I would personally LOVE to have the video in MPEG format. If you gave permission it would be awesome to use bits of it for a intro scene to a Construct game.

At some point in the future when I have built a game worthy enough to use...

You should never need to put any .py or .pyc dependencies in a subfolder or in the same folder as your executable. So things like os.pyc or shutil.pyc should ALWAYS be embedded in your executable. This is done right before you build your executable in Cosntruct.

I don't think adding a __Init__.py helps with .pyd files (Python modules/dynamic link libraries). A __init__.py is typically used to specify import and other info for other .py or .pyc files in the same directory.

I won't have anytime to try this out this week, but if you haven't gotten it working by next weekend I might give it a shot to see what can be done with the .pyd files.

What Newt means is no one can help you unless you give us more details or a .cap that isn't password protected.

WOW!!! That looks absolutely stunning! Really, really nice job.

What do you mean by "them"? I haven't thought about running all of the dependencies from a subfolder, but there is no reason technically that it wouldn't work. If it doesn't work, then a feature needs to be added to Construct to specify subfolders for Python dependencies.

Edit: Another thing I haven't tried, but should be possible (since you can do it in py2exe) is to embed all dependencies inside the executable. This includes the Dll and the pyd files. If you want to give it a shot copies those files into the Construct/Data/Python directory and then select them when exporting the .exe. Who knows it might work!

Drawing different graphics on top of the Construct window is a interesting idea, but I haven't the time yet to try it.

The libraries that come to mind:

1. Pygame

2. Pyglet

3. PyQT

4. wxPython

5. pygtk

As you can see you have lots of options. I have successfully used Pygame, Pyglet, and PyGTK with Construct. PyQT has some quirks to export it correctly. I haven't tried the others.

When i compile it and try to run the AIML exe, it says "WARNING: No match found for input: load aiml b" and anytime i try typing,

This error means that you didn't copy the AIML files into your execution path. It has to have something to load! The aiml files are the standard.zip which have to be unzipped in the same directory as your .cap or .exe.

As far as getting PyGame to work with Construct just use this:

http://www.box.net/shared/kcoxzzt7bz

This has the dependencies for Pygame. You will need to unzip the contents of the Library.zip file into your Construct/Data/Python directory. You will need to check all of the .pyc files per the quickguide, but you can skip PodSixnet and other unrelated .pyc files. The other dependencies (modules.zip) have to be redistributed with your game. Now you don't need ALL of those, but it will be up to you to decide which ones you need based on which parts of Pygame you use!

I've used Pygame several times within Construct this way and it works just fine!

Have fun in your Python studying!

Very bizarre solution! I'm glad it is working.

When you ran the import command in PythonWin that actually generated an error, but at the same time it byte compiled the setup.py file. All a .pyc file is, is a byte-compiled version of the .py file. A byte-compiled version will load faster the next time because the compiling step will be skipped and the code will just be interpreted at runtime. There are some optimization flags that can be used to give a potential speedup in execution as well. If you are interested in massive speedups then look at Psyco which Just-In_Time (JIT) compiles Python code (but it only works on 32-bit systems currently).

Somehow, by byte-compiling it helped resolve the odd path issues so when you ran the full "setup.pyc py2exe" everything worked fine!

At some point in the future when I get a Windows 7 system setup properly I'll look into the best way to get this stuff to work.

I submitted bugs to the tracker, asked in the forum, but: How am I supposed to document something that doesn't work or we are not sure about why exactly it exists?

That is why I reduced my efforts to reading the help forum, answering as much as I can. And probably some dozens of other people too.

You have a really good point there. I strongly believe as well that if the developers want the users to help out with the documentation then they need to fix bugs and explain features that aren't intuitive.

For example, I gave up on documenting the Layout object because I just couldn't find a good reason for using it.

If the developer doesn't show dedication to the project then the users won't either. For example, Python. I've made numerous requests to the developers on the state of Python or how it works in relation to Construct that were mostly ignored (Ashley did answer sometimes, but David never did). These were questions that were easy to answer and only the developer could answer. I actually was really close to just quitting with Construct all together over that. As of right now Construct is just too buggy for me to use seriously.

I still stick to the idea that users should be helping with the large majority of the documentation. There is a very large body of knowledge on the forum that could be moved into proper form on the wiki. It is a boring and thankless task which is why I suspect no one has done it. Don't I give good motivation for helping!

Your post just highlights the fact that Construct is so buggy that sometimes there is no point to documenting certain features. This just points to the developer's needing to do more developing (and yes sometimes answering questions only they can help with).

