AnD4D's Forum Posts

  • I am trying to have my exported NW program be transparent. I can achieve this if I export it as an html, but not with NW.

    I have searched the forum, and found that it's possible:

    construct.net/en/forum/construct-3/how-do-i-8/nw-js-windows-app-transparent-157915

    But I can't achieve the same. I have tried editing the style.css by changing it as described as well as completely removing the lines:

    background: transparent;

    color: transparent;

    It's just a simple project with a transparent background...

    I have made sure my bottom most layer is transparent. In the preview it fades to black, suggesting it's working. However, in my NW export, it fades to white, and isn't transparent.

    In HTML it also fades to black, but when previewed in a program like OBS it does become transparent.

  • When I find a path to most destinations, it will first travel horizontally, then vertically. However, if I find a path to the up and right of an object, then it will first travel vertically, THEN to horizontally.

    Is this a bug? Is there a way I can get it to change to match the others?

    It's not based on distance. There's no way to change it for the other direction either. It's always consistently wrong.

  • Have you even tried to look up the error message in the console?

    It's the first thing I even tried to do...

    Who knows, maybe this means something to someone:

    main.js:896 [Project] Exception opening: Error: name already in object class namespace

    at new d (projectResources.js:646:241)

    at pa.j (main.js:1128:44)

    at d.qE (projectResources.js:655:202)

    at d.NW (projectResources.js:714:182)

    at d.NW (projectResources.js:742:502)

    at d.pSc (projectResources.js:743:413)

    at async Promise.all (/index 55)

    at async d.q$b (projectResources.js:748:109)

    at async d.y$b (projectResources.js:1914:221)

    at async CCG.Hn (main.js:872:1)

    Gn @ main.js:896

    CCG.Hn @ main.js:872

  • I have a feeling my time with Construct 3 is beginning to sunset. I can't be working on a project for years, then getting locked out of it with ZERO explanations.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • I just tried to open an old project, and was given the error:

    "Failed to open project. Check it is a valid Construct 3 single-file (.c3p) project."

    Searching the forums, I found someone posting the same error from 2 years ago. They fixed it by going back and opening it using an older version of C3, then renaming some of their variables, or something.

    I went back 1 stable version, and found it opened, but I have no idea how I'm meant to discover what's causing the error.

    I tried opening it in the old version, saving it, then opening it in the latest version, but that didn't help either. Will try the latest beta, and will follow up here.

    Any ideas Ashley

    Update - The latest beta also won't open it. I only had to go back 1 stable version to get it working. A little worrying, as it's a 3 year project that seems to be locked to 368.2.

    Update 2 - It seems to be broken from R369 onwards, which is slightly worrying.

  • This is brilliant. No idea why there isn't a tutorial about this?

    Anyone know where the save files are saved on the Steam Deck?

  • I never managed to get this to work. Apparently my demo and test version worked fine, but the full version has never worked. I imagine I've done a setting wrong somewhere, but I can't find it for the life of me, and Steam won't help.

  • I haven't found a use for flowcharts yet, but if we could build state machines with them then they would become extremely useful. I look forward to seeing how the tool evolves.

    I also haven't found a use for it yet, and would be curious if there's anyone who has.

    Also, I agree with an earlier comment that this feature should be labelled (WIP) or something. People who don't get betas or emails about the features, or don't read through these things may not understand that the feature is still in development.

  • > Just had a look at the new flow chart, and without meaning to sound offensive, I'm honestly massively disappointed. You can't even create loops back to an earlier piece of dialogue without having to create a link and some events that control this. Which means for every future project, you need to jump through the same hoops just to achieve this result.

    >

    > Did anyone look into the software I recommended? I understand being able to combine the flow chart with the event sheet, but NEEDING to connect it to the event sheet is another thing entirely.

    At risk of souring the tone of the forums, this feels unbelievably entitled. When it was in beta, a lot of people had a lot of opinions about what the Flowchart feature should be and it was pretty clear that it just wasn't feasible to address everyone's input straight out the door.

    I also feel that the Flowchart feature is missing some fundamental features - in fact, like you, I also halted production on a game that was pretty dependant on a few of them - but I'm also aware that it's in its infancy. This is literally the first stable release. Did you expect the C3 team to fully implement a system as complex and feature rich as Arcweaver overnight? These things take time and iteration and this kind of response just seems so blindly-obviously not the way to get what you want.

    Expressing my disappointment, then giving examples as to why is entitled? Geez, people are so thin skinned these days. I repeated that I'm not meaning to be offensive, but that's clearly not enough. Would it have been easier for you if I put lots of sad or embarrassed faces in my text so you knew how I felt?

    If we're only allowed to express our disappointment when a feature is in beta, then I won't ever be able to contribute. I've been 'burned' by a beta build way too many times to risk using it again, and I don't have the time to jump on and test a lot of the features these days. The requests people were making were great, and I threw my hat into the mix, offering additional requests and suggestions. But sadly, I don't see a single one of these requests added to the new feature.

    Did I expect the C3 team to fully implement a system as complex and feature rich as Arcweaver overnight? No. When did I suggest that? What a strange thing to say. However, after 2 months, I found myself disappointed to see the flowchart system heading in a direction that had me concerned, and simply expressed that.

