Native Desktop Exporter for Construct 3

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:38 am

TiAm wrote: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.


If that's going to be the case, improving the engine we have now. I'd prefer it just be a major update rather than having to shell out another $130 US. I don't like that a few big updates automatically necessitate it to be next gen Construct 3 instead of just Construct 2...
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 1:42 am

The only reason i came to construct 2 was the fear of a object overload and room overload and variable, which would make my game(feed the alien pizza) either corrupt or crashing 65% of the time, that and it requires 250 obstacles and 500 levels 50 in each 10 worlds.

I now have come to realise the dragging and dropping behaviours are working in construct 2(not game maker) but the level select and world select and stars are harder in both programs.

However in the game maker room editor it does clone resources on the resource tree every time a new object of the exact same one is added to the room, while construct 2 does, my only other regret is construct 2 loops the loading dialogue box for testing a scene.

While both game maker and gamesalad do not, then there inlies the fact about multiple objects and scenes with gamesalad does not have those problems and game maker and gamesalad do not hesitate to resort to looping the loading dialogue box, instead they immediatley buffer it, and load allow you test it, and to go back to the editor game maker requires gml for advanced features both construct 2 and gamesalad do not.
B
8
S
2
Posts: 134
Reputation: 1,001

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:53 am

... Construct 3?
B
21
S
7
G
4
Posts: 231
Reputation: 3,470

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:17 am

Yep, welcome to the party.
C3 will export exclusively to Amazon Echo.

http://www.amazon.com/oc/echo/ref_=ods_dp_ae
Image ImageImage
B
168
S
50
G
164
Posts: 8,236
Reputation: 105,591

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:21 am

newt wrote:Yep, welcome to the party.
C3 will export exclusively to Amazon Echo.

http://www.amazon.com/oc/echo/ref_=ods_dp_ae


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Image Image Image
B
61
S
19
G
6
Posts: 325
Reputation: 7,944

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:24 am

newt wrote:Yep, welcome to the party.
C3 will export exclusively to Amazon Echo.

http://www.amazon.com/oc/echo/ref_=ods_dp_ae


Well, we won't have to worry about webGL effects. Or jank. ;)
Don't lose your work. Backup your game with Dropbox.
B
44
S
10
G
10
Posts: 1,106
Reputation: 9,187

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:10 am

One thing we all need to try to keep in mind is costs. C3 needs to happen for many reasons as outlined by Ashley and the community. Most importantly is this:

- C2 is not a subscription model, it is a one time payment model for a full featured product that also receives tons of updates.
- C2 does not have licensing on games made with it. If you make a successful title and earn 100k, you are not strangled with license costs to Scirra.
- C2 gets new features and exporters all the time -- these are not added costs for us like GM.

In order for Construct to continue to be great it needs to grow. A new C3 that can increase further in functionality and add more of the requests that we all beg for is a win.

This should not be FREE. Scirra's income, especially after the wonderful way they treat their customers (see above) deserves reward. Show me another game creation software like construct or GM where the customers are respected and treated so well by the developers. And when I say respected, I mean financially as well as communicated with.

Ashley has already stated that those of us who have purchased already and supported Scirra will be further rewarded with a great upgrade offer to C3.

The cost for exporters for GMS is 100-300 EACH. So for us to buy a new version of this software every so often -- while getting guaranteed support, updates, and features seems more than fair. In fact it almost feels criminal to me how much we get for so little.

I have had ups and downs with C2, but I have always been a huge supporter of Scirra, and will continue to do so if I find value in the product that they develop.
B
8
S
1
Posts: 62
Reputation: 1,212

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:13 am

Well I don't care about mobile at all, and would feel cheated if Scirra decided to produce, say, a native iOS exporter. I'd rather have a more extensible editor. I also don't mind paying whatever they want to charge for it, since I (and I think most here would feel the same way regarding this specific issue) feel like I got more than my money's worth for C2 already.

I also don't care for C# - people clamoring for it seem a bit hypocritical, since it's even more third party reliance than HTML5, which at the very least is an open standard (meaning no one owns it). Remember how Microsoft canned XNA? That could happen again, whereas if chrome dies, we'd switch to firefox in a heartbeat.

Also, a vote of confidence please? Come on, if Ashley says performance differences between c2 and cc is negligible, and even provides benchmarks to back it up, you could at least consider that that might be the case after all, and that a native engine wouldn't provide as much benefit as you're thinking - you can't simply say "no ur wrong!!1!11" out of a hunch or some outdated notion (whose origins can be traced to a time when js didn't have JIT), without at least a modicum of technical effort defending your position.

