it's useless, but it wouldn't be if you could still select the objects in the objects bar

I've always wanted that feature

Oh I second, third and fourth that!

I also think if we could make the project window be able to work like the object window, namely: select objects and get the properties window to change to that object (in both the event and layout editor) and place objects from the project view list to a layout, we could do away with the objects bar altogether. Since the project list could offer the same functionality but with much better overview while also freeing up some screen real estate.

I think the objects bar is a slightly unnecessary mainstay from the TGF days, although it might be useful for complete beginners. Heck even if you keep it and get the functionality I mentioned into the project list I could just close the objects bar myself.

I have one to add here.

Renoise

A very powerful tracker. I've played around with the demo for a while now and I must say this program fits me pretty darn well. Earlier I've been switching between Madtracker 2 and FL Studio for music, Renoise is like if you slapped both together.

It's still a tracker, and functions like one, i.e. hexadecimal effect system. However, it comes with a slew of tutorial files and the online documentation is really good (unlike many other trackers).

I highly recommend trying it out. The license costs 58 euro which is dirt cheap for what you get.

And those who are not professionals may request a fee.

You are kind of missing my point. Of course you can request a fee, set a price, charge money, call it what you will, if you made the work and want to sell it. I'm not questioning your right to charge money for your work.

If you where hoping to make money by selling it, why so low a price? Like I said, when you've sold it a few times the work will lose its appeal to new buyers since other people already would have made games using the work.

If you just wanted some exposure, then why charge money at all? If it were free more people would be prone to use it since it doesn't cost them financially. To ensure that you get credit, and keep your copyright of the work, you could include a Creative Commons-license.

The Bespectabled One brings up a good point. As far as we know the character only has four animations. No jump, climb and/or idle could make a potential buyer go "Oh, it doesn't have that?" and then move on to something else, and since you can't really accomodate everything a character would need (depending on who'd use it) it would make much more sense for you to take commissions, this is fairly regular stuff at places like Deviant Art and the like.

What you would do is instead of trying to get people to buy your readymade stuff, you'd instead show people "I can do this" and point to your work and then have people ask you to do sprites for them. Whether you're trying to make money or get exposure (maybe both), taking commissions would probably benefit you more in the long run.

The character looks good. Looks like a fairly distinguishable silhouett. The animation is also pretty good. It could use some tweaking though. Since the 'things' that come out of his spine move fairly much he could probably ha a little more snap in his arm movements and bounce in his steps. I think he could benefit from loosening up his torso as well. Compared to everthing else, it's pretty stiff.

I recommend you get a hold of "The Animator's Survival Kit" by Richard Williams. Any aspiring animator should read it.

And as Newt said, practice, practice, practice until you can't practice anymore. Then you pracitce anyway.

If you're handing over a product, or service, for a fee, then you are, by definition, selling.

I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to do here. It's obvious that you want to get your work out there (who doesn't?), but asking for a fee, though very small, for the use of one of your sprites and in the same motion calling yourself non-professional gives very mixed messages of what you're trying to accomplish.

There are no companies selling sprites because frankly, there's no market for it (at least not one that I've noticed). The reason several sites for 3D models exist, Turbosquid to name one, is that there actually does exist a market for it. There are people out there who either doesn't have the resources to do 3D art or don't have the know-how to do it, but still need 3D models. Be it for games, adverts or what have you.

2D Sprites are also much more tied to artstyle than 3D models. Most 2D games tend to look pretty different (excluding the occasional fan/clone game of course), so if you sell your sprite to a few devs and one or two of them makes a game that gets some notice, you will probably not sell many more of that particular sprite because people want their games to stand out.

Also, you can make drastic changes with very little when working in 3D. From something as simple as a different shader and texture combination, to something more extreme like re-sculpting an existing model. The equivalent when working in 2D would be much more time consuming and would ultimately exceed the cost of buying a spriteset in the first place.

I would instead suggest that you show some of your work and try to get some work as a freelancer if you want to make sprites and make some money at the same time. Or if all you want is to get your stuff out there and expand your portfolio, find some indie group to work with on a game. There are plenty of people out there working on stuff.

There's something I'm wondering about your sprite. It clearly isn't the actual size, since you state yourself that the actual sprite is 128x128 pixels and in png. But is it pixel art or something else (rendered 3d, vector, bitmap painting)?

Having a preview version of a work you're selling is fine. But when it comes to game assets, such as sprites, you should at least include one frame of the animation in actual size (and in png if it's pixel art), even if you slap a preview sticker on top of it. The reason is that if people are interested in your sprite, but all they see is a scaled down version less than half the size of the actual work, they're most likely going to skip over your stuff. Because they can't see what they would be paying money for.

Good luck to you.

OK, cool. I just wanted to check if you were ok with the discussion, since it's your thread and all.

I have an update to my little test using one loop and check for each (in this case both) attacks in that loop. Earlier I tried using multiple loops. Did not work too well, and when I switched to using just one loop I got it working pretty fast.

My goal was to take two attacks with similar inputs and get them to work without interrupting each other. I thought that if I could get two similar commands to be differentiated between that would probably be the most difficult combos to differentiate between, since we can run separate loops for different button presses.

Here is the most recent version: http://www.box.net/shared/aroaui4euq

It could still be tweaked a bit to be more or less lenient in places, but I think the general idea of how it could work is solid.

