Just use a few particle emitters in the same spot and set those to different angles, then also play with angle randomizer property and you won't be able to tell the difference.

It should not affect performance either because you can have fewer particles coming out of each one ( combined they should match what you have coming out of a single emitter now )

just noticed this is a thread from 2013, wow. Well, my suggestion could also help the last guy posting. Few particle emitters, like I said, each can have a different shape or color, so you can create an illusion of frames/animation.

You can always use the browser object to detect device and then depending on what it is do anything you want.

For example, you detect it's an iPad, game loads and instead of proceeding with normal gameplay you jump to a layout which only has a pic of ..................................

[quote:30hjtt6b]It works on my Android version, but not on iOS?

The transparent button trick?

Last time I checked on iOS it worked fine, but maybe they've changed something with recent update?

No it is not. It's unreliable. It may change with browser updates, but that would often be blocked by browsers for security reasons.

Clicking on buttons counts as user input. Just clicking on a sprite does not.

If you are trying to open a link by clicking on a sprite, then this should work:

Add a button, put it on top of your sprite so they click on a button to open a link.

Make the button invisible by adding onStartofLayout > button set CSS style to "opacity" to "0"

If you are trying to open a link by clicking on a sprite, then this should work:

Add a button, put it on top of your sprite so they click on a button to open a link.

Make the button invisible by adding onStartofLayout > button set CSS style to "opacity" to "0"

If only debugger had a debugger of its own. Maybe in Construct 4

You could just use another condition in your damage thingy. If player not flashing ( assume that is an animation ) damage = OK.

So as long as it is flashing it will not pick up any damage

I think you need a nap. That is not at all what I am saying.

Given that 95% of your customers are on Windows it makes sense to concentrate on making sure you have a stable standalone on Windows.

After that is done do whatever you want with browsers and other OS.

You still cover everything just as you have now, but it would be Windows version first, then the rest ( and I am sure that is what almost everybody here wanted anyway ).

[quote:b8oaqtuf]So... because of a bug in a browser that isn't supported at all on Windows... you think we should have made a Windows app first?

No, but one day it will be a bug by Google and it will take down all of your customers who regularly update their Chrome browsers without thinking.

You answered after I added, basically my answer to that.

Nothing wrong with your browser version approach, but like I said above. Stable windows version ( standalone ) first, then a browser version that would cover people using macs, etc.... makes more sense to me.

So then do you only blame Apple when Apple break their OS, but blame us when Apple break their browser?[/code:1f78lsni]

Not at all what I said. I blame them in both cases, but you at least double your chances of things going wrong by taking the browser app approach.

No, I would blame Apple, but relying on browsers you will have a higher failure rate. That's not even questionable. You have 2 points of possible failure. OS itself and browser code. If you don't rely on browsers then you only have OS issues. It's not rocket science.

As for Apple, they are imbeciles who have never tested anything properly ( they only seem to test their own programs running on their own OS and even that they get wrong way too often ). Going back 10 years or so, I can recall them breaking numerous programs, mostly through quicktime; Maya, Lightwave 3D, a number of video editing and compositing programs as well. And they have done it on their own OS and Windows.

Windows updates sometimes break things too, but it has been nowhere near the idiocy I've seen with Apple.

As you say: [quote:1100ku2c] Apple are a multi-billion dollar corporation with thousands of engineers, and their software is broken

Given that, HTF is it possible to release software that constantly breaks things. Bugs are one thing, but this is on a completely different level. Do they recruit their software engineers directly from special ed classrooms? Seems to be.

So, no I blame them, not you, but if it were me, I would try to develop software with as few dependencies as possible. That I guess means standalone on Windows first, then browser versions. Wouldn't even bother with Apple version, let them use one of the browser versions.

Well, not quite.

This is exactly a situation that many have brought up when arguing against having Construct 3 as a browser app. You cannot control what Apple or Google or whoever else do. So maybe Apple screwed up, but Scirra screwed up when they decided to rely on Apple.