skymen's Forum Posts

  • Hello.

    Lately I've been messing around with CSS and Construct, especially using CCSImport plugin (as it gets very tiring with events).

    This allowed me to make use of CSS Generators, and they all work fine. However, I can't seem to make changes to Checkboxes.

    Well I can apply effects to text, but I can't touch the checkbox itself, the little box I mean.

    Same I looked around, and apparently, I found out that you can't change it. So the way they do it is that you just move the box far away, and place an image where it should be. Image that gets changed when the checkbox is checked or not.

    For that it uses Labels. But Labels don't seem to work with C2, so all it does is that it moves the checkbox far away, and nothing else.

    I'm a CSS noob and if someone could help me that'd be cool.

    Here's the code that I'm using right now

    #check {

position:absolute; 
z-index:-1000; 
left:-1000px; 
overflow: 
hidden; clip: 
rect(0 0 0 0); 
height:1px; 
width:1px; 
margin:-1px; 
padding:0; 
border:0;
						
}

						
#check + label.css-label {

padding-left:30px;
height:25px;
display:inline-block;

line-height:25px;

background-repeat:no-repeat;

background-position: 0 0;

font-size:25px;

vertical-align:middle;

cursor:pointer;

}

						
#check:checked + label.css-label {
							
background-position: 0 -25px;
						
}

						
label.css-label {
				
background-image:url(http://csscheckbox.com/checkboxes/u/csscheckbox_391ce065f36b1460c4845fa9b5173fba.png);
		
-webkit-touch-callout: none;
				
-webkit-user-select: none;
				
-khtml-user-select: none;
				
-moz-user-select: none;
				
-ms-user-select: none;
				
user-select: none;
			
}[/code:2mw3s082]

And here is the result that I should have 

[img="https://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2017/19/1494199392-chrome-2017-05-08-01-22-48.png"]

So please, if anyone could help me, that'd be cool

  • Is there a way to make some sort of collision masking or blending. Like let's say I have a solid area, and I want a sprite moving over that area that nullifies the collision on it.

    Easiest exemple would be in a top down game, moving blocks over water: You can't walk over water, but only on the blocks that move over the water, and you can move in the area of the block, but not outside of it unless another block is near (or you're out of the solid zone)

    What is the best or the easiest way to do this?

  • The link is dead, can someone reupload?

  • UP: I'm available again

  • The plugin is not available anymore, can anyone reupload it?

  • Mouveroute Editor — Now for sale in the Scirra Store!

    https://www.scirra.com/store/game-making-tools/mouveroute-editor-3396

    <p>Using the editor you can create multiple paths, link them together, and generate a code. You can then reuse the code in your game to apply a mouveroute to your objects.</p>

    Use this topic to leave comments, ask questions and talk about Mouveroute Editor

  • Hey. I'd like to know if anyone could do a plugin that would basically allow for animated text.

    Exactly like this:

    Source: https://marketplace.yoyogames.com/asset ... t_-scripts

    I 'd really need this, and my attempts at eventing this are kind of bad, because it doen't work so well.

  • Tom, well if we could at least get that XOR encryption, that'd be nice. As Ashley said, it'll mainly work as a placebo, and as it will work (a little bit), it should solve most problems: People complaining about having no encryption, and assets stealing actually dropping as it's not as easy to get the assets as it needs a little bit of knowledge, which most people that steal assets don't have.

  • So I was thinking about this some more, and I guess something we could do with hopefully minimal performance impact is something simple like XOR encrypt the project name over the content of all asset files. If it's reversed at the point of loading hopefully there won't be too much delay (although this remains to be seen), and it stops you "just opening" any asset files.

    I'm personally 100% fine with this. This is exactly what I'm asking for, as I doubt that C2 games will get too many skilled hacker around. Plus as you already said, RAM extracting is also a thing, so too heavy encryption is useless anyway.

    But as I said, I'd rather have a small encryption than no encryption at all.

  • True, but your content has to be pretty top notch to have even the slightest chance of being stolen anyway. Just saying.

    True, and The next Penelope is a good exemple. As it did happen that someone stole assets from the game

  • Base64 is not encryption. It's just a different format for the same data. Using Base64 is like swapping PNG for JPEG, it offers no protection at all, and only works if someone knows how to extract one format but not the other, which seems unlikely.

