nw.js 0.13.0 will be based on chromium 43, which I heard fixes the smoothness issue.

If you have any tiles in your image that are completely transparent, it might be that those are being used somewhere in the tilemap, which would return something other than -1.

I'm just curious, but what if you make everything in the big layout invisible, just to test if it loads quicker. Does it have any effect?

make a system condition that compares two values, and then put

tilemap.TileAt(tilex,tiley)

To get the x and y tile position, there are also expressions where you provide a layout x,y coordinate to get the x,y tile position.

I think it is something like tilemap.PositionToTile(x)

so it would be something like

tilemap.TileAt(tilemap.PositionToTileX(x),tilemap.PositionToTileY(x))

Then in the second value use a value of the tile you want to check. I can't remember is the tile numbers start at 0 or 1, but they begin in the top left of the tilemap image.

You can check if it is -1 to see if no tile exists at that location.

The issue is your image point on the player. The origin is getting changed in the frames, so the position gets offset when the animation plays. That's why it is jumping like that.

Another useful application of disabling/enabling joints would be if you want to switch between joint types to control the movements of objects that are grouped together in specific ways. I think this could open some unique game mechanics that might be otherwise difficult to manage. This might be obvious to you, but just thought I'd mention it anyways since I think it would be really useful.

Can't know what is happening without seeing the events in the capx. It would be beneficial to provide a capx that shows the problem. Yo'll get a better response if you do.

I can see the reasoning behind trying to make a better game to garner the longer playing times- but after a certain point, if development of the game has some publicity, the attention on it gives you a sense of how well received it might be when released. At that point, why not just sell it for a fair price?

I would rather sell a good game at a fixed price, and then maybe once sales have decreased, make it available on this sort of platform at a later date.

This sort of strategy makes more sense to me- Develop the game with intentions on selling it at a fair price, and then think about this sort of thing after the game has sold.

I don't think this system will affect the quality of content available, because if it is easy to add your game, anyone will do it even if the game isn't great.

I noticed there is the option to disable the chipmunk behavior on an object.

I tried doing this to an object that has a joint with another object, and noticed that the other object still is affected by the joint attached to the disabled object.

Is there a way to disable/enable the joint as well so I don't have to recreate them everytime I want to disable/enable the behavior?

R0J0hound , maybe an action to disable/enable a joint given its' tagname?

So apparently, every 1 HOUR of play gives you 12 CENTS.. So a person would need to play for 9 hours to earn you $1.08

But what if a person just plays it for 5 minutes or less?.. You get a penny or less.

Obviously you won't make much money with this system, unless your game becomes incredibly popular and/or has a ton of replay-ability.

hm.. doesn't really seem worth it based on the calculations. but maybe someone more experienced with this sort of thing has a better understanding of it.

Construct 2 isn't a programming language. You can't do that sort of thing with it. You'll have to think of an alternative way to store and retrieve your values.