[Request] Separate directions for different animations

0 favourites
  • 8 posts
From the Asset Store
Adjusting the game screen for different resolutions (Letterbox scale)
  • So, unless I'm missing something, C2 doesn't appear to have separate directions for every individual animation in a sprite like the original Construct did. Instead it seems I would have to have an entirely separate animation for each direction and manually tell the sprite which one to play.

    I had a project in mind which would likely include multiple diverse sprites with anywhere between 16 and 64 directions per animation and multiple animations per sprite to boot. Suffice to say it'd be a right pain in the neck if I had to have a condition for every single direction of every single animation per object. Is there a way to automate this (beyond the usual copy&paste, etc.) that I'm overlooking? I'm rather surprised that this feature seems to have been left out in the first place, it would surely do wonders to C2's usability.

  • Reference pic for those who don't know what feature I'm talking about:

    This is how the sprite's animations were arranged in Construct. It essentially automated the process of having a different animation for different angles, so you didn't have to have a separate event (or series of events) comparing the object's angle and telling it what animation to play for every possible direction. When told to play an animation (e.g. "Default" in the above pic) it would automatically play it at the closest available angle to the object's actual orientation, i.e. if the object was at 30 degrees, it would play the "Angle: 30 degrees".

    Mind you, you didn't have to have an angle for every direction as the engine still allowed dynamic rotation independent of the sprite's animations, so if you had a top-down view game or some such you could still have smooth 360 rotation. On the other hand, if you were using sprites for a 3/4th or isometric view, it would come in handy. In any case, I feel this feature is something C2 should definitely have as it can make a big difference in the product's ease of use and appeal to a much wider audience, especially newcomers to the genre. Back in the day when I was just getting started this was one of the features that won me over when choosing between Multimedia Fusion and Game Maker, and why it was so easy to hop over to Construct afterwards. In fact, C2's conspicuous lack of this is making me wonder whether it was left out for a specific reason, or is it just stuck on the back burner?

    Anyway, tl;dr make Construct-style directions for sprite animations plz.

    PS. While looking around in C2 I found that you could add subfolders in the animations bar when editing sprites and sort animations into said folders. Are these purely for visual organization purposes, or can I somehow call on these subfolders in the events system?

  • No need. Just use a variable and name your animations like Jump_0. Then set animations like "Jump_" & variable. Far more versatile this way.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • That's indeed what I've ended up doing with my project atm, but I'm not sure the versatility vs usability trade off is justified in terms of how many more people would be able to get into C2, more easily. Do you think this feature would be too cumbersome, in that it would make programs weigh a lot more than acceptable? I mean, if it'd be a system hog then sure enough it's easier to leave it out.

  • Well not to be rude but this is very elementary stuff. It's pointless to add some built-in animation angle thing when you can do it yourself, and much more, with little effort.

    This is how everyone else does it anyway. Construct Classic only had animation angles because Multimedia Fusion did. Once it was discovered how useless and limiting they are, they were removed in C2.

  • Well yeah, that was sort of my point. It's easy enough to make a workaround if you already know what you're doing, but I think it could be a big turnoff for someone who knows less than elementary programming. When I first got into MMF I knew pretty much zero programming, and would likely have not become their customer if they didn't provide the basic building blocks.

  • If anyone wants to create a game with any level of sophistication in C2, they're going to need to learn how to use the event system to manipulate game behavior (e.g. setting animations based on conditions). Assuming that's true, it seems unnecessary to develop features in the engine that a beginner can easily learn and create with a few events. Plus, there are multiple tutorials that go over directional animations.

  • No need. [...] Far more versatile this way.


    Personally I'm all in favor of less built-in behaviours, and keep/request only what is really saving time. The more generic, the more constrained ; and the more automated, the more limited. Therefore if people rely too much on default behaviours, they ask for new features as things never exactly fit their needs, to a point where the behaviour becomes too complicated and counter-productive to use.

    Continuing with the example of the directional movement, some people might want crouching, some might want dashing, some might want double-jump, some might want animations for jumping at specific angles, etc. Or any combination of the above, e.g. dashing while jumping at specific angles. Should all these become attributes of a default behaviour ? I don't think so, as some of the requirements are likely to be conflicting.

    It's much easier to use the building blocks and create the logic required for each game specifically. It's much more flexible, and reusable.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)