There is a shadow functionality in C2, however I haven't used it a lot, so not sure how it works. Its called Shadow caster and can be added as a behaviour to the object.

You shouldn't add the pin to object to an "every tick" event, Just pin it to the sprite during a creation event or start of layout event, that should solve it.

[quote:gdnop19o]I dunno the business strategy Scirra has and if C3 development is "the way" to reach other markets and platforms -therefore audiences - but if that is the case, there are plenty of options out there to maintain C2 and generate revenue out of it.

I would be really surprised if they were aiming for the 3D market, C2 is really strong on the 2D and the ease of use. Going for 3D is a lot more complicated, and there are some huge players on that market, such as Unity. Also that would require another group of customers I think, as most people can use an image editor, but not that many I think is capable of making 3d graphics for games. But one reason to make a new one could be because Unity have not long ago added 2d to there's as well. But going for the 3d part, I think would end in a suicide to be honest, and think they would have announce that as well, if that was the case anyway.

[quote:gdnop19o]No software is free of bugs and there are always things that annoy users or drive them crazy, there is no work around. Even a gazillion bugfixes can´t satisfy the whole human beings.

But there is a difference I think, because its more than a bug. It would be like you not being able to type the letter "E" when using word. And Microsoft not fixing it, but instead suggested that you could buy the new version that might be able to do it. if I should compare it to something.

[quote:gdnop19o]It´s exactly like you say, there are things that can´t be done easily or at all with the current version of Construct, so why should I invest 100 hours to make my 50PS car a 60PS car instead of taking 200 and build a 150PS one? I can definitely understand your point, but to me it´s more than time, to get away from this "workaround-needing-prototype" (sry Ashley ) and develop something really serious, that can at least try to compete with some major players on the market.

I don't see C2 as a workaround kind of prototype, that needs to be replaced. Just pointing out that it have some serious issues, that I think should be fixed, and therefore I suggested the way I would do it, in a former post. Because if they want to compete on the market, the first thing they shouldn't do, is to "screw" there customers, not saying they are, just as a general thing. And even when they release C3, you have no guarantee that it wont suffer similar problems, and then you would have to wait for C4. I mean most people probably thought the same when they moved from C1 to C2. So just don't think they should leave broken things behind, they should fix it, announce that they will start working on C3 and get people to buy that, due to even better features than in the former versions. Otherwise its just "Well we kind of screwed up, but the next version is going to be fantastic just you wait and see." That is not really a good way to maintain customers in the long run if you ask me.

[quote:gdnop19o]Well, just my two cents

I don't take it personally, just sharing my thoughts

[quote:gdnop19o]People with skill can actually make the games they desire with C2, without lowering their sights.

Well if its broken or designed that way in C2 then its not possible, and if you want to make things that at least have a chance to compete. Such thing is definitely not going to help you.

nimos100

Of course regular bugfixes are important, I never said something different. Every company should do it and most do it already of course. Scirra as well....for about 4 years now, since C2 was first released in 2011... half a decade ago. There is just a time, where you have to throw out something new and fresh, even your old system works.

4 years might seem like a long time, but if you think about that C2 have been developed over this time period, meaning that a lot of features weren't there when it was original released, but have been added over time. And is usual done by entering a test phase, and then added to the stable version, and that's really cool I think, as C2 continues to evolve, and most of these things are very useful, like the "auto fill" for function calls etc. And bug fixing these is required and are done.

But some things in C2 is broken and is not in the category of being bug fixing. Such as it using a single collision mesh, which you can't work around. And will make a huge range of games impossible to make.

For instant making a RTS game with different types of units that uses path finding, and that should collide against different things, will not be possible. To me this is a core element of game creation as a huge amount of games requires reliable path finding, so it will limit the things you can make. And reporting this, I know its not easy to fix due to it being designed that way in C2. But to me fixing something like that, is a whole lot more important than making sure you can export to yet another OS, or that you can hook up C2 to an external image editor, which is nice. But doesn't solve any major problems.

New users of C2 will most likely have no clue what im talking about, which is understandable, but at some point they will run into problems like this, because stuff like this is what is causing the real problems, when you get experience with C2. Where as having to use an external image editor might just be a bit annoying for some.

And that is what I mean with it not being encouraging to buy C3, if such important parts of making games is just left broken, with an impression "that it doesn't really matter, we just make a new version". But I might just vent, as C3 is not here yet, and really think in general that Scirra does a very good job at improving C2. but on the other side, I just can't ignore that it have been broken for as long as I can remember since I noticed it, and I got C2 in 2012.

Every now and then you need to bring something entirely new or you´ll get fuc**** by the market. Imagine Apple would improve their iPhones all the time, instead of bringing out a new version every now and then. Nobody would buy an iphone 3SSS.

Throwing out a new software will definitely give them a flood of sales by us, the current userbase, as well as a hype for new ones, cause of the exitement a new engine release will cause.

Never forget that it´s not always about the current users and a community near working....sometimes it´s about marketing and money.

PS: This shouldn´t sound like Ash and Tom being cruel business vamps^^ It´s just that there is so much more in leading a company than just the product!

If Apple released a Phone that would crash every 3 call, so you would have to restart it, and didn't care to fix it, and just released new Phones instead, Apple wouldn't survive long. So ofc Apple should keep releasing new ones, but if they want to maintain the customers loyalty and a good brand, they need to fix any problems that there phones might have, before just releasing new ones.

