OddConfection's Forum Posts

  • OddConfection

    I am getting 1 problem here

    on startup i click right button then Step become 3 and doesn't rotate sprite

    but after 1 click everything works fine

    Now how we can fix this problem??

    Change the starting value of Step from 0 to 3, that should fix it.

  • I never use symbols like you used and i did not understand what they belongs here

    like "?" , " : " , " > "

    last one i know its grater than symbol but how to use it here

    [quote:2moox76v]Self.Angle > 120 ? clamp(Self.Angle - 60*dt, 120, Self.Angle) : clamp(Self.Angle + 60*dt, Self.Angle, 120)

    "?" is like "then"

    ":" is like "else"

    So it's like doing:

    if thisCondition then

    do this

    else

    do that

    Or putting it in event terms:

    System: Compare Sprite.Angle > 120

    Sprite: Set angle to clamp(Self.Angle - 60*dt, 120, Self.Angle)

    Else

    Sprite: Set angle to clamp(Self.Angle + 60*dt, Self.Angle, 120)

    Take a look at the manual about Expressions

    [quote:2moox76v]?: is a conditional operator, which allows you to test conditions in expressions. This is especially useful when used with the comparison operators and logical operators. It takes the form condition ? result_if_true : result_if_false

    e.g. health < 0 | score < 0 ? "Game over!" : "Keep going!".

    The condition counts as true if it is non-zero, and false if it is zero.

  • too much calculations here

    not easy to understand for me

    I don't know about "clamp", "?" what does actually

    and How can i speedup the rotation

    its slow rotation

    and what if i want to do double click

    it should rotate 240 instead of 120

    Clamp just keeps a value within a certain range. Think of it as a combination of min and max

    clamp(value, min, max)

    You can move the angle comparisons out of the Set Angle action into separate Sub-Event conditions if that is easier to follow. They are there to know which direction to rotate.

    Rotation speed is that 60*dt part, just replace the 60 with another value or variable

    If you want to allow multiple clicks or double click, just remove the inverted Is Rotating conditions from the click events

  • luckyrawatlucky

    Here's an example capx (r244)

    I swapped "Rotate" for a "Rotating" boolean and worked directly with the Sprite's Angle.

    Also used 60*dt instead of 1 every tick for smoother rotation

    And it only changes Step on click if it's not Rotating, so there is no problem with double-click

  • CJacobsSA

    You either need to do a whole series of sub-events:

    System: Compare var_UpgradeToAdd = "ThisUpgradeName" (string that matches global variable name)

    Set ThisUpgradeName to 1

    Or, you can use a Dictionary instead of Global variables, which should let you reference values by a variable:

    Set key var_UpgradeToAdd to 1

    That would also make it easier to save all upgrades to Local Storage for persistence, using the Dictionary's AsJSON functionality to save a single value rather than all Global variables separately.

  • Just so i understand, why would it matter where the value of Game_Started is changed if it's within the same event?

    Events run every tick, Wait does not stop that, it just delays the actions after the Wait.

    Changing the value at the start prevents the Event running in the next tick.

    Changing the value at the end allows the Event to be repeated for however many ticks fit into your wait time.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Rable

    Could you compare the WindowHeight and WindowWidth and Set layout angle accordingly?

    Something like:

    WindowHeight > WindowWidth

    Trigger once while true

    Set layout angle to 90

    WindowWidth > WindowHeight

    Trigger once while true

    Set layout angle to 0

    EDIT: Or use the Browser Is Portrait/Landscape condition instead of comparing WindowWidth and WindowHeight

  • Any idea on the pause during pathfinding? It's cosmetic, so not a showstopper, but yea.

    Pathfinding is one of the more intensive operations in coding, so calculating a path can take a few ticks.

    The path in your example image doesn't look particularly long, so instead of breaking it up into multiple chained paths you could do just one pathfinding call and only have the pause at the start.

    >

    > Are you saying the stand alone version will use and be reliant on the current Chrome version rather than be a self contained package?

    >

    No sorry, I mispoke. It could be in a self contained package.

    Thanks for the clarification, you had me slightly worried there for a second.

    [quote:2izhrmb0]That's one of the reasons I was advocating the option to suspend your subscription, so you could put your subscription on hold for several months if you know you're not going to use it, with this option limited to a few times per subscription so it's not abused.

    That is an interesting idea I will raise with everyone when we next discuss options.

    Thanks for considering the suggestion. I know you can't include everything everyone suggests, so I appreciate your willingness to discuss it with the team.

