Ashley's Forum Posts

  • The point is about traditional programming languages, not event sheets, though. There isn't yet any visual system that is comparable in reach across the industry to languages like C# and JS. Maybe one day that will change, but until then, if you are going to learn a traditional programming language, there are very good reasons to use an industry-standard language. That's the point it's making.

  • C# and C++ are also industry-standard languages. The point also applies to them, in the sense that those are also better languages than tool-specific languages - which it seems you agree with. It's talking about the disadvantages of tool-specific programming languages like GDScript and GML where that programming language is only used by one piece of software.

    For example, if you want to write some server-side code, you'll have a much easier time with an industry-standard language - C# and JavaScript in particular are great for that (ASP.NET, node.js etc). Suppose you want to branch out in to some other part of the tech world - those skills are far more useful and have far more jobs available than any tool-specific language.

    Education is also an important part of the business for us, and so we're also posing the question to teachers: do you want your students to learn an industry-standard language they can directly get a job working with? Or will they be learning some tool-specific language that won't provide as easily transferable skills?

    Perhaps you think C++ and C# are better languages than JavaScript for game development, but that's not the point we're making: I'd also say C++ and C# are much better options than tool-specific languages, for the same reasons.

    For me "don't invent your own programming language" is the hill I will die on - I think it's a big strategic mistake, even though it seems lots of people disagree. We're making the point that for developers writing code, there are a lot of benefits to using an industry-standard language, be it C++, C#, JavaScript, or any other major existing language.

  • Usually the manual is only updated at the next stable release in order to avoid documenting things that don't work in the latest stable release, and so possibly resulting in addon developers releasing addons that don't work for the majority of customers using the latest stable release. That method is currently only available in beta releases, but I did describe how it works in this forum post.

    I've already spend many posts and thousands of words in this thread explaining in as much detail as possible our rationale for this and why we feel it is absolutely essential despite the serious disruption that we are keenly aware it will cause. I'm afraid I'm not going to be drawn in to writing all that out again, so I would suggest you go back and read my previous responses in this thread.

    For anyone looking for a solution to a major engine issue and not unhelpful misdirection or shifting of blame

    Repeatedly blaming us for issues that are not our fault or responsibility, even after we've done our best to explain the situation, are against the Forum & Community guidelines, in particular in the section regarding bad faith discussion:

    Demanding impractical measures or infeasible solutions. If we say we can’t do something, it’s not because we don’t want to, or we’re being difficult, we genuinely can’t do everything!

    Therefore closing this thread. I've already indicated the best way to approach this problem and fix the root cause, which is the only good long-term solution.

  • As far as recreating vanilla behaviors, The runtime for Collision engine is missing the calls for pushing objects from collisions. I put a feature request in back in april maybe.

    These are ~10 lines of code for a completely-customizable version. See Collision methods

  • We don't publish any usage limits other than stating it's a free service that works on a best effort basis for reasonable usage, with the interpretation of those terms at our discretion. If you are not comfortable with that, you should set up your own TURN server.

    It's hard for anyone to tell what the usage would be anyway, as it is only used when direct connections fail, and it's difficult to guess what proportion of devices will be resorting to TURN for any particular game audience.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • The only major difference between SDK v1 and SDK v2 is how you write the runtime scripts. Therefore the Runtime scripts part of the Addon SDK documentation is split in to two sections for each SDK version. There's also a porting guide.

    Am I able to simply use the same calls from the scripting reference for use inside construct 3?

    example:

    runtime.collisions.testoverlap(...)?

    Yep, exactly. One of the major design improvements with SDK v2 is it unifies all the scripting APIs so you can use the same calls as you would in Construct itself.

    I'd also recommend getting TypeScript support set up for addon development - it gives you precise autocomplete for all the available APIs, and is another new feature of SDK v2.