Personally I don't care about what reasons they have for making a new version, that's up to them. But to me the main reason why C2 is so popular is because of the ease of use. That part of C2 is in my opinion almost spot on, compared to other products out there. So what is needed to really put C2 apart from the rest, is that its does what its suppose to better than any other product out there. Here im not talking about, image editor and stuff like that, but the core of what makes it possible for people to make any type of 2D game. And in that sense C2 is not really doing what I think it should, some of the other products have some really nice features as well, that are not in C2, and C2 have some that are not in those. So the main issue i think, is the quality and functionality of those features, rather than the total amount.

But to me Scirra would be better of, if they plan to release a new version, to stop adding new features and instead fix those that have already been added and is not working correctly. That way the current users wont feel like they are left with a broken C2, and are aware that Scirra is not going to add new features to it, but instead want to focus on a new version. That way they are a lot more secure that they maintain the loyalty of there current user base. And its a lot cheaper to maintain that, than having to get new customers to replace them.

I hope so, however I love C2 in general, but I have a bit concerns with C3 to be honest. Reason being that I feel that even though C2 is easy to use and a lot of things keeps getting updated and new features added. There are still a lot of issues hanging around, that doesn't seem to get improved or fix, or reaching the point where they should or could be.

Meaning on the surface there seems to be hardly any limit to what you can do, but the moment you scratch the surface, a lot of the main elements that are needed to make certain types of games are simply not possible. Which starts to get annoying, that its such things that decide what you can do and not do, rather than a lack of imagination.

And personally for me, whenever there is an update, I hope some of these issues are being addressed, but instead its normally just new features, which ofc can be useful. But makes little difference if the main problem is found in a broken/bugged part of C2, that prevent you from doing something regardless of any new features.

So seeing that C3 might be on the way, will most likely mean that C2 will be left in a "broken" state. Which at least to me doesn't encourage me to buy C3, even though it might not be true, I think it gives the impression that they are not all that concerned about quality and good functionality, compared to amount of features, that can be added to a list of things you can do, just as long as you don't really need them.

Personally I see little point in the importance of supporting every single operating system in world, if core of the program, doesn't allow you to really do what I guess most users enjoy when using C2, which is to make and design the games you like, the way or as close to the way you would like them to be.

So I will watch C3 come a long with great concerns for C2

There are missing quite a lot as to making the tiger attack, meaning you have no attack event or attack animation in the game

So Ill just show you how to get to the point where the tiger stops, and you can create the attack event and animation. There are some things in the game that you don't really need as I see it, but if they serve some other purpose later on you can ofc just leave them.

But I would remove All the behaviours on the tiger, except "BoundToLayout", "Solid" and then just choose one of the movement behaviours. I kept the platform behaviour for this example.

You don't really need Every tick as C2 will do this automatically. Also Putting the "Set Fullscreen scaling to high quality" you should just do in a "Start of layout" no need to do that every tick.

I have removed your movement action and replaced it with the platform simulate control, the speed of the tiger you can just set through this behaviour.

The next event, is when the tiger gets close to the player it will stop, if the player moves away it will "follow".

So you can add the attack animation and whatever else you need when it attacks here. You will need to add some kind of cool down to the attacks and ofc fix the movement, if the tiger is suppose to move in both directions etc.

Anyway hope it will give you an idea of how to continue.

Think you need to supply a bit more information. When you say tile game, you mean tilemap? or do you mean sprites that moves based on a fixed ratio, so it appear as if its tiles?

To fix it you have to do two things.

1. For your zombies in the bullet behaviour you have to put "Set angle = No"

2. In the event "Zombie has LineOfSight to player" you need to replace the action "Set angle toward (Player.X, Player.Y)" with the action "Set Bullet angle of motion to angle(Zombie.X, Zombie.Y, Player.X, Player.Y)

Add reliable path finding, it have been bugged/broken for as long as i remember sadly

Any new advise?

Unfortunately i dont think its possible to make a workaround, as its part of how C2 uses obstacle maps. As Ashley have pointed out here in the bug report.

[quote:1k8pd27s]The problem is there is only one global obstacle map used for the pathfinding behavior. Everything pathfinds on the same map. So if you have object A with two obstacle types, and object B with no obstacle types, you have a conflict: should the one global map have those objects as obstacles, or not? In this case it happens to pick the global map where no obstacle types are defined. If you delete the red object there's no conflict any more and it uses the right obstacles.

I'm not sure how to resolve this - having multiple maps becomes memory inefficient and possibly slower, but on the other hand perhaps the obstacle types should be global as well to avoid this situation... the easiest thing to do is to make sure you have the same obstacles added for every object using the pathfinding behavior.

I dont know what state the pathfinding behaviour is in, since there are some other problems with it as well. But hopefully (fingercrossed) they are working on a new more solid version, that makes of for these things. And since im mostly interested in making games where pathfinding is needed, i have limited myself to only work with tilebased turn-based types of games as you can avoid at least some of the problems. But in most other types of game (real-time), it will end up with you having to give up the project or having to make some serious work around for some of the other problems, but still the problem in this thread cant be solved as it is now, as I understand Ashley answer. So you have to design your game based on these problems which I don't really want to do.

I see your point, but all other behaviours work like that, so why it shouldn't for the Line of sight I don't see a reason for.

The way it is now, you have to add a line of sight for each individual type of object or family depending on your design, which will create a lot of copy/paste conditions. I have a hard time believing its suppose to work like that.

But you are correct that in my case I could just remove the enemy from the family, but then its just a matter of time before the problem occurs again, if for some reason I wanted to make a buff system where enemies within line of sight of each other got a buff of some sort. Then I would end up with the same problem as now as the enemies wouldn't be able to be part of the same family.