nemo here we go

First of all, make ALL layer scales to 1

Then instead of using your zoom value (For example 0.1) , zoom the layers(Not layout) with 0.1/(YourLayerScaleYouHadBefore/100)

Here you also see that when one layer has zoomed in too far, it sets the zoom to the min/max value.

But it does that for every single layer you zoomed, since if 1 layer has zoomed to far, every other has too.

Then we come to the "what if we have zoomed in, and are coming to the end of the playable area?"

MapSize is the X variable where the layout will end (For unbounded scrolling), for this example we will set it to 1920 (Whole playable layout 1920x1080)

Here you see, if they cross the Max values, it get's put pack into the playable area.

Explanation for Action 1 (Right Side Borders):

960 is the value of your default Width for the project/2 in my case its 1920/2 = 960

LayerScale(2) is in this case a layer that normally would have the layer scale = 100 (So here you need to pick you'r layer that normally would have a layer scale = 100)

Explanation for Action 2 (Left Side Borders):

Again 960 is the value of your default Width for the project/2

Same thing with LayerScale(2)

Explanation for Action 3 (Down Side Borders):

540 is the value of your default height for the project/2 (In my case 1080/2 = 540)

Now we come to Action 4

Don't ask me why i've done it this way, but it works, and im happy with it, but i can't explain it

But you can see 440 is = 540-100. and that is the default layer scale for my layer 2.

Now to: How to set the "Resolution"

Here you see, first i define the 2 values that i want to be my new width/height resolution (ResX and ResY)

Then i set the canvas size to their Resolution.

Then i set the Layout Scale to the new Width Resolution / 1920 (My default Width Resolution)

And then in node webkit i set the height/width.

As you can see i use it together with WebStorage so the returning user doesn't always need to change the option again

I hope this is explanation enough.

Remember ALL Layer scales MUST be = 1 in your whole project.

• Conti

fariwinds , you could ask Tom , just send him a pm or post your problem in the website issues category.

fariwinds , that is i good explanation (at least im satisfied with that ), with that, i now think we at least should wait to see it in action.

fariwinds , the conversation is in the beginning of this topic, as well as the multiple os conversation.

fariwinds , thank you for the answer, but im sry, i couldn't find a clear answer what you say about this "Chan" guy, and why you have 4 different Windows/Mac OSX versions listed. And if you are looking into making it work together with C2.

I appreciate that you take time to look at this thread as it is a mostly negative one, and try to explain everything.

Edit: Thanks for the explanation to the reservation cycle

fariwinds Ok, that explains a small part, ill excuse me in advance: Sry for being so harsh, but.

What about Fimbul said with the coffee shop dude "Chan" ?

What about the 4 different versions of Windows/OSX?

Do you want try to compete with, let's say Cocoonjs/Node-Webkit(I hate that it is using outdated chromium...)?

Are you going to try to in "integrating" TideKit into C2/Make it work?

I hope you understand us being so skeptical.

Edit: Try posting the urls like this scirra com/forum/tidekit-native-vs-html5-they-promise-no-difference_t100765

i know a bit late, but nemo, are you having the layers on 0 scale because of zooming/scrolling?

If yes, i can explain you how to maintain the zooming/scrolling with different scales on different layers + setting resolution option and unbounded scrolling.

awmace5 i think connecting players work, but sending/recieving messages (including broadcasting) doesnt work.

while im at it: Ashley how does the LAN thing work? How do 2 players connect in LAN mode to each other? (I haven't figured that out yet)

Ashley is the Multiplayer working with NW ? Since i can't get it to work :/

On Chrome everything works fine and as expected.

However, TCP is perfectly acceptable for non-realtime things, such as multiplayer negotiation, chat messages, score updates, etc.

Yes, for non-realtime things it would be good, but still lacking the Punch-Through and ICE Servers.

So you would still be able to achieve more with the official one then with Socket.IO.

[quote:1id5ciah]ICE stands for Interactive Connectivity Establishment. They are the servers that help peers connect to each other even if they are behind NAT. These include STUN servers (which try to connect peers directly), and TURN servers (which if peers cannot connect directly, will act as a relay forwarding data between them).

The Multiplayer plugin uses a default list of public STUN servers hosted by Google and Mozilla. You could add your own STUN server, but I don't think there's much point, because the public servers do a good job already.

The most interesting case is to add your own TURN server. According to stats on our signalling server, about 10% of the time peers cannot connect directly due to NAT restrictions. These peers will simply fail to connect because there are no default TURN servers. If you add your own TURN servers then these peers will be able to connect still. The problem is this can degrade the connection quality, since the latency, packet loss etc. will accumulate since data must first go to the TURN server, then be relayed on to another peer. Also this makes TURN servers expensive to run, because you have to pay for the bandwidth of all the game data that passes through it, whereas normal direct peer connections run through their own ISPs and cost you nothing. Still, the option to add your own TURN server is there if you want to.

So, they are quite crucial to have the oppertunity to reach more players then with Socket.IO. +1 Official MP

[quote:1id5ciah]NAT traversal to work around connectivity restrictions imposed by common routers and network setups

Also called NAT Punch-Through. +1 Official MP

[quote:1id5ciah]LAN game support for near-zero latency gameplay, including support for mixed LAN/Internet games

Well, it explains itself. +1 Official MP

Of Course P2P = +1 Official MP (Since you then don't have to have a Server)

But Socket.IO has one good thing over the Official one, but that is only good for some:

Export option with the Free Version of C2. +1 Socket.IO

Socket.IO 1 : 4 Official MP

You can discuss how far socket.io is more compatible with most browsers etc. then the official one,

but overall you should see, the official one really has most benefits. (Including no coding - that is important for some)

• Conti

DatapawWolf well, as long as you don't prove anything else:

http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/431/is-the-tcp-protocol-good-enough-for-real-time-multiplayer-games

• Conti

DatapawWolf, well, the official is kinda suprerior because of the Punch-Through and ICE Server connection.

That way more people would be able to connect via the official one then via the Socket.IO.

And since the official one has UDP and Socket.IO doesn't have it, Socket.IO is unsuitable for real-time games.