A detailed list of blacklisted drivers.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting/Blocked_Graphics_Drivers

At the bottom is instructions for disabling the blacklist. Perhaps other browser makers also have this ability.

This isn't the best way to evaluate software. If you were to look at what has been accomplished by inexperienced, independent, one person game developers (the typical "game maker" community member) with powerful libraries like SDL, SFML, and Allegro - you would be completely underwhelmed. Unless you have very specific needs which you should ask about here, C2 is powerful enough. Graphics are just decoration, they have no bearing on the abilities of the underlying engine.

Also, Game Maker has 10 years on C2 so of course you'll find many more complex games there. Does that mean it's better?

On a side note: I really wish Game Maker didn't own the name Game Maker. It makes it really hard to talk about game maker software in general.

It would be difficult to allow people to call array.sort without allowing them to provide a custom comparator function. The default sort in JS converts everything toString which can produce some bizarre results if you're not expecting it.

Wouldn't this do it?

myArray.sort(function (a, b)
    {
        return a[0] - b[0];
    });

Thanks for the reply Tom. I'm glad to know Stencyl isn't somehow mysteriously kicking Construct's <img src="smileys/smiley35.gif" border="0" align="middle" /> in forum activity.

The more logical approach would have been as follows:

- Pay 50 per year

- No #app limitation

- If you make money we'll take a share (20%?)

I'm surprised this sounds better to you. If you release one game and it becomes extremely successful. Lets say you make $20,000. You'll have to pay $4,050 to AppMobi rather than $100.

I didn't want this to sound like a comparison. I don't need to be convinced, I'm backing C2. I was just wondering why it seems so many more people are interested in Stencyl when C2 is the better product and if there is something Scirra can do to change that. However, I think Ashley's theory that they are inflating their forum usage is the best explanation. Thanks for the replies.

I would like to clarify that I like Construct more than Stencyl which I haven't spend much time with - I intend to spend more time with it when 2.0 is available. Regarding the user interface I only meant the first impression is that Stencyl's UI is simpler. I do not think Stencyl's UI is better. I never gave Construct's UI much thought until a friend saw me using it (it was just a glance as she walked by) and asked "Is that Gimp?" I said no and asked her why she thought that. She responded "It just has that unfriendly, open source look which made me think of Gimp".

I'd also like to add that 8 was a bit of a gag, but I suspect Java/C++ programmers feel more at home with AS3.

What I meant by path to monetization was being able to sell your game which currently is a little fuzzy with HTML5.

I guess what I really want to say is since Construct is better why are people seemingly more interested in Stencyl? How has an inferior product generated more interest.

Again by "doing better" I am not referring to the quality of the product. I am referring to the amount of forum traffic which I'm taking as sign of overall product interest. As is "doing better at generating and retaining user interest".

How do I measure better? Primarily by the number of people on the forums (not wholly scientific). Stencyl routinely has 300+ (atm 338) people on their forum - which shockingly ties GM. Construct seems to net about 70 - 120 most times I'm on - 224 is the max ever. Please don't take this as an endorsement of Stencyl, I paid for C2 as my badge proves and like it very much - it'll be near perfect with family behaviours and per layout loading. I ask this question not as a put-down, but as an investigation for future development of C2. Here are some reasons I've come up with.

1) Stencyl runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

2) iOS and upcoming Android exporters.

3) Flash is better understood than Canvas or HTML5.

4) Stencyl is friendlier sounding that Construct.

5) The UI is less intimidating.

6) Path to monetization is clearer.

7) Free version is complete.

8) ActionScript 3 kicks JavaScript's butt.

Of all those reasons I find 2 the most convincing (despite my lack of interest in exporters) which makes me wonder why Stencyl has exporters. Stencyl is likewise made by one person (or so their website says) who is also a CS grad. Thus it can't be a matter of man-power. However, 5 is also attractive. Open Construct and you'll see a lot of options you have no idea what do with. Open Stencyl and it looks simpler.

If exporters are the issue perhaps development on the editor should halt until App Mobi or PhoneGap support is both complete and fast - if that's possible.

In fact, Stencyl was criticized on these boards for having a closed beta and it seemed certain a closed beta was inferior. Yet it is successful. I'd like to know if anyone has any insights into the success of Stencyl and how Construct can adapt or if it needs to.

P.S. Thank you Tom for fixing the preview button!!

Thank you!

I'm on Firefox 10.0.1 and every time I click the live bookmark I get "failed to load". It has been like this for a while.

Arima You read my mind. By using those libraries only one exporter would be needed. They minimize cross platform differences very significantly. However, the creator of the exporter would need excellent knowledge of C (not C++). You can use C++ with them, but to do cross mobile platform, C99 is still the ticket.