niallobrien - good timing, they just released a new beta with support for node webkit, which performs better than awesomium and exports to exe and OS X, and hopefully Linux support will be added as well.

justifun - it's shown on your profile page.

Here's the link to the most recent version of CC:

http://www.scirra.com/forum/construct-classic-r2-released_topic48884.html

There seems to be a misconception about every tick. Using it is not a problem. Ever. This is because every single event essentially has an every tick condition in it, as can be shown by an event with no conditions at all behaving the same way as an event with the every tick condition. It's what you do with the other conditions and actions that's important.

As for the framerate problem, I think I recall reading something about c2 capping the framerate at 60. If that's the case, I'm guessing c2 might also be clamping the dt value? I know it does on the low end, to make sure if the framerate goes too low sprites don't start teleporting through walls. If it's clamped to not go above 60 fps, then going above 60 fps anyway would cause the behavior you describe.

Ashley - is that the problem? Does c2 try to cap the framerate at 60? If so, why not let computers run at higher frame rates than 60 if they can/are doing so? I tried 120 hz on one of my cc games once and it was awesome. There are gamers out there who get 120 hz monitors specifically for that silky smooth gaming experience. Also, wouldn't capping the framerate to 60 cause jittery frame rates on any refresh rate that's not a multiple of 60?

If c2 doesn't try to cap the framerate, though, never mind. ^^

I don't know though, what if the newer version of the plug-in actually has new bugs? It might be better if construct asked you with a dialog box, notifying you that there is a newer version available and asks if you want to update or continue using the old one.

I think this is great. With so many companies jumping on the bandwagon (and a big name like nvidia), I think it's making it more and more likely that the idea as a whole will work - android being used as an open gaming platform, open to develop hardware and software for. Sort of like how PCs have done it, like having the 3ds being open for anyone to make a version of.

The more companies that try to do this, the more customers are reached, and the more viable the platform becomes and the more people start to think of android as a gaming platform. The main thing is I hope it will be easy to get a game working with all the various hardware out there. There really needs to be something to make doing so easy for us devs.

I'm a bit concerned about the quality of hardware - not from the current contenders specifically, but historically there are generally companies that make subpar hardware to undercut their competitors, like for example when Apple decided to let other companies make Apple hardware, there were a lot of clones that had issues, devaluing the brand and it almost tanked Apple. Similarly, the amount of garbage software for the Atari almost ruined the industry before Nintendo saved it specifically by having a closed platform so they could ensure some level of quality. With the Internet as prevalent as it is now though, it's a lot easier to research something before buying.

All these companies joining in also means that it's likely that we'll get a platform that is being updated whenever new technology is available rather than once every 5 years or so. Honestly, I think a regularly updated video game platform might be the thing the industry needs. It works great for iOS and pc - why not consoles?

You can put 3 effects on a layer to get that effect: blur horizontal, blur vertical, glow (in that order). Prebaking the effect will be much, much more efficient for the gpu though.

Wow, nice! I came in here thinking I was gonna have to get all moderator on someone for posting warez but this does seem to be legit.

Edit: er... maybe not. Sorry guys, not legit at all. Turns out people were reporting it wrong.

Great idea. Thumbs up. It would really make things easier when people looking for help post a capx with custom plugins.

As I understand it, 100% opaque pixels are the fastest to render, fully transparent the second-fastest, and semi transparent third fastest. I don't think it matters whether the sprite's opacity is set to 60% or if the pixels contained in the image itself are 60% opaque, I think they will both render at the same speed. However, having an image where the actual pixels are rendered fully opaque but there appears to be a transparent object rendered in the image itself will be faster.

It also results in the video card having to draw less pixels, which is especially a help on mobile.