CC/C2 discussion

New releases and general discussions.

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:50 pm

I was just trying to be funny.

the guy just had a simple 1 sentence question, that started this whole off the rails flame war in the help section.
---------------------------------------

but it turns out there's other people who have the same sense of abandonment and animosity towards the new engine like i do.

I think its a good idea to have this conversation. just the help forum nobody go's too anymore seems like a weird place for it.
B
6
S
2
G
5
Posts: 249
Reputation: 2,323

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:26 pm

[QUOTE=Bartosh] I was just trying to be funny.

the guy just had a simple 1 sentence question, that started this whole off the rails flame war in the help section.[/QUOTE]

Oh, sorry. Missed that. I don't know that I would call it a flame war though - I certainly didn't mean to come off that way with my response.
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,432

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:15 pm

[QUOTE=Arima]I'm not sure what you mean by that, but having made a complex game in CC with over 10,000 events, 500 objects and thousands of animation frames, I can state with some authority that my attempt to make something complex with CC didn't work well at all and CC is not reliably up to the challenge of making a large complex game. CC is barely, barely able to manage loot pursuit which is actually a medium to small game, and yet it takes 10 minutes to load the battle event sheet, 7 seconds of waiting for every single edit made to that event sheet, 30 minutes to undo or delete an object, 5 minutes to preview, there are events I can't move or edit without crashing the editor and I have to repeatedly close and restart the program when using the animation editor to keep memory leaks from crashing the program, not to mention all the instability caused by trying to do things like delete family variables or such keeping me from reworking the code.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, that's pretty bad. Can I ask some questions about your project? How many layouts did you have and how much vram did you use? How many levels were in your game? How big was your file before it started acting up?
B
10
S
3
G
1
Posts: 103
Reputation: 1,390

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:23 pm

Boocrowtongue2013-01-30 20:10:28
B
7
S
2
Posts: 123
Reputation: 1,061

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:28 pm

26 layouts, the most VRAM it uses at any one point in time is somewhere around 128 MB, levels don't really apply to the game as much, it started acting up a long time ago, don't remeber when - CC used to have more bugs than it does currently. For the current issues, a vague guess is they started when the .cap was maybe at around 12-15 MB (it's currently 38.9 MB, with a lot of resources external to the game for faster previewing).

@crowtongue - I can have a negative opinion of CC in comparison to C2 without it being a flame. I'm objectively stating that CC has problems, and describing those problems. I'm trying to alert people to the fact that if they try to make something complex in CC, there is a very good chance they'll hit some of CC's problems.

Regardless, some derailment is fine, but I think you're right that this should probably become its own thread at this point.Arima2013-01-30 19:39:14
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,432

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:42 pm

I don't think it should become it's own thread. And I think it depends on the nature of the derailment.

Think about it. This only serves to deter people, in the forum for this program, from wanting to use this program.

While your experience is definitely valuable, I don't 100% put stock in it. Konjak has been developing The Iconoclasts with this, and 6e6e6e has been making Radio The Universe with it. Both of those are full length polished games in the works, I believe they will both finish.

I've been working on my own project for a few months now, and it's discouraging to see other people start this sort of thing. I'll say it again, it's not constructive. And now I will stop reading this thread.
B
7
S
2
Posts: 123
Reputation: 1,061

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:52 pm

Conversely, I think it's a disservice to NOT let people know they might encounter these problems. If I was new to construct, this is the sort of thing I would want to know about when deciding between CC and C2 for anything larger than a small game. It's better to hear this kind of thing up front than after months or years of hard work, discovering it on your own.

Part of the problem with CC's problems is it's very hard to tell what causes them, so you're right, some of them happen to some people but not to others. But it's still a risk - if it happened to one user, it could happen to another, and people are generally in agreement that CC has problems. There are generally ways to plow through or work around them, but it got worse and worse in loot pursuit's case to the point where it's very unpleasant to work on any more in comparison to working in C2.

I also seem to recall Konjak mentioning some problems with CC at one point as well, though I don't recall which ones, so I don't think his dev experience has been completely smooth either (though I could be remembering wrong and don't want to speak for him).

Anyway, my stance is thus - CC is capable of making great games, but there's no way to tell how many problems you'll encounter along the way. If you want to ensure a much smoother dev experience, use C2.Arima2013-01-30 20:01:45
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,432

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:18 pm

Ok? Were doing this? alright then...

