The problem is, you're not making any sense, because an angle doesn't face any particular direction. You can say anything you want about "real" angles, but a 30 degree angle isn't going to change if you turn it. I'm now beginning to wonder if you people ever even went to school, as you have no idea what I'm talking about even WITH the subject.

er, scratch that. No, that wouldn't work at all. I already tried it and it should've been obvious in the first place because "angles" in construct (and many other maker program) don't even work that way.

That is, when I did it, depending on which way it was facing caused drastic changes in the variables.

While I forgot this stuff from school and can sort of look it up, is there any better way of working this out? I need to be able to calculate this relative angle because it changes some variables and I need to have them handy.

The particles object is designed to be a faster alternative to using sprites. By using a single image and no rotations, the GPU can render particles about four times faster than with sprites. As soon as you start rotating them and changing textures you lose these advantages. We could add the features you ask for, but then the Particles object offers no advantages over using ordinary sprites, which would make it a bit redundant.

I hardly see how you can say that, given that I wouldn't have a clue about the first thing to do if I had to do it without that particle object. Maybe you could offer an "advanced" particle object to make it easy to do those things without detracting from the original particle object's specialties?

I can see that you can make particles use an image, but it doesn't seem like you can make them rotate the same way you can make them move around. it would be nice to have various features, like having particles rotate in the direction they're moving, or spin them, and other things. Another seemingly useful addition would be to use any number of random images for a single particle generator instead of using just one or none at all.

Another thing I'd like to point out and ask about is the picture editor. It seems really badly put together, with most buttons lacking descriptions (especially ones that do need them), scroll bars not actually staying in the window (they're half under the rest of the window!) and the "style" list for the shapes seems cut off, with only 4 selectable styles and what looks like a small piece of a 5th fill style. The rectangle that should be surrounding the style list is cut off like that as well.