you can also just copy-past into an .as file and house the XML there unless you plan on changing it without wanting to reupload and you aren't using mochiads version control.

I wouldn't say this a dressed up version of a newb saying he has a good idea for a movie.
Script writing is difficult; anybody whose legitimately tried to do it can attest.
This is not bad writing, If I was an animator this would probably be an excellent opportunity to get some real world relevant experience.

create a new file
for example
MapLoader

in that class have a blank constructor, and then have a function for each level that returns the array..

ie.

public function getLevel1():Array
{
   theArray = ....
   return theArray;
}

A)its a type
b)I make use of vector; but I love the actual Flash features of CS4; IK bones are sexy.

Last attempt to save from this tangent...
lol, I'd call this more a normal than a tangent, but I digress... Anybody used Motor2? or another non Box2D engine?

At 6/10/09 11:03 PM, MercyKill wrote:
As far as time is concerned, wouldn't it be more efficient to code your ideas from the beginning rather than scouring the web for something that resembles what you want, interpreting the code as a whole, then modifying it without breaking the flow of logic?

Not when what you want is several thousands of lines of code long and involves complex mathmatics.
Physics engines relies on math that I don't enjoy doing. It would probably take me a month or two to achieve something that I would want to use; If it learn to use a pre-made physics engine I may have a day of learning and tweaking, but them im up 2 months, plus the engine gets updates, so the physics is improving while im not even looking at it; Which is really nice.

Well with the new patch, AS4 has some really nice features, and runs smoothly.

At 6/10/09 08:32 PM, AlyssaShafer wrote: either write your own, or do something like removing shapes from the simulation when they aren't needed to reduce unnecessary collision detection

Writing my own would be even worse for efficiency, and I'm interested in peoples experiences with other engines to decided if I should spend hours optimizing this engine further for my purposes or try another one that might not even need the tweaking.

a) I'm Canadian.
b) I don't suffer from "not made here" syndrome. If the code exists and somebody else has done it, I'll use it, especially if they have a math and physics background I don't and can create a better product.
Its just naive to call using a third party engine laziness.

At 6/10/09 06:52 PM, Zuggz wrote: If you just want to make a simple platform game, than why don't you just code one without the 3rd party engine?

3rd party physics engines have MUCH better collision handling, I'm more interested in making a game than trimming search algorithims. Thus I like to take advantage of other peoples hard word in the field.

I've just been fighting with box2d, using hacks to get valve/cloud platforms (you can jump up or run by but can also land on) and it does so much with joints that I will never use.. and the performance was less than stellar.

Does anybody know if motor 2.. or if there is another physics engine thats more supportive of the features needed to do a platformer.

At 6/9/09 07:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Alright, I'm checking it out gotta do the .NET install, however, that's a drawback...

flash develop is my lord and savior.

At 6/8/09 09:16 PM, Archon68 wrote:

At 6/7/09 09:39 PM, Sparkky wrote: just as a little tidbit...
Videogames generally shoot for a steady 60...

He's not making a console game. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is unimportant to the viewer of Flashes.

The programming language is irrelivant...

Watch the video. Because of the contrast, and the digital image, you don't get the blur that movie screens enjoy to emulate smoothness.
As well if you read it, it talks about how action movies blur constantly, and we don't notice. Again thats something 99% of you wouldn't do with a flash movie (and probably couldn't because of the screen)

This isn't a personal vendetta I have against you or your opinion. This is science, and its telling you a fact. Ignoring it is foolish and arguing it is useless.

At 6/9/09 02:27 AM, asgrunt wrote: "if you want to ... do anything powerful, use AS3" - sounds strange, as if all the people using AS2 up to now had done only kid's stuff. What a nonsense. Most of the Flash developers don't need all the nice features of AS3, they don't even use the many features of AS2. Ask them: who really knows what a matrix is (no, not that thingy with the red and blue pills), who does use the BitmapData-class, who has coded pic effects with the convolutionFilter, etc. It would be better to learn to master one version instead of constantly hopping to the next one without really to master it. If someone has a programming background or does coding most of the time than he/she should take AS3, for all other people AS2 ist sill powerful enough (and much easier to learn if needed to). As Phil Kerman said:

I'll stick to AS2 in the cases where the project is not super complex and when there's no specific benefit in AS3 that justifies the investment. In a larger project or one where I need some new feature of AS3/FP9, then sure I'll go for it.

AS2 relied on a lot of hacks and backyard bob fixes to get it to do what people wanted it to do.
AS3 you can build very robusts, reuseable code.
For example, if I need a platforming game, I just move in that folder, and bam, less than 100 lines i've got a basic platformer, physics engine and the skeleton of a level editor.

I've written a menu API...
I hate making menus, but with my "robust" AS3 code, I now can create a menu in a few commands.
Same with sounds, I have a SoundManager class which I link up with the main class, then add the sounds with an array, give it a graphic and I can now go SM.sound.play() anywhere in the code and that sound plays.

Sure are the start its more work, but once you get going its much... MUCH less work.

I managed to find it.. its a little old, but its a video orchestrating the difference between 26 and 60 frames on a computer.
http://loot-ninja.com/2007/04/29/video-c omparison-24fps-vs-60fps/

At 6/7/09 09:50 PM, EKublai wrote: 24 fps, is what is made for movies. You quickly realize however, that even tv shows limit their animation to 6-12 fps for the most part. They just do it so well that the animation looks very smooth.

heres a good link talking about the difference between a dark, specially crafted movie theater and a computer screen and how the colours and situations effect the "smoothness"

Its a lot more than just a magical number for every situation.

