My eyes are fried from nearly 30 years of staring into computer monitors - and applications with the familiar black on white basic themes.

Even now, as I type this, the forum default colors are making it really difficult to see properly (I do know about inverting the colors of the display - fine here, but not fine in the Construct 2 environment).

I know this topic has been addressed in at least 1 other thread, but I haven't found an acceptable way to alter the look of the Construct 2 interface. Too many light and pastel colors. My eyes can't take it anymore.

Using Windows "High Contrast" themes makes some elements of the Construct 2 interface disappear - or, in the case of this forum, simply make white text on a pure black background.

What is needed (for people like me)are themes which the major software developers have realized work for veteran computer users (darker grey background with off white text and mildly colorful icons - think Photoshop).

Does anyone know of an interim solution to this issue?

Thanks,

Psmith

Davioware and Dead Eye:

Thanks for your honesty. Slim to none is what I expected.

Algodoo is the current incarnation of Phun, gone commercial. I've looked only a little into the "scripting" part of it, and I think it is at least as much work as Construct, programming-wise.

I fully intend to use Construct, I just don't have a concrete idea of what it is I could easily put together that would still be entertaining and weird. I don't need to make anything "competitive" and I shy away from the "platform" genre because of my in-suppressable urge to make things walk "into" the scene, or at least appear to do so.

Top down might be something, or changeable gravity, as I mentioned in the beginning of this thread.

Anyway, sorry for irritating so many of you. Didn't really want to do that, but it is my "magic" way.

Thanks for all of your suggestions and encouragement and for sharing your insight.

Psmith

Dead Eye:

Thanks for the encouragement. I have very little to lose, you are right about that. Except more of my eyesight, that is, (I had a tear in my retina about 1 year ago and nearly went blind in one eye).

It's no fun growing old.

Still, I can't let go of the possibility of seeing some of AxelEdge's functionality come back in a new way to the 2D, Construct environment, (springs you literally "fasten", hinges you attach, shock absorbing "springs" - which would be perfect for "mouse following", etc.)

What do you think the chances are of anyone creating some of these kinds of "physical" assets are?

I can still use Construct for other things, but I'm hopeful someone else will see the value in "physical" objects with built in behaviours that mimic the real world. Maybe you will.

By the way, have you seen "Algodoo" http://www.algodoo.com Right up my clock making alley.

Psmith

David:

Very nice example and thoughtful "visual scripting" proposal. I'm glad you see the value in working this way - not for everyone, but for some - like me. Feel free to move or delete this thread, as needed. I won't be offended.

I doubt if I will ever change my views on this subject. I'm an old man of 54. I come from a totally "hands on" way of working: I make wooden geared clocks totally by hand. (I do use saws and drills and grinders). I approached this kind of work, initially, using long established tables of clock gear ratios to pendulum lengths to work out my designs. That's the extent of the math - somebody else's hard earned math. All my clocks are skeleton clocks, free form, showing all the clock works, and run by the falling of the weight which is driving the gears and the pendulum.

Many of my working designs came about by much trial and error, making and remaking. I find a lot of value in working this way. I've never played games for more than a few minutes. So, I'm coming from a different planet than most of you.

Clocks are not all that I make; I've been working in 2D and 3D graphics since the mid 80's and only recently have become interested in the "game" environment. Not because I want to make games, but because I love computer interactivity.

I actually did, and profited by, some rudimentary programming, way back in 91 or 92, using HyperCard on the Mac - and had a lot of trouble even tackling that simple language. I did sell the program I wrote to Northern Arizona University, (an Alien invasion game that taught kids base ten). Very silly, but somewhat effective. Good sound effects. That programming experience left an indelible impression upon me, however - I don't want to ever have to go through that again.

But, what I did learn, through all of these years regarding computers and good software, (Mac software, mostly), is that the best stuff "just works", (as those Unity guys love to put it). For an example of an application like this, go take a look at the new ArtRage 3. A masterpiece of friendly software engineering. Every tool is an example of some kind of "cookie cutter" behaviour.

So, anything that takes the drudgery and alienation out of making 2D or 3D animated graphics interactive, (no scores needed), is my cup of tea, right up my alley and ujah cum spiff - most definitely.

I believe strongly in that initial Steve Jobs philosophy regarding the Mac and what computers and computer software should be. Apple has deviated from this vision somewhat, over the years, but they are carrying it on, now with the iPhone and applications designed to "just work" on that platform.

I've never been afraid of any kind of hard work - I only insist that the process of creation remain fun - especially at my age. And Construct may not be the application for me. I'm just passin' through.

Psmith

WHY LEONARDO PREFERRED DRAWING MATHS

Pure maths excludes the inexplicable qualities of reality that are better replicated with a drawing. Maths is only a tool to produce an outcome and thus Leonardo preferred drawing as his primary tool to execute his studies of proportionality and spatial awareness, which are used in his engineering designs.

The drawing of mathematics is possibly how some ancient civilisations calculated mathematical precisions in their construction, as exhibited in the pyramids of Egypt for example.