I know exactly what you are talking about though...

I can easily see this turning into a no win back and forth war that isn't going anywhere so I'll try to keep this objective as possible.

First, everybody has a good point that the documentation needs much improvement. It is severely lacking. No more discussion needed there.

Second, let's not compare Construct with MMF or any language or tool where there are PAID developers and tech writers in the project.

Third, we can compare and contrast Construct all day to other open source products but its not really going to get us anywhere. There are many open source projects that have far better documentation than Construct. There are many open source projects that have worse. There are many that have far more contributors which leads to my next point.

Fourth, many times people in this thread have mentioned the Construct "community". Well, how do you have a "community" when everybody puts all of the coding and documentation back on essentially the sole developer??? It's not a community...at least not a functional one.

Fifth, everybody has their own skill set and capabilities. There is an old saying that "hard work" beats "skill" when skill doesn't work hard. I have no delusion when it comes my skill set versus others on the forum. I'm a lot more skilled than some and a lot less skilled than others (like Quasi or Davioware). That doesn't change the fact that I've put probably over 500 hours of working with Construct, writing tutorials, etc.. That length of time is going to build skill.

Sixth, Construct has a TON of bugs. The developers are not that active on the project to begin with. All the documentation in the world is not going to help if the things being documented are buggy as hell.

I'm in the same boat as you that I'd love it if the developer wrote all the documentation and did all the work himself and we could not have to struggle to figure out certain features. So let's just all turn on the developer and demand that he provide us good documentation and fix all the bugs in his spare time because we somehow feel entitled to have a perfect project with complete documentation. <--- Fantasy world

-----> Real world .... Nick, you say you have used Construct for a year now and think you have a strong grasp on it. Then why haven't you added documentation to the wiki? Is it because you have more fun stuff to do in your spare time? Or you refuse to do the developer's job? You are not the only one that I'm picking on though anybody that has used Construct for more than a year should be contributing to the Wiki. That includes all of us "nerds".

We can debate all we want. The bottom-line is that many people here CAN write the documentation. The developer is the "ideal" person to write the documentation. The documentation is not being written. We can either whine about how it is the developer's responsibility to write the documentation, help write it ourselves (as this is supposed to be a community effort), or find some other tool that we feel has better documentation.

Of course, because you already know how to use the program and probably quite well if not expertly.

First, this doesn't have really anything to do with whether Guyon is an expert not. He is a newer user of Construct so you could argue that he is not an expert (no offense to Guyon meant .

New users would (and should) have a different view.

Were we not all new users at some point? How do you think Guyon gained his experience? He didn't magically become skilled in Construct one day and he didn't have somebody spoon feed him all the answers. He worked hard and learned how to use the tool.

We can all agree that more wiki documentation needs to be added. Since you seem passionate about this issue why don't you then do something to contribute? It doesn't take an expert to document a behavior, object, expression, etc.. I have added several wiki entries (within two months of finding Construct) not even knowing about how the object worked before I first started out. I scanned the forums, tried out examples, built my own examples, and just experimented with what the object did. I then added an entry and even examples in many cases.

You and any other Construct user could do the same.

I think Ashley's time is much too valuable to be making wiki entires. He has already devoted so much free time for a free product. I expect it is really up to the community to pull the weight of the wiki.

This is a simple situation. How many of us here can fix bugs and write improvements to Construct code? Maybe 1-3. Ok, how many can add wiki entries? At least 100 - 200 users. So why have one of the only guys who can improve Construct waste time writing documentation when a couple hundred would do that job instead?

Construct is not C#. C# is a language standard that has had millions of dollars and hundreds of people working behind. You can't even begin to compare Construct (a free and community project) to a large language. We could hire a technical writer and solve all the documentation problems if that were so.

I'd say that this single thing is needed more than Construct hitting 1, 2 and beyond. It's more important than any thing being done with this great program right now.

These don't have to be serial efforts. The community (you!) can do the documentation at the same time the developers move to 1 and 2.

Unfortunately, I don't have Windows 7 handy to test this out. It sounds like a path problem and somehow Py2exe is not being detected from the path you are trying to run everything from.

I did a quick internet search and couldn't find anybody posting with issues with Windows 7 and py2exe so no help there.

Have you tried running the samples in the py2exe directory? They are typically installed to python26/lib/site-packages. If you cannot get the samples to run right then you definitely have a path problem and need to fix that first.