At 6/7/09 09:42 PM, AlyssaShafer wrote:

At 6/7/09 09:39 PM, Sparkky wrote: just as a little tidbit...
Videogames generally shoot for a steady 60...

i recommend aiming a bit lower for flash

with vectors, filters, actions, and stuff, flash frequently will fail to reach 60 fps on some older computers

unless your game is simple graphically and relatively simple actionwise,
the most i'd recommend for a game is 40

Yea, I wasn't really going to go into the reasonings, the limits and the semantics like that, it was more just a note that there are benefits should you choose to shoot a little higher.

I'm following what your saying and it could be pretty cool to flesh out the parts your fans are interested in.
Its a plot, so its relevance to scope and time seems non-existent.
Its a bit more original than 99% of the ideas out there, Id say go for it :)

just as a little tidbit...
Videogames generally shoot for a steady 60...

oh and ASgrunt, thanks for the links, those led me to some cool things.

At 6/7/09 08:24 AM, GustTheASGuy wrote: Fancy effects can't be facilitated by some framework. I don't see which portion of the work involved you believe could be handled by a library.

oh lots could.
For example I wrote an particle explosion class.
Just give it an x, y, an image and add it to the stage and it will explode.
I wrote a text slider, which you put the text in, and it slides across the screen.
i also found some libraries by Steven Stark that would take text, convert it to an image and do all sorts of interesting things with it.
Its very common, and I think you might have been confused by the terminology what I was looking for.

As for making my own, I would; and I have, but I was looking to save some time and grab some stock effects.

3 years of computer science with Java and C.
Then a few tutorials for Flash... Read a few blogs.
Finally, lots of practice... lots and lots.

Im a firm believer in learning to code properly though. Getting a good book before you learn from tutorials so you don't end up like many people with TERRIBLE habits.

I've got a tiled level, which is composed of just walls.
I would like to outline the entire level, But I cant find an efficient way to do it.

I've tried to ol' glow filter, but it lags my game terribly, even at the lowest settings.
Does anybody know of a good way to outline a shape that composed of tiles?

At 6/6/09 11:12 PM, LDAF wrote: Hey, motion presets has some cool stuff too.

I meant like particle effects and such...
I mean, glow is pretty sweet, but its also a resource hog and hard to make cool things with.

Sometimes in my game, Inside the game window, it wont register a Mouse_Up event.
Does anybody know what Might be interfering with it? or some way to go detective on it?

Anybody know of any API's (free to use & profit from) for special effects.
Just flashy effects I can add without much work to make people go "oooh"?

nice, the AI feels a little more logical now :)
all you need is a little trash talk and they'd be set.

At 6/5/09 08:17 PM, TheBoob wrote: I have seen this question asked over and over again, and no1 ever agrees, but i think this question is much more difficult than the "what does the coder make, what does the artist make"

there is a lot that goes into good game design, not just code and art. I have worked with people who code but are not creative, so they just get their instructions, and code what they are told. (i want the charcter to jump this high, and if you hold this key he can double jump, and if you hold this key, you fall twice as slow... etc).

This quality of "participation" is hard to measure, and thus i dont think there is a clear cut system to use.

As far as music goes, making music is not "harder or easier" than art is, but often from my experience the musician is not heavily involved in the game creations proccess, they come in close to the end, and create some songs that fit, and thats their role.

As far as answering your question, i would recomend that if you are working with someone for the first time, split the money even, at the most i would give any one person a 10% bonus for "participation"

ie: if you ahve this awsome game idea, and you are like "looking for artist, im a good programmer" i would not go any farther than like 60 / 40.

But it really depends a lot on the people, we all know luis always takes 90% no matter what his role

I believe he was looking for more advice, circumstance aside, 10 hours of code, 10 hours of art, or 10 hours of design are not equal...
How that translates to pay, thats an age old question. The best you can do is listen to examples,and make your own scale.

Saying its different in each case is a little irrelevant because its painfully obvious.

At 6/5/09 06:01 PM, StaliN98 wrote:

At 6/5/09 05:14 PM, milchreis wrote:

At 6/5/09 05:09 PM, Dafali wrote: Is this really the right/best way of doing it?

don't write any code in anything but .as files

Fixed :D

Nope...
Fixed :D

At 6/5/09 04:34 PM, ChaoticTrashCan wrote:

At 6/5/09 04:03 PM, Resolution wrote: So basically, you're saying that in art you are drawing from real things or images, where with coding it is much harder because you have to 'reinvent the wheel' when creating a new game engine?

I would have to disagree, but I see your point

I actually would say it's the other way around. With art, you do need to make something completely new, draw it from scratch, while with code, you're using pieces that already exist. Just keep in mind, I am in no way saying that coding is easy, more often then not its a pain in the ass.

I don't find coding a pain in the ass, its just a puzzle. Art I always found had very little in terms of rules, where are coding has a very strict set of rules.
Often time artists are told I need a person.
A coder is given "I need a person, who does this when the player does this, interacts with this, acts like this..."
You've got this almost absolute goal you need to acheive, where as art is a much more general goal.
Even to say create a red demon that looks like this one.
Every artist will come out with a different result. Infact, coming to your own personal take on the result is what the client is looking for. They hire you for your style.
If you tell 5 coders to make something, sure the way they get there will have some variance but the result will be nearly identical. They can take some liberties but there is clearly defined goals, and benchmarks to compare and test the results.
If your told to hit a barn, its hard to say if you "hit it good" or if it was a "bad hit"
Where as if your told to hit the top right corner of the door frame, its as easy as taking a ruler and telling you how good/bad you are, and the existance of such quantitive measure makes it much more difficult to achieve a desirable result.

But again I stress this is just my experience/opinion coming from an artist background into a Computer Science major foreground.