I have only figured out a brute force way to find special moves in the array by using loops. I think it would work but probably not the most optimized way. For each special move you'd need a loop. So if you're looking for 1,3,2, then you just search for a 1. If thats found then search for a 3 in the remaining values then look for a 2. Then if you push punch you get the special move.

Something like this? http://www.box.net/shared/k1nqrzsx4z

I got hellbent on solving this today, almost my entire evening was spent with furrowed brows on this and came up with that solution.

It basically does what you said, but in reverse. First we look for the punch/kick button and then we go through and look for a pattern through a loop. If we do not find a pattern we stop the loop and reset our string (we use the string to compare the pattern). 0's are conveniently skipped, so the timing for the combo is set by how large our array is.

This would require us to run multiple loops to differentiate between different attacks, which might not be a good way of doing this, but I think it's the best I can think of atm. (Can you even run multiple loops simultaneously?)

(Maybe we should start a specific thread for this one issue so that your tutorial thread doesn't get bogged down more by this?)

Thanks =)

The first one you mentioned: you can just hold down and back and get the attack.

That actually no longer works in the revised version.

The way I set it up is that the movements branch out from 1 and upwards. So with the tornado kick for instance. Each direction and button has its own place in the array (except neutral). So the first command in the tornado kick combo is down, so "Down's" index is set to 1. So now we need to press down and left so we check if "Down's" index is 1, if it is 'and' we press down + left we set "DownLeft's" index to 2 and repeat. So rather than comparing against a string we're moving through a branching system. I'm not sure if it's more efficient, though I'm pretty sure it's not. It's also a "bit" more of a hassle to set up.

The way you talk about is much closer to what actual fighting games do, but it's comparing the array which puzzles me. I've never figured it out. But storing the inpputs like that and comparing it against a list of commands should be way more efficient, and with the added benefit that you can be lenient with inputs. The way I've done it requires that you get the inputs right.

I have to agree with the others, this is great and it's awesome that you take time to do this tutorial.

Hah, I initially wrote special moves for Part 4 but then took it off because it would be really tough

This is actually something I have been trying to wrap my head around for ages (ever since the TGF days) and one thing is for sure. If you're going to do it, you need tons of dedication, because making 'one' character right is a heck a task. Imagine a roster of 10-12 fighters AND decent AI on top of that.

Minor thread hi-jack:

I actually sat down just now to test out a theory. I haven't messed around with arrays at all so this is a first for me. I grabbed a Ken sprite and decided to test out making combos with arrays, and I think I got an acceptable result for something I decided to test just now. I'm planning on making a hybrid fighter in the near future so this was good practice.

You can grab the cap from here: http://www.box.net/shared/tz5kb4y71e

Edit: Uplodaded a revised version. I think this one works better. The comments are unchanged for now though, so you'll have to figure out the changes yourselves until I fix them.

New link: http://www.box.net/shared/9m90tzyf7e

I looked through the videos and it does look like a pretty good piece of software. Being able to set up hitboxes and action points like that would be very helpful.

How does it work when you're finished and want to export your work and use it?

If you could get this to work with Construct I'd probably use it.

I ran into this earlier today when trying out the most recent release (xb controller plugin was broken a while ago) and came up with this solution.

I set up so pressing X make the character shoot.

+ Button X is down

• Create object etc etc

This of course creates one instance of the bullet every tick that the button is pressed, not what I want. So I simply added one condition to my event.

+ Button X is down

+ Trigger once

• Create object etc etc

Now it only fires the bullet once, until I let go of the button and press again.

We just had our GGA event here in Visby this week and I mentioned Construct to a bunch of different people. Most notably some guys from Nordic Game Jam. I also talked to Nifflas about it (I had no idea he'd be there!)

One guy from NGJ seemed very interested so I gave him the url, eventually (apparently the word scirra didn't mesh well with his phones auto-complete XD )

But I'll be going to the next Nordic Game Jam (pretty much have to now) and I figured I'd try to get as many as possible to use Construct there.

Well, your events for the standing animation is overriding the jump animation.

What you have now is:

-Player is walking

+ set animation run

else

+set animation standing

Your 'else' condition is true whenever the character isn't walking, and it is messing with your jumping animation.

I'd instead suggest doing this:

-Player is on ground

-Player is walking

+set animation run

-Player is on ground

-Not! Player is walking

+set animation standing.

That way your standing and run animations will play 'only' when the player is grounded.

Also, when you have jumping animations with multiple frames you'll want to loop back to the last one. So set the jumping animations "repeat to" property to 4.

Here's a cap where I've made those changes: http://www.box.net/shared/5zhvukho7k

I also deleted your left facing animations and instead applied the auto mirror property.

I don't really know what's causing your inWawll animation to not play properly though.

However, what you want to do with the wallclimbing to prevent the player floating upwards is force the player away from the wall when the player presses jump.

Right now you are merely having the character jump when the jump key is down, and the player will move upwards only, and that means the "P. has wall to left/right" will stay true, since the player isn't moving away. Furthermore, you've used "Player 1 'jump' is down".

If you instead use "on control pressed" for the wall jump and make it so that the jump not only moves up but also away from the wall, you'll get rid of the floating and it will be more like the megaman walljump.