Machrider... I know you said you don't want to make a full 3D game, but there's nothing stopping you from making a 2.5D game with a 3D game engine. All you have to do is restrict movement to the x/y axis and have your camera fixed along z. It would be cool to do this stuff in Construct some day, but if you really have a good idea for a game right now and you want to get working on it, that wouldn't be a bad way to go.

> He want THIS!

Subscribe to Construct videos now

>

So do I! That game looks so friggin sweet.

There is. I don't know how to code. Actually, it's more like I can't seem to learn how to code. I've tried to learn but my attempts to learn programming thus far have ended in failure. I've tried self teaching books, classes, everything. For some reason, I can't make a game unless I have menus to click on and can see whats going on in a WYSIWYG environment. Now if there is any other Klik-like (Construct falls under this category as it derives from Clickteam's klik range of programs) tools out there that can do 3D, then maybe I'd use that instead. But as far as I know, there isn't.

Of coarse, I haven't given up yet. I will keep trying (maybe take some programming classes over the summer) and one day learn how to code without MMF or Construct. But in the meantime, I would like to see some sort of basic 3D model functionality replace (or complement) the 3D Box in Construct someday. It's something I would really look forward to.

What I gather from this entire thread is that what you're asking for is a very, very long way away. Once even just the 2D stuff is anywhere near complete, the devs will be able to better consider expanding the 3d graphics capabilities.

Until them, have you considered modelling and animating in another program, creating 2D animations with it for use in construct? It would achieve much the same effect provided you take your time.

No, it wouldn't. Then they'd just be sprites made with some 3D modeler. You wouldn't be able to have them zoom in and out and automatically orientate themselves according to where you are on the screen. Look at that Starfox example to see what I mean. Someone also posted a parallax example on here using the 3D Box. I suggest you look at that as well. None of these things can be done without polygons.

> .... 3D model object of some sort.

>

These guys http://www.3drad.com/ are trying. They are not that far yet. But they try.

and u can google on " Create first person shooter " .. those engins come close to what u have in mind.

Um, you do know what an "object" in Construct is, do you?

The 3D box object, for example. Instead of that, there should be an object like it that is able to load models rather than just make cubes. I'm not sure how much simpler I can describe this.

I wasn't asking for another program to use. Nothing comes close in terms of usability than Construct or what I used to use, the Clickteam range of products (which Construct is derived off of).

Plus, I have nearly 0% interest in making a full 3D game, nor do I expect to with Construct. 2D with 3D models (in other words, sort of 2.5D) is something I would really enjoy though.

I'm not sure why this conversation went awry. I do not want full 3D. What I want basically is the ability to load 3D models onto Construct rather than just cubes.

That Starfox example is a good example of what can be made in Construct. The only thing missing is something to take the place of the 3D box object; a 3D model object of some sort.

Tch... at that rate, I would be better off coding the entire game in C++. Ugh, forget it. I think I'll just stick to making sprite based games in Construct then.

Also, I just read this thread. I hope some time in the future you get more coders. It must be hard working on this on your own. Maybe then we could see some 3D stuff and who knows what else. I wish I was up to the task, but sadly I'm not. Whatever. I guess for now, keep doing what you're doing and keep up the good work.

I mean support for loading 3D models to make 2.5D type games (obviously, if you've read my earlier posts). Call me crazy, but all other features don't matter to me. Pixel shaders do not look right without some polygons moving around on the screen. You keep adding fancy pixel shader effects but they look completely out of place being used with flat pictures.

I've had enough of this. I will put 3D in Construct myself. What do I need to learn in order to be able to make a plugin in Construct that can at least load basic low poly 3D models (such as MD2 files, etc.)? I need to learn C++, right? But how much experience or technical knowhow would it require besides that? I have never actually coded anything in my life. I don't care anymore. I will put basic 3D model support in Construct or else, even if it is the last thing I do. Even if it kills me in the process.

I guess it's time to start taking some programming classes and reading up on some programming books, and how to do a Hello World program in some language, and then some. Although I could never quite get anywhere beyond that Hello World example in anything I've tried. But that doesn't matter. I have to, even if it is the last thing I do. It's all or nothing. So tell me, where do I start?

Actually, I just realized something. Now that both the pencil tool and transparent color work as they should, the eraser tool doesn't really need to be fixed as you can just use that (or the paint brush with transparent) instead.

But you can still add brush adjustment to the eraser if you want to, I guess. Heh...

