Native Desktop Exporter for Construct 3

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:09 pm

@Ashley

We designers have wild imaginations, and we want to go for most crazy things possible.
Last edited by megatronx on Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My professional Royalty Free Music at Scirra Assets Store
--------------------------------
Specs: i5 2500, 16gb of ram, gtx 770, win 7, Focusrite Scarlett 8i6, Mackie mr8mk2, Alesis 320, browsing the net on chrome.
B
89
S
30
G
22
Posts: 1,985
Reputation: 20,099

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:13 pm

facecjf wrote:Not really unhappy, I love C2, and that is why I am expressing concern...

Halfway through the post I forgot I had quoted you. I was actually talking to everyone else. I agree with you, desktop publishing, large projects, improved workflow, extensibility and modularity should be the focus, not mobile publishing. I don't even care much about performance either (it's pretty good already).
B
36
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,903

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:17 pm

megatronx wrote:@Ashley

We designer have wild imaginations, and we want to go for most crazy things possible.


lol truth. ;)
Image Image Image
B
61
S
19
G
6
Posts: 325
Reputation: 7,944

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:24 pm

I doubled the sprites in the CC test and got 80 fps @ 2560 x 1440 and 183 fps with the provided cap. Chrome gives me 47 with the provided capx.

It would be interesting to know the percentage of C2 users who write for desktop only and have no interest in mobile.
B
48
S
16
G
9
Posts: 1,097
Reputation: 11,195

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:25 pm

spongehammer wrote:It would be interesting to know the percentage of C2 users who write for desktop only and have no interest in mobile.


I am one. :)

Fimbul wrote:I don't even care much about performance either (it's pretty good already).


Totally agree.
Image Image Image
B
61
S
19
G
6
Posts: 325
Reputation: 7,944

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:48 pm

sqiddster wrote:IMO they should just scrap support for large projects and focus on small/midscale projects, and rapid prototyping. It's admirable that they've been supportive of projects like mine for so long, and I'm hugely thankful for that! But in terms of what would be best for this engine, HTML5 is the only option. And at least for the near future, using HTML5 for a commercial-scale project will always be problematic (Except, as always, for special cases like non-performance intensive games, etc)


I understand your point of view, but I hope they don't do that. I like the idea of being able to make big projects with C2.

Also I'd love to see that asm.js engine upgrade (if Scirra thinks it will be suitable for the long term usage of C3).

And just to ask a question: What about Haxe? Can you do something with it?
B
135
S
33
G
17
Posts: 1,557
Reputation: 20,717

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:06 pm

glerikud wrote:And just to ask a question: What about Haxe? Can you do something with it?

I tried getting into Haxe a few months ago, but the documentation is extremely poor, and the devs seemingly don't care about backward compatibility at all, everything that you read is either too simple to be useful or so old that it doesn't work.

It has potential, and it works well enough, but damn their documentation is a mess!
B
36
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,903

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:29 pm

HTML5 + JS has much potential and there is space for a lot of improvement in the future.
I think if Scirra optimizes the engine there is nothing to worry about.

I don't know what code they use for rendering (i think they wrote their own), but there are
libraries that are much faster, like this: http://www.pixijs.com/

If Scirra updates the engine with asm.js and pixi.js then also big scale projects should be
no problem.
Last edited by Chupup Games on Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
B
11
S
2
Posts: 213
Reputation: 1,266

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:33 pm

Somebody wrote:
Jayjay wrote:can't test the first one because I'm still on 192 (195 breaks my commercial game project :( )


I made an exported version and added an fps counter (which should help as get a clearer picture. In my case it cannot top 30 fps in idle state (and it still "feels" a little jerky despite the numbers): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/132 ... index.html


I don't know what kind of potatoes you guys are running to get 9 FPS in Firefox, my laptop is around 4 years old and I'm getting full performance on Waterfox.


Fimbul wrote:
facecjf wrote:
IMO they should just scrap support for large projects and focus on small/midscale projects, and rapid prototyping.


