Response to a PM

This forum is currently in read-only mode.
  • Since the person that PM'd me has unfortunately disallowed PMing, I will go ahead and post my response here so he/she can see it. It's a tiny bit cryptic, but probably to no avail to other viewers reading it.

    > I knew sooner or later you would get pissed, but I was hoping you wouldn't. You help out a lot and I hope you don't decide to leave. Honestly, you made some of the best suggestions (coming from me is a lot. I DON'T KISS ASS.) for this thing and it could be made into something great with more honest criticism. I wouldn't be able to make much without your ---------. But that said, if you do decide to leave, best of luck.


    > BTW, I think if you wait a little until the community grows a bit (I actually could advertise Construct around and make it gain a few thousands user, but I'm not because it's not ready for making anything REAL yet, IMO. Also, the communities I would show it to are very good, some with good programmers, but they are also harsh, and they will call it crap in its current state.). I think you would get much more appreciation for your --------- and good input, and more people helping out also... Sucks if you leave tho.


    > Although I'm too impatient at the moment with Construct and also too stupid, I can't say I completely understand your explanation, but I will look it over a few times later and see if I can.


    > As for Instances vs Objects, I will have to disagree. Maybe if you are making an Asteroids clone or another Mario clone then you will be using more instances. Those games deal with the same rocks or enemies that repeat across the game stage. However, if you are going to make a REAL (or "professional quality", I should say) game that's a team game or multi character game with different unique characters on the screen at the same time; all with their own unique abilities, look, and animations, you will need a lot of objects. Unless you can tell me each instances can completely change its SHAPE, SIZE, SPRITE/IMAGE/LOOK, PHYSICS, BEHAVIOR, all can be created and destroyed separately whenever at runtime, and all have their own private variables that react differently to the game world when you want them to (that's a lot of variables for one object. This is why I think families are so important. Even for some simple expressions using BOXES I have to sometimes make a new object and events until families work correctly, or I learn how to use them correctly, if I'm the problem. I can give caps to show what I mean.).


    > Think about this: In Street Fighter, Ryu, Guile, and Chun-li are not the same Object, but they should be in the same player/character Family. Unless you can show me otherwise. I think you are forgetting all instances USE THE SAME SPRITE, so they LOOK THE SAME. (Note: Street Figher probably isn't the PERFECT example, because you can get away with doing most of it with using hitboxes and switching animations. But what happens when each character aren't the same shape/size and they have totally different hitboxes, physics/behaviors, and the background isn't just there for show, but instead, it's a mix of objects that alter the game. I can't see a solution besides a new object.)


    > Don't get my wrong though, I'd be happy if you could show me an easier way.


    You can use a "for each loop" based on a family. I do not believe there will be a need for 1000 different objects. Normally, you would only need 10-15 with 1000 instances of them.

    As for the actions you call the unique objects, you can assign a private variable to the UNIMPLEMENTED expression that you need. Since the "for each" picks all in the group one by one -- even by family -- the actions can be:

    ball set 'variable" to ball.vectorY

    object set 'variable" to object.vectorY

    bimbo set 'variable" to bimbo.vectorY

    If the objects "ball", "object", and "bimbo" are in the same family. All those 'variable' actions will work (of course, only after using "for each".)

    To avoid having to do this too much, you can put that in a functioncall, but since the screen updates every tick, you will only need it once.

    They will for sure once and for all clean all bugs in the animations. And they will also for sure implement expressions in families.

    But I am done with them. I worked my ass off to take it somewhere. I am not gonna type in there any more. I am done with trying to communicate with people that can not read caps, and caps are all I can communicate with since my ----- sucks ass.

    You can call me rude, but at least I was honest.

    Good luck with all your products, and ty for arguments that we had. I learned from them. Arguments? Discussions? Not sure about --- ----- ----.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Work out a way to contact each other in private other than the PM system if somebody has turned it off, please.

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