newt's Forum Posts

  • Glad you had the experience, but.....

    get back in the kitchen?

  • Don't see why not, just have to pick those objects somehow.

    Not sure if a variable will work in conjunction with a family tho.

  • I find Gimp's interface infinitely easier than Photoshop's, and that's because I know it.

    Likewise I often hear those who try to migrate to Gimp complain that it's interface is hard to understand, they then ask if they can make it more like Photoshop, even though it couldn't make any difference in it's actual performance.

    The same thing has happened here.

    Scripting might be easier for those used to it, but when it comes down to it, a plug is just a better solution.

  • Check out the Perlin noise plug. It uses a seeded random which means if you set the seed to x number you will get the same output every time you use that number.

    Plus it outputs to an array... basically every thing you need to create nodes at computer generated set positions.

  • [quote:3p4qob75]excuse me but ive seen bazilions of games with bigger and smother animations then this and they used 1/10 of the ram i am using.

    Actually it was probably much, much less less than that.

    As Mipey said, its not an animation you see in the utube.

    Search the forums there's a couple particle warp examples out there.

    Heck I think I did one with the path object.

  • Sorry, but that's way, way, way, way.... way out of the realms of whats possible.

    What your describing is more like a cut scene, than an animation.

  • Something that could pick by distance() would be nice.

  • Do yourself a favor and get a copy of Audacity. Chances are there's an artifact that you didn't hear in SFXR, but you can see it in Audacity, as well as edit it out.

    There's also the possibility that the format is wrong, you can change that too:

    http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

  • A feature is any unexpected behavior that can be exploited. Being able to have negative values should defiantly qualify for that definition, as you would expect an error.

    Although broken collisions are somewhat less exploitable, it should still qualify. Especially from the standpoint of the alternatives.

    They are:

    Stop the ability to have negative values.

    Rewrite it to allow for collision detection in negative values.

    Leave it as is, and possibly fix it in some future release.

    Given the situation we have for the upcoming 1.0, and the probability that the devs might consider the first alternative easier than the second, I say lets go with the third.

  • If your going to create, and destroy them for each layout, then don't use global.

    That's probably a better way to go anyway, especially if you resize anything.

    Global simply means keep that objects state from the previous layout.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • I think the biggest one is that it misses clicks.

  • Not sure if it will work but you could try overlap at offset.

    Might have to include a condition where width is less than original width, or a variable with the starting width.

  • Don't know if you can have more than one per layout, but since the layout object is bugged, it's suggested not to use it at all.

    Besides that I don't think layouts can share info at the same time.

    Might try the minimap object on a separate layer with scrollx, scrolly, set to 0.

  • Feature

    Use a dummy