    I've been using Construct since 2011, back when Construct 2 was still in beta. For a team of, what, 5 people, they've done amazing work, and I'm proud to have supported Scirra as long as I have. In these 13 years, I've expressed my disappointment twice. My words were blunt and honest, yes, but I backed them up with examples and reasoning. They're adults and can understand that. Your addition to this thread made no contribution beyond trying to white knight your way into putting me in my place. Don't go labelling me entitled.

    Rather than saying "the Flowchart feature is missing some fundamental features" where's your useful feedback?

  • One of the feedbacks that I've seen pop up constantly is that "Scirra needs to release new features as early as possible so users can give feedback before everything is set in stone". So releasing early you cannot expect the feature to be fleshed out and perfect after a few weeks. I just think the flowcharts need more time to cook, and I hope they will indeed be cooking. Arcweave seems to have been around since 2018, and it's a dedicated tool for just this task, so I'm not surprised that it's much more fleshed out at this point.

    These examples are really good btw., very simple yet obvious use cases that should work.

    I understand, but my point was that I don't think Construct's flowcharts had any intention of being remotely similar to Arcweave.

    I don't think it's a case of it not being fleshed out yet. I think it's a different skeleton entirely.

    I've tried multiple flowchart editors, and recommended the developers look into the best I had found.

  • I asked several questions and offered some requests a month ago and didn't hear back.

    As I mentioned then, I paused work on a project because I was specifically working on a visual novel and had figured out a way to allow Construct 3 to understand Arcweaver, but it wasn't without it's issues.

    If you find my previous posts unconstructive, I'm not sure what I can do about that, I'm afraid. As I said, I tried to help out a month ago, but I guess that was too late.

    When I first read the email saying we were getting flowcharts, I was excited as I saw it as a potential method of enhancing or even replacing the editor.

    I then realised that it was only being used as a method of data storage, like an array, and was disappointed, but still hopeful I could use it for dialogue.

    I guess I can, but in a convoluted way based on the examples in my previous posts.

    In another game I made, I created branching dialogues using arrays. It had over 100 story events and paths. It still used less than half of the events that the short flowchart example uses.

    Even that was too many for me, which is why I built the bridge between Construct and Arcweaver for my next project.

  • Here's another example.

    Say I have a character called Anne, and I want to display her image during a dialogue, so I add an 'output' (for whatever reason) called Image, and call it Anne.

    Months later into development, with hundreds of lines of dialogue added, I decided I don't want to call her Anne anymore, but instead, John. How do I quickly change the flowchart to make that change?

    If it were a variable, I could just change the value to the new name. Here, however, I feel I'd have 2 choices. Go through each and every one of those hundreds of nodes I'd created, replacing every Anne with John, or suck it up and keep the code referencing John as Anne.

    Again, in the program I referenced, you'd just need to change a variable and the referenced image, and you're done in seconds.

  • Take this as an example:

    Options 1 and 2 are both fruit... so why can't I have both options connect to the respective branch?

    Instead, I have to change option 2 so it's a tag, and then create an event that tells it to jump to the correct message.

    This means that I might as well not bother with the link at all, and just use tags everywhere, but this will quickly get messy, especially if I want to make any changes to the flow in the future.

    I just don't get it.

    Also, if I want to remove a link from A to B, I have to destroy ALL links that connect to one or the other. Most programs simply allow us to drag the link away from the connection point to delete it, but here I have to right click it, then click delete??? Why? Why add this extra step?

    Say I had (for whatever reason) 10 links connecting from A, and 10 connected to B. What are my options for removing just 1 of those links? Why can't I just click on the actual line and delete it?

  • I haven't seen this yet, and will look at it today, but can someone who has seen it tell me if the flow chart has the following:

    Ability to change variables

    Has IF/THEN/ELSE commands?

    I've been using a program called Arcweave, and created an interface that allows me to have Construct 3 understand it. It's not been easy, and I shelved the project when I saw Construct was getting FlowCharts, but it needs to be more or just as powerful as Arcweave.

    Just had a look at the new flow chart, and without meaning to sound offensive, I'm honestly massively disappointed. You can't even create loops back to an earlier piece of dialogue without having to create a link and some events that control this. Which means for every future project, you need to jump through the same hoops just to achieve this result.

    Did anyone look into the software I recommended? I understand being able to combine the flow chart with the event sheet, but NEEDING to connect it to the event sheet is another thing entirely.

    I just looked through the example project, and it's incredibly hard to navigate. I'm constantly having to flick from one flow chart to the event sheet, then back over to the first flow chart again to see where you're meant to look next.

    In the software I posted, you literally just create a "Jump"... then double click on the Jump and you're at the next point. Also, you can easily create loops.

    The other version allows me to place sprites directly into the flow chart, allowing me to choose backgrounds, characters, etc, quickly and efficiently.

    My point is, if there are examples of incredible and efficient ways of doing flow charts, why are we given something that feels like it's so incredibly outdated?

    Again, I want to emphasise that I am not meaning to sound rude or ungrateful. I was very excited for this feature, and I understand that it's likely to get more work in the future, but it just feels like it's heading in the wrong direction, imo.

    It's like looking at Discord, then creating MSN Messenger and considering it a good alternative.

  • Guess this isn't yet possible.