Timeframe for EXE exporter?

Discussion and feedback on Construct 2

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:07 pm

Thanks for the reply Kyatric but you seem to miss the point of some of what i said though. Firstly i have no problem coding javascript plugins and i don't want to request plugins or need help making them, i have been coding my own long before the manual was available. When i talk about a SDK you will notice i am referring to a "Runtime" SDK which is not available, the "Plugin" SDK is a totally different thing.

To clarify when i say i am disappointed that Scirra is not helping plugin developers i mean because they don't seem interested in taking feedback from the people actually using the SDK. Currently all my requests to enhance the GUI/editor connection for the "Plugin" SDK seem to have been ignored. As i said before though i am guessing/hoping this is mainly just down to the fact that there is a lot of work to do at the moment and these will be added to the "Plugin" SDK later on.

If you are interested the "Plugin" SDK suggestions i made were here -


I am sure that other plugin developers would agree that these would help a lot to clean up the GUI controls side of the plugins and allow them to be much more organized also.

I have also made various Editor based suggestions here -


[QUOTE=Kyatric]Also, it was clear from the beginning that C2 was aimed at HTML5 "against" flash and that an exe exporter was a possibility, not something set in stone.[/QUOTE]

I would actually disagree with that, i think a lot of old construct classic users were under the impression that first there would be a HTML5 exporter, then a EXE exporter/improved Classic updating it with the previous experience and making it much better this time round possibly with OpenGL instead of DirectX. A lot of people probably purchased thinking a EXE exporter was on the way but as i say now from the developers own words it is looking like it won't happen like people were expecting.

I would also disagree about the anti-flash thing because originally it seemed like they wanted to back the new HTML5 however that doesn't mean you need to be against flash/flex etc and totally ignore it. As a coder myself it seems like a odd choice really because flash is a great platform so really it's just cutting away a potential market for scirra and also for people making games with Construct 2 that might have liked to make flash based games.

So yeah i am a bit disappointed after reading this thread and the blog recently but hopefully these doubts will be resolved with time and we will see a "real" enhanced EXE exporter in the future.FireLight2011-12-12 22:11:52
Posts: 55
Reputation: 2,607

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:21 pm

I'm not sure the location of the impression people were under when it somehow imbued them with the idea that there would be an exe exporter :D I have yet to find anyone at Scirra even saying it would be available either, so anything about an exe being made available at this point is heresay or heresy ;)

Before I purchased C2, I scoured the site to see if there was going to be an exe exporter as to me that would have been amazing. However, while there may have been discussions about it, nowhere did I find a definitive that said an exe exporter would be available.

Again, I would welcome an exe exporter, but I am personally not disappointed that it is not available or may never be available.
Posts: 120
Reputation: 6,217

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:36 pm

@FireLight, I'm not sure to get the difference you make between "plugin" SDK and "runtime" SDK.
The runtime is described in the manual SDK as well as its functions. You can check its reference.

Maybe you mean a SDK for the exporer (named Exporter Development Kit (EDK) in that blog article about C2's architecture in the "Future plans" part. The article is a few monthes old but the "Future plans" still stand).
As Ashley is currently adding the familly feature to C2, undergoing a lot of modifications in the inner code, releasing an EDK is not wise right now. The code is not stable/subject to changes.
He's been writing the manual, has already put a lot of work in it and yet still has a lot of writing and coding to do.

Also, it is not because he doesn't acknowledge your suggestions that he doesn't read them or put them on his todo list.
But you have also to be aware that you're not the only one suggesting things and that he also has his own plan.
He has proven to be very attentive to the community's suggestions so far, no reason for it to change.

Also changes to the SDK are delicate since they impact all the previous works already built upon it.

And at last, I'll say it again, what transpired from Ashley directly is that, for now, the focus is on the HTML5 exporter.
The rest are speculations and rumors, and should REALLY not be taken into consideration at all.

