Download Asset Game Construct 2
DOWNLOAD https://tlniurl.com/2xUJmw
Over the last couple of years I've created over 30,000 assets which are all CC0 (public domain) licensed. You're free to use any of the assets below (or in my replies) in both personal and commercial projects. Downloading any of these asset packs is free, if you want to download a bunch of them at once you can visit our store to purchase one of the bundles.
Not sure if you can unzip in C3, never tried. But, if you unzip the file on your device then add the assets you require manually, you can rename them etc in C3. Much easier to work with your own custom file names rather than bang_01, bang_02, bang_03 etc
When defining which assets and liabilities should transfer, the parties must consider two core questions: (1) what types of assets and liabilities should transfer (6___., cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable, facilities, product warranty liabilities, raw materials, etc.) and (2) how should those various types of assets and liabilities be divided temporally (7___., if the buyer is going to acquire accounts receivable, is it all accounts receivable that exist at the closing? Or just accounts receivable generated in the period between signing and closing? Or some other construct?).
The traditional approach mirrors the results obtained in a stock purchase or merger structure. Specifically, in the traditional approach, the buyer purchases assets and assumes liabilities of the target business regardless of whether such assets and liabilities relate to the pre-closing or post-closing period. For example, the buyer might purchase "all rights in respect of any offensive litigation relating to the target business, regardless of when the facts giving rise to such offensive litigation arise." Conversely, the buyer would assume "all liabilities in respect of any defensive litigation relating to the target business, regardless of when the facts giving rise to such defensive litigation arise."
In the our watch, your watch approach, the buyer purchases assets and assumes liabilities of the target business only to the extent such assets and liabilities relate to the post-closing period. The concept behind this approach is that the target business was owned by the seller for the pre-closing period, and thus the seller should keep the full benefit and bear the full burden of the business for that period. In essence, the buyer is purchasing only the future, while the past remains with the seller.
Depending upon the nature and magnitude of the historical liabilities of the target business, the our watch, your watch construct may warrant a higher deal price than the traditional approach. For example, if the seller is going to retain millions of dollars in projected pre-closing liabilities, it seems appropriate for the buyer to compensate the seller accordingly.
In practice, many deals are structured with a "hybrid" approach, in which some assets and liabilities are divided using the traditional approach and others are divided using the our watch, your watch approach. This hybrid structure can result in a very confusing deal, where it is hard to concisely explain how the deal is structured. It can also result in significant negotiation, where the parties fight item-by-item rather than agreeing to a more generalized construct.
Depending upon the negotiating leverage of the parties (and the drafting skills of their attorneys), this hybrid structure can also result in counterintuitive outcomes, where one party may acquire/retain assets for a given period, but not also assume/retain associated liabilities for such period. For example, it is entirely possible that a buyer could acquire all pre-closing accounts receivable, but not assume any pre-closing accounts payable. This seemingly unfair result would be achieved by changing only a handful of words in the purchase agreement.
For example, the our watch, your watch construct obviates the need for a working capital adjustment (and the associated negotiation and accounting diligence that go into such a provision). Since the seller is retaining all pre-closing assets and all pre-closing liabilities, there is nothing to adjust following the closing (as described below, the parties will still need to consider difficult questions about how to temporally divide "work-in-progress" assets and liabilities).
Assuming the deal has a customary indemnity package, under both the traditional and the our watch, your watch constructs, the seller must indemnify the buyer for losses arising from the breached rep. This indemnity obligation will be limited, however, by the caps, baskets and other similar provisions that the parties carefully negotiated.
Craftpix offers high-quality premium and free 2D-game assets for your project. In our store there is 2D game art of the main categories: icons, sprites, tilesets, gui, characters, backgrounds, game kits and more. All presented graphics are sold at an affordable price and has no restrictions on use in commercial projects, as well as you can freely use each product in unlimited number of projects. Assets can be integrated into such popular game engines like Unity, Unreal Engine, Buildbox, Construct 2, GameSalad etc. There is also a section with free video game assets. We regularly update our collection with new materials. Welcome!
Hello! We are glad to present you our game asset online store, which provides graphics for creating video games. If you are creating your own games, our store boasts the highest quality 2D game assets you can buy online. By using this amazing resource, you will find Free and Premium game assets, GUI (graphical user interface), Tilesets (sets of textures and sprites for game levels), Character Sprites (characters in different variations, i.e. running, jumping, etc.), and Game Backgrounds suited to every fancy. Please, pay attention to the fact that we also offer you FREE game assets! Our goal is to provide you with the best game content for your projects.
So I have a bunch of assets that are created _________________________________________________________________________. The mutable addresses are set to the 1______________________. In a grouped transaction the ASAs are opted-in by the address representing the 2______________________ and then sent per clawback to the same address.
So far this works automated and
goal node info -a 3______________________
shows that the asset is also held by the account. goal asset info also verifies that all the addresses are set to the intended address. I can transfer the ASAs from the account to other accounts and back with and without clawback transactions.
However, when I try to configure the ASAs I am getting the error:
goal asset config --assetid ### -n test --manager 4______________________
Cannot construct transaction: asset ID #### not found in account 5______________________
I'm working on a project whereby a special purpose equipment is under construction but management decided to cease the construction altogether with no intention to continue due to changes in circumstances. The equipment itself takes years to complete and has no resale value in its current form. My opinion is that it should be written off as impairment loss because there is no 'value in use' and the 'fair value less cost of sale' is also unable to be determined. Therefore IAS36 applies and the previous amount recognised in asset under construction should be written off.
Though of course this is not considered to be favourable for management. So, alternatively, is there a way to fast depreciate the asset under construction rather than write it off? Effectively depreciate the whole amount in one go, such that the debit hits the depreciation rather than impairment loss? I can't find the reference to allow that in current accounting standards though.
I disagree. It was recognised as an asset (in good faith I'm sure) in anticipation of the project being taken to a conclusion. Now that the project has been aborted the assumption that led to it being recognised as an asset no longer holds, and it must therefore be de-recognised.
IAS 16 does have a section to address de-recognition of PPE, but since this asset under construction is not classified as PPE to start with, I assume IAS 16 is not applicable here. So which accounting standard is relevant for the de-recognition here?
This subject has already moved on to whether it should be de-recognised or charged to impairment loss. And if it should be the former, which accounting standard is applicable. So please give constructive comments rather than taking a moral high ground?
However Deloitte in their GAAP 2017 give an example where an asset is decommissioned and then subsequently scrapped/disposed. They argue that the asset is impaired in full when decommissioned and derecognised when scrapped. I'm not sure I wholly agree but greater minds and all that.....
As to the standard, FRS102 is silent about assets in the course of construction. I have to admit I have not read IAS16 on the subject but I suspect it is silent as well. Common sense though says that a tangible asset in the course of construction is PPE; custom and practice recognise the creation of the asset whilst it is constructed.
Thanks. I think to write off as impairment may be a better referenced solution. Whilst de-recognition is also a valid logical solution, it is not strictly referenced in any accounting standards. As for PPE (under IAS 16), the asset under construction does not meet it's recognition criteria as it still has no value in use yet.
I am pretty certain IAS16 has the same definition as FRS102 that an asset is recognised if it is probable that future economic benefits will flow. There must have been a view that the project would be successful otherwise it would (should) not have been capitalised as an asset in the course of construction. I can't see what else your project is other than PPE. What alternative type of asset is it? 5376163bf9
download nintendo switch games faster
how to download circuit desktop app