The most difficult moment for me.

Welcome to our brand new Clickteam Community Hub! We hope you will enjoy using the new features, which we will be further expanding in the coming months.

A few features including Passport are unavailable initially whilst we monitor stability of the new platform, we hope to bring these online very soon. Small issues will crop up following the import from our old system, including some message formatting, translation accuracy and other things.

Thank you for your patience whilst we've worked on this and we look forward to more exciting community developments soon!

Clickteam.
  • The games factory was my big "want" when i was young. The first software I bought with my savings of several months.
    Click & Create looked to me like an untouchable dream. I used to sleep on the magazine that had a review on them and trying to imagine what i could make.

    MMF 2 then became my second live and Fusion 2 and 2.5 came after.

    But I am done. I cannot work with workarounds anymore. Trying too much to acomplish things that now are super easy with some free engines.

    I have to admit though, if the out if the box movements, collisions and some other tiny stuff were working as expected, I would stil use it.

    Guys, Fusion 3 is taking too long.

    I think its getting close to goodbye for me...

    Old School Shoot-em up for Android :
    Please login to see this link.

  • Hey, Fusion has nice built in physical movements, you should just read physics documentation so you can have the enough knowledge of using them correctly
    Or you can make your own movements, they aren't that hard really once you get the basics you keep on improving your knowledge of them, I remember I posted a guide on the bare basics of custom movements on gamejolt

    Game/App developer, artist and a community contributor.
    You can support my work on: Please login to see this link.

  • I love Fusion, and it's great for starting out and even some larger commercial projects. But, I too am outgrowing it. There are many things in my current project I had to scrap and/or scale back because Fusion is either not capable at all, or not capable of doing it well enough for basic commercial standards. I've enjoyed F2.5+ very much, but I do think I'll be moving away from it for my next project for numerous reasons. Fusion 3 taking this long is honestly the least of those reasons.

    Please login to see this link.

  • Well, one thing that I notice is that most users don't know quite a lot of what Fusion is capable of...
    I've learned a lot of tricks over the years that allow me to create things that a lot of users would think it's impossible.
    Although I get it, I'm extremely anxious for some Fusion 3 news, it will be the decisive step for Clickteam's future, which needs to be released before it's too late, cause I feel the people switching engines...
    I still prefer the way things are done in Fusion, but I would like if it get new features, extensions and stuff.
    Clickteam is a very small company, so it's understandable that they can only do so much, specially on current Fusion deeply tied to ancient code they can't mess much with.

    Lets talk, what are the things that you guys want to make that you don't think are possible on Fusion? (excluding the obvious current gen 3D, since Fusion is mainly a 2D engine)

  • I always think that Fusion makes simple things simpler, and complicated things more complicated.
    For example, something as basic as loading images and turning them into an animated sprite, can actually be pretty tedious without Fusion's animation editor.
    On the other hand, something more complicated, like pathfinding or procedural level generation, is made far slower and more difficult by Fusion's visual coding / event system.

    Of course, that applies to other similar tools as well. I'm not sure it's appropriate to discuss specific rival products here, but I think their pros and cons are all pretty obvious.

    In a way, if someone outgrows Fusion, that's just a testament to what a great educational tool it is. I've now written my own Javascript/WebGL2-based game engine completely from scratch, but it was "kliking" that taught me about programming.

  • Well, even fusion now is somewhat outdated, but as for me, currently I don't care whether how powerful other engines is, cause I have spent more than five years and thousands of hours on my big project. I won't switch engines until it's finished and released someday (maybe another five year, and then fusion 3 is out LOL) as fusion now can satisfy most of my demand, and I can extend it easily by writing an new ext.
    Actually the only feature I want that can only be added by CT as mfa is not open-source is native version control support……it's really painful to coop with others or to merge changes over proj/frames……

  • Here are a few examples of items I've had to alter my game's design because of Fusion limitations.
    1) Rotating rooms similar to how it was handled in Castlevania IV and Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts. I'm aware I could fake it by making the player stand statically how they did in those games and then load in the platform obstacles after rotation is completed, but I wanted to make it rotate in real-time while the player is still moving across the level. One level's gimmick was being inside a monster and as it swam through the ocean, it would rotate and force the player to navigate accordingly. The only way to proceed would be like how Super Ghouls n Ghosts did it - put the player in something that restricts movement, rotate the room, then set the obstacles based on the newly rotated layout and restore controls. This is not what I wanted to do, so I had to scrap the idea entirely.
    2) Proper zooming out while observing parallax coefficients. I was able to get it zooming in and out just fine, but it didn't observe the parallax layers properly and zoomed them all at the same speed, rather than maintaining that offset for depth of field. It looked odd and zooming out beyond the native resolution also is very unreliable and created visual artifact problems.
    3) Because of Fusion being x86 instead of x64, I've had to downgrade from 1080p resolution sprites and tiles to 720p to make sure I'm within the (thankfully updated from 2gb) 4gb limit of the executable. And yes, I'm taking much extra time to optimize images to the power of 2, and yes, I'm aware I can load data externally but I prefer not to load from native images and audio files. I know hackers will break a game and get whatever data they want no matter what, but I like the tidiness of self-contained EXEs as much as possible.
    4) Remove entire segments of a game such as a level, certain enemies, bosses, and sub-plots in order to ensure I can fit within the file size limit. Granted, the initial design was back when it was at a 2gb limit and was culled down before it was upgraded to 4gb limit. Again, I'm aware of external loading capabilities, but this is not the route I wanted to proceed.


