Construct 3 - many questions (native exporterts)

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:01 am

To clarify a bit further....

The biggest bottleneck of C2 is most assuredly non-native exporters. It is the biggest worry, the biggest pain, the biggest provider of uncertainty, and the hardest hurdle to overcome of C2. It's not just me, everyone has been saying this for a long time.

I think it is worth every effort to bring native exporters to this engine; I would rather have that than all of the new features that could be dreamed up combined!!!

It is not our "code". It is not our misuse of the events system. It is the reliance on 3rd party exporters that destroys more projects than anything else by far.

I speak not from personal experience alone, but from the many experiences of countless other C2 users all throughout these forums.

Native exporters would make C2 a world class game engine, otherwise it will sadly never be a consistent/reliable professional tool.
B
82
S
32
G
7
Posts: 281
Reputation: 10,685

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:07 am

Do not count me into "EVERYONE".
Every feature has cost. Ashley had told again and again that it will be a huge risk for native exporters.
Using other game engines which has native exporters like unity3d would be a better solution, imo.
B
108
S
26
G
271
Posts: 4,471
Reputation: 151,777

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:31 am

@rexrainbow

I hear you loud and clear, but the cost of not putting native export into this engine is already greater than the cost or risk of putting it in, imo.
B
82
S
32
G
7
Posts: 281
Reputation: 10,685

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:39 am

STARTECHSTUDIOS wrote:@rexrainbow

the cost of not putting native export into this engine is already greater than the cost or risk of putting it in.


It is better to proof this statement more clearly to Ashley.
But I did not think this statement is true.
B
108
S
26
G
271
Posts: 4,471
Reputation: 151,777

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:07 am

I would wager the single biggest reason people are leaving/have left C2 is for this reason alone; Poor exportation which causes poor performance....

If I am trying to ensure the success of C2, I would rectify this problem posthaste
B
82
S
32
G
7
Posts: 281
Reputation: 10,685

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:25 am

@STARTECHSTUDIOS

It proofs nothing.
Users will leave, yes, it is a risk. But it does not mean the risk of users leaving is greater than making native exporters.
B
108
S
26
G
271
Posts: 4,471
Reputation: 151,777

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:11 am

Otherwise we will continue having the same difficulties with Construct 2 that we have had from the beginning...... :cry:

I believe they can do it. I believe they ought to do it.

Imagine for a moment..

A larger developer sees that an easy to use engine like Construct 2 can export natively to all devices. They go ahead and give it a try, especially since the cost/time of production is significantly reduced, which it will be.

A few larger developers make some really big games that get a lot of attention and success..

Other developers see their success..

A bunch more developers jump onto the C2 bandwagon and it skyrockets in popularity and users.

How can this happen if developers are initially scared to come near C2 because it cannot produce a reliable product because it depends on 3rd party wrappers exclusively?

I would rather have native exporters than any other feature, all the way.
Last edited by STARTECHSTUDIOS on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
B
82
S
32
G
7
Posts: 281
Reputation: 10,685

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:29 am

I'm for having native exporting. Relying on 3rd party exporters is an easy way to kinda shift the blame to them if performance isn't up to par as expected. But then again, how much of it would affect the development time of C3? Possibly quite a bit. In which case i would probably be on my way to using something else in the mean time that serves my purpose. But for me, my initial target is the desktop in which C2's performance has been fairly impressive considering its all HTML5. But i can't speak for those building on the mobile platforms though.

Also, I wouldn't mind having different native platform exporters being implemented over time though. Not everything has to be ready all at once. But if there is a movement towards that direction then i'm all for it.
B
93
S
33
G
11
Posts: 278
Reputation: 12,693

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:56 am

Ashley wrote: Ideally the NW.js exporter can work at best performance


My game(with a lot of WebGl FX) in Google Chrome work much better then in last version(from the Scirra Site(PS: when you will update it?)) of NW.js

Chrome FPS: 58
NW.js FPS: 40
Image
B
27
S
10
G
3
Posts: 111
Reputation: 4,948

Post » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:01 am

Y'know everyone's rambling about native exporters but do they have any idea what they're asking?

A native Windows export would be great, sure, but it's 2015, man. You think that's going to cut it? Hell no.

There's Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, PS4, PS Vita, XBone, WiiU, 3DS, and Browsers... And those are just the big platforms of today. What's going to be out there 5 years from now? Many of these platforms might even be obsolete by the time Scirra finished making exporters for them!

Better yet, take a look at Unity's native exporters

Image

BLAM

Most game engines couldn't compete with that if they wanted! Scirra included. So they stick with HTML5...and you can't say C2 isn't the best HTML5 game engine out there.
Image
B
243
S
30
G
13
Posts: 1,787
Reputation: 18,770

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: disneycom2 and 10 guests