  • I've updated the addon SDK on GitHub to configure all addons to use modules. Then I can successfully test a module import by:

    1. Add mymodule.js in c3runtime folder, and add references (this._info.AddC3RuntimeScript("c3runtime/mymodule.js"); in plugin.js, add "c3runtime/mymodule.js" to file list in addon.json

    2. Write content of mymodule.js: 

    export function GetMessage()
{
	return "Hello world!";
}

    3. Import mymodule.js somewhere - I tried adding this to the top of instance.js: 

    import * as MyModule from "./mymodule.js";

console.log(MyModule.GetMessage());

    That successfully logs "Hello world!" to the console on startup for me.

    These points have all already been discussed at length in this thread. In short:

    The issue is this: If you can't make the built in behaviors with sdkv2, then the sdk isn't robust enough

    I believe you could make all the built-in behaviors with the SDK v2. Sufficient APIs should already be implemented. If they are not, you can submit a feature request.

    I feel like shutting off sdk1 in December

    It's not December: the plan is support will be dropped next summer, after an LTS release which will be supported for another 18 months - so there's over 2 years of support still to go with the Addon SDK v1.

    I've spent the last half year making behaviors using only the official api, and now I am being told that even though my addons were permitted and done the official way, I still have to go back and re-work everything!?!?!?!?

    If you are referring to v1, then I'm afraid the great extent to which other developers have ignored the warnings in the SDK documentation have forced us to act on this to prevent disaster in future, and I can only apologise that addon developers who have always abided by our advice are impacted by this. For what it's worth, there are a range of new features in the Addon SDK v2 such as TypeScript support which may help with future addon development, as well as a wider official documented API surface that will be improved more quickly in future too, as it's the same APIs as the JavaScript coding feature in Construct uses.

    You promised that if we used the official sdk, you would support it forever.

    Again, the intent is that everything officially supported in the Addon SDK v1 is still supported in the Addon SDK v2. If something is missing, please file an issue. These features all remain supported indefinitely, but will need to move to the Addon SDK v2 to continue using them in future releases.

  • The latest beta release is still r404. Click the link where it says r404 and it will open it.

  • As I mentioned in this recent forum post, of commercial tools, having a subscription model actually makes it more likely we can keep going indefinitely - not less. I would say other commercial tools are actually a riskier long-term proposition if they don't have a sustainable business model.

    FWIW we've been going since 2011, Construct 3 came out in 2017, and we're still going strong. We're not going anywhere!

    Sometimes this happens and it is my least favorite part of software development, but: sorry folks, this is not our fault. The problem is with AMD's software. You can ignore that and insist it's our fault anyway, or that we do something about it anyway, and nothing will happen, because it's not our fault and it is impossible for us to fix the root cause.

    Ordering in a bunch of expensive equipment in what is normally a hopeless effort is not something we're willing to do. Like I say I would fully expect that to cost us money and result in a dead end - because it's not our software that's broken.

    So there's apparently a workaround with an old setting. I guess you can keep using those old Construct releases then. It is a total mystery to me how the old setting could possibly have anything to do with this whatsoever: that setting just sets a flag in the browser engine asking it to reduce the latency of display. What that does I don't know, and why it works around the problem I have no idea, but it also caused a whole bunch of other bugs and problems, so if we bring that back we get all those problems back, which I don't want to do either. As ever, the only way to really solve problems is to fix the root cause, which is in AMD's software.

    Your choices are: continue to insist we act on it anyway, which will be fruitless, or actually get in touch with AMD (don't ask me how, we're not AMD) or the browser vendors, either of whom may be actually able to do something about it. Those of you who actually want to see the problem fixed, please choose accordingly.

    For those of you who think "just make a 3D engine, how hard can it be?" - food for thought.

  • Most such recent cases are due to the issue described here. You can also try opening the projects in the latest beta release where we've done some further work to mitigate this, including trying to automatically resolve problems, or at least show a better error message.

  • Construct Animate's export-to-video is faster than real time, whereas the Video Recorder plugin only records in real time. Each has their uses: if you want to export a 5 minute video without having to wait 5 minutes, faster than real time encoding is useful; if you want to be able to record a video which includes you interacting with the project, then you'll need to record that in real time.

    Construct Animate's free edition allows exporting videos up to 5 seconds - other than that limit everything else works so you can try it out yourself.