EDIT: Also @VampyricalCurse executing a local server to execute your exported project prevents the annoying message. That's how preview works. It's a local server allowing you to execute your C2 app as if it was online. It works even if you're not connected to internet, and I think this is the solution that wrapping solutions propose.
So here goes the points 1, 2 and hopefuly 3 of your argumentation.
This point has already been discussed/covered in several topics in the forum.Kyatric2011-12-12 23:47:06
New to Construct ? Where to start

Image Image

Image Image

Please attach a capx to any help request or bug report !
Posts: 7,311
Reputation: 71,086

Post » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:46 pm

Just to reaffirm what Kyatric has said, it's literally just Ashley working on Construct 2, he's had no one else helping him develop it. In regards to suggestion threads that tend to go ignored this is definitely not the case!

I do know for a fact he reads all suggestions but it's starting to get to the point where there's not enough time to give the full reply the suggestions deserve. But don't worry, they do get read! He also has a difficult task of prioritising the suggestions which we do understand can be disappointing for some users but unfortunately that's the way we have to operate.Tom2011-12-12 23:47:52
Image Image
Scirra Founder
Posts: 4,385
Reputation: 54,240

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:22 am

[QUOTE=Kyatric]EDIT: Also @VampyricalCurse executing a local server to execute your exported project prevents the annoying message. That's how preview works. It's a local server allowing you to execute your C2 app as if it was online. It works even if you're not connected to internet, and I think this is the solution that wrapping solutions propose.
So here goes the points 1, 2 and hopefuly 3 of your argumentation.
This point has already been discussed/covered in several topics in the forum.[/QUOTE]

I know that, but taking into account that web apps. are aimed to be easy to use, don't you think doing this would prove too much for a person who doesn't know jack? I don't believe Scirra will ignore the EXE exporter, there's no reason to and plenty NOT to.

It just makes you think, have people really become so lazy that installing or running an EXE proves to be such a Herculean task and are willing to sacrifice the advantages? Is the assumption that HTML5 someday may get as good as EXE, reason enough to ignore EXE when it is still the best option?
Posts: 455
Reputation: 8,336

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:49 am

Surely somebody on the boards has time to make a trial EXE exporter (I mean wrapper) using Awesomium. Probably would take a week's work for somebody with a little bit of C# or C++ experience. Then we can see how buggy or realistic a fully supported wrapper might be.

I think the devs time is best suited now for making C2 as good as it can be instead taking on another side project. Problem is if they support an exporter nearterm, they now have another codebase to support with all the accomplanying bugs, etc. With 2-3 devs maybe, but 1...unlikely.

scidave2011-12-13 00:51:56
Posts: 835
Reputation: 5,313

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:08 am

I understand the concerns here, but nearly everything comes down to one point: Scirra is a two-man team and we have limited time and resources to work on things. This is why there is no EXE exporter yet, no EDK (Exporter Development Kit) yet, and why we can't implement every single thing everyone suggests (even if we'd like to). The Construct 2 editor isn't even finished yet. The image editor has no tools. There's no Families system. The manual isn't done yet. I think it's ridiculous for such a small team to engage on huge, complex engineering projects like the EDK or other runtimes when such big gaping holes are in the editor itself. We want to do all this stuff. We just haven't got round to it yet. In the mean time we have to brutally prioritise and that means a lot of nice stuff that we'd like to have is pushed back if there's any conceivable workaround - we focus mainly on things which are truly impossible without additional features.

