Yes, definitely worth learning construct 99.x

They will have the same sort of event system and logic.

C2 will be more stable and extensible

Also, its still possible to make something in c1. Its just quirky, not broken. Also, some bugs will still be fixed and features added by the community, as ashleys begun opening the svn to other users. Id recommend using c1, and testing c2 along with the rest of us until its ready

And welcome to scirra

I know if you add an ace item in between two others on the ace table, and then load a cap made with the previous version of a plugin, it will mix up your actions.

EDIT: forget what I said about physics. I fixed that. but still curious if it's possible to remove something from the ace table without breaking old caps

I haven't messed with this yet. Is it stable and ready to go? is it ok for commercial use?

my 2 cents on the scirra game arcade service as a sale. I feel the total opposite. I'd rather pay to dewatermark an otherwise fully working version of construct.

I don't want to sell my game on scirra arcade. I want to sell it on steam, itunes, and the android app store. no offense, but I never even consider buying games from a "all games here made by our special tool" stores.

I would hope anything I was trying to sell could stand on it's own. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a scirra arcade. I'm just saying I think construct 1 or c2 is powerful enough to make "real" games. I think making the business model revolve around a scirra store wouldn't work. The truly successful games would sell better elsewhere, leaving scirra with only profits from less successful games.

I still think the most important thing is to decide exactly which part to sell, probably making it a pay this much if your game makes over 100,000 type license. Make it cheap enough it isn't worth the trouble of pirating, and I think it will go far, and ash and the gang can live comfortably as we head toward construct 3

I asked this a while ago, but the question is probably more relevant now. Would it be possible to make it so behaviors are abstracted and they interface with the runtime, thereby avoiding the need to rerwrite for each runtime, since behaviors operate on construct specific parameters, that aren't affected by alternate runtimes.

Also, do you think it'd eventually be possible to merge objects, that way, the official mouse plugin for instance, you would have one set of events that would export to the official linux exporter or windows exporter or html 5 exporter, without having to redo events for each?

> ...ashley said that a plugin should be able to modify any part of the ide due to their being javascript.

>

Actually, it's any part of the runtime - javascript plugins can't yet mod the editor.

Ah, I see. My mistake.

Though, you say yet, does that mean its a planned feature? Or just a possibility?

I like the idea olf being able to pay for source code access. I believe the havok physics engine has a license like that, or maybe its physx that does.

Especially since ashley said that a plugin should be able to modify any part of the ide due to their being javascript. Almost any of my c1 plugins would have benefitted from being able to alter the ide. I could easily imagine all sorts of things, an isometric movement plugin, with corresponding layout editor tweaks for level creation,

I know I've mentioned it twice already, but id like to be more straightforward about it. The exporter thing. When I'm done with my current project, probably a year or so off, my next would have been to write an importer for c2 for the files this project exports. After that iwas going to focus on writing exporters for the mobile platforms, or if I'm incapable of doing it myself, I was planning to hire out the work. Id be willing to do the profit share thing with c2 if these exporters proved worthy, but its more to have these exporters than to profit from them.

If construct doesn't have an android or iphone exporter by then, what sense would it make to not have that avenue open for other developers to contribute

Also, a plugin store would be awesome if integrated with the site. You could sort by rating, or most downloaded, or search only free plugins, etc...

> Just want to point out there are other alternatives to selling a product.

> Adds for example. Yeah I know boo / hiss, but let me ask this: Would you rather put up with a few adds, or pay for play?

>

Ads won't amount to much though. If this were up to me, I would sell a commercial license WITH a small royalty. The software would be free and full-featured to use for non-commercial purposes, then a fee would be paid to use it commercially, with a small percentage of profits as well.

Could then take it a step further and sell specific exporters as well, adding another supplemental income source, without locking out anyone from the main exporters (html5 and exe being what I would consider the main ones).

a one time fee is better than small percentage of profits, no one wants to deal forever with a company just because they used a tool of theirs. I agree that ads aren't enough

if you've ever tried to develop for android or iphone, you'll know what a godsend construct 2 will actually be. They'll be able to make plenty of money just selling the exporters. I still think the IDE should have a full preview feature if possible. better than a 30 day trial, someone might not really get going until after 30 days, then discover they NEED construct. give them that chance, just don't let them export to a permanent format. only previews

....

yeah, as soon as you said some features disabled I started thinking about darkbasic

darkphysics,darklights,darkAI. one of construct's initial draws for me before I realized it was god's gift to 2d game dev was that it had physics included.

I'm more in support of close sourcing the ide, watermarking the exports,

I don't think there should be "pro" closed sourced plugins. A stable more powerful construct could beceome saturated with amazing plugins if all other plugins are opensource as a form advanced documentation. Add-on development should be absolutely embraced and encouraged, with the same liscense as c1, where community made plugins can be distributed freely, or commercially without interference from scirra.

Also, programs that charge for advanced features always feel like ripoffs. Opening up a watermarked c2 as a new user, and being overwhelmed by all the available fx, behaviors, and objects is what'd make me reach for the wallet. Not struggling to extract fun out of a crippled version while staring longingly at screenshots.

About the exporter thing though, it should be navigated with care. The liscense should prohibit the creation of exporters to platforms already done by scirra, but I wouldn't underestimate the eagerness or ability of c2's future community to create exporters. It could be a huge draw. People would kill for the ability to export to android and iphone from a program as easy as construct. There will be many who want to create such things. Holding back the community from creating exporters could close off a huge potential userbase. I think there should be at least one opensource exporter to learn from, the freedom to create exporters free or with a charge, but also a a clear path to partnership. Meaning I go to download the exporter sdk, and on that same page I learn that there are profit sharing opportunities for exporters to the major platforms.

That way, when I consider making a free android exporter, I will consider the possibility of profit and

Instead of my own selling ability offsite, my android exporters could be sold in the construct store, scirra gets a share, but now instead of lucid's random android exporter, its owned and maintained by scirra, and can be included in deals like the c2 super mobile exporter pack

The very worst that can happen, is that scirra becomes the amazing tool notorious for having several free exporters to many different platforms, which means more copies of the main program sold.

.as. far as compiling parts of the source code as a form of piracy, I think there are much easier ways to steal software

I've been trying to extract what I need from the sprite plugin, but nothing seems to work

I tried something as simple as:

renderer->setTexture(image);

renderer->Quad_xywh(50,50,100, 100);

and that doesn't work

I also tried copypasting renderdistorted(...)

but using my own distortion values, and nothing I draw renders anything to screen at all

let's say I just want to draw a triangle at 3 points(x,y,u,v),

p1,p2,p3

and I have TextureHandle image;

what do I need to do? bare minimum to get a triangle on screen,

any help would be appreciated

if it matters for now, I'm getting image by :

:

param[0].GetParamFirstInstance(pRuntime)->info.CurTexture

pc:

Motorola Droid[3g verizon]:

Yeah, should be good. Only thing you couldn't do is change the stepping method mid loop, or change the iterator upon a certain condition. Would it be possible to make loopindexes actual local variables ashley?