Native Desktop Exporter for Construct 3

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:40 pm

megatronx wrote:
Nesteris wrote:Oh, and in the past we have actually measured Chrome outperforming Construct Classic, which I think now is due to Chrome's parallel & multi-process rendering architecture, whereas Classic was always single-thread single-process.


You have to remember that Construct Classic was made in 2007, with it's last update in 2012. It's like comparing a computer from 2007 to one from 2012, of course it's not going to out perform it for any number of reasons, old software and bottlenecks or the new software being able to better use hardware, etc.

Also there's a post just now with CC getting better results than C2.


Where's the post?

It's on the very page your post is on, how did you miss it? There's also this one.


bjadams wrote:C3 should consider going the MonkeyX way... convert internally the exported code to C++ & OpenGL (depending on the platform) and compile natively on the target platform.
Otherwise C3 is just C2+


I've been saying that currently C3 is just C2+ but obviously nobody is reading my posts. At this point, Construct 3 is essentially just Construct 2 with DLC.

@szymek

In case of Unity or Game Maker they have different target: real developers with real expectations and real money. So they pay more, but they also expect taking responsability.


So @Aurel , who developed The Next Penelope is not a real develpoer with real expectations who spent real money buying Construct 2 like everybody else on this forum who has a license?

I think Ashley has to realize that Construct 2 is getting more and more attention as a viable game creation engine yet doesn't want to add in important additions to the engine because they're too much work. I remember a couple months back he made an update which improved C2's performance when destroying objects. And that 10% increase in performance of Native over current can make a huge difference. A lot of games can rely on split second decisions and player reaction time that is in the tens of miliseconds (ms), every bit of improved performance counts. Imagine if nobody optimized their games, it'd be ridiculous. Every game ever released would be another Crysis.

People want to make games, and that's it. A lot of users here, me included don't have money. We spend what little money we earn on Construct 2 because of expectations that it most of the time lives up to, but then on some of the bigger ones just hides.
If Construct 2 and Construct 3 hope to be serious engines, they need to adapt. There's a common logical fallacy where people for example, have a car they spent a total of 7000$ on so far. It breaks down and it costs 1400$ to fix it, but they can buy a better car for 1600$. Yet they fix it because "they've already invested the 7000$, so lets not make that go to waste". Sometimes you simply have work from the ground up again.

Construct 2 targeted portability, and it's done exactly that. So far it's only good for phones and desktop computers if Node-Webkit decides to be merciful (the fact that I can make that joke shows how bad it can get).

Construct 3 needs to target actual full game development, from idea to exporting native PC and console applications. We do not need two versions of the same engine. Make the numbers mean something.

1 was the time of Direct-X and was experimental, it succeeded and blossomed into 2, which is more powerful in some aspects. Construct 3 needs to be a major improvement of both, not an extension of the second.

To be honest, I'd be happy with Construct Classic getting Construct 2's interface and all it's bugs fixed (and maybe its languages changed to C++).
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 12:00 am

Nesteris wrote:
megatronx wrote:
Where's the post?



I thought you might have been referring to another post. No worries. thx
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 12:12 am

On a similar note, imagine previewing natively! Currently, I am getting audio that is not playing in Node-Webkit preview, but it works fine once I export.
I thought the point of preview was to see exactly how it would play without exporting. Kind of self-defeating purpose if you guys ask me.
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 12:19 am

Nesteris wrote:On a similar note, imagine previewing natively! Currently, I am getting audio that is not playing in Node-Webkit preview, but it works fine once I export.
I thought the point of preview was to see exactly how it would play without exporting. Kind of self-defeating purpose if you guys ask me.


I used to have audio on preview ( 2 years ago, in one of the old very small project that I've got far enough with to have audio ), but didn't try it out since. On the contrary, when I recently played Areoscape demo on steam, I had no audio at all. Thing I couldn't even play it at first because game was showing me message that webGL is not supported, which is not true. I did check it out. And you can see my specs below. So I replaced nodewebkit with 0.11 and game worked, but no sound.
Last edited by megatronx on Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:24 am, 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 12:22 am

@megatronx

Strange isn't it? I used to have all my audio functioning normally in preview, sound effects and music files.
Now that's gotten completely broken, half the time it doesn't work and when it does it doesn't load all the files which breaks my game since some events need a sound file to finish to return the time scale to 1.

Now, the only way I can preview my game is to export it. I only ever use Preview for simple stuff like animations, anything more gets exported.
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 12:34 am

Nesteris wrote:@megatronx

Strange isn't it? I used to have all my audio functioning normally in preview, sound effects and music files.
Now that's gotten completely broken, half the time it doesn't work and when it does it doesn't load all the files which breaks my game since some events need a sound file to finish to return the time scale to 1.

Now, the only way I can preview my game is to export it. I only ever use Preview for simple stuff like animations, anything more gets exported.


EDITED

I'm not gonna lie; I do often speak out about what I'd like to see in construct fro the point of few of developer and x-webDev, which is streamlining things for the sake of efficiency, and there is a lot of things to streamline in construct. But I wasn't really vocal about having native exporters, since i still do believe things will get better. And I'm waiting for over 3 years now. I've made loads of prototypes, some of which are very advanced logically like internal modularity, my own scripting language, level editor with texturing etc. But never finished anything, because if feeling insecure that when I finish there still will be problems.
Last edited by megatronx on Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:37 am, 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 12:36 am

@Nesteris I wish C3 could be the real deal as much as you (maybe even more). But we have to remember this: when Yoyo bought the old, cheap Gamemaker and began to add the new exporters to GMS, it took a very long time and an insane amount of people to make them actually work. And prices were also raised in a brutal way. They lost most of their core audience at first ("bring back the real gamemaker, you're only looking for profit!"), then catched a new one which wasn't using GM before this change. And which was ready to pay hundreds of dollars for each exporter because it's still a cheap and good engine compared to other ones for pros.

Without inverstors with big money and a huge network for deals with manufacturers (have a look at the Yoyo funders background), taking this kind of risks is madness.
I'd be ok to pay $1000 for C3 with native exporters cause I ('m trying to ) make games for a living. But how many are we to be ready for this here? 10, maybe 20 ?

I'd love to be able to blame Scirra for the lack of native exporters, but If I picture myself in their shoes, I just can't : )
Image | @AurelRegard on twitter
B
19
S
6
G
1
Posts: 307
Reputation: 2,500

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:50 am

Aurel wrote:This software is made for people to craft their first games. This is not sold as a pro framework for studios. The tone of the last promotion video is very clear on this.


Hilariously though, the tag line on the front page is:

You've finally found it. The powerful, full featured and professional game development software you've always been looking for.


So far I count 1.5 out of 3 (1 = powerful, 0.5 for Pro).

Aurel wrote:I wish C3 could be the real deal as much as you (maybe even more). But we have to remember this: when Yoyo bought the old, cheap Gamemaker and began to add the new exporters to GMS, it took a very long time and an insane amount of people to make them actually work. And prices were also raised in a brutal way. They lost most of their core audience at first ("bring back the real gamemaker, you're only looking for profit!"), then catch a new one who wasn't using GM before that change. And which was ready to pay hundreds of dollars for each exporter because it's still a cheap and good engine compared to other ones for pros.

Without inverstors with big money and a huge network for deals with manufacturers (have a look at the Yoyo funders background), taking this kind of risks is madness.
I'll be ok to pay 1000$ for C3 with native exporters cause I ('m trying to ) make games for a living. But how many are we to be ready for this here? 10, maybe 20 ?

I'd love to be able to blame Scirra for the lack of native exporters, but If I picture myself in their shoes, I just can't : )


That's true, but then you have softare like Stencyl, which although it has a absolutely horrible UI, it's free to use and can natively export to PC. But it does require a subscription of 99$ per year for every year you export. I actually used Stencyl before C2, it's horrible, horrible to use but it's got that native export over C2. Look up Ghost Song, it's made in Stencyl.

To be honest, I too wouldn't mind paying couple hundred dollars for a native PC exporter, since if I'm going to publish to GOG.com I can ask for an advancement on royalties to help fund development.

I just hate that Construct 2 can be rendered worthless for desktop platform (and potentially others) because Google (or other third party) is too lazy to make a working product (because it's too busy terrorizing Youtube and forcing Google+ everyone. :P )

I'd understand several exporters being made third-party from the game engine, but all of them? That's just asking for trouble. We should have at least one strong, pure native exporter that we can use if all else fails.

There's probably I more I can write about but nothing comes to mind at the moment.

Btw, @Aurel, this is probably a silly question but; interested in teaming up with someone for future game development?
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 1:02 am

@Nesteris

I was talking about target of specific software. We both know that company with big money would NOT RISK using software which creators does not take any responsability for good working of final product created with this software. It would be too risky for them. In case of @Aurel - he made great game with C2 and now he suffers it's limitations.

