Ashley's Forum Posts

  • Can't you just copy-paste the project file on the cloud then?

  • Maintaining multiple different versions of the same feature is far more complicated and time-consuming than just having one, and time is by far our most limited resource. We really want to just have one algorithm, and tune it to work as well as possible.

  • The change in r129 was relatively minor; we have some larger changes on the way for the next beta cycle.

    Spritesheets help ensure loading and rendering is efficient, but at the cost of potentially using more memory. C2 does not combine different objects on to spritesheets, so has lower memory usage but higher loading and rendering overhead. C3 does combine different objects on to spritesheets, so can have higher memory usage in order to attain lower loading and rendering overhead. It's a classic engineering tradeoff between two different priorities; however I think projects like this demonstrate that we need to improve the balance between the two.

  • No, it's not compatible. Compatibility with Construct Classic was dropped in 2011 when Construct 2 first came out.

  • Why don't you want to download one? It will do what you need.

  • Mathematically, -90 degrees is the same as 270 degrees. So it is correct either way.

    People regularly make the mistake of trying to make linear comparisons on angles. This is incorrect because angles are cyclical. For example if you try to test if an angle is within 10 degrees of another angle, then abs(angle1 - angle2) < 10 is the wrong formula, because it doesn't take in to account the fact angles cycle around from 360 to 0. For example with that formula comparing 359 degrees to 1 degree will incorrectly count it as being 358 degrees apart rather than 2 degrees apart. This is why there are system expressions for comparing angles, like "is within angle", which internally do the correct math to take in to account the cyclical nature of angles.

    So in short if you use the right angle conditions, expressions and calculations, it doesn't matter: -90 will be treated as identical to 270. If you make linear comparisons then your calculations are incorrect to begin with and will have other problems like not handling the 360-0 wraparound correctly, as well as other problems like incorrectly treating -90 as a different angle to 270.

  • It ought to work OK in the latest Firefox ESR (version 60). Which version are you testing with? Are there any errors in the console? (Press Ctrl+Shift+K to open it)

  • Do you have a specific question? If you are just asking "why didn't you write a completely different function", the answer is "because it works differently".

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Updated links in original post with an update for Chromium 71.

  • It was pretty much taken care of the last time around. The remaining issues were with backwards compatibility and some frustrating quirks about what counts as a "user input", but the bottom line is everything should be working OK.

  • It's absolutely critical to test regularly on your target devices during development, not just at the end. It makes it far easier to deal with issues like this, since you can handle them when they first crop up, rather than much later down the line.

    It sounds like your game uses too much memory. Browsers don't tend to have specific limits, usually this means you used up all the physical memory. You may have to make quite far-reaching changes to deal with this.

  • If you don't control the website, yep, you're stuck. It's intentional as it's essential for security (the same mechanism prevents random web pages reading your Facebook profile) and denial of service (the website owners don't necessarily want you using their service like that without their permission).

  • > Local storage is also asynchronous so will have much better performance, so will prevent slow storage janking the game (and everyone hates jank), especially on systems with slow storage. It's not really acceptable to still use synchronous storage these days.

    While I agree that everyone hates jank, couldn't reproduce any of that myself on a really low-end LG Android phone. Would appreciate any data showing that noticeable jank is actually happening.

    Earlier this year we had to increase a timeout in Cordova because some Android devices couldn't load index.html within eight seconds. The worst devices are much, much worse than you probably imagine.

    My main point still stands. The new plugin is too over-complicated because it's performing everything asynchronously.

    It's similar to AJAX, which most people seem to deal with OK. Besides using a Dictionary which is saved/loaded as a whole is straightforward to do in events too.

  • Your terminology is mixed up, this doesn't sound like it's got anything to do with pull requests...

    Check the AJAX manual entry and see the section on cross-domain requests.

  • Since it's been deprecated in Construct, no new projects since 2015 have been able to use it. So there isn't really any option to keep using it (intentionally).

    Local storage is also asynchronous so will have much better performance, so will prevent slow storage janking the game (and everyone hates jank), especially on systems with slow storage. It's not really acceptable to still use synchronous storage these days.

    I'm not sure if/when the feature will be really removed, but the main hurdle is probably the backwards compatibility of existing sites that still use it. I'm sure it'd be gone already if browsers didn't have to worry about that.