Will Scirra C3 exporter have improved performance over XDK?

Post » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:59 am

@ashley @tom preferably the reliability of XDK/PhoneGap with the performance of Canvas+ by Cocoon.io. Can you tell us if it will be as good if not better than this, or will it be the same as XDK, just more convenient?
B
41
S
12
G
14
Posts: 1,122
Reputation: 11,282

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:55 pm

Good question :D
A performance comparison is in order - sooner or later.
XDK/nodejs VS construct3 exporter
B
40
S
15
G
4
Posts: 426
Reputation: 5,870

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:03 pm

Im confused.
Are you expecting that they wrote a new wrapper?
Image ImageImage
B
172
S
50
G
182
Posts: 8,432
Reputation: 115,083

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:13 pm

I think the performance will be the same.
B
136
S
33
G
17
Posts: 1,560
Reputation: 20,775

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm

newt wrote:Im confused.
Are you expecting that they wrote a new wrapper?

Not a difficult question. Yes, the question is: did they write a new wrapper that has improved performance?
B
41
S
12
G
14
Posts: 1,122
Reputation: 11,282

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:51 pm

Short Answer : No.
The Things you can create is only limited by your imagination. If you don't have the skills then use your motivation as a natural force to exceed all expectations. Chadori RebornXD
B
66
S
22
G
90
Posts: 1,125
Reputation: 60,011

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:11 pm

chadorireborn wrote:Short Answer : No.

So, benefits? Besides less effort?
B
41
S
12
G
14
Posts: 1,122
Reputation: 11,282

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:24 pm

Zebbi wrote:
chadorireborn wrote:Short Answer : No.

So, benefits? Besides less effort?


The Export would become more reliable than before since it will directly be connected to IntelXDK.
But that still depends on what kind of exporter it is. Whether it is single click build inside C3 or a separate program from C3.
Another benefit is that we can file bug reports directly to Scirra if their Export isn't working. So lesser excuses from Scirra.
And since we are in a cloud subscription, the exporter is supposed to be well maintained so there would be lesser bugs and no more workarounds for supporting third party plugins and building. It should be as easy as pie to export if Scirra wasn't false advertising. That's the greatest benefit.
But regarding the performance... It stays the same.
The Things you can create is only limited by your imagination. If you don't have the skills then use your motivation as a natural force to exceed all expectations. Chadori RebornXD
B
66
S
22
G
90
Posts: 1,125
Reputation: 60,011

Post » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:13 pm

chadorireborn wrote:
Zebbi wrote:
chadorireborn wrote:Short Answer : No.

So, benefits? Besides less effort?


The Export would become more reliable than before since it will directly be connected to IntelXDK.
But that still depends on what kind of exporter it is. Whether it is single click build inside C3 or a separate program from C3.
Another benefit is that we can file bug reports directly to Scirra if their Export isn't working. So lesser excuses from Scirra.
And since we are in a cloud subscription, the exporter is supposed to be well maintained so there would be lesser bugs and no more workarounds for supporting third party plugins and building. It should be as easy as pie to export if Scirra wasn't false advertising. That's the greatest benefit.
But regarding the performance... It stays the same.


Any issues you run into with XDK will likely exist with any other web-based exporter, because you don't have control over it, and if you're doing anything it's not expecting the build will fail. The idea that Scirra will be able to provide better maintenance than Intel? What makes you even think that's possible, given the resources of each company?

If you want the option to optimize your builds as much as possible, you're better off installing node.js, cordova, java & GIT on your local machine and compiling locally, which takes much less time and doesn't require uploading your assets to a 3rd-party server (that may potentially be unreliable), which is going to be configured to support a more generalized build as opposed to something specifically for your game projects. Reliability aside, if you're working on a bigger project, uploading over even a fast connection adds a lot to the build time - whether you're using Cocoon, XDK or Phonegap.

Once set up locally, Cordova isn't difficult to use, and just requires a few command-line options or your setting up a batch (.bat) file when you want to compile. If you're interested in doing this, install in this order: java, GIT, node.js, then Cordova. Installing Cordova last allows it to set up the connections to the other components automatically and no manual configuration will be necessary. Plugins can be installed from the command line/powershell, and I'm sure there's a GUI-based installer for them as well if you're more comfortable with that after setup.
B
87
S
47
G
25
Posts: 535
Reputation: 21,777

Post » Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:47 am

digitalsoapbox wrote:
Zebbi wrote:
chadorireborn wrote:Short Answer : No.

So, benefits? Besides less effort?

The Export would become more reliable than before since it will directly be connected to IntelXDK.
But that still depends on what kind of exporter it is. Whether it is single click build inside C3 or a separate program from C3.
Another benefit is that we can file bug reports directly to Scirra if their Export isn't working. So lesser excuses from Scirra.
And since we are in a cloud subscription, the exporter is supposed to be well maintained so there would be lesser bugs and no more workarounds for supporting third party plugins and building. It should be as easy as pie to export if Scirra wasn't false advertising. That's the greatest benefit.
But regarding the performance... It stays the same.


Any issues you run into with XDK will likely exist with any other web-based exporter, because you don't have control over it, and if you're doing anything it's not expecting the build will fail. The idea that Scirra will be able to provide better maintenance than Intel? What makes you even think that's possible, given the resources of each company?

If you want the option to optimize your builds as much as possible, you're better off installing node.js, cordova, java & GIT on your local machine and compiling locally, which takes much less time and doesn't require uploading your assets to a 3rd-party server (that may potentially be unreliable), which is going to be configured to support a more generalized build as opposed to something specifically for your game projects. Reliability aside, if you're working on a bigger project, uploading over even a fast connection adds a lot to the build time - whether you're using Cocoon, XDK or Phonegap.

Once set up locally, Cordova isn't difficult to use, and just requires a few command-line options or your setting up a batch (.bat) file when you want to compile. If you're interested in doing this, install in this order: java, GIT, node.js, then Cordova. Installing Cordova last allows it to set up the connections to the other components automatically and no manual configuration will be necessary. Plugins can be installed from the command line/powershell, and I'm sure there's a GUI-based installer for them as well if you're more comfortable with that after setup.

I just don't believe it's possible to achieve the same performance as Canvas+ does with any exporter/wrapper, none of them seem to disassemble the inner workings and recompile as well, or whatever the hell it does. Would self compiling with a batch file improve performance? And by performance, I obviously mean fps. I don't believe optimising code could improve matters to the point where xdk or a batch file build would ever reach the smooth, fluid gameplay cocoon is providing, but it should.
B
41
S
12
G
14
Posts: 1,122
Reputation: 11,282

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests