Flashpunk 2 BETA

(fedyfausto) #1

there is the link :slight_smile:


now start tutorials :smiley:

About new fp 2.0
(NoelFB) #2

I don’t think this version should be supported on the website right now. It’s very cool, and provides some awesome new functionality (Starling/Stage3D, Physics, etc), but I think it will add confusion to newcomers. The “2.0” version isn’t actively being supported by anyone, and if it’s integrated into this site devoted to 1.6 things will get mixed up and confusing very fast (2.0 is nothing like 1.6 - it’s a complete rewrite).

(Ultima2876) #3

That and it deviates from the original aims of FlashPunk. Really this new engine should use a different name, as conceptually it’s very very different from FlashPunk 1 - it’s not nearly as easy to use, for one. Really the only thing it shares with FlashPunk 1… is the name.

Not to say it isn’t a great engine though - it’s got some real nice features… but I agree, for now it’d be good to keep this website specifically about FlashPunk 1!

(Jacob Albano) #4

I agree with Noel. I’m excited about the new FP for a number of reasons (components woo!), but it’s not finished and didn’t even compile when I tried it out. When it releases I’ll be first in line to try it out and see about writing tutorials, but for now we should stick to FP 1.

(ChevyRay) #5

FlashPunk 2 “Internal” would be a more correct name (a version I am using for a commercial project and sharing with a few other developers privately).

FlashPunk 2 is a perfectly adequate name for it (sigh Ultima2876), but I just don’t think it’s even worth ever correctly “finishing”.

(Jacob Albano) #6

FlashPunk 2 makes Ultima2876 nervous because he’s a rep for KickBack games / Stage3dPunk, and the Starling backend for FP2 would make it a lot easier to get games working well on mobile.

(Ultima2876) #7

Not at all Jacob, our target market is entirely different actually. We’re really targeting pre-existing games, primarily those which developers don’t have a lot of interest in spending loads of time re-coding or porting (the majority of our games come from sponsored games on FGL, particularly old ones that have little or no value to the developer any more - we want to help squeeze some extra value out of them).

If you knew me you’d know I’m actually a big proponent of working in Haxe and readily recommend that to the majority of developers who ask me what to do with regards to developing their next game. Please don’t make claims about me or my motives without getting to know me first!

Regarding the nomenclature I’m just speaking my personal opinion (with maybe an ounce of influence from some of the opinions of other developers I’ve spoken with) on that end and didn’t mean to upset anyone. For the record my personal opinion actually in no way reflects my affiliation with KickBack Games, FGL or anything like that. Just 'cause it’s my job, doesn’t mean I have to be in work-mode 100% of the time - a year ago I was just a FlashPunk developer scraping a living together with sponsorship money just like most of you guys :smile:

(icemedia) #8

no further discussion on this? actually I’m looking for a mobile game dev tool , being a traditional flasher for years(use Flash Professional CS*) I prefer flash way rather than cocos2D or Unity or something.

(Martí Angelats i Ribera) #9

I’m making the stage3D graphic support right now (started last week). There is also stage3DPunk wich renders the FP game using stage3D so it has support for iOS and Android.

It was discussed at the thread “Merge HaxePunk with FlashPunk?” (yup, a bit offtopic).

(Darrin) #10

Flashpunk 2.0 wish list. Here are the things I’d like to see.

  1. Stage3D Support. (This is pretty big actually. So at some point the particle engine will have to be branched but having the option to do more with the sprites will be awesome. )
  2. Can we make recycle automatic rather than a forced call?
  3. Fix world memory management.
  4. Grouping. Looking at Flixel, they seem to have improved quite a bit. Take a look at Flixel’s feature list. This seems pretty important. Their demo is impressive. Look at this post mortem that calls for it.
  5. Basic saving. Maybe we just need tutorials. Flixel’s game record is pretty cool as well.
  6. Path finding.
  7. More mobile.

(Martí Angelats i Ribera) #11

I would like to comment some staff, starting for what you said.

Right now, i’m working in the Stage3D support and multiple render types. If you really ment a 3D (not stage3D), I’m not sure if FP is the right engine to do it becouse is made in Flash.

For mobile there will be no problem with the stage3D support. Right now it can be done using Stage3DPunk (not official though).

I also would like to see some things:

  1. Remove all the deprecated stuff. It’s FlashPunk 2, so no compativility is needed with FP 1.x wich actually is restricting us in how we can modify it.

  2. I feel like the entire library needs an internal clean up and some reorganization to be more efficient and intuitive. For instance, FP class right now is like the joker class. It contains the public and internal variables of the entire engine and also contains a lot of utility functions. I think we should have a class for the internal variables wich the programer should not modify (this also allows to see a much clear documentation). I also think that the utility functions should be agruped in different classes in the net.flashpunk.utils package.

  3. Make all the docs propetly even the private variables and functions. I’m not going to lie, our documentation is not good enough. It’s redundant and It doesn’t explain things well. We should also make the documentation for every single non-temporary variable and function, even the internal. I think that becouse if you want to understand a function looking at the code, you basically need to understand the whole FlashPunk (right now there’s only @private wich says nothing). This will also improve the way we can modify FP taking less time to understand what has changed.

  4. Reorganize some constructors and function parameters. For compativility purposes, some times the function parameters are not in a intuitive way.

(Darrin) #12

Yes, I meant stage3d. Not enough coffee. :stuck_out_tongue:

(Darrin) #13

One more wish list item, scaled particles for emitters. See this discussion.

(Darrin) #14

Also emitters really need cone control. In other words, we need sizeable starting and ending segment so you can easily to a triangle or inverted triangle. I couldn’t figure out how to do this without adding multiple emitters. Basically an emitter will randomly appear on the starting segment then move toward a random location on the ending segment. segment angle is perpendicular to current segment.

(Mike Evmm) #15

Wouldn’t it be simpler to make a custom particle entity that uses create and recycle for that? Because that’s a really specific behaviour…

(Darrin) #16


Actually I don’t think so. Other particle emitters like Unity’s I’ve played with have that feature. They just rename it as cylinder, cube but allow you to adjust the source and target. Since we are in 2D it really is a segment or rectangle where we control the source and target.