Construct 3 - many questions (native exporterts)

  • Refeuh: One of the most coherent opinions I've seen here.

    On the other hand, people who buy the engine don't really care if it's made one person or 100's.

    But you're definitely right.

    Scirra may be a very small team but I've seen many more software updates here than the competition

    even with dozens of developers. Like I said before and I stand by my argument, there are different tools

    for different purposes. Use Construct 2, Unity, Unreal Engine, RPG Maker MV (it's coming! Check it out!),

    libGDX, SDL or just plain C++.

    Just let us choose a toolset that we feel comfortable with and use each one depending on the purpose, deadline,

    scope, etc.

  • > it could also be described as a top-down FZERO, which the SNES could handle

    >

    Obligitory "my SNES could run this", obligitory reminder that as far as I can find the highest resolution mode of the SNES was 512x239 8bpp which is 122kb per layer vs. a modern 32-bit 1080p game which is 8mb per layer or about 68x more bandwidth. Assuming you have the background and four own-texture layers, that's 340x as much bandwidth, not including higher-resolution textures, plus rotation and scaling, plus no sprites-per-line restrictions, plus transparency and alpha blending, etc.

    Nice cropping of what I had said.

    which the SNES could handle if it wasn't in HD

    And you are right, it is a weak Intel GPU, but it's the majority of my (/Steams) customer base and it has been designed to work very well with the existing graphic APIs like DirectX and OpenGL to run some fairly high-end games with little to no problems on low and medium quality modes.

    Maybe all we need is an option to force desktop resolution in fullscreen to something lower to cope with weaker fillrates, but that's not an option for me yet and this render-then-scale idea didn't help either:

    It would require modifying NW.js/Node-Webkit 's code to add that feature right? Great, more waiting on NW.js for a feature that is available already to every DirectX and OpenGL programmer.

    I'm not trying to aggravate or imply that hardware can "magically increase", but there is overhead in HTML5, JavaScript, web browsers, etc. I'm saying that I notice that difference, and even worse my customers notice.

    If I didn't care I would probably be more than happy to just directly quote you saying "Intel GPUs really suck. That's not our fault" every time my customers are running hardware like that and complain of jank, collision glitches caused by low FPS (set minimum fps does help stop this, so sharing our issues leads to results?), and general slowness even though they have better specs than me (but older GPU/CPU that wasn't designed for WebGL).

    But I don't, I believe in you and your great editor, and have done so since the beta days of Construct Classic. You may be 100% right about the future of HTML5, but some more control or investment into these exporters would make a difference.

    Also, saiyadjin I had some really funky things happening when I tried in Chrome (froze my laptop, text was cut in half on my desktop), but I'll try again and post specs for you.

  • Jayjay - it should work just fine, no idea what could cause problems you describe (maybe drivers/buggy windows/there's a lot that could be wrong )

    i believe we are 2 years away from everyone havin' this years's phones that can run mostly anything good. so i'm not concerned about performance. also people should be doing smaller games, and gradually improving

  • I desided that I need native exporters.

    But also I decided that I don't want to use other editors.

    That's why I want Scirra to create native exporters for C3.

    I am ready to pay extra money for native export.

    What am I doing wrong?

    I found a very easy way to understand what C3 features people really need.

    Create voting on the main page of like this:

    "What feature is the most important for you? You can shoose only one feature:

    1. Native exporters

    2. Windows, Mac and Linux Support

    3. Multi-Language Support

    4. Editor Plugin SDK

    5. Construct 2 Compatibility"

  • >

    > I really think some people have the impression that if we write a native exporter, hardware specs will magically increase.

    >

    Ashley please just make one game with unity and then you see native performance is really different and so much better !

    I won't see any performance benefit if the game is fillrate limited on a weak Intel GPU! Again, as I said before, hardware limits don't change even if you change the technology you use. It seems that most people don't understand this?

    But you can play games like grimrock and even gta4 on Intel HD Graphics 4000 GPU.

    3D games use a radically different rendering model which is actually lighter on overdraw than multi-layered 2D games. Also because most top commercial hits are 3D games, some hardware and drivers are probably better optimised for 3D than 2D!

    Maybe all we need is an option to force desktop resolution in fullscreen to something lower to cope with weaker fillrates

    That's effectively what "low quality" fullscreen mode does, and it should be a big help on fillrate-constrained devices like Intel GPUs. A fillrate-heavy game is going to have trouble on an Intel GPU regardless of the technology you used to build it.

  • Should we vote on which native exporter?

    .....pretty everyone in this thread would be unhappy with the results.

    Or worse someone will "socially engineer" what they want.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I won't see any performance benefit if the game is fillrate limited on a weak Intel GPU! Again, as I said before, hardware limits don't change even if you change the technology you use. It seems that most people don't understand this?

    hardware limits don't change but game performance is changing !

    make one simple game with unity and make that exact game in construct 2 and run it on same device you will see hardware is not so limit as you think !

    my note 2 have a great hardware it can run even GTA with no lag (it can run supper high quality games) i mean even big games need less memory then c2 simple games need on android

    but when it comes to c2 games it laggy even in simple games

    you just can use c# instead of javascript for engine

    then you can compile that c# to almost anything (its hard but can be done)

    i know how to program and i can use unity or... and i will use them

    but your c2 is a great software it can make billions you just not so serious about it

    so i suggest you hire people and programmers to develop it and spend some money

    i will promise you will get so much more then now

    html5 still too young and i think its need more than 2 years to be like a native app

  • Vote for something that cannot realistically happen ? No, thanks.

    I think people massively under-estimate the cost (or time, "same" thing) to develop these "native" exporters ; plus the on-going maintenance overhead as platforms keep changing ; plus the fact that in a given family devices themselves behave differently (e.g. many sub-categories of Android devices, etc.)

    If people like the Construct ease-of-use but want native tech for whatever reason, the ideal pipeline today is :

    • develop prototype in C2 ; this way all the gameplay-related risks can be mitigated
    • use a platform specific tool/engine/framework to develop the full game ; this way all the technical-related risks can be mitigated

    Yes that's more work, yes that's more complicated, yes that takes longer.

    But "easy creation" + "complex product" + "cross-platform" is a risky mix.

  • [quote:2nt1w883]so i suggest you hire people and programmers to develop it and spend some money

    i will promise you will get so much more then now

    And start competing with bigger products that have already poured $millions to get where they are ? That's terrible risk management, business strategy and financial advice.

    The differentiation factor of C2 is that it's more focused and easier to use ; but also obviously, as a result, more limited in certain areas. If it loses this differentiation factor, it dies.

  • Vote for something that cannot realistically happen ? No, thanks.

    I vote for apples, though I need oranges, ... but want the strawberry on top too !!

    really .... construct 2 vs unity ...

    apples and oranges ....

    And why do you think talented developers create their PC games on Unity?

    Why don't they use C2 to create PC games?

    The answer is clear for everyone - they need native export.

    Nope, their ability to program in code, in something like android studio, instead of construct 2, offers them that option.

    They never 'needed' it to begin with, they just had it. It is inherent to the used programming language.

    For every successful android game developer (programming in native language) there are 100's who never produced a game because their games fail in ... well .. lots of ways and run like crap. They lacked insight, skills, creativity, endurance ... you name it.

    Saying a construct native exporter will surely produce better games; is like saying anyone who can type a line of text is surely a good programmer able to write good games.

    ... right ?

  • but your c2 is a great software it can make billions you just not so serious about it

    so i suggest you hire people and programmers to develop it and spend some money

    i will promise you will get so much more then now

    A business is not that simple. Scirra aimed for a gap on the market and made a very good software to fill it up: HTML5 game creation environment with visual programming. In my opinion it's fine to give suggestions for Scirra to let them see what the community wants, but at the end it's up to their will and opportunities how they manage their business.

  • >

    > but your c2 is a great software it can make billions you just not so serious about it

    > so i suggest you hire people and programmers to develop it and spend some money

    > i will promise you will get so much more then now

    >

    A business is not that simple. Scirra aimed for a gap on the market and made a very good software to fill it up: HTML5 game creation environment with visual programming. In my opinion it's fine to give suggestions for Scirra to let them see what the community wants, but at the end it's up to their will and opportunities how they manage their business.

    es 2 years ago yes there was a gap 2d html5 was a gap but

    unity have 2d and html5 now

    and there are other engines too so it's time to change

  • It's interesting the number of threads that turn into exporters because of performance X reason. Personally I think the big weakness is that C2 isn't friendly for complicated game development. Object structures, team asset management, lack of modularity, lack of Object>Sheets so on etc are so problematic. Personally and this is just an opinion if these problems were fixed

    Object Structure = Scene Hierarchy with Object Pattern(ie part of scene graph of objects are saved as it's own object, similar to container, but more flexible)

    Team Asset Management = art, audio files should automatically sync when updated with the requirement of manual updating to associated links.

    Modularity = better re-use of code chunks.

    OOP = More logistical design for creating a game that offers better more friendly development patterns to non experienced programmers. There is a reason why OOP is more common than Imperative programming. It's easier to understand, read, write and control in development software.

    Better Plugin control = Moduals and plugins should be per project and stored in the project folder. So that when working in a team the plugins and modules are already ready to go.

    Sprite Object replaced with SpriteBehavior that uses controlled texture atlas. This would increase performance, reduce memory, and solve poorly made projects. This also means that SpriteAnimator should also be a beahviour so that SpriteRendering and Sprite Animations are not linked.

    If these problems and I did say problems were dealt with. I don't think there would be such a cry for native exporters. I feel confident that the average performance of games would significantly increase. But this is all speculation.

    Lack of performance is a symptom, not the cause.

  • >

    > >

    > > but your c2 is a great software it can make billions you just not so serious about it

    > > so i suggest you hire people and programmers to develop it and spend some money

    > > i will promise you will get so much more then now

    > >

    >

    > A business is not that simple. Scirra aimed for a gap on the market and made a very good software to fill it up: HTML5 game creation environment with visual programming. In my opinion it's fine to give suggestions for Scirra to let them see what the community wants, but at the end it's up to their will and opportunities how they manage their business.

    > es 2 years ago yes there was a gap 2d html5 was a gap but

    unity have 2d and html5 now

    and there are other engines too so it's time to change

    And why are you the one to decide that change is required ?

    The other tools generally suck at their potential with rapid development, where as Construct still tops it all ...

    Why is it not time for you to switch to unity ? seeing as you are quite enthusiastic about it

  • And why are you the one to decide that change is required ?

    The other tools generally suck at their potential with rapid development, where as Construct still tops it all ...

    Why is it not time for you to switch to unity ? seeing as you are quite enthusiastic about it

    i like c2 more

    and really c2 is fast and i just say need better performance

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)