next »

[Sigma]

can anyone tell me which one is more stable and easy to use flixel or flash punk. i'm into creating some platform games.

Thanks in advance

[bart_the_13th]

Never tried flash punk, so I recommend flixel, got some cool examples for platformer too

[Draknek]

I much prefer FlashPunk, I think it's easier to use and the API is better.

FlashPunk is still young, so it isn't quite as stable as Flixel yet, but it's a great library.

[Richard Kain]

It's hard to say. Flixel is a more mature project, and is probably more stable. But I've heard that FlashPunk might be easier to use overall. They both seem to have some basic platforming templates that you could work from.

They are both open-source, so there are no real costs involved. Download a copy of FlashDevelop, download both Flixel and FlashPunk, try to get their demo projects working, and then just decide which one you like the best.

[Sigma]

thanx for the suggestions guys.let me try flixel first.

[Matt Thorson]

I prefer FlashPunk because I like fixed-interval game loops and Chevy. But really it's mostly preference.

[Sigma]

is there joints and motors in flixel?

[Ashkin]

This is not LittleBigPlanet. This is AS3.

[ChevyRay]

That's rude for "no".

It's not too difficult to build Box2D into Flixel or FlashPunk projects, which supports joints and other various physics and collision detection, so keep that in mind.

Also, I am the developer of FlashPunk. If you do end up using it, feel free to contact me via IM or Gmail if you've got any questions or need help with anything. Don't forget to check out mine and the developer of Flixel's co-project, Flash Game Dojo, which has a getting started page and also a bunch of resources and tips for using both libraries.

Cheers!

[Rob Lach]

I suggest you try them both.

[nikki]

I suggest you try them both.

second that!

[Sigma]

why both the engines are relying on sprite sheets? why not movieclips? Is there any way to use movieclips in any of the engines?

[Linus]

Curious, does either of the systems have a good built-in support for procedural graphics?

[Solved]

why both the engines are relying on sprite sheets? why not movieclips? Is there any way to use movieclips in any of the engines?

The point of these two engines is to allow you to use pixelled sprites instead of movie clips. I'm sure there is a way to use movie clips in them though.

[Sigma]

why both the engines are relying on sprite sheets? why not movieclips? Is there any way to use movieclips in any of the engines?

I'm sure there is a way to use movie clips in them though.

So how to use movieClips ?

[Hangedman]

Both of these engines are designed and optimized for use of sprites over movieclips. If you are going to work with movieclips, you'd probably do better to look into regular old AS3.

[nikki]

So how to use movieClips ?

why do you want to use those ?

[Richard Kain]

why both the engines are relying on sprite sheets? why not movieclips? Is there any way to use movieclips in any of the engines?

Flash MovieClips involve a certain amount of memory overhead and rendering cost. Part of the point of Flixel and FlashPunk is that they both use a pixel buffer to limit and optimize the memory useage of their games, providing a considerable boost in performance. By focusing on sprite sheets instead of movieclips, it is possible to create larger, more action-oriented games in Flash that perform a lot faster.

There is a way to use MovieClips in either engine, you just have to re-write a little of the rendering code. But as I pointed out, this defeats the advantages that these engines usually provide for Flash game development.

You're better off sticking with sprite sheets if you plan to use either engine.

[st33d]

So how to use movieClips ?

why do you want to use those ?

Rotation and scaling, both of which copyPixels does not offer. If you were to draw a MovieClip rotated in memory to a bitmapData, it's debatable whether you would gain any speed increase or actually take up more cpu time by making the act so convoluted.

[bateleur]

Rotation and scaling, both of which copyPixels does not offer. If you were to draw a MovieClip rotated in memory to a bitmapData, it's debatable whether you would gain any speed increase or actually take up more cpu time by making the act so convoluted.

I've done quite a lot of this (though not using Flixel or FlashPunk). It can be useful in some circumstances, because of the way Flash allocates BitmapDatas.

Roughly speaking, if you do any non-trivial drawing ops Flash will conclude that it needs to make a BitmapData to use as a buffer for efficient compositing. If your DisplayObject is very big, it will make a very big BitmapData. If this takes you completely by surprise you can even end up with several. Things can get big and slow.

By doing draw ops only to small user allocated Bitmaps and then using copyPixels to render these you give yourself a lot more control. It's far from always necessary, but it's a good trick to bear in mind for if everything goes pear shaped.