:WARNING INCOMING NERD TANGENT:

I'm sorry C2 just doesn't feel right. like I said, I used it, its got some cool stuff going, i really love the interface, in particular how in handles global values and arrays.

however it really doesn't seem like it was ever intended to support projects heavily reliant on client side resources or processor speed.

you CAN make them, but its really inconvenient.

and a lot of the more advance features you would have to do thru custom plugins.

witch you would have to wright in JavaScript.
making it not much of a game maker, more of a game engine at that point.

the default system seems to be designed for small browser stile games
--------------------
Conversely Construct has surprised me over and over with what I can get away with just inside the vanilla program. I really do love the thing.

I've been using it heavily for over 5 years now. and there's seriously never been an idea I have gone to it with, and the thing not be able to handle.

However when I've tried to put it all together. something stupid happens., and the whole thing becomes a mess of offset icons and random syntax errors. you can still cross the finish line, nothing is ever critically wrong with it, but the interface at that point is not very easy to use.

I would love to see a REAL sequel to construct.
and maybe C2 really is that. its just never felt like it.

Maybe its just that the cutesy ,Comic Sans , "Were so Wacky", baby's first game-maker, web site overhaul just left a bad taste in my mouth.

C1 was created as a counter product to clickteams MMF. with the attitude of creating a game making program as a legitimate rival to strait code scripting.

the whole thing felt like you were on the cutting edge of some unknown tool that was going to revolutionise how games could be made.I really beveled that. I even donated to the project...witch is a big deal for me.

Now every time I go to the site I just go "Good God...what am i doing with my life?"
as if I've dedicated the last 5 years to trying to become the worlds best kazoo player ... instead of learning a REAL instrument.
Bartosh2013-01-30 21:28:59
B
6
S
2
G
5
Posts: 249
Reputation: 2,323

Post » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:55 pm

[QUOTE=Arima]@Bartosh - Actually we do talk about payment on this forum. The discussion got sidetracked, which happens frequently on forums. We're presenting our opinions about CC and C2, I'm not sure what the problem is. [/QUOTE] Me neither. It was a good and the right decision to split the thread (or am I missing something?)


------------------------------------------------------------------------


[QUOTE=Arima] You can't judge a tool's capabilities by the content created with that tool. Games take a long time to make, and C2 hasn't been out that long.[/QUOTE] It is the only way to judge a tool's capabilities. If a tool looks good and feels good but creates bad or limited results (just a general thought, this is not aimed at C2), it shouldn't be judged as a good 'game creator'. Following your logic, Stencyl would be the much better game creator than C2. Better interface, better integration of support (like drag'n'drop whole premade block sequences), better response time, etc. Then have a look at apps made with it...

[QUOTE=Arima]True, there is functionality missing from C2 that CC has, but it's being added regularly.[/QUOTE] So you're arguing based on possible features that might be there somewhere in the future? That doesn't fit to your statement 'In fact, ...'

[QUOTE=Arima]Regardless, even in its current state, I don't recall many games that were made with CC that couldn't be made with C2 (thumb war being the most notable example, but even then if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable, though it might require a fast machine).

There are also plenty of examples of stuff C2 can do that CC can't - probably more examples at this point, and those examples are probably more relevant to the majority of users (exporting to mobile, mac and linux, for example).[/QUOTE] The contradiction of the two passages is why I answered. Such a contradiction was also in the passage, that I reacted to at first.
You say "if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable". But it hasn't. On the other hand you ignore the same option for CC. Because if CC had an exporting plugin, it would also be capable of exporting to mobile, mac and linux. See? It doesn't make sense to compare things that might have been integrated, but aren't.

[QUOTE=Arima]I'm not sure what you mean by that, but having made a complex game in CC with over 10,000 events, 500 objects and thousands of animation frames, I can state with some authority that my attempt to make something complex with CC didn't work well at all and CC is not reliably up to the challenge of making a large complex game. CC is barely, barely able to manage loot pursuit which is actually a medium to small game, and yet it takes 10 minutes to load the battle event sheet, 7 seconds of waiting for every single edit made to that event sheet, 30 minutes to undo or delete an object, 5 minutes to preview, there are events I can't move or edit without crashing the editor and I have to repeatedly close and restart the program when using the animation editor to keep memory leaks from crashing the program, not to mention all the instability caused by trying to do things like delete family variables or such keeping me from reworking the code.

