Download Construct 2 release 31

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:22 am

[size=200:p7t4m2b6]Download Construct 2 public preview 31[/size:p7t4m2b6]
[size=85:p7t4m2b6]Link to release 30[/size:p7t4m2b6]

This build has a few new extra actions & conditions, the instance variable type change, and bug fixes.

It's also the first time-limited testing build. In anticipation of licensing Construct 2, we can't have free test builds that work forever, otherwise there's not much reason to buy a license. Builds for testing (checked builds) therefore last 42 days: the first 14 days you're left alone, and after that it puts in a caption bar on startup notifying you of the time remaining. After 42 days (7 weeks), the editor won't start up. Installing a future testing build will reset the time limit, so providing we release a new build every 7 weeks and you upgrade to that, we can keep testing builds running constantly (there's a good chance we'll keep that up). This does mean users can free-ride on testing builds, but on the other hand, testers provide a useful service to us in helping us create more stable software, so I guess it's OK. It should also be plenty of time to get thorough testing done.

The demo (when we make one) will last 30 days from the first time you install it, so you can try it at your leisure. Test builds have a hard expiry date - i.e. if you wait 10 days before installing this test build, there will only be 32 days left before it expires.

Note: this policy is subject to change at a later date! It should suffice for now, we may come up with a new way of running test builds in future.

[size=150:p7t4m2b6]Changelog[/size:p7t4m2b6]
- [Change] First time-limited testing build in anticipation of introducing licensing.
- [Add] Static checking is now also performed on actions and conditions (previously it only checked expressions). For example, entering 'Every -1 seconds' will give you an error in the parameters dialog. Only actions and conditions where there are definite invalid values do this. This should be a powerful addition for the future, when it is exposed through the SDK for plugin use as well.
- [Add] New angle conditions: 'Is clockwise from' and 'Is within angle'; new angle actions: 'Rotate clockwise', 'Rotate counter-clockwise', 'Rotate toward angle', 'Rotate toward position', 'Set angle toward position'.
- [Add] 'Move forward' common action under 'Size & Position' - move the object forwards X pixels at its current angle. Shortcut for 'Set position to Self.X + cos(Self.Angle) * X, Self.Y + sin(Self.Angle) * X'.
- [Change] Instance variables now cannot change type, so you can't e.g. assign a string to a number variable at runtime (0.x had previously allowed this). As a result, instance variable expressions are type-checked in the editor, and the editor will reject setting a string to a number instance variable etc.
- [Fix] Sprites can be copy-pasted between projects.
- [Fix] Several runtime bugs with 'Go to layout'
- [Fix] Double-quotes in object properties (e.g. string instance variables) caused assert fail
- [Fix] System condition 'Compare Time' didn't work
- [Fix] False-positive check failure deleting layout
- [Fix] Project bar showed incorrect icons with two projects open
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,949
Reputation: 178,554

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:36 am

[quote:h0volko6]This does mean users can free-ride on testing builds, but on the other hand, testers provide a useful service to us in helping us create more stable software, so I guess it's OK.[/quote:h0volko6]
So you guess it's okay? Something feels completely wrong with this. What testers are doing for you does a lot more for you than it does for them. They mess around with an unfinished product, while it helps you make money. Oh, and then later on they probably have to buy the product they helped test. I am shocked by your even appearing to question the value of what the testers do for you.

I am getting a bad feeling about where this whole thing is going. Construct 2 seems pulled between "open for everyone!" and "buy this thing we made." There's nothing wrong with making a product to sell, but it seems like the idea of it being an open (or free) product for people to enjoy is being clung to, even though it really isn't in practice. This is a little difficult to explain, but I doubt I'm the only one feeling something wrong.

I will also note (in case this comes up), that this is not at all like the free beta of a game. Construct is a tool for producing things. As such, it's value (or enjoyment) does not come from the act of using it itself, but primarily from what you produce with it.

/rant (Someone needs to be negative. It balances things better and helps the development, trust me :P )

I think a top priority should be making a clear plan for Construct 2's development and how the testing and purchasing will work and letting people know. You devs seem very unsure right now and I think you could at least save some trouble (and maybe some community arguing?) if you create a simple list of things that need to get done and how things will work and whatnot.

Note: I complain because I want Construct 2 to succeed and I see FAR more positive "We trust you!" people than those who point out things they disagree with.

Edit: The "pulled between" thing is about you can't have both open source and free, while also having it closed source and costing something. At least, you can't have it try to be wholly both. It should be clear what goal you're aiming towards and what kind of product you really want to make.
B
2
S
2
G
2
Posts: 372
Reputation: 1,794

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:05 am

[quote="Mr Wolf":3e7shjab]So you guess it's okay? Something feels completely wrong with this. What testers are doing for you does a lot more for you than it does for them. They mess around with an unfinished product, while it helps you make money. Oh, and then later on they probably have to buy the product they helped test. I am shocked by your even appearing to question the value of what the testers do for you.[/quote:3e7shjab]

When Microsoft puts out a beta for the next Windows, people are given a key that will work for X amount of time, then it will expire and that's usually when the release version is available. It's a pretty common practice, and this seems like a variation of that.