    Base64 is also a text-based format so uses more space on disk and more memory too. So given how some people are worried about their games taking too much memory, that also seems like a bad tradeoff to make.

    Yeah, you're totally right, but it's hidden in the code or in JSON files, so harder for anyone to look into it and to change back.

    Also, I think the main use of this would be as I said to make 3rd party editors as there is no way to load animations and images from external files in C2 (tell me if I'm wrong tho)

    I wouldn't bee to concerned about your content being stolen. If it's copyrighted material, you could always wave the big lawsuit flag at the perpetrators and I'd imagine that most of them would just drop the assets and go steal them from someone else.

    Yeah, but most of the time people don't really care, because, either they did not pay attention to your warning, or they know you're not rich enough to actually open a lawsuit against him.

  • Yeah. We can always generate a few sounds at start or when a specific action is done and store and repeat the generated soud for that action. So you have a new set of sounds on each new game

  • Base64 is interesting, but it increases the size on disk considerably.

    Yeah unless someone finds a way to make some sort of data compressor. But that'd add to the loading time too I guess

    Another thing to consider for sound is that we can now generate it in in browser, and that means we don't have to rely on pre generated files.

    It does mean we need more ways/ tools to create something for game use.

    Oh yeah! That'd be sick tbh. Well, something that would really be sick af is if it were possible to retrieve sound files from bfxr, chiptone or even jukedeck! Ashley I'd love to hear you on this one, cause if this is possible then it would add a lot of sound deepness into a game even if it reduces its sound identity. That'd be a very good trade-off for fast paced arcade games or survival games where sounds and/or music are not the main focus. I can Imagine a game distantly generating a music file from Jukedeck and upload it to a server every now and then, and then would retrieve random files from said server. This would mean infinite modular original soundtrack.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • 1- For js files inside the .nw package:

    There is a solution called v8 snapshot which could be added to C2 : https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/Prot ... 8-snapshot

    But it comes with some drawbacks such as noticeable performance decrease in your game.

    2- For image assets:

    You can load base64 images instead of importing files.

    3- For sound files:

    Same, using base64 sounds can solve the issue.

    And all 2 and 3 would be encrypted since they reside inside the c2runtime.js file which will become c2runtime.bin

    But again, performance issues cannot be overlooked.

    Concerning code, yes Ashley already addressed this and it's clearly not a problem.

    Concerning base64 images I use that in my current rogue like game in dev. Mainly because it allows me to develop a 3rd party tool using construct that will make it easier to add characters and weapons, and also because I don't really care about loading time as they're already pretty long due to the Rogue like generation mechanics ^^.

    I guess the name isn't clear: enabling "minify script" uses Google Closure Compiler in advanced mode, which also does very thorough obfuscation. Even if you "beautify" it to try to make it readable, it's still very difficult to work with. So C2 already does this.

    I didn't know that. Thank you for clearing that out <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile">

  • [quote:myxou902]As a start, I'm very sure not all agree to this so making this feature optional would be fair for both sides.

    Yeah ofc

    [quote:myxou902]It means that 12 year old hacker wannabes can finally show off what they learned on youtube.com.

    No actually. If you add an encryption key then the process wil have to be repeated for each new game and each build of said game if it uses a different encryption key

    [quote:myxou902]it could take maybe 30 seconds to decrypt everything. Firstly, is that a trade-off you're happy to make?

    30 seconds is merely nothing for adventure games or some arcade games that keep you for hours. So people may say that yes, they would be happy to make that trade-off.

    [quote:myxou902]since it's decrypted in RAM, tools can still take your content from there

    Yeah, again. But it's still harder to extract than just decompressing files. It offers a slight protection.

    [quote:myxou902]So you could end up with a significant performance decrease, and no meaningful protection - the worst of both worlds.

    This is why it should be optionnal and let the dev decide wether he wants to use it and try for himself if the trade-off it worth or not.

    [quote:myxou902]I'd also point out that your code is already pretty well protected if you minify it.

    This is clearly not a problem as even if people consider minifying as not a protection because it just removes useless spaces and returns, they can always obfuscate their code using some free online tool that will clearly make it even harder to reverse engineer https://www.javascriptobfuscator.com/