[idea] Unity instead of Awesomium and nodewebkit

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:27 am

With the talk of Awesimoum and nodewebkit going around. I had the thought of why not instead use Unity.

Why Unity. It takes JS as a scripting language. It runs on everything. Desktops, IOS, Android, Browsers AND Consoles.

Why Unity, it runs JS as script for it's own full on engine. This means that it doesn't require WebView. This means full acceleration on on the GPU. So all those WebGL effects work across all platforms.

Why not Unity, C2 currently supports platform exporting(CocoonJS, Phonegap, HTMl, CHrome Webstore.....). And these most likely are only tweaks to the current C2 runtime. My concern with this idea is that that a Unity Exporter may require massive changes.

Why Unity. There are great benefits to using Unity, two vs one. However the conversion from runtime to compatible unity script is a lot. I only present it as an idea. But I think it's a pretty good one. just may not be a capable one with C2 as it is.

However, it might be something to think about for C3? which I don't imagine is anytime soon.
B
87
S
18
G
9
Posts: 2,455
Reputation: 14,834

Post » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:40 pm

Why not unity: it's a third part plugin.
HTML5 does not require any plugin/download to work in a browser.
Technology

As for export in exe, awesomium or nodewebkit are probably a better fit anyway.Kyatric2013-01-10 12:41:12
New to Construct ? Where to start

Image Image
Image Image

Please attach a capx to any help request or bug report !
Moderator
B
247
S
85
G
40
Posts: 6,999
Reputation: 57,793

Post » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:54 pm

Now that would be fantastic. Don't know why people are so finicky when it only takes you 5 minutes or less to download an extra plugin to play within a browser.Having an option to use scripts would be most welcome too.I bought play maker for unity and it works ok.Just imagine if it was as easy as construct 2.
B
22
S
3
G
6
Posts: 1,356
Reputation: 7,141

Post » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:03 pm

Unity is not a standards compliant web browser, so even if it supports Javascript we would likely have to rewrite various parts of the engine for it to work. I think with node-webkit in the next release there shouldn't be any need to use another engine anyway.Ashley2013-01-10 14:04:23
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,949
Reputation: 178,544

Post » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:07 pm

I have looked into that before, trying to use the C2 behaviours in Unity.

Unity's javascript is not the web's javascript. One of the main differences are prototypes, Unity's javascript does not support them.

So, yes, like Ashley said, it would require some major rewrite.
B
26
S
7
G
3
Posts: 118
Reputation: 4,264

Post » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:29 pm

[QUOTE=Ashley] Unity is not a standards compliant web browser, so even if it supports Javascript we would likely have to rewrite various parts of the engine for it to work.[/QUOTE]
This was my largest concern. As I'm sure C2 makes many canvas references where as a Unity export would require large amounts of api references instead.


[QUOTE=Ashley]
I think with node-webkit in the next release there shouldn't be any need to use another engine anyway.[/QUOTE]
While i'm sure node-webkit is good or great. As I understand node-webkit from the website it's a desktop only solution. As it seems now performance on desktop is fantastic and it's going to get better as time goes on. As power increases and browsers improve, and as OS start increasing native-web app support(like Win8). it would strike me that packaging for for desktop isn't a long term productive future endeavour, but instead a current place holder for convenience and steam like support of distribution.

My suggestions and of course I understand the limitations. Was that Unity wasn't limited to the desktop environment. Right now that the desktop is starting to see a decline in average consumer purchases. This was replaced by the laptop and netbook market. It's now seeing a strong shift towards the tablet. While I believe that it's going a decade for this shift to become dominant factor for the average user to PC to mobile. It does eventually leave desktop support in a minority. However, I mention that I think C2 will have a very productive life in the direction it's going.

I guess part of the frustrations is the glacial pace that development of HTMl5 technology for mobile devices have hit in the last few years. For a while it seemed like there were great strides being made, but now not so much. Actually it seems like I can find comments from 2011 wondering when WebGL for mobile will be supported. Checking with current today's support(http://caniuse.com/webgl) it doesn't seem like it's coming all that soon or in anykind of realistic time. For groups trying to achieve native performance for mobile(CocoonJS, Phonegap, appmobi) it seems that they are strangely quite bursts.

Finally I'm dropping it from there as I do believe the technological limitations of the design structure between C2 and Unity would have been substantially large. However I thought to make the suggestion anyways as I only suspected the design differences rather than knowing the details.

suggestion dropped :D
B
87
S
18
G
9
Posts: 2,455
Reputation: 14,834

Post » Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:51 pm

[QUOTE=Ashley] I think with node-webkit in the next release there shouldn't be any need to use another engine anyway.[/QUOTE]
VERY excited for this release
B
45
S
19
G
10
Posts: 562
Reputation: 9,543

Post » Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:56 pm

@Jase00: It's out already: beta r115
New to Construct ? Where to start

Image Image
Image Image

Please attach a capx to any help request or bug report !
Moderator
B
247
S
85
G
40
Posts: 6,999
Reputation: 57,793

Post » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:17 am

@jayderyu : what you are going to see evolve in the next few month, is solutions like Ejecta/EjectaGL, that allows the use of HTML5 pages with javascript code natively accelerated by a thin layer of code accessing directly the OpenGLES framework. Just wait a few months...
B
33
S
9
G
6
Posts: 709
Reputation: 6,704

Post » Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:41 pm

Looks like it has a lot of promise. After doing some research on it. I'm hoping that others take up the design of skipping the webuiview and just do something similar to this.

As it is Ash has a good point. Mac is out of my reach, but I admit I might pick up a cheap used one if required.
B
87
S
18
G
9
Posts: 2,455
Reputation: 14,834

Next

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TRMG and 15 guests