    Things that I think Fusion could be improved.
    1) Better audio engine handling. There are many threads on this and a lot of points I agree on. One specific example is audio looping by setting to the position is inconsistent. I take a level's music in my DAW and set my loop points to the exact millisecond and it loops smoothly there, but when I point fusion to the same data, it sometimes hovers ahead or behind the actual designated loop point, creating semi-jarring loops. Looping the sample doesn't work well either because if I have an intro for a song and then a section that is to loop, handing off the 2nd section that would loop has a slight stutter between playing after the intro. It's just not smooth and never has been.
    1b) I felt this might necessitate a slightly separate point regarding the audio engine. It would be beneficial to have additional features built-in such as adding reverb via filter options that may not be included in an audio file. This would be handy if you have a sample file you would like it to sound like is in a cave, or open area without having to have a separate audio file and program which to use accordingly. Yes, you can use strings to load the filename based on location fairly easily, but it still requires separate samples. Having built-in filters such as reverb options would be helpful. Not sure what the implementation requirements of this would be like, so it may have been considered and not possible in the current state, but the point of this is to expound on things I feel are lacking.
    2) Level building tools are somewhat lackluster. Granted, they are much improved over what they were when F2 was initially released, but we really need functionality pretty much exactly like Tiled but built-in without having to resort to an extension to load in levels made in Tiled.
    3) x64 implementation for a variety of reasons.
    4) Dark mode. I've read Yves reasoning and understand technical issues that make it a complicated addition considering Fusion's current architecture, but it's long overdue.
    5) Better built-in screen and resolution mode options without having to resort to things such as Ultimate Full-Screen object which apparently doesn't play well with Steam Overlay from what I've read. Haven't tested this myself yet though.
    6) Fusion desperately needs improved organization features. Re-arranging/alphabetizing global/alterable values and strings, folders, nested folders for objects, etc.
    7) It would be nice to have post-processing/color correction abilities built directly into Fusion that is dedicated to the cause. It can be done now using shaders and adjusting RGB values, but it's somewhat limited and requires plugging in and launching the game to see if it looks good and doesn't really offer any ability to tweak as you go unless you build it yourself. Again, can be done and this is a thing that'd be good to have built-in so it's easier to play around with, as Unity does. This is probably low on the totem pole though as that's more of a 3D game kind of feature and since most Fusion games are pixel art, it's not really often considered as the colors are chosen at the time of art creation. In my case though, I use pre-rendered sprites and have day/night and would like finer tuned control over how certain colors are handled at different times during runtime.
    8) Animation tools such as a curves editor to have greater precision control over speeds and the like would be really helpful. But, since most games are pixel art, this is likely something that would go underused. Again, another "me" thing where I think I've outgrown the engine.
    9) Parallax placement is a major PITA. I have to place objects in the level editor where I want them to really appear, then take the X & Y coordinates and multiply by the coefficient to get the new X & Y position they really need to be at so they appear in the desired spot at runtime. For example, if I want an object to appear at 10,000 X at runtime and it's on a layer that has a 0.65 X parallax coefficient, I do 10000 x 0.65 and set the X position in the level editor to 6,500.

    Misc observations.
    1) One of the things that I love/hate about Fusion is its extensions. On one hand, it's good to have that expandability, but I dislike how certain things are left to the community to fix/add/improve, and rarely does Clickteam take an extension and incorporate it natively.
    2) The community is not what it used to be. Compared to 10 years ago, it is really quiet and sometimes it's tough to get help with questions comparatively. Looking to other communities such as Blender and Unity which are thriving and answers abound, this community has an unfortunately empty feeling. I understand Fusion is a smaller product and community, but it's clear a lot of folks have moved on to other engines, and the gap shows compared to 10 years ago.
    3) To the above point, the community has taken a different feeling. I'm going to be blunt without saying names and leave it that because I do not want this particular comment to turn into anything - but some of the staff has been incredibly rude to users for unwarranted reasons. I emphasize some, not all. That said, my perception of Clickteam's professionalism has taken a dive as a result of this.

    All that said, there is much to love about Fusion. I've been with it since the Klik & Play days and Fusion is built to prototype fast and make it easy to "code." It's understandably not going to be an engine that fits every single scenario and do exactly what we need it to do for a variety of reasons. It's predominantly geared to aspiring game developers but is capable of much more than people give it credit for. I'm just saying there are things that I want to do and want in my workflow that make me feel like I'm outgrowing Fusion, especially since I'm taking game development more seriously now. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, that just means I'm growing. I'm grateful beyond words for what Clickteam's products have allowed me to do and wish nothing but a bright and fruitful future for the company and its users, but sometimes we must look for bigger ships to sail as our ideas and skills grow over time.

    Please login to see this link.

  • Ok, it is better with some movement in here. It feels more alive, this post, now. So interesting posts too...

    Personally I am getting this feeling, that the original purpose, scope and reasoning of the software is abandoned in its own bugs. Overhelmed by the developing of new features that were really missing, call me global events and other features added only recently, the bugs looked as minor problems obviously.

    But please, this was one of the nice features of this software line. Easy, out of the box, ready to use functionality and even libraries. Of course its a good thing to be able to set up more sofisticated or custom movements, but when you claim you are offering some out of the box functionality, I expect it to work.

    Now, workarounds are something interesting but when you just find yourself working only with workarounds then it gets more closer to frustration.

    In general everything looks, feels and works outdated. Its a pain for me.

    I love the software, I love the idea, but ok guys, small team? Fusion 3 developing cycle was big? A lot of effort to porting titles? I am not sure what is the actual reason anymore...

    Hoping Fusion 3 would resolve some of these matters, I alteady think its late.

    Already, other software copied the atyle and concept, and are working really good. This is such a shame...

    In addition to all of that, I understand the feeling of Yves or the rest of the yeam when everyone is keep asking when is F3 is coming, but hey, after all this time, I think we do diserve some feedback.

    Old School Shoot-em up for Android :
    Please login to see this link.


  • I think you are a good example of what i mean with extra reasoning and another point of view as well.

    And in your extensive post i can feel it is something that was burning inside you for long time now...

    Old School Shoot-em up for Android :
    Please login to see this link.

  • Although I get it, I'm extremely anxious for some Fusion 3 news

    The development of F3 suffered from a bunch of bad issues Clickteam had to deal with. F3 is typically the kind of project that requires a steady stability, due to its complexity and the fact it's a full rewrite and not a simple evolution of 2.5, and this was not the case. As we announced previously the development was back on track this year, after having been paused during 2+ years for console development. It was complex to restart it, but lot of work has been done, the original code was modernized, cleaned up, obsolete parts have been replaced. So it's progressing, even if there is still lot of work before the first beta version. We'll show something when the product is somewhat visually more appealing, we're working on the UI. We'll resume communication about it when we reach this point, very soon I hope.

    We still maintain 2.5 at the same time, as you know suggestions you post in the forum are noted somewhere and integrated if possible. Maybe expect less new features as the time passes though, but please still continue posting suggestions.

  • piscesdreams I took a look at your wish list:

    - Parallax & zooming are typically things that are difficult to modify in the current version. Maybe we can add extra actions/expressions to ease your work, so if you've any suggestions of simple features that could help for what you want to do, please share them, but I can't promise anything.

    - Parallax placement in frame editor: I'll think about it, we could probably add an option for this.

    - 4 Gb limit: IIRC none of the BIG games we've ported to console was larger than 1.5 Gb, the current 4 Gb limit is probably enough for 99.99999% of the users, and there is the simple solution you don't want to use: the new Load Animation action with external files for some big objects. If hackers can extract images from animation files, then they also can extract images from your EXE (if that is what is preventing you from using this option).

    - do you have (very simple) examples of those audio issues you're talking about? (maybe also uncheck the Optimize Play Sample option in the App properties, this option was added as optimiztions in the build 292 can cause issues in some cases). Not sure if we can do anything about this, but at least I'd like to see what you're talking about.

    - including 3rd party extensions to Fusion: we already maintain the extensions from the MMF2 extension packs, that's 70+ extensions, and we ported a part of them to all platforms. Integrating and maintaining/debugging 3rd party extensions is a lot of work and has a cost.
    Plus not all 3rd party developers are ready to give us their source code, nor us ready to include their code which can become a burden for updates, new versions, etc. So it's not an easy question. Not sure if F3 will fix this or not (less port work certainly, but integrating them into F3 will raise the same questions).

    - about the issue you had with Clickteam staff, was this recently and were you directly involved? You can send me a PM if you want to discuss about it.

