A few possible suggestions

I don't normally like suggesting improvements to something I couldn't make myself, but I'll give it a shot.

1 ) Change the UI to resemble system based UI's. Something more familiar.

2 ) Reordering effects. Sometimes you might want to see how a group of effects look if their order is different, currently you have to remove them and start again. I don't know how easy something like that would be to do though (or if it's even possible).

3 ) Layout display. At the moment you can scroll pretty far to the right of a layouts size. But there's a greater limit to how far to the left you can scroll.

4 ) A way to run video without the controls visible (I know, I've asked and others have asked for this before, but figured I'd mention it again, but in the right place this time, heh).

5 ) Custom bounding box for regular objects in a similar way that custom ones can be created for physic based objects.

6 ) Particles being emitter only, and extra objects added such as forces (gravity, wind, turbulence, vortex etc.) which could work on a family basis, allowing you to limit them to some or all emitters.

7 ) A Bink Video object, because it's great and very useful.

8 ) Installer, I know it's there but currently not working, when it's working it would be nice if you could select and reorder a list of files and other installers which need to be run and when. So for those who want to keep files separate they can set it up for where the files should go, and any extra installers required to make sure everything can run), this might be how it's going to work anyway so ignore this if that's the case.

I can't think of anything else!

Bink video makes you buy a license and that is expensive and not likley to happen. un-less something changed recently.

Yeah, I don't know about the Bink Video thing, but the rest of that seems really nice.

I like the particle idea, which could be used for many useful things.

What do you mean being emitter only?

What do you mean being emitter only?

Similar to how it is now, only gravity and so on removed and made into it's own object. While the emitter does nothing but emit particles, with age, fading as it is.

That way the separate gravity object could be linked to any or all emitters, could have a circle of influence, so on and so forth, allowing for more control of the particles.

Same could then be done with other force objects such as wind, turbulence, vortex. Those too could be used with specific particles (or families of particles) or all in a scene, or only particles within their circle of influence.

It would give a lot of control, and since it's not expecting anything fancy like you'd find in 3D particle systems (no collisions for example, or intelligent particles) it wouldn't be anymore taxing on the system as the current particles are. Just give more control.

As for Bink video, that's a shame, didn't think you needed a license just to have something that could run it, thought the license was only required to actually put it into a program and use the SDK. Oh well.

1) C2 Construct 2

2) C2

3) C2

4) Sprite animation (Load frames)

5) Sprite animation (As in how do you do that with?)

6) Vertex Object... and several new behaviors.

7) Yeah pay to play, see 4)

Zip's and appath& is your friend, probably have to see some big projects before thats done.

What do you mean being emitter only?

It'd be wicked for weather effects where you have particle rain, and simulated wind to blow it (and other particles, such as smoke) at the same time.

1) C2 Construct 2

2) C2

3) C2

4) Sprite animation (Load frames)

5) Sprite animation (As in how do you do that with?)

6) Vertex Object... and several new behaviors.

7) Yeah pay to play, see 4)

Zip's and appath& is your friend, probably have to see some big projects before thats done.

4 ) Not an option. Think of a background animation, or intro movie of any substance. A few meg in size for a video including it's audio, but hundreds of meg in single frames if done as a sprite. Trust me on this (blah always said I'd never say "trust me on this" on the internet! lol) but I did do a test in one of those 3D background threads, showing how to get any kind of 3D into the background for those bullet hell games, if the player could be placed behind the action and lose the controls. I think you even replied to a request about it saying it's been asked before, plus the avi loader uses a method which can't be placed behind anything, or something like that. So using a sprite that way isn't an option, but some kind of controless positionable loader would be. Hence the bink suggestion, it'll play on anyones machine regardless what codecs they have setup. I'm sure there's an open source version of a bink video type thing that could be used freely.

5 ) Noo, the bounding polygon mode, like bounding box only you can pick the shape, and without using per pixel (which in some cases works TOO well, lol).

8 ) Well it should probably be removed then if it's not going to be fixed for v1, a broken feature doesn't look good.

> What do you mean being emitter only?

>

It'd be wicked for weather effects where you have particle rain, and simulated wind to blow it (and other particles, such as smoke) at the same time.

That's what I had in mind (was playing around making all kinds of snowy effects hehe), it would greatly increase what they're capable of, with little to no impact on using them. I wonder too what would happen if you could use a force controlled by a sine wave of so on too, all within the realms of possibility. I'm normally not a fan of particles in general and prefer to fake them, but I can see something like this having tons of use.

I'm thinking perhaps the following, each one with options for circle of influence, strength, family etc. and so on

Force - basically this would be the usual gravity force, turn off it's circle of influence so it effects every particle in a layout, set it to X pixels a second in the direction it's facing and you've got general gravity. Make another with a circle of influence, a much higher pull and you've got an attractor (line em up, you've got a way to control the path of the particles), or a negative force and a way to push particles away (forcefield anyone?)

Wind - This could have the usual wind effects, turbulence (mixes up speed and direction as the particle passes through it), vortex (spins them around it's center), directional (similar to force but with optional added turbulence). Events could be used to control gusts of wind and so on.

Kill - Just a simple one where any particle entering it's influence would be killed. Could have both a box and circle of influence options. Use something like this to fake water droplets hitting the ground, perhaps with events a way to respawn a short lived emitter on the death of each particle, for a little splash effect, or secondary explosion.

4)

Yes it can be done, you just have to optimize your images, and load them externally.

Yes it will be larger, but but given the alternative..... Not saying we shouldn't have one, that's just a work around.

5)

Noone is going to want to set up the collision mask for an animation that has a lot of frames.

You can, however make a dummy sprite rather easily.

5)

Noone is going to want to set up the collision mask for an animation that has a lot of frames.

You can, however make a dummy sprite rather easily.

Actually, if you're willing to do one then you're probably willing to do the other one. And sometimes you just want vector.

However, I'm still mistified about how Scirra got accelerated per-pixel collision working. Don't know much about those algorithms, myself.

newt, something that would be lovely and I've mentioned before is a collision mask NOT tied to an animation frame, so that making a seperate collision box sprite (which I do right now) isn't necessary.