at 60 fps, the current chrome just does not render properly (the jank) and it is really annoying to look at it.

And below, on some circumstances, the controls become too unresponsive and so, the game becomes unfaIr.

I had MAJOR jank issues in my game back in November 2014 using chrome...until I realized that jank didn't exist in NW10.5 so I did all my previewing in Node..

Fast forward to today, I cannot detect any jank in Chrome or the latest NW12 and my game is fairly intensive... Sometimes when I'm capturing video there's an occasional frame drop, but other than that, the game is smooth as silk. So if the jank is there, it's tiny because there's no way its anywhere near where it was in November - I would see that.

It seems like this issue will persist since it's a hard thing to prove - I have yet to see it. I don't see how NW or Chrome can actually get any "better" in regards to this if it can't be reproduced.

EDIT: the jank back in Nov2014 made the game unplayable. It looked horrible... I was not happy.

so basically this:

hmm pretty clever christina

I ran a quick test, it works for me.. I can't see why it wouldn't work. Although I've never worked in iso before so I can't be sure.

I mean sponsor, as in: give them a free license and maybe a "sympathetic ear" but end their involvement there... overseeing production is an enormous undertaking...

A similar idea would be for Scirra to create a support service (either monthly $ or adhoc payment), but that means growing the company and that's not for us to decide... I'm sure they've thought about it. There are many ways to take Construct to the next level, but I get the sense they want to keep it 'homegrown' and small... but I could be wrong.

This is sort of a ridiculous request. I know what you are after, but it's simply not possible. If anything Scirra would sponsor select developers to showcase their engine. That is what other industry software shops do.

2. Chrome runs like absolute rubbish below 60fps

For some reason, any time a C2 game dips below 60fps in Chrome, bad things start happening. 59fps is literally unplayable in a fast-paced action game like Airscape.

This may or may not be more of an issue on fillrate intensive games, more testing needs to be done here.

If this issue was fixed it would bring an 100% increase in effective performance in C2 games, as anything from 30-60fps should be perfectly playable.

I played your Public_Performance_Test on my crappy laptop (i5 1.7Ghz, HD Graphics 4400) using Chrome 42.0.23. The fps was 35-45 (never going above 45) and I had absolutely no jank. I could tell it wasn't 60fps, but the game ran smooth. Have you not had this result?

EDIT: let the game test run for 20 mins... FPS 35-38, dt diff:19-38, Max dt: 36-51, dt:27-37 (hard to see), Min dt: 25-29

2. Chrome runs like absolute rubbish below 60fps

For some reason, any time a C2 game dips below 60fps in Chrome, bad things start happening. 59fps is literally unplayable in a fast-paced action game like Airscape.

This may or may not be more of an issue on fillrate intensive games, more testing needs to be done here.

If this issue was fixed it would bring an 100% increase in effective performance in C2 games, as anything from 30-60fps should be perfectly playable.

I think this is relative to the computer. My game is getting quite large. It runs at 60 fps on my desktop. I have an unbound layout and uses a minimap. It keeps track of every object in the "game world". I have spawners constantly spawning objects. I have to cap the spawning at 500. If I run the game layout (not hitting F4) it skips loading my cap code. So in testing I always see my game get taxed and when the object count goes up over 800 the fps dips and 50 fps looks horrible. However, on my ($400 USD) laptop (i5 4GBram) running the normal game it runs at around 35-40 fps but totally plays fine.. you can tell it's not as "tight" as my desktop, but I had a play test at a small festival and no one noticed anything.

But I'd like to offer any support I can to put my vote in to support C2 for desktop games. I've been working on my game for almost 2 years and while I wish I was using Unity, I wouldn't be ANYWHERE as close as I am now to finishing this game. And I wouldn't have grown into gamedev without the success I've had with C2. I've used many game engines, Spring, Torque, Unity, Gamemaker, Unreal, Xcode, and even some engine that came with a book I bought in 1997 called the Black Art of Windows Game Programming. So I very much appreciate C2 and would love to see it support larger games.

I agree that when even the html5 export cannot work reliably, we have an issue, also I am slightly worried that chrome will break our content in the future, Sure, we can update our games with a newer C2 if a breaking change happens, but the web will be there for a longer time than C2 itself so at one point, currently they seem to choose the "we ditch useless things", that is also a real issue with native technology it seems as a lot of my games cannot work properly anymore without a patch, and since the web seems to evolve at a faster pace I am unsure about the stability long term wise Across browsers (even with new browsers that may just appear).

you are right, this a problem in all software development. anyone who makes software and/or OSs and/or frameworks update ALL the damn time. you have to support your game after it's done or it will become vaporware... I was on a team that created a decent sized iPhone game back in 2010, we all went on to other projects and the main programmer was too difficult to work with, a year later Apple changed a basic function in Objective C which completely broke our game. The programmer was gone, we had to act quick to pull the game off the app store before people bought it since it didn't work at all.

So the fact that C2 relies on browsers (and its not mutual - meaning browsers don't care about C2 and only see us as a faceless crowd of HTML5 developers), I'm still confident that as long as C2 devs are supporting their games, Ashley and team will find a way to keep things running. Of course Scirra could close it's doors tomorrow and we'd all be screwed. I think that's also a common fear/issue for most users of high-level software.

Look at Fraps.. their last update was in 2013. Win8.1 came out and now Fraps cannot capture monitor without a go between app like Xsplit.

I don't think it matters. a sprite on top, or set the collision area bigger is the same thing. but you do have to be careful of how many points you have in your collision polygons.. I think it recommends 8 or less.

you can do

if input = 123

else

if input = 2414 then ....

else

if input = 432 then ....

else

do something

each one will be nested.

actually, maybe you could make an empty object and just make a bunch of copies. then just place them on top of the arrow.. then do a For Each and if one is false then the player didn't trace it correctly.

never did anything like it.. but here's a guess...

maybe you can split the arrow image (that the player will trace) in to separate sprites. then do a IsTouchingObject for each sprite..set an instance boolean to say it was touched. then on Touch End check if all the bools are true.. if not then the player didn't do it right else they did.

since it's the whole object that's eligble to be touched (and not a hitbox).. the difficulty will be in how many pieces you break the arrow into...