Will there ever be a 3D alternate to Construct 2?

Chat about anything not covered in these forums, but keep it civil!

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:48 am

In my opinion it does make sense for a few reasons:

[QUOTE=Ashley]Most people can draw a sprite, but how many can do 3D modelling?[/QUOTE]

A recent press release from unity claims to have 17 of apple's top iOS games of the year developed in unity and 1.5 million registered developers, and while some of those developers are using it for 2d, I've heard it's not all that well suited for it, so it seems like most of those users are using for 3d - and that's just unity, so I'd say a lot! There are also many options for getting content bundled with programs and from digital shops as well.

[QUOTE=Ashley]The maths gets a lot harder too, with things like quaternions instead of a simple angle.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't that be simplified by allowing the user to choose between using quaternions, 3 axes, or simply aim towards a object/point in 3d space? Like an action: object: point at object 2, or object: point at object2.x, object2.y, object2.z, or set roll to x, etc.

[QUOTE=Ashley]IMO combining this complexity with a "simple" event system doesn't make sense, because it's still complicated.[/QUOTE]

I think it makes sense - if a person wants to develop something that requires complex portions, they would still appreciate having the other parts that don't have to be complex be simpler. I was able to do a surprising amount just with the functionality cc had. A lot of game logic doesn't even have anything to do with the number of dimensions, and the event system would help with that tremendously.

The fact that playmaker and kismet exist for unity and UDK shows there's a demand for a way to make 3d game development simpler with a nice visual interface. I think c2's event editor is vastly superior to either of those and would work brilliantly for 3d as well as 2d. Besides, some of us WANT to make complex stuff. It would certainly be better if power users didn't have to leave if they wanted to do such things.

[QUOTE=Ashley]Popup 3D like Classic had in a very limited way is possible, but I'm not sure how useful it really is, plus it would depend on WebGL support in C2 which is not really ubiquitously supported yet.[/QUOTE]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by pop-up 3D, but regardless of you're talking about the 3d object, sprite distortion or simple z depth with sprites I could definitely make use of all of those even if they are webGL only. After all, we can detect if webgl is not enabled and replace the effect with something else if that's the case, and if we're targeting desktop exe it's not an issue.

3D would also open up construct to a whole new segment of users, increasing your user base and target audience, meaning more sales and c2 dominating the industry, crushing all others beneath its - I mean, uh, more sales. Yeah.
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,432

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:01 am

Will there ever be a 3D alternate to Construct 2? I sure hope not.

Anyone who wants this does not understand the extra complexity of 3D. There is a beauty to the simplicity of 2D and I hope C2 never crosses that line.

Remember the audience of C2: non-programmers. I would bet that implies non-mathematicians. Put simply, if you cannot program your game, you cannot to do 3D mathematics.

This post reminds me of the "I want network programing to be super easy" posts. It isn't and never will be.
B
17
S
6
G
6
Posts: 113
Reputation: 4,161

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:35 am

lol wat

Anyway, I'll look into that Playmaker thing for Unity despite looking inefficient compared to C2's editor.
B
134
S
65
G
16
Posts: 1,766
Reputation: 19,190

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:45 am

@Ashley Construct Classic had 3D object plugin, so why everyone loves 3D object which is rotating like a planet.

It doesn't mean 3D is better than 2D, just are part of graphics, i personally believe 3d object would be potential for C2. I'm not talking full 3D with cameras, just 2.5D

http://www.kevs3d.co.uk/dev/html5logo/

Isn't beautiful?

I don't know why you wouldn't add 3D object, so what if you can beat game maker?

Find 3D js libraries what it suits your needs, you judge them, some libraries support WebGL or Canvas



http://jster.net/tag/3d

If is not possible, then we will understand the reasons.Joannesalfa2013-01-17 08:53:01
B
96
S
25
G
20
Posts: 3,054
Reputation: 22,642

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:55 am

@Trevor10 - I understand how complex 3d can be, which is exactly why I want construct to have it so it would be simplified enough to a point I can actually use. Having 3d in construct doesn't mean people suddenly have to start flinging calculus around - far from it.

Besides, I'm not asking for the euphoria character physics engine or anything, basic 3d like CC has isn't actually very hard to work with at all. It has an extra axis of rotation but that's pretty much it. Everything I tried to do with it hasn't even involved any math past very basic algebra, the same level I generally use working in 2d, and even at that level, while I was still very new to construct I managed the beginnings of a very basic starfox clone no problem and added some nifty effects to some prototypes - like what I mentioned before, a planet rotating or large spaceships in a shmup are good simple examples, very effective in 3d while being unrealistic with sprites.

Why not have it there for those who want it and are capable? There's really no downside. Even if c2 adds 3d, it's not like you would have to use it if you didn't want to.

@Joannesalfa - whoa - awesome link there. I wonder if one of those 3d js libraries would be easier to implement than three.js.Arima2013-01-17 09:02:30
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,432

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:47 pm

Sorry, my post was surlier than I intended. I believe Unity3D and UDK both have some sort of event system - like you said. However, Kodu is probably the absolute easiest way to work with 3D which is inspired by Alice which also aims to make 3D easy.
B
17
S
6
G
6
Posts: 113
Reputation: 4,161

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:39 pm

I agree with Arima. If Craftstudio can do visual scripting for 3D, then why not.

Oh yeah, i herd of Kodu. Hmm, might try it out.PixelPalette2013-01-17 20:43:04
B
50
S
11
G
7
Posts: 274
Reputation: 8,146

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:38 pm

@Ashley, I think you're overestimating the complexity of 3D and underestimating the capabilities of events!

3D maths, generally speaking (and I'm oly talking about programming logic), are simply extensions of 2D algorythms into 3D (ex. Bresenham's line, A*). Most of the truly complex stuff has to do with rendering (with a few exceptions such as gimbal locking), and that would be handled by [a theoretical 3d version of] construct.

Besides, what's keeping the event system from being as powerful (and faster) than coding by hand? I can't think of anything that can be implemented in code and can't be implemented via events - what's stopping events anyways? Most OO stuff can be directly adopted, such as custom variable types, object variables, pointers/direct referencing, inheritance (even if prototypical inheritance like js)!

As for modeling, it's not REALLY that hard to get into. I personally find sculpting with zBrush much easier than working pixel art with the tools available, and 2D art is only marginally better (thanks to spriter). And the results often look better, too.

I'm not saying Scirra should jump into a new product or try to cram 3D into construct 2 - First of all, scirra is too small to run two huge projects at once. Second of all, such a product would have to be designed from scratch.

There is demand for it, though, and I definitely think it's something worth considering for a future project.Fimbul2013-01-17 22:39:53
B
35
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,868

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:48 pm

[QUOTE=Fimbul]I'm not saying Scirra should jump into a new product or try to cram 3D into construct 2 - First of all, scirra is too small to run two huge projects at once. Second of all, such a product would have to be designed from scratch.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily - 3d could be theoretically incorporated like box2d was, by using an open source 3d js library, like one of the ones linked to above. I don't know the technical details (apparently three.js is incompatible with the way c2 does things), but one of them might be implementable with far more ease than making an entire separate product. After all, basic 3d was added to CC and it didn't require a rewrite or separate product.Arima2013-01-17 22:58:55
Moderator
B
88
S
32
G
33
Posts: 3,005
Reputation: 27,432

Post » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:54 pm

Still, I don't want a tacked-on 3D solution, an in-house thing would be better (and perhaps the only viable alternative).

Keep in mind construct 2 was developed with a clear intention of integrating one (or maybe more?) physics engines later, so that's why it succeeded, and yet if you read Ashley's comments, it's clear he believes Box2D generates way too much garbage. I don't know if he cleaned up the code manually or left it as is, but it probably took a ton of work - and, again, this is something he was planning when C2 development started.

I don't think adding a 3D engine as an afterthought would be viable. I could be mistaken.

What I'd actually like, however, is some better eventing capabilities so we could fake 3D more easily.

Implementing isometric, for instance, is very hard, due to being unable to add methods/functions to objects (even though we can add variables), not having access to z-ordering (must do an ordered loop), etc.Fimbul2013-01-17 23:54:54
B
35
S
8
G
8
Posts: 532
Reputation: 6,868

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests