested with small project)

    c2 wouldnt open on another pc, dont remember the dialoge but i guess

    it has to do with the winxp version or runtimes.

    edit: tested again, showed kernel32.dll error. if i had to bet i would say a xp service pack is missing

    -so what are the exact system requirements of c2 ?

    (os, os updates, runtimes, drivers...)

    html5 performance isnt optimal. ran some of the provided games and forum games on ff3.5, ff4 and a new ff beta - performance improved with each version

    but with user statistics in mind it was not good enough for me personaly. and i had fpsdrops and soundbugs( the sbug maybe bc. of fps)

    the tested hardware can run opengl q4, etqw with stable 30fps in 1280

    and crysis/2 about 20-30fps in low/medium.

    flash runs more stable with comparable graphics, and higher fps count or less drops with comparable gameplay for now on 5year old hardware.

    in general i would prefer html5 over flash if its on par on performance, compatibility.

    bug: the platform8 demo had the same bug as platformer behavior in c1

    with stopping 1pixel above ground (havent checked the buglist, just mention it in case)

    im interested in c2 and producing high quality games, so im with some

    other devs in here who are really interested in exe, linux or mac exporters

    now that the first release seems quite complete im sure this is in your minds too:

    • can you give some information what you expect to be last date of the first version of the .exe exporter somehow ?

    ive ran cc on several machines (the editor and the games), one of the few disadvantages i still have are the high dx9c requirements. the performance on older hardware even with outdated gfx cards is good enough.

    • so can you please give some estimation on how the opengl exe exporter would run compared to cc on older hardware (for example p3 1ghz, gf1 or 2, athlon 1200 radeon 7k, 8k)

    would there be any fps loss to cc games or to other opengl games that run good on such hardware (e.g. idtech3, cs, or with dx ut2003) ?

    -what would be the estimated system requirements (opengl version, drivers, os ...) ?

    ---

    edit2: tested most provided games in ff, opera and chrome in the newest

    versions of the browsers now. the platform example has over 50fps in chrome, the ghost laser shooter 10-20. could be a starting point for me with reducing fx and spritesize.

    -how secure is my gamecontent exactly ?

    //edited a few things after some hours frametests.

    thanks for your time, gl hf

  • just found this, another visual scripting for unity

    http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/84594- ... -for-Unity!

  • good idea implementation, nice game

    score 1350

    stops 110

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • just tried some settings:

    50 and 60hz are stable

    85hz is unstable in between 1-5fps differences

    75,100 and 120hz are bad - if someone wanna test it, i recommend a window resolution minimum 1024, better 1152x864, 1280x720, 1280x960, 1280x1024 ..

    can be tested with every .cap game or even mame

    would be nice to hear from a win7 user if someone is interested and has time to try: set your monitor to 75hz and window mode with vsync on in your game

  • directx has problems to maintain stable fps with vsync on and higher monitor hz than 60.

    a bigger windowsize results in more fluctuations - from 1024 it becomes what i call really

    unstable - 1280 and up with high monitor hz is unplayable.

    tested on: ati and nvidia. dx9 aug08, dx9 jun10. 75,85,100,120hz. 640-1600 resolutions.

    this does not happen in opengl games.

    it does not happen in directx games fullscreen.

    it is a problem with all directx games i have tested, so not a bug in construct runtime. 3d games too.

    not tested on: win7

    solution: i have looked through various engines how they solve this because with unstable vsync

    the screen and the gameplay becomes unacceptable, the bigger the windowsize the worse.

    good console, arcade emulators or fps engines solve this issue with a frame cap.

    this is called fps cap, throttle, fps limiter, maxfps or something similar.

    so then your fps stay at e.g 60 frames per second with 120 hz vsync on. and gameplay stays stable and the same way even in window mode and high screen and window resolutions.

    devrequests

    1.: fps limiter command

    2.: ability to toggle vsync at runtime (or at least as startup switch, didnt found something like that)

    searched the forum and wiki for a solution based on events, i guess its not possible atm ?

    thanks in advance for answers and solutions