^^^ Okay... you do realize that you've f'ed up fatally when you put stuff up like "When posting an example, you're automatically accepting" (on a message board you don't own or moderate by the way)? I've worked on commercial games, and have gotten and give many proposals... none of them were done this way. It just wasn't professional, this is why you're catching heat.

I'm normally one bringing up how rude people are to other poster's around here, but this is one time where I have to side with the consensus. Your whole approach was wrong, WAY wrong. You should've known better.

u are right but tell me am i make cricket game in construct?

You could create a game like Cricket 3D in Construct:

<img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SwyZLRnK4Lc/SYbQufDX62I/AAAAAAAAAQo/U_fgklv46Q4/s400/1821_large.jpeg">

You could very easily duplicate the same perspective in that photo, you'd just have to draw your field in a Pseudo-3D perspective to match it, and then draw your characters in a way that matches the environment perspective. There is more to it as you'll need to program the characters to increase or decrease in size depending on distance within the field of view, but you don't need anything 3D to pull it off, everything can be in 2D. This technique was done all the time in the 8 and 16-Bit era's to mimic 3-dimensional depth with 2D assets.

Also, unless you plan to have a more zoomed out view (recommended), the other thing you would need to do is make use of various layouts if you wanted to have a perspective for fielding the ball. So once the ball is hit and/or advances past a certain point, you would use another layout for fielding and then have whatever action is to take place for fielding translate data to a place in your program (you may consider a Global variable to handle this).

PM me for more details and example games from the past.

I'm not going to do the typical assuming that so many do here about people's experience, because I don't know anything about anyone's experience. I've been coding in C for a long time now, and Construct is not exactly like programming in a language at all, so you could be the most experienced coder in the world and still be confused to no end by Construct. I know plenty of seasoned professional coders who fall right into that category who want nothing to do with event-based programs out of frustration.

Anyway, Skyhunter has raised something that should be examined respectfully. In Construct in a few of my projects, it's had trouble loading a few mere images in "Run Layout" totaling just 200 KB's each and my computer has more than enough power for Construct and is in tip-top shape. I've then taken the same images into other programs to test it, and they loaded quickly with no problems. It's not simply a hardware issue, there is something deeper. I put this in the same bin as those who've had trouble getting the 360 controller object to respond, and that was an issue that the community denied and blamed on the user (check it on search) with such gems as "you don't know programming that's why you can't get it to work" etc, the typical bull know-it-all's say around here. However, it was finally found as a problem and as you can see in the Changelogs, it was addressed by the developer.

The point is, things that are working on some machines aren't working correctly or at all on others. Some people have inferior machines and it's working fine, and then yet on superior machines it's not. It all needs further examination into why that's happening rather than the typical community dismissal.

Ignoring the unnecessary condescenion of "had you searched, you would have found...", it's agreed that better instruction is needed. "Difficult" and "dull" are subjective assessments, neither of which negates its the necessity nor excuses its absence even if they are true.

I'm going to stick up for vdrake on this one point: you could search many threads and find an OP attacked just for posting an idea. It's ridiculous and it's something that shouldn't be happening, but it happens all too often. There is big difference between being honest and being an ass, and there are a number of people here who are oblivious to the difference.

If you don't like a person's idea or project, why be an ass to them about it? What does it accomplish? Nothing. I've seen a number of threads where people make a suggestion for Construct, only to be bombarded with the typical following posts:

*There is a way to do this already, but you don't know anything about programming that's why you don't get it: there is always so much assuming about a person's background, and it's just not needed. If you can help, help. If you can't, shut up. But all this jumping on people's knowledge is just weak, especially when you really have no idea.

*This idea is stupid (and any variation of that): Then the idea is not for you, but that doesn't make it "stupid".

*You're an idiot for requesting this since it's been requested 1,000 times already: amazing that it escapes these "genius" posters that this is the very concept of having an idea forum. If people keep requesting it, that means a lot of people want it, and that shows the devs that it's something they should be considering. It's not for people to be dickheads because they feel people should stop asking for it... that's an idiotic response to a request.

