hey

congrats on the release !

---

c2 looks and feels improved to cc in the first few tests.

useability is somehow same and i had the same tool performance overall,

except exporting took longer with for example space blaster (biggest project i tested)

edit: exporting is fast without png recompressing.

sceneeditor seemed faster.

editor overall was alittle bit faster on older pcs (only tested with small project)

c2 wouldnt open on another pc, dont remember the dialoge but i guess

it has to do with the winxp version or runtimes.

edit: tested again, showed kernel32.dll error. if i had to bet i would say a xp service pack is missing

-so what are the exact system requirements of c2 ?

(os, os updates, runtimes, drivers...)

html5 performance isnt optimal. ran some of the provided games and forum games on ff3.5, ff4 and a new ff beta - performance improved with each version

but with user statistics in mind it was not good enough for me personaly. and i had fpsdrops and soundbugs( the sbug maybe bc. of fps)

the tested hardware can run opengl q4, etqw with stable 30fps in 1280

and crysis/2 about 20-30fps in low/medium.

flash runs more stable with comparable graphics, and higher fps count or less drops with comparable gameplay for now on 5year old hardware.

in general i would prefer html5 over flash if its on par on performance, compatibility.

bug: the platform8 demo had the same bug as platformer behavior in c1

with stopping 1pixel above ground (havent checked the buglist, just mention it in case)

im interested in c2 and producing high quality games, so im with some

other devs in here who are really interested in exe, linux or mac exporters

now that the first release seems quite complete im sure this is in your minds too:

• can you give some information what you expect to be last date of the first version of the .exe exporter somehow ?

ive ran cc on several machines (the editor and the games), one of the few disadvantages i still have are the high dx9c requirements. the performance on older hardware even with outdated gfx cards is good enough.

• so can you please give some estimation on how the opengl exe exporter would run compared to cc on older hardware (for example p3 1ghz, gf1 or 2, athlon 1200 radeon 7k, 8k)

would there be any fps loss to cc games or to other opengl games that run good on such hardware (e.g. idtech3, cs, or with dx ut2003) ?

-what would be the estimated system requirements (opengl version, drivers, os ...) ?

---

edit2: tested most provided games in ff, opera and chrome in the newest

versions of the browsers now. the platform example has over 50fps in chrome, the ghost laser shooter 10-20. could be a starting point for me with reducing fx and spritesize.

-how secure is my gamecontent exactly ?

//edited a few things after some hours frametests.

thanks for your time, gl hf

just found this, another visual scripting for unity

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/84594- ... -for-Unity!

good idea implementation, nice game

score 1350

stops 110

http://scirraconstruct.ru/files/guide/c ... eenFPS.zip

just tried some settings:

50 and 60hz are stable

85hz is unstable in between 1-5fps differences

75,100 and 120hz are bad - if someone wanna test it, i recommend a window resolution minimum 1024, better 1152x864, 1280x720, 1280x960, 1280x1024 ..

can be tested with every .cap game or even mame

would be nice to hear from a win7 user if someone is interested and has time to try: set your monitor to 75hz and window mode with vsync on in your game

directx has problems to maintain stable fps with vsync on and higher monitor hz than 60.

a bigger windowsize results in more fluctuations - from 1024 it becomes what i call really

unstable - 1280 and up with high monitor hz is unplayable.

tested on: ati and nvidia. dx9 aug08, dx9 jun10. 75,85,100,120hz. 640-1600 resolutions.

this does not happen in opengl games.

it does not happen in directx games fullscreen.

it is a problem with all directx games i have tested, so not a bug in construct runtime. 3d games too.

not tested on: win7

solution: i have looked through various engines how they solve this because with unstable vsync

the screen and the gameplay becomes unacceptable, the bigger the windowsize the worse.

good console, arcade emulators or fps engines solve this issue with a frame cap.

this is called fps cap, throttle, fps limiter, maxfps or something similar.

so then your fps stay at e.g 60 frames per second with 120 hz vsync on. and gameplay stays stable and the same way even in window mode and high screen and window resolutions.

devrequests

1.: fps limiter command

2.: ability to toggle vsync at runtime (or at least as startup switch, didnt found something like that)

searched the forum and wiki for a solution based on events, i guess its not possible atm ?

thanks in advance for answers and solutions

not a real map with rooms, but looks similar

from my experience you can pretty much use all your card ram.

as a fast guess around 112(128), 56(64) or something like that.

made some comparison and came to the conclusion that the difference between one

tiledbackground to levelsize or using different pictures of the same size is mostly vram, not fps.

i would cut your old bgs into 1024x1024, make a fast testlevel plus foreground and sprites to see

if it fits into your mid-range specs.

when testing textures above 1024� i got small slowdowns or loading with current mid-range hardware.

same here: cap was fully working with 99.8

with 99.82 the ceiling behavior started for me, 99.84 same ceiling problem.

another thing - in 99.84 the jumpheight doesnt seem to be stable(fluctuating) with inbuilt platform movement with the same cap which was working in 99.8.

on a sidenote: i tried some testgames which i made in older construct versions and often got

more fps when compiled with older versions.

is it safe to say that the program gets most fps when created and compiled with the exact same version or is construct somehow getting slower with newer versions ?!?

i ask that because i have experienced several gameengines that got slower with new versions and enhancements sometimes to the point i prefered to keep older versions to work with (100fps loss because "unneeded" fx as an example or "gimmick")

big thanks for:

[FIX] Crash drawing Sprites on non-SSE2 processors (R0J0hound)

thanks for the fast replies:

when reading i have the hope that while dx8 is out of the debate theres

a possibility for support of earlier dx9 versions ?

or another partly solution like the one Arima is talking about ?

-------------------

-------------------

one thought i got is explaining abit of my own view:

having played on new and old hardware i often appreciated game studios that

implemented backwards compatibility to some degree and support for several

platforms.

i guess most of us have bought more than one console because system exclusive titles.

or installed another operating system for roughly the same reasons.

we would agree that theres a level where to decide if (backwards-) compatibility is needed, and

where its simply an addon to please a low percentage of people compared to the amount of work.

while i respect other opinions i personaly wouldnt develop dx10 only titles nor games

that only run on multicore cpus or vista/win7.

-------------------

to summarize: i benefited from game studios with longterm support and backwards compatibility.

so its not really a question for me to go this way, more of what tools are available to achieve it :/

or what compromise is needed.

"When running a construct game without the proper directX files, it will prompt you to install it and pressing OK will take you right to the page, making it even easier to upgrade"

yes i saw that, great feature.

to the developers:

hi,

is it possible to include dx8 support (the version which came with the first windows xp cd or first dx8), a compatibility mode or a workaround to play the created games on dx8 ?

----------------------------------------------

possible reasons:

• construct is already limited in game distribution by only supporting directx (no linux, mac, handhelds, consoles, portable devices)

• most pc users dont bother upgrading to new directx versions as long as it is working.

i know many people dont upgrade without having bought a full priced high end game, and even then are wondering if they have to install it in another step and not automatically with the game install.

• the most popular pc games are working with older (older than what construct requires) directx versions, same goes for several emulators and famous pc 2d games.

• i have tested construct on older computers and the performance is good enough to make

games that would work on mostly everyones hardware. but nearly none of these users have last years dx9 installed or the august version 2008.

• beeing used to user opionions i know that most people want to download a game and then play right away without installing other things or getting warning screens. many people dont read through things and from what i know the possibility that they are not upto date with directx is high.

i guess one third of the playerbase is deleting their downloaded game if its not working withing very few minutes.

• after testing some older dx8 compatible graphiccards with construct with stable 60fps i think many game designers and 2d players would love to see directx8 support.

----------------------------------------------

ive read through the forum so i know about plans for 2.0 and some others ideas.

my idea is more to search somewhat easy ways to get a wider user and playerbase in this version.

maybe supporting older dx is one possible way. (although i dont know how hard it is to include, if its easy enough dx6 and dx7 would be nice too)

good work so far

thanks, gl+hf