  • Miksu112

    I've not looked at your capx but here's a very basic example of a jetpack mechanic that works with the platformer behaviour: capx (r244)

    Just hold down space to rise up and use the arrow keys to move the player as normal.

    [quote:3mhrvkxp]As with C2, if someone complains about a bug in an old version, they are told they need to update first, which in this case would mean re-subscribing - which to me is fair enough, as one of the benefits of subscription is updates and bug fixes.

    If a breaking change is implemented by Chrome, the old version could be rendered completely useless. So what's the point? I can imagine the uproar from that, bad publicity and a bad taste left in everyone's mouth.

    I was referring to the stand alone version of C3.

    Are you saying the stand alone version will use and be reliant on the current Chrome version rather than be a self contained package?

    I mentioned this in the past, and I think it is worth mentioning again since nobody seems to talk about it.. The majority of new users won't spend the entirety of the year using Construct3. They will probably only use it a few months until either a couple things happen; they become tired or frustrated with their game/project, they become distracted by other things in life. There will be several months where they don't use it at all.

    That's one of the reasons I was advocating the option to suspend your subscription, so you could put your subscription on hold for several months if you know you're not going to use it, with this option limited to a few times per subscription so it's not abused.

  • So will C3 make a big or small difference over C2 in performance on a PC desktop? Or is that too early to tell?

    Probably too early to tell.

    When they update the C3 runtime, there will likely be some improvements.

    > We can't do that with the online version of C3, since Scirra want to maintain a single version which is fair enough, hence my proposal to allow edit access with the standalone version.

    >

    This severely complicates support. If someone on a 6 month old version complains about a bug - what do we do? Or, Chrome introduce a breaking change. We have to go back and update every single version. This quickly becomes a maintenance nightmare. We prefer to just have everyone on the latest and greatest version.

    As with C2, if someone complains about a bug in an old version, they are told they need to update first, which in this case would mean re-subscribing - which to me is fair enough, as one of the benefits of subscription is updates and bug fixes.

    And I'm not suggesting that Scirra actually maintains old versions either, only that the standalone stops getting updates. If a user didn't download a version before their subscription ended or they accidentally delete it, then they are out of luck and need to subscribe again.

    We hear you loud and clear RE monthly option. Right now as someone else guessed we're too close to change anything. We've had discussions in the office which we're all quite positive about where once you've paid for your first year you can then pay monthly.

    Again, this is only internal discussions at the moment, and there's no rush to implement this as we've got a lot of other things to be getting on with and if we did implement it it would take a year before anyone could take advantage of it anyway.

    Thank you for listening, and that does sound like a reasonable compromise for some of the concerns people have raised.

    And it's perfectly understandable that you are too far along with your current plans to change everything right now, so I for one appreciate that you are willing to make changes, even if they are a year away.

    My next suggestion is the pay per event type method.

    10 cents for triggers

    25 cents for if then types

    50 cents for an else

    50 dollars for each "for each object", or "every tick"

    Yeah, some of y'all are gonna be broke.

    I know Ashley, Tom and the Scirra team deserve more money, but that would make them instant millionaires if half the capxs people ask for help on were imported into C3

    For all those throwing in comparisons with other products .....

    Just because my neighbor drives a Ferrari, doesn't entitle me to having one neither.

    Half the requests for new features are based on what other products have, why can't that apply to the business model also?

    I'm not saying we're entitled to everything others have, I'm just saying what I think is more likely to make people buy/rent Scirra's product.

    I will still maintain that anyone claiming "lockout" doesn't really have valid reason to make a fuzz. That's just my personal opinion... I just feel that people claiming "lockout" and then tries drive an agenda to get some kind of "free access" after their subscription runs out, why?

    With many other subscription based software, when the subscription ends you stop getting updates but you still have the last available version to access and edit your projects. That's why people are complaining about a edit lockout.

    We can't do that with the online version of C3, since Scirra want to maintain a single version which is fair enough, hence my proposal to allow edit access with the standalone version.

    All it would really require is restricting the download/update of the standalone version to current subscribers, same way export services are restricted to current subscribers, with the onus being on users to download a version before their subscription ends.

    How about if the subscription was just to export your game. You pay once for the software and get exports for a year, then after that you only pay to export your game. You can open/edit/preview your game, but not export unless you pay.

    I had suggested something like that previously, but Ashley has stated elsewhere that he doesn't want to go down the paid exporter route of some of their competitors.

    On reflection, I can sort of see the reasoning behind this, as there would probably be complaints from some users about why you have to pay for all export options when you only want to export to Android/apk, for example.