I fiddled with it a bit more, didn't find any worthwhile changes.

On a performance note I get 6-7 fps on my machine. I made the entire thing in javascript completely independent from Construct and got 22 fps, but that's also with a 360x360 grid instead of 50x50 and I'm not doing anything fast with the rendering.

I found that fun. I'm probably going to do that sort of thing more and more. No engine, no editor, completely diy, and no limits. Completely carefree, and it actually isn't harder and doesn't take much longer than doing it in a game maker. Sorry for the off-topic tangent, it doesn't help with the op in relation to this software.

It is interesting though that in theory java script would have been even faster, but that the fps still weren't blazing fast. To me it corroborates what many coders have been saying in the forums, that it eventually comes down to code strategy or optimization, and specific to the type being used. I'm sure that any further effort from your part would come up with a way to double up performance for a similar look hehe.

I am finally starting to get comfortable with construct 2 and I personally would not even dream of switching software or languages right now. Coming up with solutions, physics, etc... like you do ROJOhound, or completing a responsive and finished Construct 2 product like "Klang" and "The Next Penelope" are my inspiration. Although I wonder how much of those projects is done with outside sources, because I am trying to create even without plugins out of fear that my export will not work.

I know nothing about actual programming, and compiling (or compilation debugging) sounds like an unachievable nightmare to me, so I rely on hope that Cocoon or other auto exporting methods will work for what I manage to create. In a different world, I would have done computer science while I was in college.

My tangent on a tangent

Thank you ROJOhound! it works flawlessly. I have a feeling that I could have tried 1000 other combinations of the original event setup and would not have arrived to this solution. I had not considered using move at an angle for example.

For any one that might want to see the modified capx, here it is, just take off the space for the link to work

https:// 1drv.ms/u/s!ApB1qfswGRM7gSL_OrwzxqZOus1J

I have been testing and playing with the possibilities of circular motion. I really appreciate all of the threads created on the subject. There are so many ways to create a circular orbit (using sine behaviors, math with radians, or rotations, angle, etc...), fun stuff. The one that has seemed to be the most flexible and fun to play with was posted by Aphrodite, and I hope it is ok that I use his capx with some minor modifications to ask this question.

I would like to be able to spawn the orbiting item, and have it start orbiting from the original coordinates. Instead, currently the way that a new orbiting object seems to move is:

1. On the first tick the object teleports from the original coordinates to a new spot

2. Second tick and on, smooth circular movement

Does anyone know what it would take for any newly created object to start the rotation from the original spawning coordinates? I have tried many modifications to the formula under the "every-tick" expression to no avail. The project has spawning on touch coordinates for ease of troubleshooting/testing

delete the space in the address to get the link to work

https:// 1drv.ms/u/s!ApB1qfswGRM7gSHA85aiIGt-xYKk

If you can move an object from one point to another then all that's left is to move up and down as well.

With this formula as a base for the parabolic motion:

1-4*(x-0.5)^2

Here's a capx:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpzg482vpmatb ... .capx?dl=1

/examples21/leaper.capx

Thank you ROJOhound for sharing your knowledge. This formula and its application in the Capx is priceless. Truly grateful. In the past I have spent over a hundred hours looking for a parabola formula while I was learning to use "scratch" and later "appInventor". I found a more complicated version of what you show here and was dreading finding a way to implement it in Construct. Your approach is concise and flawless. Your post not only helps me save time (which is precious) but has me smiling at the possibilities and ease of using parabolic motion under many more scenarios and playing with the parameters or variables that you provided.