CC/C2 discussion

This forum is currently in read-only mode.
  • I don't think it should become it's own thread. And I think it depends on the nature of the derailment.

    Think about it. This only serves to deter people, in the forum for this program, from wanting to use this program.

    While your experience is definitely valuable, I don't 100% put stock in it. Konjak has been developing The Iconoclasts with this, and 6e6e6e has been making Radio The Universe with it. Both of those are full length polished games in the works, I believe they will both finish.

    I've been working on my own project for a few months now, and it's discouraging to see other people start this sort of thing. I'll say it again, it's not constructive. And now I will stop reading this thread.

  • Conversely, I think it's a disservice to NOT let people know they might encounter these problems. If I was new to construct, this is the sort of thing I would want to know about when deciding between CC and C2 for anything larger than a small game. It's better to hear this kind of thing up front than after months or years of hard work, discovering it on your own.

    Part of the problem with CC's problems is it's very hard to tell what causes them, so you're right, some of them happen to some people but not to others. But it's still a risk - if it happened to one user, it could happen to another, and people are generally in agreement that CC has problems. There are generally ways to plow through or work around them, but it got worse and worse in loot pursuit's case to the point where it's very unpleasant to work on any more in comparison to working in C2.

    I also seem to recall Konjak mentioning some problems with CC at one point as well, though I don't recall which ones, so I don't think his dev experience has been completely smooth either (though I could be remembering wrong and don't want to speak for him).

    Anyway, my stance is thus - CC is capable of making great games, but there's no way to tell how many problems you'll encounter along the way. If you want to ensure a much smoother dev experience, use C2.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Ok? Were doing this? alright then...

    :WARNING INCOMING NERD TANGENT:

    I'm sorry C2 just doesn't feel right. like I said, I used it, its got some cool stuff going, i really love the interface, in particular how in handles global values and arrays.

    however it really doesn't seem like it was ever intended to support projects heavily reliant on client side resources or processor speed.

    you CAN make them, but its really inconvenient.

    and a lot of the more advance features you would have to do thru custom plugins.

    witch you would have to wright in JavaScript.

    making it not much of a game maker, more of a game engine at that point.

    the default system seems to be designed for small browser stile games

    --------------------

    Conversely Construct has surprised me over and over with what I can get away with just inside the vanilla program. I really do love the thing.

    I've been using it heavily for over 5 years now. and there's seriously never been an idea I have gone to it with, and the thing not be able to handle.

    However when I've tried to put it all together. something stupid happens., and the whole thing becomes a mess of offset icons and random syntax errors. you can still cross the finish line, nothing is ever critically wrong with it, but the interface at that point is not very easy to use.

    I would love to see a REAL sequel to construct.

    and maybe C2 really is that. its just never felt like it.

    Maybe its just that the cutesy ,Comic Sans , "Were so Wacky", baby's first game-maker, web site overhaul just left a bad taste in my mouth.

    C1 was created as a counter product to clickteams MMF. with the attitude of creating a game making program as a legitimate rival to strait code scripting.

    the whole thing felt like you were on the cutting edge of some unknown tool that was going to revolutionise how games could be made.I really beveled that. I even donated to the project...witch is a big deal for me.

    Now every time I go to the site I just go "Good God...what am i doing with my life?"

    as if I've dedicated the last 5 years to trying to become the

    Subscribe to Construct videos now

    ... instead of learning a REAL instrument.

  • Bartosh - Actually we do talk about payment on this forum. The discussion got sidetracked, which happens frequently on forums. We're presenting our opinions about CC and C2, I'm not sure what the problem is. Me neither. It was a good and the right decision to split the thread (or am I missing something?)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You can't judge a tool's capabilities by the content created with that tool. Games take a long time to make, and C2 hasn't been out that long.It is the only way to judge a tool's capabilities. If a tool looks good and feels good but creates bad or limited results (just a general thought, this is not aimed at C2), it shouldn't be judged as a good 'game creator'. Following your logic, Stencyl would be the much better game creator than C2. Better interface, better integration of support (like drag'n'drop whole premade block sequences), better response time, etc. Then have a look at apps made with it...