Conversely, my attempts to make things in C2 have worked much, MUCH smoother. Aside from the features it lacks (sprite distortion, etc) and event execution speed (which is plenty fast for almost everything most people will want to do), C2 can make the vast majority of what CC can, and a lot of what CC can't. It's better in almost every way.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. First, what you are looking for is not the best result for the users of your app, but the most comfortable editor for yourself. There's nothing wrong with such a wish, it's just not the point. The result is what counts, the gamer doesn't care if you could produce a game comfortable or with literal pain - a gamer just wants a good game.
And second, you indeed confuse complexity with sheer quantity. See, thumb war indeed is a complex game - yet it doesn't have 10000 events, 500 objects or thousands of animation frames. I also remind on Boom, an application I made, which let's you grow trees from seeds. Believe me it is highly complex, but it also hasn't 10000 events, etc.

Another example:
event sheet A
+Always -> Create object...
+Always -> Create object...
+Always -> Create object...
+Always -> Create object...
+Always -> Create object...
+Always -> Create object...
+Always -> Create object...
+Always -> Create object...

event sheet B
For "" from 0 to 7 -> Create object

Now what sheet is more complex? I think you will agree that although A has 8 events and B only 1 event, neither of them is more complex than the other. The first one is just bad programming.

Or an example from the professional world: Bioshock 2's installment size was 6.4 GB, TES V: Skyrim had 3.8 GB. Yet, Skyrim is by far the more complex game in every aspect. (values from XBox360 installs)

Don't judge complexity from sheer quantity. Judge it from subtle things like calculations per tick, realtime interaction, crosslinks, depth of gameplay, etc. Often you will see applications that look and feel so simple to the user, while it amazes us. That was achieved with highly complex code aimed at easy accessibility for the user.

[QUOTE=Arima]Even if CC didn't have its instability I would still like C2 more. More platforms, better editor, faster preview, actively developed - honestly, I don't understand why people talk like CC is the actual great version of construct when C2 is so much better.[/QUOTE] Because of its output! The result is what counts. And CC produces rock-solid, fast and amazing executables. My actual project is again a complex one, and you can only dream of doing something like that with C2. (I won't make it public now, but if you're interested, I'll send you a download link via pm). But it is more of an appliation than a game, so I don't count it in here.


[QUOTE=Arima] - capable of even outrunning CC's rendering speed by a good margin with a recent graphics card.[/QUOTE] No. It starts with the fact that any WinXP user (which still is more than a third of all installed windows versions) will experience software rendering. But even if we take that out of the comparison... Let's create a simple executable: 4000 sprites (based on 4 different sprites with 1000 copies each) of size 128x128 on a FullHD fullscreen, and, if you want to reduce it to rendering speed, no rotation, no movement, and just a start of layout event to create the sprites. I bet CC will win the rendering speed challenge.
Image
B
23
S
8
G
10
Posts: 1,820
Reputation: 8,242

Post » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:29 am

[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima] You can't judge a tool's capabilities by the content created with that tool. Games take a long time to make, and C2 hasn't been out that long.[/QUOTE] It is the only way to judge a tool's capabilities. If a tool looks good and feels good but creates bad or limited results (just a general thought, this is not aimed at C2), it shouldn't be judged as a good 'game creator'.[/QUOTE]

That's just not the case. That's looking at a tool without using your imagination at all. People create completely amazing things with things that weren't originally made for that purpose routinely.

If the full potential of paint and a paintbrush was revealed by what was made with them, why should Leonardo Da Vinci have ever bothered painting the Mona Lisa? Why should anyone have looked at something and thought they could make a wheel out of it to make their job easier? If people determined that the maximum potential of something was only what has already been done with that thing, then no one would ever make any scientific or artistic progress on anything at all.

To say that construct 2's maximum potential has already been reached - I can't understand why you'd think that. The very first games made with construct two were incredibly basic, so if that revealed the limits of its potential how did anyone ever surpass it?

[QUOTE=tulamide]Following your logic, Stencyl would be the much better game creator than C2. Better interface, better integration of support (like drag'n'drop whole premade block sequences), better response time, etc. Then have a look at apps made with it...[/QUOTE]

From what I have seen of Stencyl I disagree it has a better interface, but I haven't used it. I think that's a matter of opinion. I judge Stencyl the same way - I sincerely doubt it's maximum potential has been reached either.

Imagine the difference of an inexperienced and developer trying to make something in the same program. Construct two is still new, and professional developers I hear often like to wait until a new engine has had something made with it that proves its viability. At that point you'll be seeing more and more impressive stuff.