The way people react at times to new ideas and projects, I'm surprised anybody posts anything at all. It just doesn't seem worth it when you run the risk of getting the types iof responses I've pointed out.

Anyway, good luck to the OP. Good luck to vdrake, and good luck to everyone who has been put off by the way some posters attack here. You did nothing wrong, you just ran into some people who are socially awkward and don't know how to act properly. Forget them like the poorly adjusted geeks they are and move forward with your plans.

You're attacking the wrong. We at least try to help - you don't.[quote:j195svmi]

I didn't "attack" anyone. But the post was very condescending for no real reason. I guess you're unaware of it, maybe it wasn't on purpose. Nevertheless, the post was still condescending. He just assumed a bunch of things without knowing what he's talking about.

> First of all, programming doesn't mean knowing C. Programming is a process of telling the computer, what you want him to do. You use whatever tools help you achieving this. C/C++/C#/Pascal/Basic/Construct/Flash/Python/lua ... you name it.

>

And that's the point. He condescended to him as if he doesn't know any of those without having any reason to assume it. Like I said, because a person asks a question about Construct doesn't mean they don't know anything about programming. That correlation is nonsensical. The post was condescending.

> Second, whatever tool you choose, there is a core part that is shared among all of them. That is the basics you need to know, wether you like it or not.

>

That has nothing to do with the point. Like I said before, the steps and code for programming a Global variable in Construct is not the same in other programs or languages and that's a FACT, like it or not, and you know that fully well... and if you don't, you should.

> Third, you need to have the wish to learn by doing.

>

So, if a person has guides, that's not learning by doing? Really? LOL. I guess we'd better throw out every school and University system on planet earth, lol! That doesn't even sound logical. It's just your opinion that people are supposed to fumble around aimlessly without guides, an opinion that appears to be widespread here, unfortunately.

> Really, that post sounds so arrogant, like you want to sit in your chair, crossing your arms and telling everybody: "Now feed me." And while you are complaining, that help has to be done your way of thinking, because that certainly is the only right way, as noone is right but you - while moaning so, you do nothing of all that. Not one single code example from you, no cap file, no wiki entry, nothing.

>

Nonsense. The poster wants to sit there on his high horse like a know-it-all genius and tell people they don't know anything about programming because they asked a question about Construct. But actually, what you posted there is the way YOU come across and a lot of the other members here. It's YOUR way of thinking and no one else's matters. It's basically like many of you are saying, I know how to do everything already so let's look down on the new people for asking questions, even though asking questions makes perfect sense since the documentation is no good.

You've created a closed old boys network and most of you are close-minded to new ideas. I could post various threads where people were attacked by long time members just for posting AN IDEA. The condescension of his post is typical.

Secondly, how do you know I didn't send MrMiller a PM? Are you psychic? LOL.

> I for one at least try to help, and btw I posted a link to an example cap file that covers all of it. So there is the visual example you're talking about, but I'm sure you don't know about it, because you hadn't have the time to revise it. Attacking the one's who are helping is much more important.

>

When I talked about the code examples, I was obviously talking about most of the posts (which I explained quite clearly). It's not my fault that you're having some reading comprehension trouble.

> Last, if you would have read the posts carefully and not only parts you can jump on, you would have seen, that the timeline object does not work fine for him, there is a gap of 1 second. That certainly is the reason for silent to try to help with hints, explanations and a cap file.

>

> I am no tutor, and I don't see, why I should act as one. You want the process of programming not to happen? Well, then you can't develop games. One does not happen without the other.

>

I read that condescending post of carefully, don't you condescend to me. No one is asking for tutors. How is posting a code example being a tutor? Let's not be ridiculous.

There are a number of factors as to why the count could be slow. It could be because of his system resources. It could be because game frames are high and it's slowing him down. Or, it could be an issue inherent to his setup. I've used the Timeline object and never had such a problem. So again, you're just assuming without knowing what you're talking about.

I'm just pointing out a real issue. We seem to be blaming the new user as if he's the problem rather than the lack of instruction being the problem.

Hello. I'm assuming that you basically have no experience in programming, from your comments above. If that's the case, you may have figured that you're a bit of a hard case to help. Given that you have figured out ways to make things work, such as using an object that frankly scares me (timeline), then don't give up.

