Does anyone know if there's a trial version of Candy? We're looking to replace our in-house system, but I hate paying for things when we haven't had a chance to take it for a test drive.

There are two ways to provide a trial version: either time limited (and all features included) or with no time limit but missing features. We'd love to go the first way since it really does not make any sense to test a crippled software. Providing a time limited trial version, however, isn't possible due to obvious technical reasons (Corona unfortunately does not provide a container model to wrap external libraries into a non-readable format yet).

Therefore we tried hard to make sure that users are a) able to see what Particle Candy can do ( see videos ) and b) HOW this is done ( download sample codes ). The sample codes are also included in the full package and have been used to create the provided videos. They cover all available features and give a good impression on how to implement Particle Candy into your own code.

You can also refer to the API reference page which describes every single feature in detail.

Hmm, on a B2B level, I'm always hesitant to purchase software that we can't trial first (see how it performs with our existing setup e.t.c, compare it with other products, in this case, our internal system). Videos and documentation really don't allow us to do this.

We're not so interested in features, we're more interested in performance and a like-for-like test with our own software. If it went well, we'd replace the system we're using in our game with Particle Candy.

Your concerns are absolutely understandable. However, it wouldn't make any sense to provide a feature-ripped trial version since this also would not reflect the performance of the full version. As I wrote before, the only reason why there is no trial yet is that external libs can't be wrapped up. On the other side, this allows users to apply their own changes and personal customizations to it.

If you have any own suggestions or ideas on how to technically provide a reasonable trial version, please let us know.

What we do with our software is as follows.

We provide a copy of any software to prospective businesses (not consumers or end users), and if they decided to include it in a commercial project (if a library, like Candy); or decide to use an application in their workplace (not just trialling it, but say if they replaced their existing setup), we'd then invoice and charge them.

Granted, this relies a lot on trust; but in the B2B world where payment terms such as net 30 and post-delivery invoicing are common, it's a regular occurence. To consumers and personal users, we generally require payment in advance, though depending on the user (verifiable history, etc), we'd consider the same terms.

Hope I've made sense, on my phone at the moment!

But you do not provide source code, do you? Consider that, as soon as you give away any kind of source, you also provide valuable technological know how. As an example, our company's main activity is the development of games, not the development of coding libraries. Those libraries are originally created to enhance our own games and make the development process more effective, but we also provide them to other coders, if they appreciate the time saving and efficiency of such a product and agree to pay a fair and reasonable fee for it (and the underlaying know how). Then it's a fair gain for both sides. We are creating games since almost fifteen years now, so the know how of many years goes into such libraries.

The know how of such a product is transfered to the user in the moment he downloads the source -no matter if he finally includes it into his projects as is, just parts of it, just absorbs the know how and creates anything by his own etc. For any kind of IT enterprises, know how is as valuable as money (if not more). So it's not a good idea to give sources away for free on a base of truthfulness if you are distributing to customers in the same business segment than your own company. This could turn out to be quite problematic.

A completely different scenario is to distribute "sealed products" that do not disclose the underlaying know how, of course. The drawback is, that this isn't the case here. The advantage, however, is that due to the open format, users are able to change and modify the product if they want to customize it to fit their own project in a better way. At least, you are not forced to buy a sealed product that you cannot change anymore.

Since we are using those tools by ourselves, users can feel certain that they are updated very frequently and always reflect the quality and usability we want to see in our own games, too.

However, we keep spending thoughts about some way to provide a trial version, of course. Corona evolves quickly and Carlos mentioned that they are spending thoughts about such a wrapping feature.

We provide source code for a number of libraries, though some are encrypted. It varies depending on the application and/or library.

I'm not sure what companies you've worked with in the past, but we've built up a reputation of trust with several; and are more than happy to pass over source code and know how on the basis of trust.

Regardless, a company that is as closed off to B2B trial usage and net invoicing as yourselves; has made me come to the decision that we'll stick with our own particle library (it's fairly similar to your own, if not having a few more features; just needs tweaking) and release it for free to the general public (on a donationware model).

This is to give the public the option of trialling something that might be of no use to them, I'm not one to force a purchase on someone. Sure, it might be on the basis of trust; but that's a risk I'm willing to take :).

We'll just have to dedicate some more development time to it.

Sorry to hijack a thread here, but let's be realistic.

