> Oh, and in the past we have actually measured Chrome outperforming Construct Classic, which I think now is due to Chrome's parallel & multi-process rendering architecture, whereas Classic was always single-thread single-process.
>
You have to remember that Construct Classic was made in 2007, with it's last update in 2012. It's like comparing a computer from 2007 to one from 2012, of course it's not going to out perform it for any number of reasons, old software and bottlenecks or the new software being able to better use hardware, etc.
Also there's a post just now with CC getting better results than C2.
Where's the post?
It's on the very page your post is on, how did you miss it? There's also this one.
C3 should consider going the MonkeyX way... convert internally the exported code to C++ & OpenGL (depending on the platform) and compile natively on the target platform.
Otherwise C3 is just C2+
I've been saying that currently C3 is just C2+ but obviously nobody is reading my posts. At this point, Construct 3 is essentially just Construct 2 with DLC.
szymek
[quote:3slhy69h]In case of Unity or Game Maker they have different target: real developers with real expectations and real money. So they pay more, but they also expect taking responsability.
So 
Aurel , who developed The Next Penelope is not a real develpoer with real expectations who spent real money buying Construct 2 like everybody else on this forum who has a license?
I think Ashley has to realize that Construct 2 is getting more and more attention as a viable game creation engine yet doesn't want to add in important additions to the engine because they're too much work. I remember a couple months back he made an update which improved C2's performance when destroying objects. And that 10% increase in performance of Native over current can make a huge difference. A lot of games can rely on split second decisions and player reaction time that is in the tens of miliseconds (ms), every bit of improved performance counts. Imagine if nobody optimized their games, it'd be ridiculous. Every game ever released would be another Crysis.
People want to make games, and that's it. A lot of users here, me included don't have money. We spend what little money we earn on Construct 2 because of expectations that it most of the time lives up to, but then on some of the bigger ones just hides.
If Construct 2 and Construct 3 hope to be serious engines, they need to adapt. There's a common logical fallacy where people for example, have a car they spent a total of 7000$ on so far. It breaks down and it costs 1400$ to fix it, but they can buy a better car for 1600$. Yet they fix it because "they've already invested the 7000$, so lets not make that go to waste". Sometimes you simply have work from the ground up again.
Construct 2 targeted portability, and it's done exactly that. So far it's only good for phones and desktop computers if Node-Webkit decides to be merciful (the fact that I can make that joke shows how bad it can get).
Construct 3 needs to target actual full game development, from idea to exporting native PC and console applications. We do not need two versions of the same engine. Make the numbers mean something.
1 was the time of Direct-X and was experimental, it succeeded and blossomed into 2, which is more powerful in some aspects. Construct 3 needs to be a major improvement of both, not an extension of the second.
To be honest, I'd be happy with Construct Classic getting Construct 2's interface and all it's bugs fixed (and maybe its languages changed to C++).