Yeah get rid of large scale support :roll: Say goodbye to a good portion of your user base. Seems we are drawing a line in the sand. Mobile on one side and desktop on the other. (no hard feelings ;) )

People are trying to make this happen, but it won't happen. It's a non-issue. Scirra will focus on the editor for C3, which will make large scale projects more viable. Meanwhile, mobile will continue to advance, and by the time c3 comes out, performance will be excellent (in my opinion, it already is). We can have our cake and eat it too, without sacrificing any significant percentage of the userbase.

People are all defensive when talking about native exporters, when most benchmarks prove they bring no benefits. Modern (non-potato) mobile devices can already support thousands of objects at once, what difference is there between 10000 and 11000 objects? Is a 10% boost (and by the time c3 comes out, it might be a 5% difference due to JIT and GC improvements) worth years without new features? Is it worth the possibility that feature parity might never come AT ALL (look at MMF and GM)?

The bugs with third party exporters are dwindling every month, I get that you're unhappy, but Scirra is doing everything they can to mitigate similar issues in the future (as mentioned repeatedly by Ashley), including support for different NW.js versions (that should probably be extended for all other exporters as well, IMHO).

Also, people are not even considering the potential changes in the landscape. MMF wasted a ton of man-hours developing exporters for XNA (now extinct) and Ouya (which has a laughable marketshare). The java2me exporter (once the only viable option for mobile gaming) is defunct as well. There is a barebones flash exporter, but flash seems to be going the way of the dodo as well. The waste of development time has gotten so bad that MMF, with all their mobile exporters, doesn't even show up here.


To you, I say this first, and a quote later. MMF most likely doesn't show up there because the UI is really bad and it's easy to get lost, at least I did.

As for not sacrificing any significant percentage of the userbase, 2 out of the 3 develops on the Construct 2 front page have said that they will not being using Construct 2 for their future projects because they can't export to consoles or natively:

sqiddster wrote:From my point of view, I can't risk being reliant on Chrome and NW (and HTML5 in general) being functional. I can't afford to not be able to port to consoles. So I'll move to another engine for my next project.

Scirra can afford to lose people like myself as a customer. Keep in mind that a VERY high percentage of C2 users don't create commercial desktop/console products.

IMO they should just scrap support for large projects and focus on small/midscale projects, and rapid prototyping. It's admirable that they've been supportive of projects like mine for so long, and I'm hugely thankful for that! But in terms of what would be best for this engine, HTML5 is the only option. And at least for the near future, using HTML5 for a commercial-scale project will always be problematic (Except, as always, for special cases like non-performance intensive games, etc)

At the end of the day, for a commercial project, Unity and (apparently) GM are viable alternatives, and Scirra would be crazy to try and compete with those powerhouses directly, at least with the resources they have currently.


At this rate, the only people that came to use Construct 2 and made something great with it have been smacked in the face by it's limitations and are feeling big pain because of it. It's kind of turning out that the developers of Airscape and The Next Penelope wasted their time making a free advertisement for Construct 2 that they can't make money off of because Ashley can't be bothered to make Construct 2 into a real "powerful, full featured and professional game development software". The reason Unity3D, MMF and GameMaker cost a lot is because they need that money to fund development for improving the engine and making exporters. Construct 2 is a lot cheaper and it does show. I get that Ashley wants to improve the Construct 2 engine, but that just not going to ever be enough if he wants it to be a professional game development engine like he states on the main page instead of something people waste a several months on making hobbies or in the case of Spuiddster and Aurel, pour hardwork in something they're losing money on.
The moderators are corrupt and ban for no reason, especially that condescending neckbeard asshole Kyatric. The forums are filled with fanboys.
Banned User
B
22
S
7
G
1
Posts: 558
Reputation: 2,925

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:43 pm

Chupup Games wrote:HTML5 + JS has much potential and there is space for a lot of improvement in the future.
I think if Scirra optimizes the engine there is nothing to worry about.

I don't know what code they use for rendering (i think they wrote their own), but there are
libraries that are much faster, like this: http://www.pixijs.com/

If Scirra updates the engine with asm.js and pixi.js than also big scale projects should be
no problem.


:shock: Whoa! pixijs is really impressive.
Image Image Image
B
61
S
19
G
6
Posts: 325
Reputation: 7,944

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests