If you have a pixel game in theory the upscale shouldn't matter (much) - at low quality it is rendered at your base resolution and stretched out - in theory this means more cohesive presentation (no rotated pixels, etc), all the pixel-based shaders work right, etc.

With high quality you get the same assets stretched individually to fill the screen, so, quite likely, fillrates get blown, pixel-based shaders act weird and so on.

It depends on personal preference and art style, but I would always go for the "low quality" options.

It may depend a good deal on the sequencing - i.e. stacking order of the sprites with effects. Also how often the effect itself changes. In my testing I could have, for example. 5000 sprites with a Shader on them at ~30fps, but it gets cut in half if the parameters change every tick.

You basically need to experiment.

As was said you could try and use layers - for example have a layer that always has a max brightness effect and move the sprites to the layer on hit, then move them back.

Basically what Ashley always says applies - test it to see if it's fast or slow, when it gets quick you have the right approach.

Well, yeah, they do have to work within the constraints of the Shader system itself - there is a toggle to expand the drawing area, but that just kills performance. I have also observed certain bug-like behaviour in the Shader system and have submitted a report. Once it's either fixed or clear that it won't get fixed I'll see how to adapt the Shaders.

This is one reason it's been a little quiet here lately.

They are simply free to use, sharing if you make something cool would be nice.

Well, if we already have the water layer we could just spawn some random things there to distort the water in addition to the "waves" from the boat. Or you could look into the other distortion effects - there's one called water there as well. It has some weird parameters, but could make something look more watery.

Of course - the more shaders in use, the higher the performance demands will be. But if it's desktop then that's a lesser concern.

That really shouldn't be the case - are your events as simple as you describe? Mind a screen cap or a small .capx that demonstrates this?

Problem Description

As title says - if an object has transparency applied or another Shader in the stack before a Shader that works with coordinates, the coordinates in use become screen-space and not object-space.

I tried to discuss this here: but there was no reaction so here's a bug report using the built-in fx.

Attach a Capx

[attachment=0:xvgqrm4r][/attachment:xvgqrm4r]

Description of Capx

We have the same sprite with the same effect applied, but the one on the right has a different opacity.

Steps to Reproduce Bug

Change the opacity of anything that has a coordinate-dependant Shader.

Observed Result

The sprite with transparency applied uses screen-space coordinates.

Expected Result

The sprite with transparency should still use local coordinates.

Affected Browsers

• Chrome: (YES)
• FireFox: (YES)
• Internet Explorer: (YES)

Operating System and Service Pack

Windows 7, Windows 8.1 64-bit

Construct 2 Version ID

r197

Right click on the export screen and pick "Show deprecated exporters"

There's been plenty of services doing (or trying to do) this - onlive on PC, I think Steam allows you to stream your own games as well, obviously PS has remote play, nvidia also has it. Amazon's fire tablets used a different approach to improve some games and so on and so on.

It's not that much of a future any more, more like present. And with data speeds and coverage improving it's quite likely it would become a separate segment of gaming - have super high fidelity content on simple mobile devices that just act as streamers. Same for simple PCs - I would prefer a neat, compact box that's absolutely silent to some crazy gaming pc with all the fans, etc. that'll get old in two years.

It actually very much looks to be hand-placed elements - you can even see the seams in the top example. C2 won't let you neatly stretch and bend polygonal assets - as I understand plain canvas cannot even draw distorted polygons properly.

Well, said, the amount of people wanting A LOT for nothing on the net is just staggering.

Might be a side effect of the hyper-speedy information lifestyle we are moving towards - in the old days you would go to a bookstore/library, get a book and actually read that book to learn something and find a solution (I know I did in the ZX Spectrum days) so one way or another you learned patience and you learned whatever you set out to learn. Now it's "How do I make game X?" "Is there a hand-holdey video tutorial for this (feature that's perfectly explained in the manual)?" "No reply in 15 minutes? BUMP!" and so on.

Very roughly something like this might work - but, of course, it would also need splashes (even better if the work based off-off the boat's speed - more speed = bigger splashes, less speed - small to no splashes.