Stencyl 3.0 - Design Once. Play Anywhere. (Soft Launched on Feb 20th)

I understand the frustration though. I'm planning to update my copy of Adobe Creative sweet to really do the job right.

Ha ha... I looked back at this post and realized that I wrote "sweet" instead of "suite". 

I'm wasting much of my day wondering if I should upgrade to CS6. I keep getting the feeling that I shouldn't upgrade. Programs like Pixelmator have changed my perspective on how much software should cost.

There's a deadline. Apparently, I have until the end of the month to update my copy of CS4. Otherwise, it will no longer qualify for an upgrade... http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq/upgrade-policy.html

What does this have to do with Stencyl 3.0?
Not much! 

I'm looking forward to testing the HTML5 options of Stencyl 3.0 though.

Reposting since there's some confusion:

The NDA on information about 3.0 was lifted a while ago, with one small exception listed in the 3.0 Features and FAQ thread.  It is still in effect for beta forum access and software distribution though.

I'm new to Stencyl, and am currently learning 2.2, will there be a lot to relearn when I go to 3? I'm an experienced coder (although mostly not game programming), so relearning isn't that bad for me, but I'm just wondering how much of what I'm learning in the tutorials is still relevant?

Does anyone know some good HaXe tutorials?
As a side-note, does Flash Professional support HaXe in the IDE?

I don't know any tutorial, but this is a very valuable resource if you know some AS3
http://www.nme.io/developers/actionscript-developers/

And since NME is replicating the Flash API, you can often follow AS3 tutorials and just replace

Code: [Select]

import flash.something.something;with

Code: [Select]

import nme.something.something;and do the same things as in AS3.

Flash Develop and Mono Develop support haxe, Flash Pro probably doesn't.
http://haxe.org/com/ide

@NoisyPerlin you won't have to relearn much, if you're just using blocks. If you're useing code, you have to switch from AS3 to haXe (look at my previous post )

Thanks for the link! Yeah, it doesn't seem much different from AS3 or C#. If anything, it seems easier, though I think I'll have to be careful that I don't have leaks.

I don't know any tutorial, but this is a very valuable resource if you know some AS3

Wow, NME seems quite similar to ActionScript... but still different enough to be annoying. HA HA. 

it seems that there's a couple collision related bugs such as the snagging issue us testers have found that seem to be the most pressing unsolved ones. other than those I can't think of any major issues.

...so multiple collisions are still an issue for 3.0?

Nape should really be re-evaluated, IMO, now that it includes continuous collision detection. At this point it does seem to be the best performing 2D physics engine by quite a margin.

Darn! Hopefully it all gets addressed. Box2d seems to really be causing a lot of headaches.

And I believe you're able to talk about minor things -- just not the important things, such as new features and so forth that make 3.0 a great release.

Ty for the feedback btw Speculation or not, I like to hear it.

Nape should really be re-evaluated, IMO, now that it includes continuous collision detection. At this point it does seem to be the best performing 2D physics engine by quite a margin.

That is an excellent comment. Why is Box2D being used over Nape? 

As far as I remember nape was considered and while it showed better performance on some platforms, it had worse performance on others (mobile I think.) Also Box2D was used in 2.x, so sticking to it means more consistent results between 2.x and 3.0. Maybe it could still be an option in the future though...

As far as I remember nape was considered and while it showed better performance on some platforms, it had worse performance on others (mobile I think.) Also Box2D was used in 2.x, so sticking to it means more consistent results between 2.x and 3.0. Maybe it could still be an option in the future though...

Yeah, it might be a legacy support thing. Although, if Stencyl was to make a big change for the better, the upgrade to 3.0 seems appropriate. The question is... is Nape better?

I did some research. It seems that Nape of more than a year ago is not the same as the Nape today. (I had trouble finding good intel from 2012, but it seems that the software got better.) I did see mobile as one of the possible issues... along with is consistency compared to Box2D... but are those still issues today? How long ago was Nape considered?

Fun examples of Nape...
http://napephys.com/samples.html

I did some research. It seems that Nape of more than a year ago is not the same as the Nape today. (I had trouble finding good intel from 2012, but it seems that the software got better.) I did see mobile as one of the possible issues... along with is consistency compared to Box2D... but are those still issues today? How long ago was Nape considered?

If you limit Google results for a search on "nape box2d" to the last 6 months (there's an option to do this), you'll see pretty much positive reactions to Nape, including mobile. and this was before the release of 2.0x. Some examples:

http://forum.starling-framework.org/topic/box-2d-vs-nape-2-on-mobile

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1317923

http://www.aymericlamboley.fr/blog/box2d-alchemy-vs-nape-performance-test-on-ipad3/


-- Adrian

If you limit Google results for a search on "nape box2d" to the last 6 months (there's an option to do this)

When I was searching, I tried setting it to within the last year. Six months might have been a better range, but that wasn't a pre-populated choice. Yeah, I could have manually set a range, but I thought a year ago would have been recent enough.

I don't know exactly when Nape made improvements, but that might be an important matter for Stencyl. If Box2D is the main source of trouble now, and Nape has improved dramatically in recent months, then maybe Stencyl should seriously consider switching.

When I first search, Google asked if I meant "Ape" instead of "Nape".