    True, there is functionality missing from C2 that CC has, but it's being added regularly.So you're arguing based on possible features that might be there somewhere in the future? That doesn't fit to your statement 'In fact, ...'

    Regardless, even in its current state, I don't recall many games that were made with CC that couldn't be made with C2 (thumb war being the most notable example, but even then if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable, though it might require a fast machine).

    There are also plenty of examples of stuff C2 can do that CC can't - probably more examples at this point, and those examples are probably more relevant to the majority of users (exporting to mobile, mac and linux, for example).The contradiction of the two passages is why I answered. Such a contradiction was also in the passage, that I reacted to at first.

    You say "if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable". But it hasn't. On the other hand you ignore the same option for CC. Because if CC had an exporting plugin, it would also be capable of exporting to mobile, mac and linux. See? It doesn't make sense to compare things that might have been integrated, but aren't.

    I'm not sure what you mean by that, but having made a complex game in CC with over 10,000 events, 500 objects and thousands of animation frames, I can state with some authority that my attempt to make something complex with CC didn't work well at all and CC is not reliably up to the challenge of making a large complex game. CC is barely, barely able to manage loot pursuit which is actually a medium to small game, and yet it takes 10 minutes to load the battle event sheet, 7 seconds of waiting for every single edit made to that event sheet, 30 minutes to undo or delete an object, 5 minutes to preview, there are events I can't move or edit without crashing the editor and I have to repeatedly close and restart the program when using the animation editor to keep memory leaks from crashing the program, not to mention all the instability caused by trying to do things like delete family variables or such keeping me from reworking the code.

    Conversely, my attempts to make things in C2 have worked much, MUCH smoother. Aside from the features it lacks (sprite distortion, etc) and event execution speed (which is plenty fast for almost everything most people will want to do), C2 can make the vast majority of what CC can, and a lot of what CC can't. It's better in almost every way.

    Yes, that's exactly what I meant. First, what you are looking for is not the best result for the users of your app, but the most comfortable editor for yourself. There's nothing wrong with such a wish, it's just not the point. The result is what counts, the gamer doesn't care if you could produce a game comfortable or with literal pain - a gamer just wants a good game.

    And second, you indeed confuse complexity with sheer quantity. See, thumb war indeed is a complex game - yet it doesn't have 10000 events, 500 objects or thousands of animation frames. I also remind on Boom, an application I made, which let's you grow trees from seeds. Believe me it is highly complex, but it also hasn't 10000 events, etc.

    Another example:

    event sheet A

    +Always -> Create object...

    +Always -> Create object...

    +Always -> Create object...

    +Always -> Create object...

    +Always -> Create object...

    +Always -> Create object...

    +Always -> Create object...

    +Always -> Create object...

    event sheet B

    For "" from 0 to 7 -> Create object

    Now what sheet is more complex? I think you will agree that although A has 8 events and B only 1 event, neither of them is more complex than the other. The first one is just bad programming.

    Or an example from the professional world: Bioshock 2's installment size was 6.4 GB, TES V: Skyrim had 3.8 GB. Yet, Skyrim is by far the more complex game in every aspect. (values from XBox360 installs)

    Don't judge complexity from sheer quantity. Judge it from subtle things like calculations per tick, realtime interaction, crosslinks, depth of gameplay, etc. Often you will see applications that look and feel so simple to the user, while it amazes us. That was achieved with highly complex code aimed at easy accessibility for the user.

    Even if CC didn't have its instability I would still like C2 more. More platforms, better editor, faster preview, actively developed - honestly, I don't understand why people talk like CC is the actual great version of construct when C2 is so much better.Because of its output! The result is what counts. And CC produces rock-solid, fast and amazing executables. My actual project is again a complex one, and you can only dream of doing something like that with C2. (I won't make it public now, but if you're interested, I'll send you a download link via pm). But it is more of an appliation than a game, so I don't count it in here.

    - capable of even outrunning CC's rendering speed by a good margin with a recent graphics card.No. It starts with the fact that any WinXP user (which still is more than a third of all installed windows versions) will experience software rendering. But even if we take that out of the comparison... Let's create a simple executable: 4000 sprites (based on 4 different sprites with 1000 copies each) of size 128x128 on a FullHD fullscreen, and, if you want to reduce it to rendering speed, no rotation, no movement, and just a start of layout event to create the sprites. I bet CC will win the rendering speed challenge.

  • > You can't judge a tool's capabilities by the content created with that tool. Games take a long time to make, and C2 hasn't been out that long.It is the only way to judge a tool's capabilities. If a tool looks good and feels good but creates bad or limited results (just a general thought, this is not aimed at C2), it shouldn't be judged as a good 'game creator'.

    That's just not the case. That's looking at a tool without using your imagination at all. People create completely amazing things with things that weren't originally made for that purpose routinely.

    If the full potential of paint and a paintbrush was revealed by what was made with them, why should Leonardo Da Vinci have ever bothered painting the Mona Lisa? Why should anyone have looked at something and thought they could make a wheel out of it to make their job easier? If people determined that the maximum potential of something was only what has already been done with that thing, then no one would ever make any scientific or artistic progress on anything at all.

    To say that construct 2's maximum potential has already been reached - I can't understand why you'd think that. The very first games made with construct two were incredibly basic, so if that revealed the limits of its potential how did anyone ever surpass it?

    Following your logic, Stencyl would be the much better game creator than C2. Better interface, better integration of support (like drag'n'drop whole premade block sequences), better response time, etc. Then have a look at apps made with it...

    From what I have seen of Stencyl I disagree it has a better interface, but I haven't used it. I think that's a matter of opinion. I judge Stencyl the same way - I sincerely doubt it's maximum potential has been reached either.

    Imagine the difference of an inexperienced and developer trying to make something in the same program. Construct two is still new, and professional developers I hear often like to wait until a new engine has had something made with it that proves its viability. At that point you'll be seeing more and more impressive stuff.

    > True, there is functionality missing from C2 that CC has, but it's being added regularly.So you're arguing based on possible features that might be there somewhere in the future? That doesn't fit to your statement 'In fact, ...'

    >

    > > Regardless, even in its current state, I don't recall many games that were made with CC that couldn't be made with C2 (thumb war being the most notable example, but even then if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable, though it might require a fast machine).

    > >

    > > There are also plenty of examples of stuff C2 can do that CC can't - probably more examples at this point, and those examples are probably more relevant to the majority of users (exporting to mobile, mac and linux, for example)./QUOTE] The contradiction of the two passages is why I answered. Such a contradiction was also in the passage, that I reacted to at first.

    > You say "if C2 had sprite distortion it might be capable". But it hasn't. On the other hand you ignore the same option for CC. Because if CC had an exporting plugin, it would also be capable of exporting to mobile, mac and linux. See? It doesn't make sense to compare things that might have been integrated, but aren't.

    In that case, I'm referring to the fact that construct two is being actively developed, a benefit that construct classic does not have, and Ashley has mentioned the possibility of sprite distortion in construct 2. Exporting to mobile is not coming to construct classic. Regardless, that does not change the fact that complex games can be made in construct two now with the features it already has.

    I'm also not ignoring that construct classic can do some things that construct two can't, I've mentioned that it can.

    > First, what you are looking for is not the best result for the users of your app,

    Completely incorrect. What I get out of C2 provides a better experience on more platforms and therefore is better for the users, many of whom couldn't play at all otherwise by not having windows.

    > but the most comfortable editor for yourself. There's nothing wrong with such a wish, it's just not the point. The result is what counts, the gamer doesn't care if you could produce a game comfortable or with literal pain - a gamer just wants a good game.

