• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pstrejczek

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday August 14

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Twitter

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tarnów, Poland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. pstrejczek

    Panda2 on gamefromscratch !

    @Ninjadoodle Wrapping HTML5 app into UWP app is actually not that hard. I have even tried it myself on a simple HTML5 document. It is very well documented by Microsoft. I haven't tested it with bigger projects so there may be some quirks, but the support is quite good so I don't think it would be very hard to solve any potential problems.
  2. pstrejczek

    Panda2 on gamefromscratch !

    @WombatTurkey You could try DragonBones which is free and exports to Spine format and then try it with the Love Spine library. I haven't tried this myself though. DragonBones crashes sometimes but it is also quite superior in features to Spriter (which I also bought some time ago). There is a problem with correct Spriter support in many game engines. Panda2 also supports only Spine for the moment. I agree with the UI problem in Love2D. There is a lot of different better or worse libraries but nothing standard and well documented. For mobile and browser, I would also go with Panda (and I actually did :), although my game is still not released - I just need to solve one little collision bug and export it with phonegap).
  3. pstrejczek

    Panda2 on gamefromscratch !

    @Ninjadoodle I have tried Gideros and I agree it is very nice. What I dislike is that it requires GLES3 to work. If you have an older graphics card which supports only GLES2 the current Gideros version does not work. You can use the editor but the runner crashes. This is actually the only reason I'm not using Gideros. The editor is also a little rough. What I like about Love2D is that it is basically only a framework and I can use the Visual Studio Code with an awesome Love2D plugin to code. It is also quite easy to deploy executables. There is also quite a few games (like Move or Die created with Love2D which already are on Steam. As it is one of the oldest free frameworks there is a ton of libraries and tutorials for various things. With both Godot and Love2D you can create reasonably small executable versions. I think you could quite easily pack Panda2 game as electron app and include streamworks plugin with but there are several disadvantages: - I'm a little concerned about the game performance - this could be an issue (but maybe not) - It would be hard to debug when something will work wrong only in the desktop version - the size of the executable project (when you add electron) is quite big even for very simple things. I have read somewhere that in the future electron will be customizable when you create a build, but I'm not sure if it is done yet.
  4. pstrejczek

    Panda2 on gamefromscratch !

    @Wolfsbane Godot is also very lightweight and a pleasure to use. It is just much more an engine with quite a lot of concepts which you have to follow (nodes, dedicated scripting language (similar to Python) etc. ) which is not bad if you learn them and like them. Panda2 on the other hand just gives you more basic tools and Javascript - the most popular programming language at the moment. It is maybe to soon to compare Godot to Unity, but Godot editor is much more clear and optimal. Unity editor look like a nuclear plant control software
  5. pstrejczek

    Panda2 on gamefromscratch !

    @WombatTurkey I agree. Godot is awesome. I have made a little test project myself when it was around version 1.3 and downloaded the last 3.1 alpha lately and man, what a progress they made. 3.0 was not fun because of compatibility with GLES3 only, but now when GLES2 comes back with 3.1 Godot is awesome again! What I like in Panda2 is that it does not force me to do things in a certain way (as Godot does with the concept of nodes - which is awesome, but not universal) but allows me to do things the way I want. It's almost the same flexibility Love2D offers. If I was making my game to be released for desktop or Steam I would definitely go with Godot or Love2D. For mobile or web Panda2 is for the moment my no1. engine of choice.
  6. pstrejczek

    Steam Question

    This is an interesting topic, and I have searched myself for information about HTML5 games on Steam. You can create a PC, Mac or Linux executable from HTML5 game, but for achievements etc. you need to integrate Steam SDK which is basically a C++ library. Guys who made Game Dev Tycoon made a node.js addon, to expose Steamworks API for Javascript and node.js And there are various (quite impressive) games published on steam using this library: For X-Box One you use the HTML5 to UWP wrapper, which is a different beast. Guides on how this could be done can be found on Microsoft pages. Microsoft encourages to make UWP apps and games with HTML5 technologies. It would be probably a lot of work to make export with these technologies straight from Panda2 easy. @enpu would have to decide if it is worth it. It would make Panda 2 very versatile - no question. Anyway. For the moment I think that if the main target for my game would be Steam or game consoles I would use a different framework/engine (Monogame perhaps, or Love2D - which is an absolute pleasure to work with - if Steam only). The performance would be better and integration would be probably much easier.
  7. pstrejczek

    Panda Physics Engine: General Chat

    @Wolfsbane Actually, arkanoid (or breakout) was my first attempt to try Panda engine. I have not used any physics engine (event he built-in one) though. I was thinking to rewrite this with Panda physics, but started working on different project instead. It is very rough as it was made only for engine test, but I think I can share my project
  8. pstrejczek

    Panda Physics Engine: General Chat

    Ha ... Awesome! ... So bye-bye Cordova and today I'm starting experiments with PhoneGap cloud @enpu - than you so much for the info 👍
  9. pstrejczek

    Panda Physics Engine: General Chat

    Hmmm ... I must have misunderstood something. I have to read the description of the PhoneGap plans carefully again. Does one private project mean one game? If I want to export another one I need to buy the subscription ?
  10. pstrejczek

    Panda Physics Engine: General Chat

    Nah ... it is just my first time as I haven't used Cordova before. I have some problems with testing on emulators but it is rather not Panda related but my setup problem. Making game is fun, but building with Cordova is not - I'm a little lazy I want to learn Cordova usage as paying a monthly fee for PhoneGap makes no sense if you use it occasionally.
  11. pstrejczek

    Panda Physics Engine: General Chat

    I'll drop my 2 cents. I find Panda built-in physics to be extremely helpful. In the game, I have almost finished (I'm fighting with Cordova export right now, cause I don't want to use phonegap) I have made most of the physics myself, but the built-in engine helps me in detecting collisions. It works really well for that. It is great if you want to make something on your own but don't want to do everything from scratch. P2 physics is great. There is a lot of nice demos and examples on P2 github page and they are extremely easy transferable to Panda2. I have experience now with both P2 and Box2D and don't see any advantages of one over the other. P2 is just a little different philosophy.
  12. @Wolfsbane I agree. I wrote an email to Mike some time ago to do a review of Panda2, but he was busy at the moment. I guess he did not put enough attention to details. You have to pay but you get an awesome editor, plugins, game templates, mobile apps to test the game on real devices in real time and authors support. You don't usually get this with totally free or opensource engines. Lest look f.ex. at Corona - it's free but if you want to monetize your game with ads the price of AdMob plugin is ridiculous. Even for Phaser the plugins are paid.
  13. pstrejczek

    Drawing multiple sprites

    You could always set the visibility to false for the sprites which are not needed to be visible at the moment, but I understand that is not the point. For your approach, it would be probably more efficient to create and draw the sprites dynamically according to the situation in the game and then destroy them when not needed. Or maybe create placeholders for a maximum amount of cards which is possible and only set correct texture and/or visibility if needed. This is doable, but I can't imagine at the moment a simple method to do this with a minimum amount of code. What I would do - If there is no need for the player to know the precise amount of available cards in the deck by looking at the deck - I would create f.ex. 4 deck textures and change them in the single deck sprite according to the amount left in the deck to let the player have an image of how many cards are left (a lot -> a little less than a lot -> not too much -> one card). I know this is a hack, but it's easy to implement