  • Feel free to PM me (or here) of you want a list of the things that should be improved or added to be competitif with others Software (i'm using one pretty similar to Fusion.)

    Developer of Inexistence available on Steam :
    Please login to see this link.

  • - Parallax & zooming are typically things that are difficult to modify in the current version. Maybe we can add extra actions/expressions to ease your work, so if you've any suggestions of simple features that could help for what you want to do, please share them, but I can't promise anything.


    It's understandable that it is difficult to modify the current version. I'm not complaining about it because it's been widely discussed why it isn't in Fusion natively right now; I'm just stating that it is a feature that would likely be very welcomed in F3. As far as an expression goes for this, I was able to get zooming in and out working smoothly, but the layers didn't "parallax zoom" correctly, it just zooms everything up or down all at once without an offset to account for the depth of field. I did dabble with utilizing the Layers object to assist in this offset but had strange offsets that didn't properly adjust based on the position and zoom power. It might have been an error with my formula. I'm sure many would like to see a native option for this without the need for extra formulas, even if it has to wait for F3.

    - Parallax placement in frame editor: I'll think about it, we could probably add an option for this.


    If there were some option to offset parallax placement at runtime by calculating its current Level Editor position against the X/Y coefficient, that may work. Not sure how easy that would be to implement and how that would affect running an app in and out of Fusion though.

    - 4 Gb limit: IIRC none of the BIG games we've ported to console was larger than 1.5 Gb, the current 4 Gb limit is probably enough for 99.99999% of the users, and there is the simple solution you don't want to use: the new Load Animation action with external files for some big objects. If hackers can extract images from animation files, then they also can extract images from your EXE (if that is what is preventing you from using this option).


    Since I'm near the end of my project, I can confidently say I will be under the 4gb limit now but would have likely exceeded it had I not made the choice to cut content a couple of years back. But, now that I'm near the end of the project, it's also too late to go back and add cut content because it would be too much of a headache to adjust events and structure to utilize the new Load Animation action. I'm sure it could be done, but I'm just ready to finish this project that has been running since 2014 and have no desire to modify the event and game structure for this new Fusion feat

    - do you have (very simple) examples of those audio issues you're talking about? (maybe also uncheck the Optimize Play Sample option in the App properties, this option was added as optimiztions in the build 292 can cause issues in some cases). Not sure if we can do anything about this, but at least I'd like to see what you're talking about.


    I will see if I can create a culled-down MFA that illustrates this, but it may be better to also supply a video that compares the audio looping points I set inside a DAW and then inside of Fusion. The video would help show the MS timecode and how its start/end point timecodes and how they loop smoothly, then compare to Fusion with the same MS timecodes that run a bit ahead or behind the MS timecode.
    It's a bit tough to explain, but the best way I can explain it is if I set a specific millisecond timecode for Fusion to loop back to, it doesn't always get it exactly right. It may be looping slightly ahead or behind the designated millisecond timecode I specific, and I've long suspected this is just because of the execution order of events and Fusion may be ahead or behind of the event that tells it where to loop back to. I've tried this at the top and bottom of the event list and it's not always consistent. I will see if I can create a simple example of this with smaller, specially made loops so you don't have to sit through 1-2 minute loops to try to listen to it. :)

    I forgot to mention that I don't use "Optimize Play Sample" in my app properties. That created some issues across the board for me so I have left it unchecked.

    - including 3rd party extensions to Fusion: we already maintain the extensions from the MMF2 extension packs, that's 70+ extensions, and we ported a part of them to all platforms. Integrating and maintaining/debugging 3rd party extensions is a lot of work and has a cost.
    Plus not all 3rd party developers are ready to give us their source code, nor us ready to include their code which can become a burden for updates, new versions, etc. So it's not an easy question. Not sure if F3 will fix this or not (less port work certainly, but integrating them into F3 will raise the same questions).


    It's understandable, and the source code legalities from original authors is a topic unto itself. I guess what I mean to say is that it's great to have expandability, but certain things that seem they should be native are sometimes left to the community to create a solution for. The solution is usually there in most cases luckily, but when an extension author disappears over time, those extensions lose the support they may need to bring them up to date. That's not anything that's Clickteam's fault, but it would be nice to see widely used community extensions get more native implementation when the original author goes silent. I'm just speaking more broadly right now than with regard to anything specific. I know Clickteam is a small team, and understand there are costs (likely more than we realize) associated with these things. Sometimes certain extensions feel they should have been more tightly integrated into the core of Fusion, rather than a user-created extension. But I do understand Clickteam making their own extension if an author disappears/doesn't share the source code is not cost conscious.

    - about the issue you had with Clickteam staff, was this recently and were you directly involved? You can send me a PM if you want to discuss about it.


    I will send you a PM to further discuss.

    Please login to see this link.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!