Anyways, hopefully this is not what this thread turns into.

Good release, still awaiting Animations, etc.
B
13
S
6
G
6
Posts: 144
Reputation: 3,106

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:47 am

It's seems that some people are confusing free and open-source !

Actually, open-source means only that the source is available, open.

So, if I pay 100 but that they give me access to source-code, there is nothing wrong with that.

But it remains a compatibility with "paid" and "open-source" and this is mainly due to users !
It's easy to buy it and make a custom build that you could give away!

I won't, but I would definitely learn from it !

By the way, Construct is a good product but It's definitively worth to have it as web application.

You could have the editor available online with ability to create games on your server and offer game hosting plans.

Base subscription (free):
- Access to WConstruct and up to 1GB game storage.
Intensive subscription:
- Base subscription + more space + collaborative space
Business/Corporate:
- All of the above + some kind of versioning.

The engine should be able to work offline and sync automatically when connected.
B
18
S
4
G
6
Posts: 17
Reputation: 4,353

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:50 am

[quote="Mr Wolf":26oieadd]I will also note (in case this comes up), that this is not at all like the free beta of a game. Construct is a tool for producing things. As such, it's value (or enjoyment) does not come from the act of using it itself, but primarily from what you produce with it.[/quote:26oieadd]

I disagree. Construct can be just as fun to use as the game you make in it :wink: Maybe that's saying I need to make my games more fun. ANYWAY. I don't see why you're still giving Scirra a hard time about the licensing models and such. It only slows development as they have to further explain something that's been said 100 times now. Nothings been completely set in stone yet as far as I'm concerned..just give it time.

So yeah.. Great update! Keep it up!
Image
B
225
S
27
G
13
Posts: 1,774
Reputation: 18,024

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:05 am

Speaking of licensing....
um, the credits are showing a reference to GPL.
Might want to change that before some lawyer types crawl up you backside, and make blueprints for their summer home.
Image Image
B
161
S
48
G
90
Posts: 7,348
Reputation: 66,751

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:20 am

@Mr Wolf, it's aimed at time-limited test editions like buddy40 described. IMO testers actually get a pretty sweet deal in that they don't need a license provided they're willing to stick to the bleeding-edge test builds. I suppose the alternative is we only offer test builds to license holders - then we get less testing done, which could affect stability - it's an option to consider, though. Maybe later when we actually have some license holders.

@newt: woops, dammit, too many things changing too quick...
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,949
Reputation: 178,554

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:07 pm

[quote:18my3sv2]When Microsoft puts out a beta for the next Windows[/quote:18my3sv2]

Hold on isn't CS2 still in Alpha form.Beta usually means that most of the program's functionality is there.I guess your testing out the limit trial to see if it works correctly which is a good thing. :wink:
B
22
S
3
G
6
Posts: 1,356
Reputation: 7,141

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:39 pm

[quote="Ashley":gdrcajdq]@Mr Wolf, it's aimed at time-limited test editions like buddy40 described. IMO testers actually get a pretty sweet deal in that they don't need a license provided they're willing to stick to the bleeding-edge test builds. I suppose the alternative is we only offer test builds to license holders - then we get less testing done, which could affect stability - it's an option to consider, though. Maybe later when we actually have some license holders.[/quote:gdrcajdq]
I was tired when I wrote that so it wasn't the clearest. It sounded to me (I was tired remember) like it had become a question whether testers should be allowed to test for free. The "testers can free-ride" statement made me think "that's the point of testers..." and the "I guess it's OK" part made me wonder if at one point it wouldn't be okay or something. I was worried about non-paying testers not being able to test without worrying about licensing or paying or just being nagged about not paying all the time. A healthy and happy testing community is good :) Sorry if this sounded harsh.

My second point was that I still don't know what parts, if any, are going to be open source or free to develop for. Rather, I really want other people making plugins and exporters (and having more devs for the editor would be great too) at some point. I can't tell if this is something people are welcome to contribute to now that it's not open source and I think some others are unsure as well.
B
2
S
2
G
2
Posts: 372
Reputation: 1,794

Post » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:51 pm

Add on development is core, and always will be core to Scirra. We will never strangle the opportunities for individuals to make Plugins for Construct, that's what it is all about!
Image Image
Scirra Founder
B
124
S
37
G
25
Posts: 3,945
Reputation: 44,897

Next

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: R0J0hound, Zonacas and 2 guests