Just because I'm interested in the stuff doesn't mean I have experience with it. I don't even have a compiler. What's got you so defensive about this?

Sent yesterday. Can you confirm you received it?

Silly Doppel, Captain knows about optimization. But that's just a general thing. I like to know what KINDS of optimization. It doesn't have to be a senior thesis on the thing, just a nice couple of paragraphs that make me say "hmm, that's very interesting."

I like that a lot! That's really cool. Of course, my all time favorite game has been Marble Blast Ultra on the 360, this pleasantly reminds me of that if it were 2.5d.

I half expected to have a jump button. Doesn't matter, was fun anyway.

I see a lot of potential for effects that could impact gameplay. Perhaps a level that changes to have a giant thunderstorm, making slopes dangerous or leading to crazy sonic-the-hedgehog-style speed sections.

Okay, out with it. How much of your soul was traded for that kind of increase?

In all seriousness, I am interested in what change you made to the rendering engine specifically. Were there any sacrifice along the way?

I'm putting together a cool tech demo for Construct's shaders, but I'm having trouble getting TiledBackground to cooperate. It seems when the tile is significantly larger than the viewable area, Construct will unload repeats of tiles that are outside the window. While this is fine, it's not double-checking to see that huge tiles ARE in fact in the window and causing a discrepancy as I move them into view. It appears as if a new tile suddenly pops into view a good 300+ pixels into the screen.

I can almost solve this using Sprites instead, but sprites do not make good repeatable backgrounds as they are difficult to keep adjacent to each other.

Any ideas?

Must be a bad DNS in your area. Works fine on this machine and 3 proxy servers I just tried to make sure the 404 isn't widespread.

Edit: The same works conversely. You should be able to view it through a proxy if your DNS servers are messed up where you live.

May this warm your day:

http://www.strouperman.com/Special/waddle.gif

Well, MMF and Construct are both tools toward the same means. It's like when my brother argues over Ford versus Chevy. My car goes, and so long as I can afford it and know how to fix it, I'm good.

*Raises hand* I myself am a Multimedia Fusion convert. Sure Construct is still early, EARLY early beta, but it's a project I'm willing to invest my time in. I feel that I am somehow part of its development, and right now that's more interesting than MMF, where I'm just an end user to an already established product.

Besides, if it really came down to the open-source argument (which I find to be entirely arbitrary) I'm sure there's a donate button well within reach with which I can vote with my wallet. Clickteam has a good chunk of my change already for MMF1 - and considering the lack of support I received on numerous occasions from CT and their community, perhaps the money I would have spent upgrading to 2.0 will be better applied to the development of a project I can actively participate in.

Why should the window size be smaller? I chose that size because i didn't want the screen to scroll, but i still wanted to be able to create variated levels (hard to do on a small screen).

Sorry to jack your thread, man. We're two different people with strong views on the subject. But the above quote is where I'll agree that your game would fit in a smaller window.

Of course, decreasing the playfield causes an inherent problem with all your sprites. They become 28% "bigger" onscreen. They're the same size, but now there's less acreage for which to act in. You'd have to shrink your sprites to about 75% their original size (Construct can do this in the object's properties window).

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. You don't have to change your playfield to accommodate for level variance. The SNES had a resolution of 512x448, yet it still produced gems like Chrono Trigger. If you really look at how modern games are made in HD, you'll notice the extra pixels don't really affect their design too much (16x9 aspect not withstanding). If they were to remake Chrono Trigger on Xbox360 or PS3, They surely wouldn't keep him at 30 pixels tall. Similarly, they wouldn't use 12-point font, would they? The game would be unplayable.

Games are still made with about 480 scanlines in mind, no matter the resolution. The games aren't really getting bigger playfields, they're just getting more detail per square inch. This allows for them to be scaled down to be played as low as VGA resolution and still be readable, playable.

And that's what you should consider with your Asteroids Push game thing. Would your levels fit on a standard 480-line tube TV? If not, you need to rethink sprite sizes, level density, and whitespace (get it? whitespace? aww) accordingly.

While I regard 768-windowed as perfectly fine during the transition to HD, I disagree with why you've chosen to have the high resolution. Deadeye is correct that you should want to make your game as accessible as possible, and he and many others still use equipment that can't support that in windowed mode, or they're unwilling to change their habits just for one program. They are valid points.

I know you put a lot of hard work into those nice graphics and want to show them off. Here's an idea, though. Play with that zoom function to always scale the whole playfield into the current window size. Make your game at a high resolution, and find a way to allow the user to switch window sizes at runtime (Ashley, is that possible?). That way, people who can run your game comfortably at a high resolution can do so, but people who wish to scale it down a bit won't miss out on anything.

And I bet they're still enjoying their 52nd playthrough of Half Life 2 on them. Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying 1024x768 is not as bad as you're making it to be - even on aging computers. Forcing VGA resolution compatibility across the board for the sake of keeping some Windows ME or similarly ancient budget computer from y2k running with a sense of purpose is kinda flipping off the progress of yearly computational advance - not to mention it's not preparing for the near future.

The market trend is overwhelmingly widescreen high definition. What about the multitude of users with new and seemingly ridiculous WUXGA setups? 480p can take up less than 5 inches across on the smallest of those, and since you're most likely sitting at a desk in that situation you might as well pull out your Gameboy to experience the same effect.

There has to be balance between the old and new. 768p seems entirely reasonable to me, even on my own 4-year-old HP laptop.

*Jaw drops*

Gah! I better go change some of my events!