The gravity sim would have to be slowed down and made "looser" to get the floaty effect of cells in liquid though.

The way to this would be, either to change the constant at the start of the set velocity equations, or to (increase that and) raise the power of the distance formula. So for example:

instead of the formula being a=Gm/r^2 it's a=Gm/r^3(or more) where G is a constant m is the mass of the sprite it's being attracted to and r is the distance.

The effect of this would be that when the sprites are far away the force is lower, and when they're closer the force is higher. In fact this is why what you were doing before was really weird, the force of attraction was actually higher when they were far away.

I was thinking more along the lines of gRAVTARDEROIDZZZZZZ... but yeah whatever

The other issue with it is it would be nice to have tons of asteroids, but this isn't feasible with it having a loop with (number of objects)^2 iterations, I'm sure something could be done to make this better, such as adding a "pick by distance<200" or something between the two loop conditions. Though this might cause other issues (like them not attracting far away )

One other thing I thought would be cool (and briefly tried, failing horribly) would be to somehow treat all the clumps as one object, then shove a big bubble or something on top of it, using mesh distortion to give it the shape. This is probably too insanely difficult though, I couldn't make it work out which clump was which at all.

It's not like you can just hack by typing on a keyboard and yelling "HACK THE GIBSON!" while a 3D rotating cube spins around on the screen.

haha brilliant

Is it possible to make the wrap behaviour do this:

<img src="http://www.quotecats.com/what/wrapbehaviour.PNG">

That is, when part of an object goes off one side of the screen, you see that part start to come on the other side of the screen.

This would make the wrap behaviour more useful, as this isn't so trivial to do with events.

heh I'm glad you like them they're from an extremely crude parody star trek fan comic which I co-author, if you're a fan of star trek at all (except voyager) you should read them they're pretty damn good. All drawn in mspaint, though those ones I linked are among the best artwork. http://www.jfazw.com/comics.html

(something for neighbours fans: http://www.jfazw.com/102.php?page=22)

The reason it's not working right is you're doing the physics calculations wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

http://www.quozzzigcs.cap%20NO%20THIS%20IS%20CRAP

EDIT: Though it does tend to flail around in circles a bit if you have loads of circles.

EDIT2: Also, since it resets the force each tick so it can work out the new gravity force, (as the gravity force shouldn't accumulate) if you set the force to something else (like if you wanted to shoot them and they break apart) it will just not work. I'll try to remedy this.

EDIT3: http://www.quotecats.com/what/phyuiziixckzxez.cap

much better, though I can't manage to add the ship to the family "Blue" (this has gotta be a bug?) It's especially cool if you ramp up the ship's mass and force towards the mouse, then you can smash apart the asteroid clumps.

When I first transitioned to construct I thought it was confusing, but after getting used to it (and realising ctrl+drag copies events!) its so much better. So much so that I tried to understand some old (uncommented ofc) MMF code and couldn't understand what the heck was going on, and the main reason is the events are displayed in such a weird way - with no indication as to the order your events are in. Sure MMF's event editor is probably still a little faster to use, but with a couple of refinements Construct's event editor can be just as fast (I've stated how I think this can be done in another thread).

The other understated but huge advantage construct has over MMF is that the developers (sucking up now heh) really watch this forum and implement new stuff that people want, and update these things into construct relatively frequently. So much so that I feel like most things that I request vaguely feeling like it could be useful, will eventually make their way into the program... and all for free!

http://www.jfazw.com/104.php?page=14

http://www.jfazw.com/104.php?page=25

http://www.jfazw.com/104.php?page=35

http://www.jfazw.com/106.php?page=11

http://www.jfazw.com/106.php?page=25

This would be good.

Just a Hue/Saturation effect would be really useful as well.

The hotspot is in a different place in each frame.

Is there a chance you can make it play mp3/ogg etc as sounds and not just music? (on different channels or whatever)

I'm going to bump this because there's been no replies and I still think it's a good idea, though my explanation probably didn't do it justice.

Basically I was trying to make a custom platform movement and realised I absolutely hate using other sprites as detectors, there's too much fiddling around with hotspots and size changes etc, they just get annoying. So I tried to use the "object overlaps point" condition to replace these detectors, only to find its extremely limiting and unsuitable for this purpose.

For a detector on the right, I set the single point to the midpoint of the sprite on the Y axis, and the furthest right point on the X axis, but because it's just a single point at your midpoint if you collide with something on your feet or your head it doesn't stop you. I thought for a second about looping it through every Y, then realised that was dumb since collision detection must handle a bunch of points at once anyway.

You should be able to (at the very least) specify 2 X values, and 2 Y values, and it tests collisions within the region between them (a box), thus giving removing the need for invisible detectors.

It might be nicer in fact to have >3 (x,y) coordinates, and test a polygon between them, allowing the creation of weirder shapes that might be more useful.

The reason I was suggesting sets is that you could potentially describe different shapes other than some n sided polygon (like a circle). Though, the syntax would probably be ultra confusing, and might be hard to implement.

you know you can upload stuff in this forum you don't have to use mediafire, it's pretty nice though