While Scirra has attempted to make make it less daunting, knowledge of programming is still needed, because setting up event sheets is, indeed, programming.

No, no, no. That part in bold is not true at all. Speaking as a long time C programmer who has worked on commercial games, having knowledge of C is fine but certainly not a requirement in the least bit to learning Construct or any event-based system for that matter. It wouldn't make a difference if you were the best C programmer who ever lived, it doesn't mean you're going to do well with this program and there are a lot of C guys who are frustrated to no end with these types of programs. The bottom line is, his question is just another thing that should have a focused tutorial and there isn't one, that's the problem... the user is not the problem... we have to stop blaming the user... the documentation isn't good enough or non-existent, that's the problem and why they're asking the questions to being with... besides that, programming a global variable in C is not the same as in Construct, so you can't say because they ask the question about Construct that means they've never programmed, lol.

I think he's displayed that he has a general enough knowledge of what he's doing, but he probably needs a code example and that's part of the issue with a lot of the help section answers. We need to be giving code examples rather than just answers of a general direction... everyone doesn't learn just by general direction, and typically a true visual example is universally more apt to be understood.

All of that said, if he says he's already figured out a different way to do what he wants, I don't see the point of even extending this. The Timeline Object works fine, and it may work fine for what he wants to do. Without knowing all the specifics of his game you're just assuming what works best for it without actually knowing. He may not even need to use global variables for what he's trying to do, perhaps he only needs an operation for one layout. Only he would know that.

First, this doesn't have really anything to do with whether Guyon is an expert not. He is a newer user of Construct so you could argue that he is not an expert (no offense to Guyon meant .

I didn't isolate that to him being an expert. I said that he already knows how to use the product and maybe at an expert level, and that would be a big reason as to why a person in that position wouldn't be much concerned with comprehensive tutorials and instructional manuals. If you already know what you're doing, you're not spending any time reading manuals.

Were we not all new users at some point? How do you think Guyon gained his experience? He didn't magically become skilled in Construct one day and he didn't have somebody spoon feed him all the answers. He worked hard and learned how to use the tool.

Yes that's true, but that's beside the main issue which is lack of adequate instruction. It's very commonplace for these types of things to have better documentation that can be learned from. The reason for it is pretty simple really... it's just not the best idea to expect people to learn without it. A lot of the people here are smarter than they probably give themselves credit for, so they think the rest of the world can do what they're doing with the same amount of effort (I get that feeling from your post as well), but this is not the case at all. I know some very good C coders who gave up on MMF back when it didn't have much instruction, and have given up on trying to learn Construct for the same reason. So if those types would give up, consider what the average guy who has never made a game or has no programming discipline is doing when they keep getting stuck in Construct?

I code in C myself, mostly C# (had to learn through instruction), but in order for me to learn MMF I had to get the resources and learn through instruction just the same. For MMF, they have books and guides and instructions. I read those, I learned it. Then when moving over to Construct the concept of event-based programming made sense because of what I learned in MMF. But, if it weren't for what I learned through MMF's instructional resources, it would've taken me much, MUCH longer to pick it up and I probably wouldn't have started using Construct.

The best resource for Construct right now is the search function, but that at the same time also creates its own issue as I've pointed out in a previous post.

We can all agree that more wiki documentation needs to be added. Since you seem passionate about this issue why don't you then do something to contribute? It doesn't take an expert to document a behavior, object, expression, etc.. I have added several wiki entries (within two months of finding Construct) not even knowing about how the object worked before I first started out. I scanned the forums, tried out examples, built my own examples, and just experimented with what the object did. I then added an entry and even examples in many cases. You and any other Construct user could do the same.

I may do that, but it's not my responsibility or any end-users responsibility. It's something done out of courtesy from an end-user standpoint. But if the same courtesy approach is used from those who actually create a program, it really doesn't make logical sense. Good instructions are just something that should never be looked at as totally separate from the development of development software, because you can never assume how well end-users will pick up on what you've developed. The search engine gives definitive evidence of there being an issue, so I don't think there is a valid argument against that. At this point you have 2 situations:

1. Wait for end users to contribute enough to the resource to eliminate the issue, which is more than likely not going to happen.

