Construct 3 - many questions (native exporterts)

  • newt also the only one that is barely used for something considered "serious" for some reason, I did hope that when the arcade would be there, the html5 export would get the love it desirve for, you know, being the only exporter that actually is maintained entirely by scirra as is (a user can understand some browsers issues and expect them, for an exe though or an apk, that is pretty hard to swallow, "you chose the wrapper you should have known!"), I do not mind the absence of native exporter at all (even though some people seems to have missed that part when buying it, entirely their fault of course but it could maybe have been clearer), but the html5 exporter could have some features that are currently only for wrappers for no good reasons, or a better connectivity with social network, whoch would also be there for the html5 of C3, just my two cents.

    As for the paid update, does not seem that bad in all honesty, if it becomes what they said it will be (more opened to third party plugins, the editor working on more OSes, better stability and most of all maintainability of official plugins) I would say it is fair, but for now, C2 should be fixed a little more so we can call it a finished product (once again my two cents, I now my opinion is not much as scirra obviously can do everything they want, the market shares will decide).

  • ...I do not mind the absence of native exporter at all (even though some people seems to have missed that part when buying it, entirely their fault of course but it could maybe have been clearer)...

    I'm not sure i can agree with you on that "entirely their fault of course" part cause it kind insults me

    I bought a licence somewhere in the middle of 2011, just because I loved using Construct and I knew that by supporting the team they will make C2 far more superior (with all of the features yet to be added to the engine and idiotic things and bugs from Construct fixed).

    Then few months later Construct 2 r62 comes out with a blog post saying:

    "As I mentioned, we're hard at work on our HTML5 features right now. However, one of our long term plans is the possibility of releasing an Exporter Development Kit (EDK) in the long term future. (I must emphasise that's the long term future - please don't get too excited just yet!)"

    I did not mind that and probably no one did at the time, because C2 was still in early stage and we were all busy with Construct projects. So I waited, doing my stuff and playing/learning with new C2 releases.

    10 months lates C2 r100 introduced Windows exe export by using Awesomium, which was total crap saying it lightly. 5 months later (C2 r115) Awesomium was dropped and node-webkit was introduced as a replacement. We all know the rest.

    Sometime later EDK died completely with a brief post "...we're most likely not going to provide an EDK".

    You might be the one who actually bought C2 just for its html5 capabilities and can't blame you for that. C2 was and still is the best and easiest tool for making web games and probably only C3 will surpass it. But don't forget there are people like me who bought it very early not only for html5 but also for other export options (especially native exe was always in high demand) we were told we will get after some time

    All we get after 4 years is Node-we...sorry "NW.js" which still works like a cra...chromium

  • shinkan by " their fault" it is obviously about those who bought it after this decision, and even then it is their fault the same way if someone recieve spam in his e-mail adress it is his fault for putting it somewhere, they are responsible but lets face it, when that much people do that mistake, something is just wrong elsewhere and blaming the user only goes that far but will not correct the issue, which was the point of the end of the parenthesis (in the case of spam: spams should not exist and just putting your email should not be that dramatic of a decision but in the end it can be a big issue, in the case of C2, people expect it to have native, why I do not know and that is not my job but scirra's one to figure that out)

  • I like C2 and I hope that it becomes better than what is already is. I haven't used it as much as other people in the thread as far as publishing.

    But the comment on not needing to program and people isn't 'coding' correctly is true to some level. Regardless of people not having to code (As advertised) C2 structure is still on some level of coding just like Scratch is used when teaching students at Harvard in computer science the basics and logic because it is an easy stepping stone. I think when they refer to 'not coding' they are referring to the more traditional way that is offer with GameMaker studio. which is one thing that I like is to have the option inside the kit to actually script if I want to or if I want to click blocks together. A lot of the users have this mindset that since they don't have to code that they can make these logical errors and the software should fix it for them when that is not the case. So some issues are C2 fault and some are greatly user error because of this misconception.

    Like a while ago I had pointed a person eventsheet that was full of redundancy. A person responded after me and said it wasn't a problem but was ignorant to the fact that if they do redundant activities in that part they will do it else where in the program which would cause it to use more processing work then actually needed that could then lead to slow down as their project got bigger. Which I also stated that such logical behavior shouldn't be encourage and that is the key difference between knowing how to code and not. A Coder would know better. So maybe not having to code is its plus but there is a requirement to understand logical programming. Maybe they should just drop the 'Needing to Code' aspect of the advertising because it is still some level of coding it is just in a way that is easier to understand by a non-coder. But this in no way say some of the issues isn't on C2 functionality but alot of it is greatly on the user.

    Now my grip with the NW export for desktop is that there is no option to change the icon and you have to find a hack to actually change the icon to something of your own. But i was disappointed because it wasn't clear how the exporters worked and it wasn't how I expected but again I don't use it extensively as some for publishing.

    Also the Manual could be clearly up a little more. A few areas are quite vague. It took me a moment to figure out how the function features worked and once I figured it out I was like why they didn't just say that.