In the diagrammatic form of mathematics, a greater sense of spatial awareness is needed than formal mathematics, such as displayed by the Rhombicuboctahedron.

http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.com/leonardo-da-vinci-mathematician.html

LEONARDO NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY ACADEMICS

Academics of Leonardo's time did not give much weight to Leonardo's work in any field other than painting, as he did not have a formal education (whereas he had received a vocational apprenticeship in art). Leonardo had developed the following important attitude at a young age due to not having had a formal academic education where he wrote;

'I cannot quote from eminent authors as they can, these trumpeters and reciters of the works of others. I know that all knowledge is vain and full of error when it is not born of experience, and so experience will be my mistress.'

[quote:11qphdu9]There was no magic going on when da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, just brush strokes on a canvas.

That's right - and a brilliant and practiced mind. Not much math, I'll wager.

You folks equate yourselves with the great da Vinci, do you?

What some of you NEED to use math to create, others do by instinct and experimentation and vision.

Psmith

Lost Your Keys:

You probably have never tried Poser yourself or you would know that you can rig and animate absolutely anything with this wonderful application. I've made many custom characters completely externally to the application, (which it was designed from the beginning to allow), none of them "human" and the rigging tools are superb, its animation interface is quick, simple and intuitive to use. It does what it was designed to do for the audience it was designed to appeal to, very well indeed.

If it is an example of "cookie cutter" something, then it is a fantastic one.

You can produce shite with it, however, if you are so inclined.

Psmith

Imagine . . . a game without scores. Who would ever play?

Psmith

Dead Eye:

We have had some of this discussion before, maybe not in its entirety, but at least partially. I feel there is nearly no need to do it again. So, I'll just mention a few of my observations.

People who write applications seem to be obsessed with allowing for EVERY possibility to take place, whether or not it ever will NEED to, and that is O.K. Unless you are trying to make a specific application for a specific group of people. In fact, I'll take my observation further: the same sorts of people find it difficult to even make an application for a specific group of people, (what about the ones we are leaving out?). In essence, you guys, (for lack of a better term), write applications for yourselves.

I hear, on all the game forums I visit, over and over again the phrase "cookie cutter code" or "cookie cutter behaviours" put forth in a negative manner. I've said it there, and I'll say it here: there is nothing whatsoever wrong with cookie cutter code or behaviours - in fact, the more of them there are, the better OUR world will be.

You put enough and varied kinds of Lego blocks together and you can make a replica of nearly any kind of manufacturing facility. And, you don't need to know a stitch of math to do it - mostly things are put together in these ways by trial and error. Some of the best machines produced during the Industrial Revolution were produced by men with little theoretical or even working knowledge of advanced mathematical principles. Many were farmers, laborers and uneducated men.

And what are games if not just a kind of SEEMINGLY complicated machine. It appears the game is making decisions, but it is not - everything is running according to some sort of predefined process - processes made up of a number of very similar "gates" and junctions and switches. Run them all together and it looks complicated - but everything can be broken down into very elementary functions.

I believe I mentioned this application before, but some years ago there existed a 3D interactive "sandbox" called AxelEdge, by MindAvenue. It's approach to "games" was almost entirely visual, and even the "decision making" part of the toolset was visual in nature - 2 and 3 way switches and so forth. It didn't have every tool or component, but the ones it did have allowed for hundreds of thousands of eventualities.

Incredibly entertaining 3D experiences were being produced without any real physics or "coding" at all. It was great fun to use and a great loss when their company sold out. There were so many things you could make just by connecting things together - like an advanced set of Legos. Realistic springs, hinges, fasteners, rotators could be "physically" connected together to produce interesting and engaging results - and very quickly, indeed.

If you broke down the number of behaviours and events and processes contained in the best of all the existing "video games", you would find that they all make use of "cookie cutter code", or, at least they could - so similar are the things you see and experience in these games. You can write out the algorithms for these games in simple sentences of plain English. In fact, most of them are very linear in description. There is no magic going on at all.

Psmith

Thank you all for these really excellent comments and examples. I know math is behind everything to do with sophisticated game behaviour - I just think it should work "behind the scenes" - part of what makes a thing work, but not requiring the user to implement it directly.

And, forgive me for saying so, since Construct is being aimed, primarily, at the non-coding user, I think ultimately things would be better off being given a visual counterpart, a visual method of establishing and adjusting this type of behaviour.

Really, in the example I cited, a spring that is not very springy, (which has an adjustable springiness value) would seem to do the trick, with a couple of mouse clicks and and a slider adjustment.

But I don't expect the Construct developers to make things this simple - just pointing out that it would be very nice if they did.

Psmith

DeadEye:

Thanks for putting that together for me. Only 2 events - that is economical.

But, I would have never been able to put that together for myself - not with my Zero knowledge of that kind of programming. (Lerp and all that). What or Who is Lerp? (Don't feel compelled to try and explain). I imagine that has something to do with how the ball accelerates and decelerates - or seems to, anyway.

And, thinking about the problem, again, I would probably approach that kind of simulation "physically", using a "spring" attachment of the player to the mouse cursor.

Really, thank you,

Psmith

Madster:

This is really an impressive development for Construct. Even your quickly sketched prototype is really inspiring. I wish you all speed in completing this endeavor.

Now, to make things even more complicated: Could "depth" be simulated by a combination of drawing smaller platforms, (in the distance), complete with a kind of haze or fog to simulate depth of field and by assigning 3 of the move directions, (the ones that move the player "into" the scene), to player animations that scale down in size, (the player gets smaller as he moves "into" the scene)?

Just thinking too much.

Psmith