tunepunk's Forum Posts

  • * Students - There is still a free version of C3, why do you need a full verion for learning. I used C2 free version for a year learning it before I bought it.

    * People living in poor countries - I think C3 is still one of the cheapest options out there. Should they get discount to people because of where you're from? Imagine the rage from others. I think the price is very affordable, even in poor countries. About 8$ per month?, get some support from family and friends if they want to support your game making.

    * People having a bad financial situation - Are you suggesting a pity discount for poor people?

    * Designers focusing on non-profits - There is still a free version of C3. If you are a non profit, why not collect money for a licence by donations?

    * Designers focusing on experimentation - There is still a free version of C3, I bet it's perfectly fine to experiment with.

    * Anyone that was considering Construct 3, since they can use other engines for free. There is still a free version of C3

    All in all, from what I've read C3 will have a free option just like C2. How is that not catering for all of the above mentioned?

    If you will only be using C3 for the above reasons, why would you need a full licence?

  • I don't think they need to include it in the core features. I would happily pay more for additional packages later on... like.... Native Exporters, 3D support, Project Planning, Team features, Monetization, etc etc... Maybe then they could lower the prices for the core product for hobbyists, and have a Tiered subscription, or additional packages for people who want more advanced features and support.

  • There's no problem with the subscription model. Let me explain.

    1. A subscription model will ensure that the devs are getting a steady income to continue develop their product, provide support andmaybe even afford to hire some people to add some of the most requested features. Is this a bad thing?

    2. They could have planned it differently by already planning for a C4 or C3.5, next year where people would have to pay again, but it's not good to keep and maintain too many products. So going with a subscription model for C3 will ensure that people people who are using it, are getting the latest updates, bug fixes, for some time onwards, so they can focus on C3, leave C2 behind them and only provide minor fixes and tweaks for older products.

    3. It's not corporate greed, it's just a business strategy so that they can continue to provide a good product, and good support, and continue the development. Would you be happy if your boss told you he won't pay your salary next month because he already payed you once. Maybe some people has used C2 for years and years, but are still expecting support and bug fixes and features.

    4. Although i think the subscription model would work very well, if they want to cater for a lot of different target groups. Maybe they could lower the price a bit later on for the core features (for hobbyists), and add optional packages for people wanting native exporters, mobile development, kongregate package, 3d editor, team oriented features, monetization package. I would happily pay and support yearly, for ALL they features I want, and I don't have to pay for the features I don't want or use, but If I'm a hobbyist maybe the core features is enough.

    I don't mind paying for things i like and especially for support, as C2 clearly stand out as one of the best support I ever had. I've posted several bugs and feature requests, that got fixed in the next updates.

    Pay once.

    Then release C4 next year, so I can pay again get even more new cool features.

    People who don't need the new stuff can stick with the old version.

  • I use Mac at work, so now hopefully i can work on my projects when I have nothing better to do. :p

    Hopefully it will be touch/stylus friendly so i can sit on the beach with construct 3 on my belly.

    > What if they move to a $99 per month (build box)/$49 per month (Adobe)/€160 per year (bitwig) model?

    >

    Heh! Then I'm out. I hate the world slowing moving into a subscription based thing, where nobody owns anything yet continue to pay for everything.

    I can't see that happening, otherwise Scirra would have charged for exporters and the like.

    I wish some softwares had a lease or rent a day option. There's a lot of software i bought or subscribe to but rarely use (Maybe once every couple of months). Would much rather "rent" it for a day or week. Monthly subscription seems way to long, even if you can unsub. If i just needed a software to use if for a quick fix, convert, whatever a one time pay, or rent for a day licence would fit a lot of software.

    Maya for example. Full Maya subscription costs. €242/Month .. that's way to much for something I use maybe 2 days per month. For professionals working with it full time i can understand, but for people just need to use it every now and then it's way too much.

  • ** December Update: **

    Development is not halted but still going a bit slower at the moment. Solved some cool mechanics that's going to make the game a bit more fun.

    * Arrows hitting objects at wide angles will bounce off naturally. (Tricky to get this working in isometric perspective without using collisions)

    * Added different materials. Naturally arrows won't stick to stone/hard objects and instead break on impact.

    * Currently working on more fun mini-missions to do in Multiplayer.

    * Working on all the sound FX and and Music.

    Will let you know when new alpha test is out.

  • I think it's ultimately up to you...

    Are you expected to maintain and bug-fix the games you produce? Then don't give capx.

    If they own the game, and will update and bug fix them selves, then you can sell the capx.

    By selling the capx, you can lose business also. They can use the capx to make new versions or reskins of the games.

    By selling the capx, you could lose extra work, to maintain and update games.

    So it depends on you. If you provide the games according to brief, and selling the exclusive rights, and they will maintain them... yes you can sell the capx. But that could be good for you if you just want to deliver, get payed and don't want anything to do with the game later.

    So yes it's up to you.

  • First of all ...... wow, that's really cheap for a game. I wouldn't even reply one email for that price, let alone make a game.

    How many hours do you intend to spend on those games, per game? Do you have to provide code assets/graphics, sound, everything, or do they provide the assets?

    I would suggest raise the price if he wants the source code. At least add another $100 per game if he wants the source code. (depending on how long you are intended to spend on each game) If it boils down to a decent hourly rate I would say it's fine (for small simple games)

    On a side note: (But that's just my personal view) I don't know where you're from, but if someone offered me $20 for a game I would tell him/her to go f*** himself, and It's an insult to anyone working in the industry doing a game cheap, and expecting source code.

    EDIT: Also depends if you're selling exclusive rights to the game, or if you still have the right to sell the same game to someone else?

  • [__o__.XX___v______T___y__________________MM____________5____o______A________zz___ _____] <- Your whole level in an external file

    ______[XX]__________________________________________________________________________________ <- is what's loaded to your layout.

    You load from the above line (external file) what should be shown in the layout.

    As you move across the line, anything outside the layout get's deleted, and new stuff loads in according to the level file above.

    That way you can pretty much have a MASSIVE size level, but your layout only shows the necessary stuff.

    Hope that makes sense.

  • It's sounds like you're going to run in to some major memory and performance issues if you're going to keep it all on one big sandbox map. Especially if you are developing for mobile, since there's no way to unload graphics from memory. (Except from changing layout. As far as I know), As the object count grows even just picking objects will become heavier and heavier.

    I think you have to rethink the huge sandbox map approach. There are ways to Optimize huge maps, but on mobile it's not really good, since you're limited by the memory. Turning on render cells is one thing, but i doubt it will do much difference.

    Another approach might be to load graphics externally by using "Load image from URL" in the sprite actions. That way you can probably replace the URL based on what area you're in. If you're in a "Snowy area" you're loading the snow sprite. If you're in a desert area, your replacing the image with a desert sprite. I have never tried that out myself but might be a solution.

    Another way could be to load your whole map from to an array from an external file. That way you can keep the whole world map on a file and your layout can keep a minimal size. (Approximately a bit bigger than the size of your screen) Anything outside screen is not loaded. So if you move across the map. You just update what cells are loaded, sort of. Anyway it's just theorycrafting, but I think that could be a way.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Here's my current test for the adjusting of the normal for bouncing:

    Mid typing this I re-uploaded the file with an idea that seems to work. It takes both the surface angle and the angle of the ball and doubles the y component before calculating the bounce. Then it halves the y component of the resulting angle.

    Seemed like that was the issue. Took a look at your example file and now the angles makes sense. Thanks for a lot for your help!

  • Thanks R0j0hound.

    I'm still getting some weird behaviour with this solution. It seems like i get like this (and like the image above) no matter what I do. All the wide angles seem off and I'm not getting an exit angle at the same angle if they are perpendicular to the surface angle.

    Any idea of what i need to adjust? The problem seems to be with the exit angle.

    2*ang_surface-ang_in seems to be the problem. Needs adjusting back to isometric?

  • R0J0hound quick question.

    set ang_surface to angle(0,0,cos(ang_surface), sin(ang_surface)*2)

    if this converts to the non isometric angle. ie 26,5 to 45.

    How do i convert something back, from normal angles, 45 to 26,5? i have to reverse this somehow?

  • Never mind r0j0 i added you formula directly to the normal instead of the surface angle which messed things up.