Or

2. Write it as a first-party, which would be the most realistic step to eliminating the issue.

This is a simple situation. How many of us here can fix bugs and write improvements to Construct code? Maybe 1-3. Ok, how many can add wiki entries? At least 100 - 200 users. So why have one of the only guys who can improve Construct waste time writing documentation when a couple hundred would do that job instead?

We'll have to agree to disagree that it would be "wasting time". Having comprehensive instructions--something that should never be separate from the scheme anyway--is never a waste of time. It's necessary, very much so. And it can be tackled by the same people if it's broken up in pieces and done over a long period time. No one is asking for them to drop everything and just write a manual only, as there are certainly more rational ways to go about it. I should also point out that the people who created MMF also wrote books and resources on it in their spare time. It just comes down to how a developer views this aspect and how they're willing to allot time to tackling it. If a developer chooses not to make instruction an important priority, that doesn't in any way negate the importance or necessity of instruction... it just means the developer hasn't made instruction an imporant priority... nothing more than that, really.

Construct is not C#. C# is a language standard that has had millions of dollars and hundreds of people working behind. You can't even begin to compare Construct (a free and community project) to a large language. We could hire a technical writer and

solve all the documentation problems if that were so.

See my previous response.

I would much rather see his continued efforts on C2

Of course, because you already know how to use the program and probably quite well if not expertly. New users would (and should) have a different view.

All that's going to happen is that you're going to keep putting out new versions that new users don't have adequate documentation to learn from, thus continuing to ask the same questions over and over again making the forum even more filled with repeated questions, only adding to the issue of searching through a huge archive that keep getting larger.

And to continue, I think the first step in addition to updating the wiki with more fleshed out info, would be to break down the basics of the basic types of games one would make with Construct and then start writing visual step-by-steps. This was done with XNA and I'd say that it helped the community for that program grow exponentially from where it would be without it.

I'd start by doing something like break it all down into innovations and basics. The Innovations category would take things like faking Mode 7 and other 3D concepts, and posting a step-by-step with an included cap.

The basics category would be the same with such things as step-by-steps for creating hit-damage, collision, frame animation setup and control, time-keeping, score-keeping and the marriage of all of those things. And along with all of that, take all of the available operations and write example code for each and explain what each does and why and when to use them... without the "why and when" it's not a tutorial that a new user can learn from.

I'd say that this single thing is needed more than Construct hitting 1, 2 and beyond. It's more important than any thing being done with this great program right now.

While I find many of the things understandable, I think the amount of questions that get asked makes it evident that the lack of documentation is an issue in need of great attention. In reality, without making it a major focus, you'll only be bringing along the people who already know how to use it, which is no good if new people can't understand even the basics without asking a question on the forum, or searching through the forum... the forum itself is a great resource, but it's become too large for the average new user to wade through to find something minor or specific to a function of the most basic part of the typical platform game. I seen questions for things that you would find in most 2D games, those things should have clear and easy-to-follow step-by-step instructions.

I couldn't imagine learning some of the programs I've used over the years let alone learning C# as I have without comprehensive step-by-step guides. I mean, even if you do manage to learn without, you'll always be missing some part of the discipline and it sets you up for future issues.

I think more wiki additions would be nice provided that there are code examples that tell the user how it should look in order for it to run. I see that when people give advice on the forum, a lot of it is explaining what you need to do but not exactly how to do it, that's why you see a lot of follow-up questions asking "Yeah, but how do I write it?", and then when there is no response to it it's all a waste and no one benefits; the asker doesn't benefit because he still has no answer, and the new user searching doesn't benefit because when he gets to the thread to find the answer there is still no answer because the responder never gave example code. So now the new user has to make a new thread asking a question thats already been asked, this time hoping he'll get an actual example code of how it should look.

As I mentioned, holding alt and clicking crop will crop all of the frames in an animation.

Yes, I know.

The point is that all of it (including batch resize and batch export) should just be a selectable option in the image editor without work-arounds or using events. It should be as simple and readily available as the batch import functions are.