The new editor will be great for development speed - no language-switching mental delay for Ashley, no reliance on a byzantine, barebones and inflexible UI library, no discrepancies between edittime and runtime, a brand new SDK for us to play with, localization, and who knows what else? Besides, while this is all going on, the third party platforms will keep getting better and better - there was a time when node-webkit wasn't even officially supported, with a few brave users trying desperately to make their games run on it - look how far we've come! Look how far javascript and HTML5 have come! A few years ago, before WebRTC, I was trying to get multiplayer gaming up and was facing 500ms delays on localhost! Even before that, webGL wasn't even around and we had to contend with a software runtime and 500 objects MAXIMUM!

By the time C3 comes out, most issues with mobile will have solved themselves, and people will instead be like "woe is me javascript is so slow" and "scirra needs to make a native exporter for xiaozeng's potato-quality line of smartnecklaces". Or maybe they'll be clamoring for a C4 with 3D support or whatever.

Seriously guys, there's nothing wrong with construct's HTML5 runtime. It's being reused for C3 not due to laziness, but because it's good enough for all intents and purposes, and most changes will be additions instead of refactorings, as some of you seem to think it needs. Related article
B
36
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,903

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:51 am

Don't use construct if you want native performance. If you want perfect performance write your game in assembly for every cpu architecture + gpu specific optimization. /s


Using a tool like construct you have to give up a lot of optimizations. The tool is there to make you work faster and have the end result be way less efficient than if you had written it other ways. You can write code in WebGL that will far outperform CC, but it's all a matter of scale and scope. Construct 2 is a tool thats good at what it does. It never aimed to be a native engine. C2 has a lot of issues which could be fixed by a more diverse set of plugins, but performance is something you just have to accept. The general statement i can make is : write your own engine if the one your using can't keep up with what you're doing, and nothing else out there works for you.

A native exporter isn't going to happen, and it's only foreseeable if scirra takes on a lot more employees, and fractures construct 3 into a html5 version and a native version. I don't see interoperability being something that will happen.

A native exporter would mean construct 3 was another start from 0, and the engine would be bare bones for years.
Last edited by QuaziGNRLnose on Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
B
75
S
13
G
8
Posts: 1,973
Reputation: 9,841

Post » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:59 am

Fimbul wrote:Also, a vote of confidence please? Come on, if Ashley says performance differences between c2 and cc is negligible, and even provides benchmarks to back it up, you could at least consider that that might be the case after all, and that a native engine wouldn't provide as much benefit as you're thinking - you can't simply say "no ur wrong!!1!11" out of a hunch or some outdated notion (whose origins can be traced to a time when js didn't have JIT), without at least a modicum of technical effort defending your position.


Check my post here: native-desktop-exporter-for-construct-3_p879512?#p879512 and another post someone else made earlier. These aren't unfounded claims of slow-down compared to CC, I've made projects in CC and re-wrote them almost exactly the same in C2 (some features in CC don't exist in C2 and opposite is true too) and they run at a poorer performance than what I got in CC.

The problem is that odds are it's a % difference that stretches to extremes across a wide range of hardware. If people only wanted to make games that run well on their own machines then they'd certainly code in assembly like @QuaziGNRLnose was suggesting (also Quazi, I have a feeling that your Q3D/ThreeJS would render the same test better/pretty decently, as the 3D performance is excellent!)

I get that a total re-write is out of the question, but at least finding some programmers to work on improving Node for C2's purposes and uses would be nice, or to maintain a branch of an open-source similar project tailored specifically for C2/C3. Maybe even making C3 have the ability to export from events into code that works with other engines would fix the native + console problem while C3 can shift focus onto mobile and web then.

Perhaps C2/C3 should just be aimed at mobile and web platforms in general, and have desktop as an extra/with less prominence on the homepage/features page. I never expect amazing things from a Flash game wrapped in an EXE, but when I used Construct Classic I knew I had tonnes of power in my hands and that expectation carried onto Construct 2. For any mobile or casual game Construct 2 is perfect, but you can really feel the limits when you make something larger for desktops only.
"Construct 4 lets YOU make advanced games! (but not play them)" Construct Classic - Examples Kit
B
113
S
39
G
17
Posts: 2,184
Reputation: 19,217

PreviousNext

Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests