0 Favourites

Need some morale boosting [:^(]

  • I recently came to the conclusion that Construct 2 in its current state didn't have the capabilities that I needed, and so I bit the bullet and bought Multimedia Fusion 2.

    Now I'm completely disillusioned! I used The Games Factory many year ago, and tried the MMF2 demo, and thought it was great. Love the storyboard editor, sprite editor, level editor, per pixel collision, but I absolutely hate hate HATE the event editor!!!

    Construct 2 has spoiled me completely!!! If I want to have an object rotate toward the mouse cursor for example, I don't have to write any expression. It takes less than a minute, and doesn't require any real thought. MMF2, however, I have to write some kind of expressions, which I simply do not understand... I asked on their forum, and some of the help I got was:

    "0-ATan2(YMouse-Y( "Active" ), XMouse-X( "Active" ))"

    And unfortunately that doesn't mean much to me.

    The sad thing is that I have the exact opposite feelings for Construct 2. Absolutely love the event editor, and what it can do, but for what I want to do, I need to be able to export files out as .exe and have per pixel collision. I also bought the IOS exporter, as I'm looking to produce for both the iPhone and Android. I understand Construct 2 is still in development, but I'm kind of stuck in a rut. I don't know which direction to go in.

    So really, and honest opinion please, based on the facts... Do I go with Construct or Multimedia Fusion?

    I know people might find it odd me asking that here... and the responses may be bias, but I recall a blog saying topics like this are acceptable... so hopefully I'll hear some straight forward responses...

  • Yeah, topics like this are fine. We don't censor discussion of other tools here.

    Ashley has said they're going to look into making an EXE exporter when awesomium 1.7 comes out. Directcanvas and cocoonJS are also in the works to improve mobile performance. As for per-pixel collisions, why do you need them?

    My recommendation, of course, is to stick with C2. ^^ If nothing else, the ease of development I think is far more important than the need for per-pixel collisions - which is something there's a good chance you can fake, anyway.

  • Hi Arima,

    I really want per pixel collision because I like the way I can just create the sprite in photoshop, put it into the program, and then have it automatically be perfect, especially with the box2d physics.

    For example... if I put the following object down:

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50465867/Maze/Maze.png

    and I use the left and right arrow keys to rotate it. Now, if I want to have a ball with physics move around the level... how exactly do I do this in C2? I can do this in MMF2, but it's a real pain seeing as Box2d isn't seamlessly integrated. It would take around 5-10 minutes.

    If I had per pixel in C2, it would take seconds (Like I said, I love the editor).

    This is just a short example. What if I wanted to have the maze massive, and a lot more complicated, with multiple animations?

    Hope I made sense. If there is a way to do this, then I'm happy. I really really want per-pixel, but understand it's hard with HTML.

  • In CC we have per-pixel collision, C2 will have it in the future? Anyone one knows if Ashley talked about that?

  • Metal_X - Ashley has said of that JavaScript both isn't fast enough and doesn't allow for certain operations that they used to make construct classic's collision detection so fast.

    @AnD4D - I'm a little surprised that works in MMF - have you actually tried it? As far as I thought I understood it, physics are generally a polygon based affair, or straight math in the case of a circular object. Construct classic has per-pixel collisions, but it requires the use of polygons for collisions when using physics, so it wouldn't take seconds regardless.

    Technically you could fake it by using physics object 'tiles' to make up the level, but it's true it wouldn't be a simple as you describe - you would likely have to set up the levels by hand the same way you would put together a level based on sprite tiles.

  • MMF2 doesn't have a very good box2d integration, but it has a bounce movement which I am using as an example. I just tried it out and was able to get close to what I want, but ideally I really want box2d... you're probably right that it needs polygon collision.

    Maybe there's not a program out there that will do what I want it to do... which really is a shame. If I could combine C2 and MMF2... *SNIFF*... I would be so happy <img src="smileys/smiley1.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

    Sprite based... multiple tiles. I've tried that before, but I really struggled to get a perfect line up of all the different tiles.

    You know what...? Challenge accepted! I'm going to try to build exactly the same game using both MMF2 and C2, and document the whole progress! Let's see which is best!