    Also it would be nice to have a Live2D integration in the future.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Aphrodite ahh I see, I understood it like you were talking about all "buyers" from the initial release .

    In that case I see no reasons to not agree with you.

    Expectations for native comes from scirra.com main page itself - "Build Once. Publish Everywhere. True multiplatform support. Build your game in Construct 2 and publish it to all these platforms." statement.

    Don't know why but people these days forgot how to read and use their logic. Instead of finding out more info about the product their will go ahead and download/buy it. And only after that they realize that this is not exactly what they thought it is. Free user have a bit better situation because they can only export to the web, so all is fine here. How game will work will mostly depend only on the browsers. But people who bought it before reading/thinking will hit the wall right away. So yeah scirra should really figure it out.

    Also i noticed some part of my previous post did not show so I'll put it here again.

    Web export. Yes. For me It's like an Image Editor. Add it, if it work leave it, make some occasional fixes and small additions, forget about it. There's so much stuff missing I don't even know where to start...

    And just like Construct was Construct 2 will never be called a finished product. Complete product have some kind of a road map that goes from A to B and either as a developer you can make and release a full product - like most people used to do in the past. Or release it as a very popular these days "early access" scheme . Which is not bad (well not in every case) because it lets you play with it while devs have time and money to finish it up. But it still means there is a point B somewhere. Unfortunately there was only point A with C2 (and CC) there is no point B and will never be. And i don't really like it cause I don't know what to expect in the future.

    With some sort of a to do list we could tell what and when to expect from it, What was done, what is in development and what are the plans for next months. But not here. It's all just one big experiment. If Ashley is in good mood he may fix some issues, if he is not then he will say "it's not compatible with our UI library"

    C2 will end up just like CC did. One day they will announce "This is C3. We will no longer support C2 from this day. Buy C3 or stick with old unfinished C2"

    To be honest I will not fall into that trap again. I will get C3 only if I see some sort of a road map or to do list with time tables, that will let me know what and when to expect from it. I will not spend my money on something I was told I will get just to read many months later "yeah, sorry but no" again

  • PhoenixNightly I agree on the fact no programming knowledge is needed to an extend, however most issues with users seems to come from three facts:

    -Sometimes they did not designed the part they want to implement enough and so, do not know how to implement it (if someones want to build a car or a bike without any plans, well good luck, if they did plan ahead it becomes much more easy as you just have to do it, same goes for C2, if you do not know enough what you want to do, you cannot simply translate it to the event system, some call that designing part programming or coding but I disagree, it is more designing at that level as you do not have to take any limitations in account at first, only when implementing it).

    -Sometimes they did describe it fully, but just have no idea how to implement it, in which case asking the forum often solves that issue.

    -sometimes they either implemented it wrong or relied on a specificity of the system they should not rely on but think it is "fine enough".

  • Aphrodite

    Absolutely correct

  • Aphrodite ahh I see, I understood it like you were talking about all "buyers" from the initial release .

    In that case I see no reasons to not agree with you.

    Expectations for native comes from scirra.com main page itself - "Build Once. Publish Everywhere. True multiplatform support. Build your game in Construct 2 and publish it to all these platforms." statement.

    Don't know why but people these days forgot how to read and use their logic. Instead of finding out more info about the product their will go ahead and download/buy it. And only after that they realize that this is not exactly what they thought it is. Free user have a bit better situation because they can only export to the web, so all is fine here. How game will work will mostly depend only on the browsers. But people who bought it before reading/thinking will hit the wall right away. So yeah scirra should really figure it out.

    Also i noticed some part of my previous post did not show so I'll put it here again.

    Web export. Yes. For me It's like an Image Editor. Add it, if it work leave it, make some occasional fixes and small additions, forget about it. There's so much stuff missing I don't even know where to start...

    And just like Construct was Construct 2 will never be called a finished product. Complete product have some kind of a road map that goes from A to B and either as a developer you can make and release a full product - like most people used to do in the past. Or release it as a very popular these days "early access" scheme . Which is not bad (well not in every case) because it lets you play with it while devs have time and money to finish it up. But it still means there is a point B somewhere. Unfortunately there was only point A with C2 (and CC) there is no point B and will never be. And i don't really like it cause I don't know what to expect in the future.

    With some sort of a to do list we could tell what and when to expect from it, What was done, what is in development and what are the plans for next months. But not here. It's all just one big experiment. If Ashley is in good mood he may fix some issues, if he is not then he will say "it's not compatible with our UI library"

    C2 will end up just like CC did. One day they will announce "This is C3. We will no longer support C2 from this day. Buy C3 or stick with old unfinished C2"

    To be honest I will not fall into that trap again. I will get C3 only if I see some sort of a road map or to do list with time tables, that will let me know what and when to expect from it. I will not spend my money on something I was told I will get just to read many months later "yeah, sorry but no" again

    Spot on!

