When you say: Set Sprite.X to -> Self.X + 5.

Then Self.X is the current X position of the Sprite. But you also could say: Set Sprite.X to -> Sprite.X + 5. It's the same.

Also, here's an example without "programing". link

And the Sprite moves to the right without a single line of code : D

Just hover with the mouse over the objects.

Even if your're right, then "X = Self.X + Self.speed * dt" would be no programing, there is no syntax you need to pay attention for, it's simply math, but no programing.

There are many behaviors, like custom movement behavior, where you could do stuff without a need of these lines of "code/math". I didn't search, but I think there are many examples and tutorials for it :)

edit: Just for ppl reading this thread and getting confused. Dima edited his posts and my posts was answering to his "old" posts.

edit2: It's very confusing, you're editing your first post so often, ppl cannot follow the conversation anymore. Just make another post at the end...?

Thanks, that works pretty well :)

I doubled the acc. dec. and max speed for the left right behavior.

Awesome :D

Maybe anyone else know this problem.

With 8-direction behavior enabled, the collisions work properly, but as soon as I create my own movement it acts a little glitchy, tries to glitch through sprites etc.

I want to setup isometric movement via:

up-arrow is down - (sprite.y-1 & sprite.x + 2) etc....

I tried it via 8-direction behavior and simulate controls, to simultaneously press up and right arrow. Seperated them and added +40 speed to the "left" one. But of course it won't act properly.

The movement was isometric but the camera was suddenly shifting to this direction^^.

Back to my question: Is it possible to make a copy of the 8-direction behavior and change its movement to isometric style?

I looked into the behavior but javascript is still too much for me :/

Hmm, "several headers reflect the properties you expect of Photon: optional reliability, sequencing, aggregation of messages, time synchronization and various others", sounds really good. Would be awesome to have these(and more) features implemented.

They say they got reliable udp, but what's the difference between reliable and unreliable udp? I googled a bit and can say now: tcp setting up a connection and getting sure, every packet is sent(reliable and slower). Udp(without connection) is sending regardless if the packet arrived or not(unreliable but faster).

So what's reliable udp then?

edit: I find this also interesting -> link

Begging not to vote for something is senseless to me(they already voted anyway). Putting more effort into explaining their choice(like the most do) would be a lot more effective.

Stop complaining about ppl that vote for multiplayer <.<

It's listed and ppl can vote for it and everyone may speak for oneself.

I used R0j0's example to recreate >this< demo.

This is what came out: >link<.

Can I reach with some tweeking the look like in the previous demo link?

edit: I just discovered build in bumpmapping support and got that effect working. The question is, why would I use dynamic lighting instead of the bumpmap effect? I don't exactly understand the difference.

Awwwww, I always loved CC, but I knew, that day will come. Construct classic was my first and only 2D game engine I've spent my time that much.

So I like C2 all the more, because I can keep using what I've learned in CC. And hopefully, the community will again support C2 with the same amount of plugins, behaviors and effects, like in CC :).

Zyb

Well, I voted for multiplayer, because me and Wolod searching for about a year a 2d engine with a nice eventing system and multiplayer support. Construct classic had scidaves plugin. But he hadn't much time anymore to fix an annoying bug so we had to start over again with seeking and our project freezes again :/. On top of the, C2 has already a Spriter plugin, ideal for our game. So only realtime multiplayer is the problem.

I also just waiting for udp support for smooth movement for a fast 2d shooter <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

Because game makers structure is very...distinct. There are so many options to choose, where you can input the code. It's not that logical and easy as in Construct, where I know, it reads my code from top to bottom in the written order. In GM every single object has its own 4-5 options where I can input code. Can't describe it, because I don't understand it.

I already posted the demo >here<.

Maybe someone else will port it. I like the demo because has working collisions and is less cpu intensive.