Construct Classic is "officially" dead?

Hello guys.

Recently, I started to think that Scirra Construct (I still remember those good days when it was so named) as the Open Source ptoject does not interest anyone.

So, I would like to ask a very important question "why is this happening?"
Why is nobody interested in further development of Construct (Classic)? Why no one wants to work just for the great idea?
I mean the idea of creating a High Quality Open Source Game Maker for everyone. This is just because some people are only interested in making a profit? Or maybe we just don't have people who can do this?

Personally, I think that Scirra Construct needs to be "reborn" in new form. For example, it may even be a new game maker, new community, etc.

What are your views and suggestions on this?
Or maybe no one cares about this situation?

Edited by Qwary - 03 Feb 2012 at 10:43pm

*sigh*
this is like the 80th thread/post like this

not your fault, I know.
no, it's not dead. I and others have completed the next version. here's the changelog:

Ashley is the only who can build CC, and he's very busy with C2, being the sole developer for that.

there was a problem with the original attempt at building the next version, and after the rebuild, I requested a second rebuild when I found a problem with one of the new features. Ashley had just reformatted his machine, so this required him to setup all the CC building software/configurations.   I suppose that Ashley has been busy since then. I would say to expect it any day now, but in previous threads, the word "soon" or the words "any day now" have received a less than favorable response, as they have been tossed around since late november.

So in all honesty, I have no idea when it will be released.   However, Ashley has repeatedly assured me that as soon as he has the time he will release it, most recently on January 23rd. Also, on the "not dead" front, I've already begun the changelog for R3(still very tiny).

I don't require money to continue developing or wanting to develop construct classic, however there is a fundry account for construct classic to request new features/fixes, that would definitely be a good motivator to add or fix things. As I've recently switched over to full time development, so, like Ashley, I need to focus on work that has the potential for profit, though I still try to make time to do the CC thing regardless. If anyone decides to go the fundry route, I will say that while all of the(3 or so) people still developing CC, only one of us(rojohound) owns the Prof-UIS library required to make changes to the IDE(the editor) itself. The rest of us can make changes to the runtime, and to plugins.   

There's been one fundry request thus far, and a single contribution to an animator I was working on, but it's planned as a commercial project, so I can't use the fundry for it.

so.. just wanted to reiterate - CC is NOT DEAD.
the R2 changelog is comparable in size to the R1 changelog, and work has begun on the version after that.

thanks for your interest!

Edited by lucid - 03 Feb 2012 at 11:31pm

It's still (technically) in development, people still care about its development, it's still capable of making "serious", complex 2D games, it's still the same old Construct. Yeesh.

What is it you want to see in CC anyway? Maybe instead of that ^ you could elaborate on features and/or changes you and your project may benefit from? There's probably a chance some of your suggestions may make it into the next build.

"Personally, I think that Scirra Construct needs to be "reborn" in new form. For example, it may even be a new game maker, new community, etc."

It was.

Qwary wrote: Current functions is enough to create a simple games, but not enough to create a serious, complex in structure 2D games.

I disagree with that. All the features you get with CC are particularly suited for serious, complex structured games. The powerful and fast ACE, the groups, the includable event sheets, the function object, arrays, hash tables, pixel shaders, the fabulous workhorse 's', and hardware accelerated DirectX 9 graphics, that beat any flash game in terms of speed.

I will soon post an example cap that features a music sequencer (well, the code for it and the functionality, no fancy graphics) - completely driven by 's' and the function object and even running autonomous. Yes, it is not a game. But it is highly complex.
Also, I'd call something like thumbwars (was it the correct title?) a complex structured game, as well as some of the games already posted on these forums. Just open your eyes, you'll find enough evidences to proof CC's capability to do complex structured games.

Maybe you mean you can't do complex games right out of the box? Then you're right. But there's no tool in this world, that can do this for you. You need time, you need to manage everything smart, you need to fight against your weaker self from time to time - but CC is always with you.

Qwary wrote: When I see 60 fps in big 3D games with large (high resolution) textures, DX11 and 10-15 fps with DX9 and 5-6 shader effects in 2D Construct applications, it makes me laugh.

What makes me laugh is how comparing two technologies of 10 years of age difference is relevant ?

How come you can't do everything in windows XP like you can in win7 ?
That's the same kind of question/remark/comparison and heresy.
=> 10 years of development, 10 years of technology, 10 years of improvement of the computer gear and the worldwide spread of those.

Qwary wrote: There's so much that can still be done.

That's true. As Lucid said feel free to pick up your C++ compiler and help the CC community out.

Edited by Kyatric - 04 Feb 2012 at 7:43am