I've gotten that error on a laptop using an Intel GMA 950 (128MB shared from system RAM) when trying to have two instances of Construct open. I don't remember it doing that on a much older build, but that was a while ago.

The 400/500 GTX series problem messes up textures and Layer previews.

Even Super Mario Bros is far more complex than most people realize. Before you do anything else with your game, draw out a complete plan for everything that you want in it. It is like writing an outline for an essay or book.

Topdown or side view?

I have the same problem with my GTX 570.

First I uninstalled the 3D Vision drivers (which are only used for 3D screens) and it didn't fix it. So then I re-installed the drivers without the 3D Vision ones and selected the "Clean Install" option so it wiped the other drivers beforehand. Still no luck. The Layers thumbnails are messed up, too. The bug actually affects some power-of-2 textures for me as well.

Hopefully this bug can be addressed soon?

Right, well, I can see it from both sides and whatever seems fair or breeds goodwill is best.

None of this is an issue to me, personally, and I'm not really concerned about it, but I thought it was good to bring it up now before someone else does later. However, since the negativity on the forums already seems to be considered a problem, maybe I shouldn't mention anything until the community is more stable?

I didn't see this mentioned anywhere so I thought it might be better to bring up sooner rather than later. Do those who donated to C0.x get any kind of reduced cost for C2? They donated when Construct was a free, open source program, but since it is essentially cancelled (for Scirra anyway) and C2 is commercial, do the donors get anything special?

I don't know how many people donated(I'm guessing the number is small), but since what they gave money towards was cancelled and a commercial project was started instead, it's only right to give them a discount or something.

(only glanced through the past two pages of posts when writing this)

Arima said Construct 2's free version will be better than GM's free version. However, you can actually sell GM Lite games.

Also, as for the whole "But Construct doesn't use scripting so it's easier," I never liked that argument at all. For anything complex, using Construct will be difficult and complex, just like with any other program. Sure, Construct may be better or easier for this or that, but the events vs scripting argument is weak. What's to prevent someone from saying "Scripting is more powerful than events so GM is better. After all, most serious game developers use scripting"? Are "events" so different from scripting anyway besides being somewhat more visual? You still have to learn plenty of syntax and rules for Construct and know what different commands do, whether or not you have to type out a piece of code for them (which you often have to anyway). I think it's time for a new way to explain/argue for why Construct is easier or better other than "events vs scripting" itself. (I do think Construct is better than GM, I just don't like the reasoning. This isn't really related to C2 specifically.)

— Wolf, it's aimed at time-limited test editions like buddy40 described. IMO testers actually get a pretty sweet deal in that they don't need a license provided they're willing to stick to the bleeding-edge test builds. I suppose the alternative is we only offer test builds to license holders - then we get less testing done, which could affect stability - it's an option to consider, though. Maybe later when we actually have some license holders.

I was tired when I wrote that so it wasn't the clearest. It sounded to me (I was tired remember) like it had become a question whether testers should be allowed to test for free. The "testers can free-ride" statement made me think "that's the point of testers..." and the "I guess it's OK" part made me wonder if at one point it wouldn't be okay or something. I was worried about non-paying testers not being able to test without worrying about licensing or paying or just being nagged about not paying all the time. A healthy and happy testing community is good Sorry if this sounded harsh.

My second point was that I still don't know what parts, if any, are going to be open source or free to develop for. Rather, I really want other people making plugins and exporters (and having more devs for the editor would be great too) at some point. I can't tell if this is something people are welcome to contribute to now that it's not open source and I think some others are unsure as well.

[quote:h0volko6]This does mean users can free-ride on testing builds, but on the other hand, testers provide a useful service to us in helping us create more stable software, so I guess it's OK.

So you guess it's okay? Something feels completely wrong with this. What testers are doing for you does a lot more for you than it does for them. They mess around with an unfinished product, while it helps you make money. Oh, and then later on they probably have to buy the product they helped test. I am shocked by your even appearing to question the value of what the testers do for you.

I am getting a bad feeling about where this whole thing is going. Construct 2 seems pulled between "open for everyone!" and "buy this thing we made." There's nothing wrong with making a product to sell, but it seems like the idea of it being an open (or free) product for people to enjoy is being clung to, even though it really isn't in practice. This is a little difficult to explain, but I doubt I'm the only one feeling something wrong.

I will also note (in case this comes up), that this is not at all like the free beta of a game. Construct is a tool for producing things. As such, it's value (or enjoyment) does not come from the act of using it itself, but primarily from what you produce with it.

/rant (Someone needs to be negative. It balances things better and helps the development, trust me )

I think a top priority should be making a clear plan for Construct 2's development and how the testing and purchasing will work and letting people know. You devs seem very unsure right now and I think you could at least save some trouble (and maybe some community arguing?) if you create a simple list of things that need to get done and how things will work and whatnot.

Note: I complain because I want Construct 2 to succeed and I see FAR more positive "We trust you!" people than those who point out things they disagree with.

Edit: The "pulled between" thing is about you can't have both open source and free, while also having it closed source and costing something. At least, you can't have it try to be wholly both. It should be clear what goal you're aiming towards and what kind of product you really want to make.

Besides Krush being completely right, behaviors will run faster than if they were done in events. If you're trying to do everything with events (depending on the complexity), I have a feeling it could actually impact performance.

>

> I don't have unlimited money, and I'm not ever going to buy an unfinished product that I'm not sure will serve my purposes.

>

Then enjoy Game Maker and forget Construct exists, I guess. Take a look at it again when it's "finished."

That seems harsh. Genesys's point is entirely valid. Why would you pay for something when even the developer doesn't know what will be in the final product? You can't blame someone for not believing it'll do everything everyone wants.

Scirra needs to write up a list of promised features that bound them by contract or else a lot of people aren't going to bother buying until it is finished. If it isn't in writing, there's little to go on besides "faith." Of course, I doubt they'll write up such a contract as there'd be all sorts of legal complications with that. I think the key thing is, if you're going to sell something, it is best to sell it when it exists, not before.

I wonder how this would look to someone who's never used Construct before?

And remember, telling people "Fine, then. Go away." does not help. It is in no way a genuine response.

(I'm just feeling like I have to balance out this discussion a little.)

It is clear that more people like the idea then dislike it.

It is time to start implementing it.

Here's the thing, this isn't only for the current Construct 0.x community. Even if everyone here liked the idea, if it ended up making less people buy it in the end, then it's a bad idea. This is about a business model, not what current users want, but what will get the most money overall.