    *signed

  • I think this topic should be on top before we get official answers.

  • "Our goal is to make Construct 3 the best game making editor ever" more like the best prototyping tool ever

  • "Our goal is to make Construct 3 the best game making editor ever" more like the best prototyping tool ever

    Construct 2 has the potential of making small, and big games, if people tends to do prototypes, just because its using cross platform exporters that doesn't mean you cant create actually great games with it. and 90% of the time in a game all that matters is the graphics. so.. c2 is the tool of freedom for game artists, ... and enhances the abilities of a advanced programmer, you can create ur own plugins that can do anything, even a serious game engine function that will save u a lot of events and make it run very smooth, but then u need to know JavaScript and to work with the SDK that scirra offers, the quote u said its just a poor opinion i say no offense intended.

    you can make from 2d to even fast 3d games with c2 in the current stage, i can only imagine the performance enhancements that C3 will bring, im guessing no more cross platform exporters that will be the most useful thing in my opinion and a 3d viewer for 3d games, maybe default implement the q3d functionalities and make it more simplistic to use, but the rest is just perfect as it is.

  • the quote u said its just a poor opinion i say no offense intended.

    To be honest I was just joking, I really like C2 it's one of the best and easiest tools that I ever used... but now that you mentioned it, C2 doesn't perform as advertised.

    So I need to know javascript to get good performance? I might as well just program the whole thing in javascript then.

    It doesn't matter how you guys try to hide it, it's impossible as of now to get good performance on a complex game, I tried for weeks.

    But what about those successful games that Scirra advertise? Yes, I admit that some of them have good performance but if you think about it, those are not very complex games, those are just pretty games.

    If you use physics your frame rate drops a lot, the same applies if you use many animations or have multiple AIs, etc etc

    I did many test with other engines like unity, game maker, clickteam fusion, stencyl and the performance is huge compared to what I get with C2, even without optimizing the assets or the code for better performance.

    Please don't send me to a performance tips tutorial, because I tried every single tip and C2 it's just not build for it. To be fair whats not build for it, it's the technology... I'm pretty sure that in a few(many) years every device it's going to run html5 at 60 FPS without any issues.(or maybe not)

    Some users say that it's not scirra's fault, because all of the exporters are third-party and many issues come from there... well, perhaps they should work on their own exporters as they advertise? "True multiplatform support. Build your game in Construct 2 and publish it to all these platforms." a third party wrapper is not true multiplatform support.

    In conclusion, I'm not trying to make C2 look bad or anything, I just want to tell the truth because I found out about all these issues after I purchased C2 and I don't want this to happen to other users, they need to know the truth before spending their hard earned money. C2 it's a great tool, very easy to use, you can program pretty much anything that you can imagine(even if you are just a beginner) but you have to know it's limitations and be really careful about the performance, try not to make very complex games, and if you are planning to make a very complex game, you should look somewhere else because C2 it's not the right tool for it.

  • If you're getting better performance out of Stencyl, you're doing something wrong with C2.

    Share your work, everyone has blind spots.

  • You are saying that stencyl performance is worse than C2?

    I have to say, that stencyl was one of the top performers on my tests.

    They are currently running under OpenFL and the performance is awesome!

    And just to be clear, I don't use stencyl to make games or anything, I don't even own it. (I just did some heavy testing on it)

    You can find a couple stencyl games here and you can see that they have great performance, I'm not even sure if C2 can handle something like ghost song... (i don't think so)

    http://community.stencyl.com/index.php/ ... 809.0.html

    http://community.stencyl.com/index.php?topic=36539.0

  • droxon

    Are you focusing on HTML5 performance on mobile or PC?

    I'm making what I like to believe is a complex game (at least CPU-wise) and I have hit so many performance issues that cause the fps to dip below 60fps, but almost always discover it was my own fault and end up resolving them. I'm maintaining well above 60fps on NW.JS on a game that has a lot of collision stuff to deal with. Also, I do not write my own plugins or know how to javascript.

    Also, it'd be realllllllll cool if you could send those tests from all the different software to Ashley or something, maybe a build as well as the source files. Assuming your tests are right, that would surely encourage Ashley to focus a lot on performance, but as I stated above, I'm personally not having performance issues from C2 itself. It's usually my fault.

    I admit, when I try for hours to get a few extra FPS when it is dropping, I start to blame C2, I start thinking "Goddamn the collision engine must be so crap, howcome MMF2 does it so much better!!" or "Damn what's the point of WebGL if it just lags after like 4 effects!" or something, but then I remember I did have performance issues with MMF2 at points (even with collisions), and then I eventually discover where my problems lie (usually something like trying to do collision detection with like 200 objects every tick or something that didn't seem obvious at the start, or just understanding the concept of how shaders work and some shaders need more processing than others) and then I take a different approach or rework it and volia! problem solved.

    Not gonna lie though, I had a nightmare with mobile, but that was about a year ago, must be better now.

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