I tend to use this approach. It helps keep the collision area constant and easier to manage because you deal with one frame whereas if you relied on the collision poly of the animations, there is more chance you might set them wrong if you have many animations/frames, and you might also want to adjust various things about the sprite like widht/height rotation/angle, etc.. Those affect the collision poly and you may want to change them without affecting the collision box so a separate sprite for it is a way to keep things more manageable.

As for there being any delay with positioning to the collision box, you would need to position the sprite to the box after any box movement/positioning is done. If you position the sprite before any movement to the box is made, then there will be a noticeable delay.

First, make a game that will sell. Then you can worry about those other things after.

It probably depends on what you're trying to accomplish. You could try maybe setting the velocity after you rotate it to the velocity it was before the rotation. Maybe setting angular velocity to 0.

Do you want the rotations to have momentum, so after they are rotated they continue moving?

Mario for nes was programmed by two people, and the art created by two people, music by one. There was a director and producer, but if you consider the brunt of the work, there weren't too many people working on it.

A lot of old games were created by one or two people.

I don't know. That's the way of the world I guess. Some things just never get responded to.

Maybe try different approaches that might attract a better response, and also do research on your own when guidance isn't available.

There could be multiple reasons why something doesn't get responded to, sometimes they're out of your hands, so try not to let it bother you. It happens to everyone.

To dampen the velocity of an object that has forces applied, I think you could just multiply the velocity by something like 0.95 (or a value near 1) every 0.01 seconds or something like that..

To help prevent objects sticking into other objects, you could try moving it out at the angle of the collision's normal a distance of the collision's depth(or maybe it's the negative of the depth?).. You'd get these values on post collision and perform the move then.

That is what I would try.

edit: btw, thanks for the info r0j0hound , I kind of thought it might require a lot of editing, but figured I'd mention it anyways in-case you ever see an opportunity to try it.

If you aren't trying to do anything too complicated, it might be good to use, but there are various things I need it to do which it can't currently. Shader features aren't fully implemented for example. You can't edit geometry or create custom geometry from vertices, etc. You can only load .obj models or three.js json models. There are various other things that aren't implemented. So, I wouldn't rely on it to completely handle every situation. That being said, I think it is worth the $30, since it can do a lot already. Hopefully we can get more updates for it to round out the features more.

From my understanding you can only load .obj or three.js json model.

You can also only use spheres/box primitives for physics. I haven't tried using these.

I'm still waiting on updates to the shader features. Hopefully Quazi will get some time to work on stuff soon since he said he was taking a break a while ago.

vtrix , I get the same feel, but there could be a positive to this. Usually there is always balance- if something is rigid and unyielding, it can result with the other side becoming the opposite as a way of escaping it. Or something new will emerge to challenge/balance with it. It's a matter of where the focus is drawn I think.

I'm naturally one to go the opposite way in most situations, simply as a way to remain unique and my self.

So, from my perspective, redesigning the logo to be more in-line with what is socially acceptable is not very creative, but it is appropriate considering the context to which it represents.

I also think that people that copy styles and such things, have yet to find themselves and use it as a way of representing their self superficially. Another possibility is that they don't care who they are, or it doesn't play any importance in who they are- so they represent themselves anyway they want.

So basically, I look at the logo change as more business oriented, and not necessarily reflective of who they are, since the business revolves around other people. Maybe it is just a reflection of everyone looking at google.

After MIcrosoft created the flat looking os everyone have followed their example in visual design after that. Apple. Now Google. Not that it is bad. It is just kind of funny =D

I find it more interesting than funny. You could study it more from a human behavior standpoint, as well as extract clues as to what it might say about the current population. Visual phenomenon can play a large role in the way a person thinks/acts because it has various stimuli that activate different feelings in an individual. Changes in the visual trend can give clues to changes in the way people think.

The old google logo had more variability in the letter thickness, whereas the new one has a consistent thickness. The new logo therefor expresses a stiffer, less expressive feeling.

It can be interesting to think about.

You'll need to be able to show that you can handle a long development cycle. The games you've listed look really small scale. Why do you think you'll be able to manage something much larger if you run a kickstarter?

I remember seeing the video you posted before. I thought the concept was good, and appreciated that it was an attempt at something different.

The game looks pretty simple, so I'm not sure how you could lower the difficulty.

I'm wondering what age group the players are, considering the content looks like it'd appeal more to a younger audience. If the players are really young, they might not have the level of skill to grasp the mechanics involved.

You could perhaps include separate difficulty levels, like easy, medium, hard.. or something like that. Or begin easy and slowly ramp up the difficulty if possible.

It probably doesn't matter how many points people get as long as you have them playing it.