    The editor is entirely relevant to the discussion here. You shouldn't ignore the effect a difficult to endure development environment has on the resulting game. With how hard loot pursuit is to work on, it results in it taking more time to make and eventually it became so hard to work with that I had to ditch some of what I wanted to put in it. A good development environment that makes development easier and smoother will make the resulting game better and provide that game faster, which is better for the users.

    > And second, you indeed confuse complexity with sheer quantity. See, thumb war indeed is a complex game - yet it doesn't have 10000 events, 500 objects or thousands of animation frames.

    Also incorrect. Quantity and complexity are not mutually exclusive. Loot pursuit is both.

    >

    > > honestly, I don't understand why people talk like CC is the actual great version of construct when C2 is so much better.Because of its output! The result is what counts. And CC produces rock-solid, fast and amazing executables.

    Aside from event execution speed, I'm not sure why you think the output is so much better from CC. With the new node webkit EXE export, there's a good chance if you made the same game in both no one looking at them would be able to tell the difference. Also, in my experience, CC does not produce rock-solid executables. I've gotten quite a few crashes with them, for example when using or.

    >

    > > - capable of even outrunning CC's rendering speed by a good margin with a recent graphics card.No. It starts with the fact that any WinXP user (which still is more than a third of all installed windows versions) will experience software rendering.

    I hadn't heard that - a quick google search doesn't reveal anything about it, can you provide a link?

    > But even if we take that out of the comparison... Let's create a simple executable: 4000 sprites (based on 4 different sprites with 1000 copies each) of size 128x128 on a FullHD fullscreen, and, if you want to reduce it to rendering speed, no rotation, no movement, and just a start of layout event to create the sprites. I bet CC will win the rendering speed challenge.

    4000 wasn't anywhere near enough to get the fps below 60, so I added a 0. 40,000 sprites, 10k of each, using chrome for C2 (what node webkit uses for exe export):

    Textures not stacked (graphics card has to swap textures for each object): CC: 18fps. C2: 37fps.

    Textures stacked (graphics card does not have to swap textures for each object): CC: 30fps. C2: 50-60fps.

    As Ashley blogged, C2 has faster rendering than CC. https://www.scirra.com/blog/102/html5-games-faster-than-native

  • Good points have been made but you can't deny that CC is unreliable and, well, dead. If it were less buggy and its output actually ran on most machines (dozens of posts on this) it'd have more of a fighting chance, but that is not the case. I don't see how anyone can spend so long on a CC project knowing all the risks, with not a soul to do anything about them. And what if you absolutely need a new feature? There's been *one* update since C2, right?

    If you've already spent years with it and know your way around all the quirks and bugs, chances are you can get something decent going. But even then it's stuck on windows..You can't expect new users to go through all that, especially since CC is not as actively discussed anymore.

    Now, on the flip side, the one real advantage I see in CC is that it allows more "traditional" development. You can set up an .exe packaged with external resources, read/write to disk, build and utilize all of your own tools, etc. It was more versatile and familiar in this regard and honestly makes it very tempting to go back. I feel there was certain way I made my games & tools in CC and C2 ripped that right out from under my feet and tossed me Node Webkit (2 years later & courtesy of a 3rd party) & Project Files instead - vastly inferior alternatives afaic. The only way I've gotten so far with them is using project folder "tricks" not covered in the manual.

    That said, sorry but I'm with Bartosh on this 100%. C2 was all about this fantastic modular exporter system and now we have, what, over a dozen half-baked 3rd party HTML5 exporters? I love everything else about C2 but when I've got team members hounding me about the possibility of reaching anything outside of a Chrome browser window I tend to regret sticking around. I have witnessed Scirra and their software grow and improve over the years so I firmly believe that things well "get there" one day, but man am I getting tired of waiting on HTML5.

  • Tokinsom - have you seen the plugin for node webkit that allows file i/o? It doesn't look as user friendly as CC's options but in theory it should allow you to read and write files in a more traditional way. Won't work during preview, though, which is annoying. :/ I really think preview as exe should be implemented.

    http://www.scirra.com/forum/plugin-nodewebkit-nodejs-fs-module_topic60723.html

    That said, I actually agree about the exporter topic - I really think C2 should export to haxeNME, then it would get native Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, BlackBerry, webOS, Flash as well as HTML5 in one exporter. It would be all the best parts of CC and C2 in one package and everyone could work whatever way they wanted.

  • Interesting discussion. Much has been said that was on my mind as well. While I love and prefer the usablity of the event editor in Construct 2, and in fact I'm also using C2 almost exclusively these days, I still do think with a heavy heart of good old CC.

    Its DirectX engine just packed a different punch. Just think of effects and sprite distortion. And in regard of what has been said earlier, about C2 rendering faster than CC - I don't think that's a realistic scenario. Like Ashley said in the previously linked blog article:

    avascript is not faster than C++ - this is not what we have proved. Our Javascript engine does less, which helps explain how with just the right circumstances it can edge ahead of a less efficiently written C++ engine.

    The right circumstances... which in reality comes down to using Chrome on a recent Windows distribution (or export as EXE which is based on Chromium). So all the other exporting options fall short due to mostly severe performance problems, unless you create a really simple game.

    So many exporters are awesome in theory, but in reality many platforms aren't very feasible right now. I don't know if something like haxeNME would be able to improve the situation. Sure sounds intriguing though.

    At the end of the day I do think HTML5 has come far regarding game development, but as a true all platform covering solution it still falls flat on its ass. Nevertheless I hardly use Classic anymore, mainly because I'm not willing to put up with the always pending instability of it all anymore. In that regard working with C2 is a much better experience.

  • I only just caught this thread. It looks like it's had some random posts deleted on the first page too?

    C2 is fast superseding Classic in every way. I do think it will exceed Classic in every way eventually, such as having sprite distortion (disclaimer: not saying I'm working on it any time soon, just I'm sure it'll turn up eventually). There's already an API for accessing a sandboxed filesystem in Chrome, but I haven't implemented it yet because it's very much just a Google experiment at the moment and it's not clear if it will become standard.

    C2's architecture is vastly superior, and it's far better written and a lot faster, even than native code on some systems. I know that's not true of older systems, but look to the future: today's devices are the old junk of tomorrow, and fast forward a few years and it will be true for almost everyone. Why think about other technologies when it's clear eventually that will be the case? Something like haxeNME could see us maybe a 5-10% performance increase for 6-12 months work - it's totally out of the question - and in the same time HTML5 technology would probably improve so much as to exceed those gains, making the whole project pointless.

    I noticed recently Classic doesn't work out of the box on Windows 8 (not sure about 7). There's a security update on Windows Update you need to install before it starts up, because we screwed up some of the dependency management. The reality is it's very unlikely Classic will see any more maintenance. The future is very much cross-platform mobile. Yes, there are problems, such as Android's stock browser sucking really badly. But Chrome Beta for Android has amazing WebGL support. You really can get a 60 FPS game on a phone or tablet, with shader effects and all. Android systems are now outselling Windows systems. The market is moving on. Windows-only is dead (at least in exporting - I know C2 as an editor is Windows-only, and we're thinking about changing this in the long term - disclaimer: again not working on this any time soon).

    Tradition changes, and technology moves on. I strongly encourage everyone to upgrade to C2 if you're still on Classic. If there are quirks or missing features or things you miss, post about it in the C2 discussion forum and we can talk about how we can improve C2. We're doing approximately weekly updates, and HTML5, especially WebGL, are getting pretty damn awesome at the moment.

    The way things are going, eventually these forums will fall silent and we'll probably see fit to discontinue Classic completely. We're not doing that now, because it's virtually zero work to leave these forums running and people still use them. But I think it's inevitable.

    If you're worried about C2 being commercial and having a price tag, I would have to point out: the only reason Classic is free is because we worked it in our spare time as volunteers while students. We lived off our student loans. I'm not a student any more, and luckily I get to do this professionally, which is great. But like everyone else that means you have to make money or not do it at all. So I don't think it's unfair. If we had started Classic a few years later, it probably would have a price tag too. So I guess just count yourselves lucky it was free!

  • I miss the good 'ol phBB3 days...

    With regards to C2, as an editor it is overall ending up better than CC, although i haven't used it much yet. There were little quirks working with animations and the like that i haven't gotten entirely used to yet. The audio implementation is also feeling far inferior as it is now, which is some html5 limitation at the moment i think. Then theres the problems with some features being missing, per pixel collision being a big one. last time i checked there's no alternative similar to the canvas object in CC either (to do texture modifications during runtime). distortion is completely feasible in html5 so im sure that will come soon enough. The editor is truly leaps and bounds ahead of CC and the program is way more polished.

    With that said.

    CC is definitely executing lots of math faster than C2 can. Displaying sprites might be more effecient, but doing anything useful with them isn't, at least from my small experience with C2. CC just feels tighter executing something with a lot going on, and i'm not sure why, but i do admit i need to play with C2 more. My problem is, i really like using per-pixel collision and distortion and lots of big expressions running everywhere, and C2 isn't handling that like CC at this point. I hate that CC games are hard to get running on some machines and i hate that CC runs on windows only etc. There are little bugs i encounter when messing with some plugins or family stuff in weird ways but they've NEVER been something that got in the way of my development of anything at all. I just wish C2 could get some OpenGL windows/mac application exporting capability so per-pixel collision and canvases and lots of expressions were as feasible as they were in CC (Likely they would be much more so since C2 is so much more efficiently written).

    As things stand, i really like to use CC because i can make some really cool stuff with canvases, per-pixel collision, xaudio2 and distortion. I've even written some pixel shaders that can use the canvas in a feedback loop to simulate mass particles on the gpu through a texture/effect that you paint into. dunno if i could do something similar in C2 yet but i'll try soon. I have no qualms with C2 aside from those things. Its really an amazing piece of software and for 95% of the people who did use CC, its entirely better. theres still a few of us around however who like pushing lots of limits and have hit barriers with C2 that aren't so easily reached in CC at this point in time.

    Spectrum Wing by my brother is another "simple" game that would be impossible to make in C2 because of the dependency on canvas and per pixel collisions. If you were to say you could make everything in c2 that you could in CC you would really be mostly right. you can make pretty much any SNES game, and any game in that vein, it's just as you move into more fringe requirements that it falls off, and that's why i recommend everyone to C2 if i do bring up Construct somehow.

  • Since all the oldies are posting I thought I throw in my 2 cents.

    I love Construct. Both Classic and C2. They're both amazing projects, and it has been such a joy to watch them grow.

    C2's IDE feels so damn snappy (apart from the image editor). It's a joy to work with really, even though I've only used it for a few hours so far. The one-click expression editing that classic had is missing at the moment however.

    What bugs me about C2 is the lack of a few key features.

    -Audio: It's not C2's fault, but let's face it, the audio support is bad in HTML5. You can't change the frequency of sounds the same way that Xaudio could , and I used that feature like crazy. (last time I checked it just made a horribly crunchy noise on chrome, the browser with -supposedly- the best audio support)

    -Color filters: it requires an effect, and 3 actions to change a color filter in C2. Not the end of the world, but I really liked that color filters were an integral part of the rendering engine in Classic, with 1 action call. And with no shader performance hit, it allowed you to recolor everything, at will, effortlessly. An enormous plus. Furthermore, Since webGL on mobile is iffy atm, then color filter support in C2 is doomed to modern pcs with FF and Chrome only, perhaps an equal fate to being windows only. Since a game's design and look can depend entirely on color filters, running the game without the effect is not an option.

    -Per pixel collision: Not having this cuts out a lot of potential games.