In my case: I made quite popular game for mobile, but it's jittering on Crosswalk and giving me much less money (than possible) due to using CocoonJS, that has only AdMob via MoPub (=terrible fillrate, low eCPM). Of course @Ludei is working on native ads, but it may takes 2-3 months.

As much as I love Construct 2, I still disagree with 0% responsability policy + "please wait for" (in the past: CocoonJS, then Crosswalk, now Cordova).

@megatronx

But I wasn't really vocal about having native exporters, since i still do believe things will get better. And I'm waiting for over 3 years now


+1
B
18
S
7
G
1
Posts: 783
Reputation: 4,237

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:26 am

Let's get one thing straight: C3 isn't going to be a 'native' engine (whatever the hell that even means anymore).

Why? Because there's a reason that an annual subscription to Unity+Exporters costs nearly as much as leasing a new car: it take a mega-ton of work on the part of dozens of developers to maintain compatibility across all those platforms. Everyone here calling for native exporters: do you want to pay an annual subscription fee of ~$100-200 to maintain them? I'm sure some of you would be willing...and most wouldn't.

The idea that javascript has 'stalled out' is also a misnomer. Right now there are efforts to both increase parallelism in javascript (the ability to take better advantage of multithreaded processors, particularly useful on mobile) and take advantage of vector operations like SIMD. These are capabilities that will be both explicit (you can directly code with such operations) and, eventually, available to JIT and AOT engines (meaning that EXISTING CODE can be optimized as well).

Yes, there is a risk involved in depending on chromium (Google, our future overlords) for many of our export options. However, people seem to forget that Google (and Apple, Intel, Mozilla, Microsoft, etc...) are all looking towards javascript/html5 as the language of universal applications, which is likely to be the way most programs are built in the next 5 to 10 years. It is in their self interest to keep advancing and improving their browser engines.

Let's get to mobile, chief bugaboo on these 'ol forums.

Mobile is supposed to be a nightmare...but is it? Or are you thinking of Android?

We all know Android export is a bit of a mess. Guess what? Android is a mess period.

It's a massively fragmented market with half a dozen different OS variations, a million different hardware variants (many of which are complete trash), slow adoption of updates, rampant piracy, and a metric sh!tload of shovelware dominating the charts. Oh, and with wireless data limits being what they are, everyone with > 3 brain cells runs adblock.

The success curve on android is weighted crazy high, with behemoths like Supercell sucking up most of the money that does flow into the platform. So...why is it even worth bothering, except to maybe license something or to add to your portfolio...or just publish for fun? And if it's the later, more power to you, but why not just develop for PC where you can make what you want and not have to worry about performance (unless you are making some terrible coding choices)?

I'm not completely defending Scirra here. Going back to the jank issue: The choice to update to a defective version of node-webkit -- and stick with it even though regressing to 10.5 was clearly the best choice in the short term -- was a massive mistake that shook the faith of less technical users by breaking games that weren't really broken. There is really no reason that should ever need to happen again.

Let's do with NW.JS what we do with C2 itself: have a stable/beta cycle, where beta is the newest version of NW.JS available, and stable is the newest version that works without issue. Let NW.JS break for months...as long as our stable branch sticks with a functional version, who cares?

Consoles are where things get tricky. It's a damn shame, but having console exporters just doesn't look likely, unless Sony/Microsoft decide to get behind them. XBOne and PS4 both have sufficient grunt to run C2 games, but there simply isn't a HTML5/WebGL engine of sufficient sophistication for either platform. XBOne there might be a chance (Microsoft is very gung-ho on 'run everywhere' all of a sudden), but PS4 is still top dog for now, and Sony has always been an odd and stubborn company that's more than willing to cut off their head to spite their left nostril (so to speak). If they don't want to do HTML5 they won't. Period.

Overall, I think Ashley is dead-on with C3: keep improving the engine we have now, make an editor that can be customized and continue to evolve with the engine, and make it easier to build games in a more modular way so we don't have to re-invent the wheel such much. Consoles are the one missing link that's a damn shame, but I don't think there's much we (or Scirra) can do about that.
Don't lose your work. Backup your game with Dropbox.
B
44
S
10
G
10
Posts: 1,106
Reputation: 9,202

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AndreasR and 5 guests