Construct 3 - many questions (native exporterts)

That was first demo I tried on Samsung Galaxy and work fine

If you're using asm.js physics, there's not much more that can be done to make it faster - it should already be about as fast as physics in a native engine.

Ashley

It works well in HTML5 games, but it works bad after export via IntelXDK and Crosswalk 10.

Particles are already highly optimised and even very large effects should run well (this demo runs nicely on many of the mobile devices we have in our office, with ~800 particles).

Ashley

It runs 40 FPS and 60% CPU on my mobile device, but it is HTML5-demo.

Export this demo to android via IntelXDK and Crosswalk 10 - I guess, you will get about 10 fps or even less.

People don't see the importance of optimising their code. It's easy to get things run smoothly on a PC, but every single % of CPU counts on Mobile. I was struggling with the same problem in my early stages of development, but as I learnt many tricks along the way my game now runs super smooth on mid range phones as well, even if my game is isometric multiplayer with Z ordering & collissions and tons of objecs on in the layout.

Many people just assume that if the game works on your desktop it will work on their phone, and are blaming the wrapper for bad performance. Usually it's bad code and lack of optimisation.

There are some tutorials and tips on the site on how to get your performance up, but i think the main issue is the lack of general knowledge on how the event system works that people just assume that it will work on phones as well.

I think we would see a lot of more good C2 made games with good performance on various app stores if people knew what they were doing, instead of blaming wrappers/C2 and ditching their projects.

Some more general "good practice" tutorials would be nice working with the event system, and understanding of how code actually works. It's easy to make things happen in C2, but it's hard to make them happen efficiently.

I agree with this. Based on most complaints here the common problem seems to be physics. Almost everyone posting issues is using physics in the game so maybe physic based games are too demanding for low-mid level mobile devices atm.

I haven't done mobile games in a while. But this is the first game I ever made in C2 and it ran pretty good on most devices then. Exported with the old cocoon cloud with the flashing splash screen <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink"> I have no idea on how it runs now so feel free to try it on an older device.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... appz.dropz

I am testing the new cocoon.io and comparing it to the XDK export right now to see how big of a problem the performance is.

c2 optimization is hard especially for mobile look at this game i made (i use physics and alot of stuff but no lag ever !)

(with c2 if you make a game in 1 day you must spend 2 day for optimization !)

play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=rts.mahdi.heydarzadeh

but if you want to make a html5 game i say c2 is the best

if c3 be nativ or be like a asset for unity that can sell so much

Tried your link but didn't work.

What regions have you published this in?

> c2 optimization is hard especially for mobile look at this game i made (i use physics and alot of stuff but no lag ever !)

> (with c2 if you make a game in 1 day you must spend 2 day for optimization !)

> play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=rts.mahdi.heydarzadeh

> but if you want to make a html5 game i say c2 is the best

> if c3 be nativ or be like a asset for unity that can sell so much

>

Tried your link but didn't work.

What regions have you published this in?

it was for iran ! sorry i will publish that for other countries in future

"with c2 if you make a game in 1 day you must spend 2 day for optimization !"

lol - sorry but can't find any other phrase to describe that statement.

I agree with this. Based on most complaints here the common problem seems to be physics. Almost everyone posting issues is using physics in the game so maybe physic based games are too demanding for low-mid level mobile devices atm.

I haven't done mobile games in a while. But this is the first game I ever made in C2 and it ran pretty good on most devices then. Exported with cocoon with the old flashing splash screen <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink"> I have no idea on how it runs now so feel free to try it on an older device.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... appz.dropz

I am testing the new cocoon.io and comparing it to the XDK export right now to see how big of a problem the performance is.

Please keep me posted on your cocoon.io vs XDK results. Very curious which gives better performance.

Anyway, it's kind of sad to see they can differ that much, or get even lower performance than playing your game in your stock phone browser. It should work way better in my opinion.

tunepunk I will.

And to clarify. The game I posted is compiled with the old cocoon cloud and not the new cocoon.io which seems to be much faster than the old one.

Ashley

My small test proves that native export is required even if you make a simple game with no behaviours and only one simple event.

My test contains 5 moving 64x64 squares. The only behaviour they have is "wrap".

APK - it runs 40-45 fps and 8-13% cpu on my mobile device (Apk is made via last version of intel XDK and crosswalk 11)

HTML it runs 58-60 fps and 9-11% cpu on the same mobile device

.CapX

This test proves that Intel XDK kills about 15 fps in a very-very-very simple game.

And now imagine what will happen with complex games.

P.S. Later I can show you the same test built via native apk-export - you will see the difference. It is great.

User Dex from c2community.ru created a very cool benchmark - it will help us to compare HTML5 and APK performance.

HTML5

Benchmark is fine but:

• it doesn't use bigger textures or sprites (256x256 at least),
• sprites are solid, they lack alpha channel, gradient opacity etc. (except fade)

Ashley

My small test proves that native export is required even if you make a simple game with no behaviours and only one simple event.

My test contains 5 moving 64x64 squares. The only behaviour they have is "wrap".

APK - it runs 40-45 fps and 8-13% cpu on my mobile device (Apk is made via last version of intel XDK and crosswalk 11)

HTML it runs 58-60 fps and 9-11% cpu on the same mobile device

.CapX

This test proves that Intel XDK kills about 15 fps in a very-very-very simple game.

And now imagine what will happen with complex games.

P.S. Later I can show you the same test built via native apk-export - you will see the difference. It is great.

So should an APK have inherently better performance than HTML5 in stock browser?

APK is dependent on the state of wrappers and they're sorely lacking at the moment.

Can you do a test with Crosswalk 14 and/or Cocoon IO?

Also, writing the same game in Eclipse using Java + android sdk will ALWAYS give better performance, is this being disputed?

paradine - it sounds like most of your criticism is centered exclusively on Crosswalk. It had a bug recently which could reduce performance, but it should be improved in Crosswalk 14. There's no reason Crosswalk can't be as fast as the browser (it is a browser), so it should be able to produce identical results to your HTML export which appears to have excellent performance, so if it can be that fast, what do we need a native exporter for? We're not going to work on a 12-18month project just to work around a passing bug in Crosswalk.

intel XDK and crosswalk 11 - it runs 40-45 fps on my mobile device.

The newest Intel XDK and the newest Crosswalk - it runs 45-46 fps on my mobile device.

Native APK - it runs 60 fps on my mobile device.

paradine - I agree.

I have to agree with you here..

There is a lot of competition emerging in the 'game-maker engine' space

Scirra will have to adapt to the market's demand or its customer's will undoubtedly move on.

The way I see it Construct 2 has one really, really big flaw and it needs to be fixed..

Just scroll down to look at biggest "CONS" with Construct 2 to see what people are talking about:

http://www.slant.co/topics/341/viewpoin ... onstruct-2

I like the engine, but it needs an overhaul... C3 maybe????