  • What would you want to combine from MMF, if it doesn't do per pixel collisions for physics either, and for what reasons? The bullet behavior in C2 has a bounce option, BTW.

  • Construct 2 or MMF2...hmm...Construct Classic!

  • I think the dream of "Construct it once and play everywhere" is a bit far yet :( I still have my doubts if html5 is the final solution for "ultimate multiplatform awesomeness". But no matter what I'll keep following C2 closely :)

  • I think manually assembling the level isn't that hard... there really isn't much need for per-pixel collisions.

    Seriously, considering how nice C2's interface is, it is really worth staying here. The developers actually care about the product, and there is a great community to boot.

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

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

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I don't think clickteam doesn't care about their product - there's no proof of that that I've seen or heard of.

    That said, I think pretty much every part of C2 is superior to MMF except for parts that aren't finished yet, like the image editor and such. There are a ton of advantages to C2 over MMF, and not many the other way around, and most, if not all of those advantages I've heard are on the to do list (EXE wrapper, improved mobile performance, easier object switching, etc). Stick with C2! :)

  • I was an MMF user, and I can tell you that in what concerns game design and general, C2 is completely superior, save for the things that aren't done yet, like filters, transitions and such. MMF is, however, better suited for native Windows application building. I have seen and made really powerful apps. on MMF. But if it's games, stay in C2.

    C2 and HTML5 are young. I know C2 will get even better, which is really exciting and I have real high hopes for HTML5 to get it right.

  • A way to do per pixel collisions with physics would be to create a small physics sprite for each collision pixel. I agree this is too tedious to do manually. I used the canvas object to read the pixels of the image, the I made it so only the edge pixels were created to reduce the object count.

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5426011/examples11/perpixel.capx

  • In my ever so humble opinion..

    MMF2 is more powerful in *almost* every aspect due to its age and exposure but is hindered by piss-poor, archaic designs that make for a generally unpleasant experience. Also, said "power" heavily relies on questionably stable 3rd party extensions and such; the program itself hasn't changed a whole lot since 1994. I'm serious.

    CC might be a tad weaker here and there but is ultimately superior to MMF2 due to its thoughtful designs and features. However, it's kinda slow, often buggy, and lacks some the ease-of-use you'll find in C2. If it wasn't tied to Windows and abandoned I'd use nothing else.

    C2..C2 is tricky. It's lightning-fast, clean, well-designed, and has lots of great features to make your life easier and development faster. I want to recommend it more than anything but I think HTML5 is holding it back considerably. You trade off expansive, powerful, feature-rich games and tools for, well, whatever you can cram into a smartphone or browser. In my opinion multi-platform support means nothing when it cripples everything else. (Hell I don't even think HTML5 REALLY means multi-platform..It can just run games in browsers, and all platforms support browsers..therefore HTML5 games run anywhere.) But of course "HTML5 is young and constantly growing"..I just think that by the time it really gets good, all the desired exporters and that which comes with them could've been finished already..but that's another topic..moving on..

    Hopefully this helps and doesn't sound too biased; I've used both Clickteam & Scirra software extensively. It just comes down to whichever is more appropriate for you!

  • C2..C2 is tricky. It's lightning-fast, clean, well-designed, and has lots of great features to make your life easier and development faster. I want to recommend it more than anything but I think HTML5 is holding it back considerably. You trade off expansive, powerful, feature-rich games and tools for, well, whatever you can cram into a smartphone or browser. In my opinion multi-platform support means nothing when it cripples everything else. (Hell I don't even think HTML5 REALLY means multi-platform..It can just run games in browsers, and all platforms support browsers..therefore HTML5 games run anywhere.) But of course "HTML5 is young and constantly growing"..I just think that by the time it really gets good, all the desired exporters and that which comes with them could've been finished already..but that's another topic..moving on..

    Hopefully this helps and doesn't sound too biased; I've used both Clickteam & Scirra software extensively. It just comes down to whichever is more appropriate for you!

    Yeah, not to mention by the time HTML5 is good enough, other software may gain the upper hand by being just as good as C2 and having multi export...

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