"For serious game developers, it's absolutely essential".
That's the quote from Carlos on the X-PRESSIVE.com website (how's that for trust?). So, the co-founder of Ansca recommends it whole-heartedly, it has a place in the 3rd-party development tools section of this website, and user after user raves about it. On top of that, it's only $52 US (and was $26 through the new year!) You can see the video of what you can do, the website has the documentation so you can see if it meets your needs, and you (inherently) get the source code. I can't imagine a better deal for developers.
Mike at x-pressive was kind enough to allow me to beta test the product, and I bought it the moment it became available. The source is clean and efficient, and a LOT can be learned from it.
As a side note, there is a trial version of the Blitz Basic version (Windows) - so if you have a Windows machine, you can at least get a feel for what's possible (there are compiled exe's included, so you don't have to own Blitz). I'm no shill for the company - just a happy customer. My time as a developer is most valuable, and would be wasted if I spent it reinventing the wheel.

You say user after user raves about it, but if there was a larger base of people recommending it; I wouldn't think twice about it. Given that Candy for Corona doesn't really have many reviews, that's why I'm hesitant.

Videos don't help us gauge performance in implementing it in to our existing software, neither do documentation, api's or anyone saying "you must have this product".

Either way, all this means is that we dedicated some development time to our own particle engine, it's a non-issue at the end of the day.

For the record, none of my posts are intended to reflect badly on Particle Candy, I'm sure it's a great product. :)

I think x-pressive has done an amazing job with PC and the honor system they base their business model on is already very fragile. Pushing it further is really not going to help them at all until Corona comes up with a way to include pre-compiled libraries. In the meanwhile all I can say is that it really is a great product and so what if it does not work for your current project? You can still learn from the code itself and that is way more value beyond the actual cost IMHO.

I mean come on, your time has a value right? Echoing the sentiments from DVD Guy, I feel that even the time you took to go through this exchange probably costed you more than the cost of PC itself. Just buy the darn thing... Y ou will not regret it! Just my humble opinion of course. All the best!!!

@udesignme

If it helps, I bought PARTICLE CANDY and I'm satisfied with the product. The price is reasonable. If I had to develop the particle engine by myself it would cost me more!

bye.
Marco

gugugames.net

Hey, I bought Particle Candy last night. I think it is great. Nice looking code in the samples and adds a lot of possibilities to my upcoming games.

Very good value for the money.

Peter

I've ended up buying it. I know someone with a copy (no names); performance seemed great so I've gone for it.

New to Corona here and I am very impressed with its streamlined coding. The particle candy add-on seems amazing as well and I have downloaded the sample codes to try them out. Unfortunately, I cannot get them to work on the simulator. While trying to run the bubbles sample it displayed this runtime error:

..._Candy_for_CoronaSDK\Sample_Visuals_Bubbles\main.lua:17: attempt to call field 'CreateEmitter' (a nil value)
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'CreateEmitter'......_Candy_for_CoronaSDK\Sample_Visuals_Bubbles\main.lua:17: in main chunk

Also, the zip file does not contain the 'lib_particle_candy' file that is required in the main.lua. I found one called 'lib_particleEffects_01' but am not sure if they are the same.

My setup:

Intel Core i7 2.67GHz
6 GB RAM
700 GB hard drive
Windows Vista Home Premium 64
Corona SDK for Windows

Any help in getting the sample codes to work would be appreciated as Particle Candy does appear to be invaluable for game development and I like to try them out. Thanks.

To run those samples, you need Particle Candy, of course. The samples are provided for download to give you an impression of how to use Particle Candy and how to implement it in your own code before you decide to purchase the product (or not), since there is no technically practical way to provide a "traditional" trial version yet (hence the discussion on this page). You can examine the sample sources (all of them are commented and as short as possible) to see how to include and use Particle Candy in your projects.

Ic, thanks for the prompt reply. So, does the purchased Particle Candy reveal all the codes?

Of course. The package you purchase is be the same as you can download, except that it contains the latest version of the Particle Candy library file (which is required by all the samples).

You'll then be able to run and see each sample in the simulator right away simply by opening a sample's "main.lua" file. Particle Candy itself is written in plain, pretty clean and commented LUA code -so you are also able to change or modify any parts of its code to your own needs (if you like to) and to see how things work "under the hood".

Just bought the lib.
Seeing how active and helpfull is x-expressive finished to convince me.

First impressions soon :)

I'm looking at the (great) effect example code, but I can't find the sparks&lightray demo code (the one shown at 1:45 in your demo video).

Could you help ?

Hi Antheor,

Sample_Visuals_Tunnel

Ken

Thx

Bought it, and its amazing!