As for an EXE exporter, it has four massive disadvantages that make it much worse than sticking to the HTML5 exporter:
1) it only runs on one or two desktop platforms (Windows and Mac would be the likely candidates), versus HTML5 that simply runs everywhere.
2) you have to jump through a bunch of security warnings to launch the game, versus having it load straight in the browser. The security warnings are justified because it's easy to make malicious EXEs, but extremely difficult to make malicious web pages.
3) it fragments the plugin ecosystem. Plugins and behaviors can be easily written in notepad and javascript. I expect most people are using a few third party plugins and behaviors. An EXE runtime requires that *all* plugins and behaviors are rewritten in C++, which requires specialist tools which are sometimes expensive, and needs knowledge of C++ which is a much harder language than javascript. Given the significant time and expense required from volunteer developers, the end result is probably many third party plugins and behaviors are simply not ported to the EXE runtime, which means you can't port your game to the EXE platform anyway. This will probably continue to be a problem forever, making porting really difficult for everyone and a constant thorn in our side. We want to avoid this situation at all costs.
4) the very limited efforts of our tiny team, which are already stretched to breaking point, are stretched even further with a coding project that will probably take at least 6 months to reach maturity, when the editor isn't even ready yet.

As far as I can tell the EXE exporter has a single advantage:
1) performance is a little better.
The EXE exporter is not off the cards. It would be an interesting project in the long-term future for better perfomance on desktop systems. However, I think the demand for it at this early stage is unjustified: HTML5 can do almost everything an EXE game can, so there really aren't any significant features you get that you don't get in HTML5. It's literally just a bit faster. Nobody in this thread has been able to point out anything compelling about an EXE runtime that HTML5 can't do, and as above, there are four really big and serious disadvantages that really far outweigh having it run a little faster.

To those suggesting an EXE wrapper, this still gives you disadvantages 1) and 2), and you don't get the single advantage of slightly better performance, so it seems to me to be entirely worse than just using HTML5. I don't understand why anyone wants something worse than HTML5. OK, there's a small case to submit to stores like Steam, but if you've made a game worthy of Steam, isn't it straightforward to get something like Awesomium working yourself? You don't need it built in to Construct 2, you can already take advantage of it in your own time outside of C2.

@VampyricalCurse - I think you misunderstand how the offline support works. C2 games cannot run on the file:// protocol due to security limitations, but work fine on the http:// protocol even when offline thanks to C2's offline support. The error message that appears is due to the file:// protocol only. As far as my own testing has shown C2 games work perfectly offline thanks to the HTML5 appcache. People aren't really accustomed to going to visiting web pages on http:// while offline though, so this is only really noticable at the moment with iOS web apps and Chrome Web Store apps.

@FireLight - Flash export still has disadvantages 3) and 4), and to some extent 1) because Adobe have ditched Flash for mobile, and is rapidly being replaced by HTML5 on the web anyway, so I see no reason to develop for it at all.

In short it's just a case of:
- we're a tiny team,
- we want to do a lot of this stuff,
- but we can't do everything at once,
- it's early days for Construct 2 (it was first released publically in February) so the gaps are noticable.

Hopefully that explains our position a bit better :)
Scirra Founder
Posts: 24,529
Reputation: 195,390

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:19 am

Nice Ashley, C2 IS really the nicest tool to create HTML5 content at the moment!
About the EXE exporter you can do it on a high level exporting a C2 project to a Construct Classic, so we can use CC to make the actual EXE file...
Thanks for you effort to answer our claims!
Be nice with others and with yourself!
My musics: https://soundcloud.com/vinians
My C2 Forum:
My Site:
Posts: 167
Reputation: 4,954

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:45 am

So basically:
An actual EDK is probably the most we should hope for at this point.
That at least leaves the option open, even if its not by Scirra.
The main thing now is to take the time and get things right.
I don't have a problem with any of that.
Image ImageImage
Posts: 8,382
Reputation: 113,458

Post » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:32 pm

[QUOTE=Ashley] ...
- but we can't do everything at once,

It's good you guys recognize this -- that you currently have a finite amount of time and energy.

This also tells me that C2 is not going to be a half-baked app. I like the current focus and have never liked the idea of companies sitting on the fence about this stuff. If you sit on the fence, you get shot at both sides. Keep your focus on HTML5. Keep calm and carry on.

Posts: 120
Reputation: 6,217


Return to Construct 2 General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: part12studios and 11 guests