Psmith's Forum Posts

  • O.K. DeadEye, have a look.

  • DeadEye:

    I don't see a "built in" option for uploading a file, (cap file), so I assume I can only post a link to this file on my own server - is this correct?

    To make sure that this was not an "instance" problem, I deleted all of the instances and left only one monster. I checked its properties and its initial speed is set to 50, but when "Running" the level, the monster starts moving, at accelerated speed, right to the "Player".

    I don't currently have an easy way to upload files to a server, so, I'm sorry I can't provide you with the .cap file.

    Greg Smith

  • DeadEye:

    Another thing I noticed when I "Run" the level is that it starts with the "Player" letting off a single round, by default. It also appears that some of the monsters start moving at the "accelerated" speed, without being struck by a bullet. Is this a bug?

    And, thank you for the instruction.

    Greg Smith

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • I've been working through the "Ghost Shooter" tutorial and added the optional event of increasing the pursuit speed of the monsters while the value of "Chase Timer" is greater than 0. I did this by adding a new "event" that triggers when the value of "Chase Timer" is greater than zero by increasing the monster's "Bullet" property speed. This would lead me to believe that as soon as the value of "Chase Timer" hits zero, the speed increase would revert, but I must be wrong about this.

    It seems that, once hit by a bullet, the monsters do, indeed, increase their speed of pursuit, but once increased, their speed remains advanced and does not reduce once the "timer" value hits zero, (after 2 and 1/2 seconds).

    Is there another event that must be added to insure that the original speed is reinstated?

    Thank you,

    Greg Smith

  • Rich:

    That is a good thing to know. In fact, if this is so, then Construct represents the only existing game engine that can make that claim.

    Thank you,

    Greg Smith

  • Deadeye:

    Thank you for the references.

    Davioware: Well, I'm not sure I've finally accepted it, but I'm willing to spend some more time giving it my best attention.

    Thanks,

    Greg Smith

  • I was wondering if anyone can direct me to a sample of any game or portion of a game, created using Construct, that features backgrounds that are animated in portions, and that appear to merge seamlessly with foreground scenery. Parallax examples would be good, too.

    Another thing I would love to see is a sample of a player character that appears to move in 3D space, (turning and getting smaller as he moves toward the background, larger when he moves toward the foreground, or "camera"). I imagine both of these scenarios would lend themselves to the "side scroller" genre.

    What I am trying to discover is how far the 2D game format can be extended to realistically resemble partial 3D environments in which game play takes place.

    Are these things possible to be accomplished without "scripting"? Would all the elements I mentioned be handled using "sprite" functions?

    Thank you,

    Greg Smith

  • I'm so glad to read your many replies to my simple questions and statements. They have told me much about yourselves and your philosophies. And, from what I can gather, most of you are not even programmers, yet, for some reason you are attracted to the use of non-descriptive and counter intuitive terminology and structure. Many of you admit that you have failed to grasp "modern" programming languages, and that is why you have come here to learn Construct - which maintains that same programming paradigm that has given you such fits. Quite a dilemma for you, I should think.

    [quote:2j3po168]Using industry standard terms which happen to be the best and most suitable terms does not make a product difficult or less intuitive, quite the opposite.

    This statement assumes that because the industry uses this standard of terminology that it automatically makes it the "best and most suitable". For whom, I might ask?

    Really, I do understand both terms: variable and global variable, I just don't find them very descriptive, nor do I find terms like "function", "exception", "z-depth",(since not all software uses the Z axis to define depth), and many many more.

    It seems that those who initially "invented" programming conventions didn't spend much time thinking about what words really mean in English, and this would explain why these conventions survive until this day.

    And those of you who think you need to be proficient in advanced mathematics to make the simple things found in today's AAA games, which sell millions of copies, might possibly be in danger of making your heads explode, as it appears our dear friend Deadeye's head might do at any moment.

    Good day,

    Psmith

  • It always amazes me how programmers reply to reasonable questions like the ones I have posed.

    What can you call a thing other than "variable" that is more descriptive and more readily understandable to non-initiates? I'm sure you can find a better word or phrase if you cared to think about it for longer than a second or two. I know I can. For non-global variables, instead of a dead and indeterminate noun, why not use a verb like "remember". "Remember"(something) would hold whatever you wanted in its "memory" until it is replaced by something else. A global variable could be equally descriptive by using another active phrase that everyone can understand like "remember forever" (something). This is how we speak and this is how we think.

    Considering that something is "advanced" or "professional", simply because it is obscure is nonsense.

    It is quite alright that you have designed this engine for making professional quality 2D games, but that does not require you to make it difficult for non-professionals to do so. Games and game logic are incredibly simple if you care to be honest about it. There is no need to add layers of complexity just so those who consider themselves "professionals" don't feel let down.

    Actually, PhotoShop was one of those programs I learned to use quite proficiently by clicking around and not reading a single page of documentation or following a single tutorial. Any really professional application that claims to have even a fraction of PhotoShop's utility should provide the same facility.

    Oh yes . . . Deadeye - that avatar of yours speaks volumes, you know.

    'Good programming makes simple things simple, and complex things possible' (Alan Kay, more or less).

    � Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. � - (Abelson / Sussman)

    One of these days the Priesthood of the code will be thoroughly disbanded. Mark my words.

    Psmith

  • You fellows seem to be on the right track with regard to game making. I like your stated concept of presenting everything in a "visual, human readable way".

    Having downloaded the program and clicked around quite a bit, I can't say I find it to be totally as comprehensible as I had hoped. I couldn't even figure out how to start creating a "world" or "scene" or layout. That is the very first step anyone will try to take, and it is not graphically obvious where to start. I had to load one of the templates to see anything in action, but even that gave no visual clues as to how to "begin at the beginning".

    Another thing I noticed after studying the Wiki and such is that the tiny icons that are strung together in sequence, indicating the order of "events" and "functions" are not incredibly descriptive - many functions are depicted with the same rather cryptic icon of what looks like an "eye" or an "angle" symbol or something. The true meaning is only visible by hovering over the icon for a time with the mouse pointer. Why not use a different icon for each action or function?

    The "root" screen that intends to indicate the program flow in a "human readable way" does a fair job at doing so, but I found that once one delves deeper into actions and "functions", the obligatory "programmer speak" begins to emerge all over the place - words like "variables", "global variables", "functions", "z-order", "exclusion", etc. - none of which I found very descriptive, even in the context of actual programming functionality. Why not use "plain English" here that will be comprehensible to everyone, as well?

    Believe it or not, a product of Microsoft Research has actually succeeded in hitting the idea of "layman's programming" on the head with their soon to be released 3D game making application called "Kodu" - I encourage you all to watch the inventor's own explanatory video demonstrating their programming paradigm: http://hk.truveo.com/Kodu-Videos-X360-CES-2009-Developer-Commentary/id/2653837507

    Kodu uses the language of the senses to explain all of its programming functionality. I wonder if Construct would enable a motivated user to enter the "source" and change all of these cyptic, programmer specific terms into their "human readable" forms? If you can explain it to me, a non-programmer, I'll happily set out to "fix" the lot.

    Still, from what I have been able to find, after many weeks of searching for the ideal game making environment, it appears that the authors of Construct see at least part of the picture.

    Psmith