The picture editor has been improved a lot in this release. It seems a lot more orientated towards pixel art now, and the pencil tool finally works as it should. The picture editor is now almost close to being good enough to be used on its own. But of coarse, I'd still prefer to import my graphics.

There are still some issues though. The eraser size is still not adjustable. But everything else seems to be working a lot better.

Transparencies work perfectly now! Thanks Ashley! I was able to import a BMP of all things and remove the background color (via transparent paint bucket) without having to convert it to a 32 bit PNG.

16 Bit PNG files still import with a gray background, but this is a non issue now since the paint bucket works as its supposed to. So no matter what the background color is, I can just make it transparent anyway. But then again, if I want to use PNG files, I'll just use 32 bit ones.

But the most important thing of all is that I can finally import graphics without any annoyances. I don't really need anything else, although the eraser could still use an adjustment setting. But other than that, the picture editor is working great.

> Just ignore that post (btw, my comment wasn't even directed towards deadeye, I was just saying people here in general).

>

Okay then, I'm sorry I assumed. I just don't want there to be any hard feelings. It's not my intention to make enemies here.

Don't feel that way. We're all friends here. A little debate here and there doesn't make us enemies. It just helps serve as meaningful discussion as to what this program will become or what direction will it be taken OR something like that, I don't know. However, I still think that if something can be fixed or if something can be done more efficiently, it should. Workarounds are good but they shouldn't be used for everything. I could just import my image as a 32 Bit PNG, but then what will become of the image editor? The bugs that it has need to be fixed sooner or later. If something can be done more efficiently, it should and that's what I'm trying to help with. I am not trying to impede on any progress that this program is making, just giving some suggestions on how to make Construct much more efficient and productive to use.

But I'm sorry for that other post. I never thought of making a grid that way. I forgot my basic math. But that post has already been put to rest. I look forward to the tilegrid object, whenever it may be released, although your method works too.

Yeah, I shouldn't have put that remark in my earlier post on this topic. But CaptainOblivious' posts struck me as slightly condescending at first (in the sense that it seemed like he didn't read my post), but that was only because I misunderstood what he was trying to say and because I didn't explain everything fully. He actually really helped me out here. I shouldn't have spoken so soon.

Anyway, just don't worry about it. I don't even really care about whatever it is we were talking about anymore. This post is about the bugs in the image editor, that's all I really care about right now. So let's just keep this on topic and stop talking about a thread that's been locked and put to rest already.

I've also ended up annoyed trying to paste various alpha graphics in to the picture editor. Importing 32 bit PNGs with alpha channel is pretty bulletproof, but I do consider it a bug if you can't paste in alpha images. So I will try to do something about it.

Have you also tried the paint bucket tool? Why does it act so.. weird? Are you getting the same behavior? By that, I mean how it fills in only some pixels while leaving some spots unchecked. Is that happening to you?

Also, as someone else mentioned in this post. The square select tool just flat out doesn't work. Although I don't really have any use for it as I just import my graphics. I'm not sure how to give an example for you to reproduce but well, just try using it. You'll probably see what I mean.

Another thing I noticed is that the pencil tool doesn't do anything unless you drag it. Clicking with it doesn't create a pixel unless you drag the mouse.

Also, like I mentioned the eraser tool only does 2 pixels (even if the width is set to anything else).

But other than that, I can't think of any other things that really strike me as odd. There is bound to be more stuff wrong with the picture editor but these seem like the most annoying of them all (the whole paint bucket and transparency issue, especially).

Edit: I probably should report the rest of these in the bug tracker right? But compared to the whole transparency bugs and such, these are pretty basic issues. I don't want to clutter the bug tracker with every minute little thing.

Just ignore that post (btw, my comment wasn't even directed towards deadeye, I was just saying people here in general). What about the bugs? I saw that Ashley replied to this post and got excited for nothing. I am not here to argue with anyone. Don't derail this topic. So anyway, Ashley, what do you think? I mean about the bugs I just reported, ignore any comments made on the side. That's probably the least important thing we should be discussing right now.

It'd be a good expression to add, yeah. However in the meantime you can use a workaround by using two global variables to store the old x/y, and using a Distance expression to calculate the distance:

+ Always

: Set 'Mouse Speed' to distance(MouseX, MouseY, global('OldX'), global('OldY'))

: Set 'OldX' to MouseX

: Set 'OldY' to MouseY

'Mouse Speed' will contain the distance the mouse moved since the last frame, which is effectively its speed.

Yeah, I understand. It makes sense to me. I'll just use this then, or at least for now anyway.