[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima]True, there is functionality missing from C2 that CC has, but it's being added regularly.[/QUOTE] So you're arguing based on possible features that might be there somewhere in the future? That doesn't fit to your statement 'In fact, ...'

[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima]Regardless, even in its current state, I don't recall many games that were made with CC that couldn't be made with C2 (thumb war being the most notable example, but even then if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable, though it might require a fast machine).

There are also plenty of examples of stuff C2 can do that CC can't - probably more examples at this point, and those examples are probably more relevant to the majority of users (exporting to mobile, mac and linux, for example).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] The contradiction of the two passages is why I answered. Such a contradiction was also in the passage, that I reacted to at first.
You say "if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable". But it hasn't. On the other hand you ignore the same option for CC. Because if CC had an exporting plugin, it would also be capable of exporting to mobile, mac and linux. See? It doesn't make sense to compare things that might have been integrated, but aren't.[/QUOTE]

In that case, I'm referring to the fact that construct two is being actively developed, a benefit that construct classic does not have, and Ashley has mentioned the possibility of sprite distortion in construct 2. Exporting to mobile is not coming to construct classic. Regardless, that does not change the fact that complex games can be made in construct two now with the features it already has.

I'm also not ignoring that construct classic can do some things that construct two can't, I've mentioned that it can.

[QUOTE=tulamide]First, what you are looking for is not the best result for the users of your app,[/QUOTE]

Completely incorrect. What I get out of C2 provides a better experience on more platforms and therefore is better for the users, many of whom couldn't play at all otherwise by not having windows.

[QUOTE=tulamide]but the most comfortable editor for yourself. There's nothing wrong with such a wish, it's just not the point. The result is what counts, the gamer doesn't care if you could produce a game comfortable or with literal pain - a gamer just wants a good game.[/QUOTE]

The editor is entirely relevant to the discussion here. You shouldn't ignore the effect a difficult to endure development environment has on the resulting game. With how hard loot pursuit is to work on, it results in it taking more time to make and eventually it became so hard to work with that I had to ditch some of what I wanted to put in it. A good development environment that makes development easier and smoother will make the resulting game better and provide that game faster, which is better for the users.

[QUOTE=tulamide]And second, you indeed confuse complexity with sheer quantity. See, thumb war indeed is a complex game - yet it doesn't have 10000 events, 500 objects or thousands of animation frames.[/QUOTE]

Also incorrect. Quantity and complexity are not mutually exclusive. Loot pursuit is both.

[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima]honestly, I don't understand why people talk like CC is the actual great version of construct when C2 is so much better.[/QUOTE] Because of its output! The result is what counts. And CC produces rock-solid, fast and amazing executables. [/QUOTE]

Aside from event execution speed, I'm not sure why you think the output is so much better from CC. With the new node webkit EXE export, there's a good chance if you made the same game in both no one looking at them would be able to tell the difference. Also, in my experience, CC does not produce rock-solid executables. I've gotten quite a few crashes with them, for example when using or.

[QUOTE=tulamide][QUOTE=Arima] - capable of even outrunning CC's rendering speed by a good margin with a recent graphics card.[/QUOTE] No. It starts with the fact that any WinXP user (which still is more than a third of all installed windows versions) will experience software rendering.[/QUOTE]

I hadn't heard that - a quick google search doesn't reveal anything about it, can you provide a link?

[QUOTE=tulamide]But even if we take that out of the comparison... Let's create a simple executable: 4000 sprites (based on 4 different sprites with 1000 copies each) of size 128x128 on a FullHD fullscreen, and, if you want to reduce it to rendering speed, no rotation, no movement, and just a start of layout event to create the sprites. I bet CC will win the rendering speed challenge.[/QUOTE]

4000 wasn't anywhere near enough to get the fps below 60, so I added a 0. 40,000 sprites, 10k of each, using chrome for C2 (what node webkit uses for exe export):

Textures not stacked (graphics card has to swap textures for each object): CC: 18fps. C2: 37fps.
Textures stacked (graphics card does not have to swap textures for each object): CC: 30fps. C2: 50-60fps.

As Ashley blogged, C2 has faster rendering than CC. https://www.scirra.com/blog/102/html5-games-faster-than-nativeArima2013-01-31 03:41:13
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,432

PreviousNext

Return to Construct Classic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests