STARTECHSTUDIOS's Forum Posts

  • I totally agree, ads are our bread and butter...without them, we're sunk! -

  • I agree... that would finally let me rest easy at night...

  • I have:

    1 - Considerably Reduced the Layout Size by 33%. --   

    2 - Greatly reduced the number of Objects Present.---

    3 - Removed ALL 'Every Tick' events; (had to leave update angle & fps).

    • I'd rather not change the firing rate because that is what makes it feel fun, it feels like a Machine Gun and that is what keeps that visceral awesome feeling alive...More Machine Gun, less like a pea-shooter.... :).-

    Here is the simplified .capx...Thanks for your help and feedback...

    drive.google.com/file/d/0B_4xfuagH96rOGZ5M19nTVJNUUU/edit

    (This clearly shows an issue here.)

  • I'll come up with a better .Capx then, a simpler one, according to your suggestions.

  • Burvey

    Great suggestion!! And I would've done that, except for the fact that I need the bullet to continue to hit objects no matter where they are on the layout.

    It's intentional, quite necessary, and it's producing very slow framerate.

    Good to know it was slowing down on your machine too though, thanks for the feedback.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • CLICK THE LINK DIRECTLY BELOW THIS LINE TO DOWNLOAD CONSTRUCT 2 PERFORMANCE TEST FOR R-161:

    drive.google.com/file/d/0B_4xfuagH96ramUxdUlSY3ZaYWM/edit

    Steps to reproduce:

    1. Run .Capx in debug mode. (little bug button next to preview button)

    2. Point the little arrow guy to the right by using the mouse cursor and shoot for 30 seconds.

    3. Simply hold down the mouse button and keep a close watch on the Frames Per Second

    Observed result:

    Incredibly low Frames Per Second on my computer...is yours different than mine???

    Expected result:

    60 Frames Per Second----

    Browsers affected:

    Chrome: Yes.

    Firefox: Yes.

    Internet Explorer: Not Confirmed

    Operating system & service pack:

    Windows 7 64-bit (Professional Edition)

    Construct 2 version:

    R-161

  • pixel Perfick

    What is your performance now with the newest build??

    R-160 - Did that fix it???

  • I'm actually really keen on nailing down the Mobile Performance right now, that's my biggest bottleneck as it stands...

  • Yes, that would certainly be the most efficient. Otherwise we would have to tweak too many nobs for every little situation...which would probably become burdensome for users after a while.

    Plus, I have a feeling that line-of-sight and turret behaviors are not the only things being affected-- they're just the ones we've found so far...

  • Ashley

    Wow, thank you!

    Can't wait to see the newest build!! :)

  • Ashley

    Thanks for the quick reply and detailed response.

    I greatly appreciate your concern for this topic...

    Only one problem, the issue still exists in my current project which I have been working on for over 6 months...it is now broken.

    I sent in a simple .capx and a detailed bug report, but the problem still remains unresolved.

    So what are my choices:

    Choice #1) Try to retool my project that has been finely tuned and was working perfectly before the update...

    Choice #2) Use an older release of Construct 2 indefinitely :(

    Choice #3) Ask the developers of Construct 2 on the forums to please help. (Personal Favorite)... :).

    Choice #4) Throw in the 'Pixelated Towel.' Which I predict would probably lead me away from Construct 2...Most Disappointingly :(

    I have posted a reply to your last message in the link:

    scirra.com/forum/topic84725_post495791.html

    Again, thank you for your attention to detail concerning this issue...it's great to have developers who are so responsive to the needs of their user base! You guys are Awesome!! Seriously... :D.

  • Otherwise, I'll have to stick with release 154 forever...which doesn't sound very fun :(

  • Considering the fact that not only my performance decreased after updating to collision cells, but also the performance of the projects of others which they have undoubtedly been working on for quite a while in some cases; perhaps the best option would be to leave collision cells on at default, but at least give users the option of turning them on or off...then the user could choose whatever option gives him/her the best performance (fine tuning the engine as it were, as is the case with many other features of Construct 2 such as pixel rounding, linear/point sampling, etc, etc.) This seems appropriate considering the fact that all of us are [aspiring] software developers after all...Doesn't that seem reasonable/logical?

  • I have uploaded the long awaited .Capx.--->

    It's called "Improving upon the Performance!"

    Take a Look Good Sir - All of our collective Trust rests upon You - You alone have the power to make things well...-

    scirra.com/forum/improving-upon-the-performance_topic84725.html

  • Link to .capx file (required! If link is blocked remove the http and www parts):

    drive.google.com/file/d/0B_4xfuagH96rMHo4TlFHVm5EUlU/edit

    Steps to reproduce:

    1. Install R-154 of Construct 2.

    2. Run .Capx: (Notice the even and Steady framerate)...

    3. Now Install R-158.2 of Construct 2...

    4. Run .Capx: (Notice the Dramatic Difference in Framerate of R-158.2 WHILE RUNNING THE EXACT SAME .CAPX)...

    Observed result:

    Unequivocally, R-154 is far smoother than R-158.2, though the opposite should have Occurred...

    Expected result:

    I would Expect R-158.2 would have Much Better Performance than R-154

    Browsers affected:

    Chrome: Yes

    Android 4.3: Yes

    Operating system & service pack:

    Windows 7 64-Bit.

    Construct 2 version:

    R-154 And R-158.2