The Construct, someday will support 3D?

New releases and general discussions.

Post » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:19 pm

I think we're on the same page, Ashley - I also don't think construct as a full 3D game creator is the right way to go. I was also arguing for construct to stay the same as it is with a mesh object that behaves the same as the 3D box. No 3D rotations of the layout, etc, or even 3D behaviors. Just a 3D box that loads a mesh.

I also did not intend to make light of the difficulty of making construct full 3D. I merely thought that it would be much, much easier to make a mesh object instead, since it seems like most of the work had already been done.

I would be happy even if it didn't have animation capabilities!
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,422

Post » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:20 pm

Although I'm just as tired of reading the "can we have 3D" posts as everyone else, I have to agree with those that are calling for 3D meshes to be loaded and displayed the same way as the 3D box is.
I think that would allow for some great "3D in a 2D world" type games, without the need to render the models and import them as sprites.

I think that some sort of simple animation would be required though.

Sponge.
B
2
S
1
G
3
Posts: 105
Reputation: 1,310

Post » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:45 am

Animation is pretty much "dump the image and load/display next image". With some coding you could reproduce that with events, though no doubt it would be slower than sprite animations.
B
62
S
21
G
12
Posts: 1,910
Reputation: 13,155

Post » Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:25 am

Importing 3D models are sprites is fine if you're into that kind of thing. Personally though, I find prerendered sprites rather ugly.

I mean, they were the bees knees in 1994 with Donkey Kong Country but let's be honest here, it's not 1994 anymore. If you look at them now they look dated compared to 3D models that are actually rendered in real time.

And I apologize for not understanding the huge undertaking that 3D in general has been, even the 3D box which I had no idea was so complicated. If I knew how to code and could help out with this I really would. I guess it never occurs to me that even a simple idea can be very complex when it comes to actually coding it.
B
2
S
2
G
4
Posts: 153
Reputation: 1,756

Post » Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:22 am

2D rendering is simple - you plot each point of the array of pixels (2D array) from one point of view.

3D rendering however adds 3rd dimension of the array, that is much more mathy, not to mention it requires more time and effort than 2D. Then add the variable point of view...

Not to mention raycasting.
B
62
S
21
G
12
Posts: 1,910
Reputation: 13,155

Post » Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:42 pm

[quote="machrider":1dh4kxuk]Importing 3D models are sprites is fine if you're into that kind of thing. Personally though, I find prerendered sprites rather ugly.

I mean, they were the bees knees in 1994 with Donkey Kong Country but let's be honest here, it's not 1994 anymore. If you look at them now they look dated compared to 3D models that are actually rendered in real time.[/quote:1dh4kxuk]

Whow, dude. I think it depends on how you render the models out - If you create a great 3d model and render it out with all the awesome lighting techinques we have today and animate the whole thing properly, you'd get good results. I think that method really helps standing the test of time, like:

If I look at a lot of PS2 games today, most of the ingame models look like garbage to me, cause they were soooo limited in terms of technology (I'm pretty sure the same thing will apply 10 years from now looking back at this current generation), but if I look at something like Heart of Darkness - that style is sorta timeless. The animation was great and still holds up - Just the resolution itself was too low back then. But today, with 1080p and pre-rendered sprites... dude, that look could be freaking sick.
B
6
S
2
G
3
Posts: 520
Reputation: 2,690

Post » Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:14 am

If I'm going to do 2D, I might as well do 2D and try to draw some sprites rather than half ass it by making it some kind of bastardization of 3D models rendered as sprites. I've never played Heart of Darkness but everything else I've played with prerendered graphics looks really bad to me now, so excuse me if that sounds a bit crass.

Either way, I just don't like the idea. If I wanted to make a game with 3D prerenders I would have easily done it by now. But I don't think it would look anywhere near as impressive as a game with actual real time 3D involved.

And again, to the developers. Don't worry about it. You've pretty much explained it all and I think I understand how hard it is.

Maybe if actual programming wasn't so hard for me to learn (I swear I've failed every programming class I've taken, it's not something I can do) I'd try to make my own 3D (or rather 2.5D) engine and wouldn't even need something like Construct.
B
2
S
2
G
4
Posts: 153
Reputation: 1,756

Post » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:04 pm

Rick , It's construct, not THE construct.
B
3
G
3
Posts: 83
Reputation: 1,041

Post » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:28 pm

I disagree, it pretty much is The Construct :P
Moderator
B
5
S
2
G
6
Posts: 4,348
Reputation: 10,971

Post » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:32 am

Well, perhaps when you guys start working on 2.0, perhaps OGRE could be intergrated into the rendering engine? If anything, it would work for future 3D rendering, and perhaps the effects that come with it could come in handy, if nothing else... Construct + OGRE would be awesome.

Still, I can imagine that the logical steps Construct could take eventually are 3D graphics with 2D gameplay, then completely 3D gameplay. The latter would take a lot longer than the former, I gather, and probably wouldn't even be touched until Construct reaches the point where there's no other direction to go in development, methinks.
B
94
S
37
G
11
Posts: 404
Reputation: 11,275

PreviousNext

Return to Construct Classic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests