Are they really the top 10 features from the other thread? (genuine question, not being funny).

I only chose 2 options, because I struggled to pick a 3rd.

Although a couple of the others would be handy, I just got a feeling that there were things not on there that were more important.

I guess I'll have to go and read that thread again.

On the subject of multi-platform, do you have any idea which platform you will probably go for as the second export?

For instance, Ipod, Android or Mac would be of interest to me, but others probably wouldn't be.

Or is that going to be another Poll somewhere down the line.

If we knew which ones were on the short-list, it would give us a better idea whether it was worth voting for multi-platform or not.

Lastly, what exactly do you mean by "Event-written behaviors/plugins/modules"?

Krush.

Yeah, the first game was great, except that there weren't enough levels created by the developers (hope that doesn't happen this time), and that the user-created levels get boring after a while, apart from the occasional decent one if you look hard enough.

I gave up searching for levels worth playing in the end.

BTW, I posted in that YouTube thread you linked to.

Why do some people feel the need to slag off one console to "big-up" another?

Nob-head fanboys get right on my tit.

Any idea of the release date for LBP2?

I'm sure it's mentioned on there somewhere, but I didn't bother digging through the fanboy posts to find out.

Krush

I think it is better to add this on the new construct :

.......

........

.........

A few of the things you request are already available, like Python scripting.

will Construct 2 still be Open-source or Freeware?

I don't believe it's going to be either.

Krush.

Out of about 5 or 6 forums that I regularly visit, this one is 1 of 2 that use restricted width, and I'm very glad that it does.

The full width forums are a nightmare to read as they are stretched across the full wide-screen width of your monitor.

I've even asked the other forums to change to a format like this, but to no avail.

So here's hoping that the width isn't messed with.

It's just more user-friendly as it is.

Regarding images being posted that disappear off the side of the forum, it's possible to have some forums automatically resize the images to a specified maximum for viewing in the forum, and to have it clickable to open up full-size in a new page.

As for Chat, I don't bother with chat on any forum.

It's just not something that interests me.

Krush.

Good to hear you're thinking of Construct 2.

I can't think of much off-hand, although I'm sure there's a few little things.

I'll post here when I think of them.

One thing that does spring to mind is the ability to export to Android.

Make it a plug-in, allow the same freedom of use commercially as you do Construct, and charge �20 for said plug-in.

With that in place, I predict Construct 2 would be huge in no time, and you'd make yourselves a tidy sum of money.

Krush.

I've been beta testing this for a while now, and I have to say that it's a great concept, but has a long way to go.

It is web based, and works quite well once you get past the Java problem of running the blocks editor.

It has a lot of short-comings, and I'm hoping that it's because it's an early beta.

I'm still programming the Android version of my game directly in Java because the App Inventor is way off from being able to do it.

App Inventor has great potential should Google choose to put the work into it.

My fear is that it will not become as advanced as is needed for serious Indie development, and is aimed at anybody and everybody to create simple apps that will sustain the deployment of google ads via free games.

I've asked Google for a roadmap for App Inventor, but I am yet to hear back.

Krush.

Yeah, my current method seems to be fine with several instances on screen at once, so no problem.

This morning I did something similar to what you mention with a horizontal moving platform.

For some reason, adding both a Physics behaviour and a sine behaviour to the same object causes the sine behaviour to misbehave.

With just the sine behaviour controlling the horizontal movement of the platform on it's own, it moves correctly.

But with the physics behaviour added too, the sine behaviour causes the platform to not reach it's offset each turn, which means that it eventually edges it's way off screen and doesn't come back. ??

I solved it by using the dummy with the sine behaviour for position, and the platform for the physics behaviour.

Krush.

While the domain LifeHacker is unfortunate, and will obviously make some people flinch, the Android Emulator itself is fine.

Just download it from Google instead of a 3rd party site, as well as all the instructions you need to get it going.

You should be aware that the Android Emulator isn't perfect.

I've been developing my Android game for several months now, and although the Emulator can give you an idea of how your app should look and work, a lot of time you need to upload to your Android phone to see it working properly.

I should mention that for most of that time, I didn't have an Android phone, and had to rely solely on the emulator to test my game.

It's also a lot slower and unless you have a touch-screen PC, you're going to lose much of the functionality, so it's not quite what the term "Emulator" suggests.

All I'm saying is don't expect it to be an emulator in the MAME sense.

Krush.

Yeah, regardless of how legit these people are, this kind of offer makes me wonder too.

Besides, why would you want to do this.

You can sell your game on Steam yourself easily, without having to include anyone else in the process.

I'm pretty sure that Steam have some kind of quality assurance to what they accept anyway, so a 3rd party group of people selling your game for you on steam is no guarantee that it will get accepted.

Go do it for yourselves, and if it only makes a couple of hundred quid, then at least it's all yours.

Krush.

We had this discussion earlier in the year Ashley (or maybe it was last year).

I think the general consensus was that it sounded dodgy, and that people should be careful.

I can't find the thread (to be honest, I haven't looked that much ), but I don't think you deleted it, so it should still be on here somewhere.

Be interesting to see if it's the same people as before.

EDIT: Here you go:

It looks like you deleted the link from the old thread, so I don't know if it's the same people or not.

I have to say that the website for the current one doesn't fill me with confidence.

Krush.

My current method seems to be ok.

If you have a ball shape that bounces with gravity off various objects, you get a nice, realistic look to the movement of the ball, but the sprite itself rotates, which looks odd.

Imagine a nice 3D Max rendered, shiny metal ball.

The last thing you want is the ball rotating visually, because you lose the effect of the reflections.

Ticking the No Rotation box keeps the ball looking like a ball bearing, but the movement of the ball is affected by a considerable amount.

With shapes other than round balls, I can understand why it doesn't matter, but to keep round objects looking 3d, it would have been useful to keep the graphics separate from the physics rotation.

No matter though.

As I say, setting the angle to zero every tick seems to work without a performance hit.

Krush.

Wow, that's quite a bump.

From the "new posts" page, it looked like Deadeye had posted!!!!

I didn't think it was him.

He's been gone a couple of months now.

Krush.