Posts by AftPeakTank

Well, maybe F3 will revive the initial scope as well?

Also, maybe we do need the F3 blog coming back alive again?

And maybe some dedication to the new software is needed finally?

I don't know, just saying...

Yeah, I guess you both got what I mean.

I totally agree with the fact that i respect the developers of these nice products.

I just wish they could stick a little more to the initial audience they were targeting from the start, I guess...

It is a strange feeling, having to agree with everyone and at the same time feel that so many people are not able to understand what I am trying to express here.

Click products where always supposed to be the easy way of doing things. This easy way, I feel now it is not there. The product feels old.

I am not really sure how I am supposed to do simple things properly un order for them to work.

Easy things like loops have difficult implementation in the software and they really feel like yhey were forced in it. Which is the case in fact. But for so long?

You can end up with sound glitches easily...

Yves , just try a simple platform movement and try to set up a game with it. You will see the collisions problems I am yalking about. Player stuck or jumping funny inside the obstacles and several other situations.

I haven't seen one serious game using default movements. Always some workarounds are needed.

Not to mention that I am not sure how I am supposed 5o play a video yet.

It was supposed to be about easy game creation no? Not just mockup creation...not workaround implementation, not struggling with it but the opposite.

I remember some nice games that where trying to implement the out of the box features of the software but now they feel outdated. See Tremor series in example.

Anyway, I think we will never manage to agree on what I have in mind because probably I cannot express it properly.

However we all agree Fusion 3 is late, and it seems it will still be. I hope for the best because I love clickproducts. Even though I dont feel comfortable with them anymore or I would like them to work just a little better.

Quote from Volnaiskra

We're all looking forward to Fusion 3, but I think the most pragmatic and intelligent attitude is that of someone like piscesdreams: yes, you're aware of F2.5's shortcomings, and you're not afraid to point them out, but you don't let your desire for F3 stop you from working hard on your F2.5 game all the same.

Ultimately, a tool is just a tool. No matter how good an engine is, you'll always have to supplement it with your own workarounds or roll-your-own additions, especially if your game is ambitious. And no matter how limited an engine is, it's never going to be the biggest obstacle in your way to making a great game. The heaviest requirement will always be your own ambition, imagination, hard work, and self-discipline. Get those in order, and F2.5's limitations won't stop you from making a great game. Don't get those in order, and even Fusion 5 won't help you make a great game.

Well said .

I just feel that the competition is high these days.

Yves , thank you for the update. At least now we don't feel we are left in the dark. However, it sounds like 1 year to me, at least, before seeing something released.

How about the original scope of the software? Are there going to be any improvements on the out of the box features? Like for example movement types and their collisions?

Anyhow, thanks again for the light update.

Quote from piscesdreams

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.
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.

Display More

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...

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.

It is funny how noone cares about something so important...

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...

Quote from aenever

That gives it a great sense of depth and anticipation. It really suits your underground mining theme.

Ah thank you! Well i am not sure about it...Well I am not really sure if I should keep the zoom functionality. I am using the Viewport object but I get a kind of "snappy" zoom the way I coded it. I was hoping it would look better...

This is a test which would work only in the windows version.

I am applying an auto zoom function because I want to stress the player even more.

What do you think?

Please login to see this media element.

Quote from aenever

Wow this has come a long way. Looking great XD

Thank you [MENTION=14672]aenever[/MENTION]! I know you are one of the first who was keeping an eye on it and I apreciate it.

It's been a long time but I have finally made several improvements wich I think can add some added value to the gameplay.

-Flashlight direction moves seperately from the player
-Flashlight stops on obstacles
-Monsters stop when you throw the light on them

Check the latest video:

[video=youtube_share;dWEvO1qhfeU]Please login to see this media element.]

Quote from chrilley

Yeah, that should work just fine(if your intention is to make two strings say kjkjhj... etc). I think there is most likely something, somewhere else in your project messing it up. It is hard to say what the cause could be though.

Thank you [MENTION=5383]chrilley[/MENTION], you were right. In fact I was using a "Start Frame" in a group that it was activated after the start of the frame...

I am trying to create the following event, but it doesn't seem to be working if I create it in the Global Events.

Please login to see this attachment.

Is this supposed to happen or is it a bug?

Ok, thank you all.

However I cannot understand why it doesn't work as it is supposed to be... Or isn't it supposed to be working like this?

Maybe there should be an option in launch event to put the frame No at which the bullet should be shot. [MENTION=5114]Yves[/MENTION], would this be possible?

I am always surprised how a lot of my posts don't get even 1 simple answer.

I wonder if its my english

Could someone clarify if during a launch condition, the bullet is created at the end of the shooting animation of the shooter?

It is causing me a lot fo trouble.

I got to check this one at first chance.

[MENTION=12521]Julian82[/MENTION] , you have my vote on onion skinning as well. And I would add that since the fusion editor is pretty good for pixel art with the exception of this functionality.