    -Slower code performance: Sure, C2 might be able to pump more raw poly's, but what happens when each of those objects has 10 collision checks and 50 conditions per frame?

  • In response to what's been raised:

    Audio: this is being worked on. The Web Audio API (already supported in Chrome & iOS 6) is as powerful as XAudio2, and we should be able to port most of the missing audio features to C2 in the near future. I've got an overhaul of the Audio object planned in order to add these features, I'm basically waiting for Firefox to implement the Web Audio API (to prove it's not a webkit-only feature that doesn't gain favour with other browser makers).

    Canvas: this third party plugin might help

    Per pixel collision: surprisingly few people have said they miss this in C2. Do games really absolutely have to have per-pixel collisions? I thought collision polys were acceptable in almost all cases. Can someone show me some gameplay mechanic that requires per-pixel collisions? Polys have some additional advantages such as not needing so much CPU, being able to be shared with Physics, and if we implemented shadows & lighting then it can be shared for that too (which has to be polygon based).

    Sprite distortion: will probably eventually get implemented for the WebGL renderer

    Color filters: can be done with WebGL, but is not easily supported in canvas2D, which is why it was moved to a shader. WebGL is in its early days; it should be much more widespread in future, and you should be able to count on it being present on some platforms eventually (e.g. maybe Android or desktop). Or you can implement canvas2D fallbacks, or just require WebGL support (check on the start screen or something). Not quite as smooth as Classic, but it does work cross-platform.

    Slower performance: most games (that don't use Physics) are bottlenecked by the renderer. If you can send me a C2 project that is bottlenecked in logic, I can run some profiles and see if I can optimise it. I haven't seen many logic-bottlenecked projects in C2 though.

  • To determine just how much faster CC's event execution speed really is I decided to do some performance tests.

    Create 40,000 sprites:

    CC: 1.2 seconds

    C2 exported html: 1.8 seconds

    C2 preview: 18.5 seconds

    Edit: I screwed up this next test, redid it on the next page

    3000 sprite instances checking if not overlapping 3000 sprite2 instances, rotate sprite 1 degree

    CC: 3 fps

    C2 exported html: 3 seconds per frame

    C2 preview: 10 seconds per frame

    check sprite var=0, set sprite var to 0 and rotate 1 degree 50 times per frame on 3000 instances

    CC: 9fps

    C2 exported html: 4fps

    C2 preview: 2fps

    While these tests aren't covering everything, they are common and I think give a good basic comparison.

    So CC appears to be anywhere from about 33-100% faster (though those percentages are not entirely correct due to more work being able to be done per frame at lower frame rates).

    Collision detection, the area that was 100% faster, is probably an exclusive case considering I remember it being mentioned how many hardware specific optimizations were made for that in CC, and they might not even apply to other platforms like mobile since some of those optimizations required MMX.

    While the speed difference seems to be more than 20-30%, I think as much as I would like the extra speed I'm beginning to side with Ashley on sticking with HTML5. 33-100% extra speed would be nice, but I thought it would be more - probably because I run C2 games most of the time in preview mode, which slams the event execution speed hard.

    I'm beginning to think that the benefits of HTML5 outweigh the benefits something like haxeNME would have (not to mention how long it would take to make that new exporter, and therefore the delay in other added features).

    At least for what I'm making, C2 has sufficient speed for very close to everything I want to do with it - the only speed problems I've hit have been one thing on mobile and something I wanted to do on desktop that CC couldn't handle either. Obviously that is not the case for everyone's projects, but I think C2's speed is sufficient as is, and performance improvements are still being made - not to mention the optimizations I can make.

    I think people might be getting a bad impression of C2's speed from the preview, thinking that's its full speed. It has checks so as shown it can be a LOT slower than the exported HTML. I was getting a negative impression before I did these tests even though I knew the exported HTML is faster. I didn't realize how much faster it actually is.

  • 3 seconds per frame is 0.33 fps, Vs 3 fps. That's not 100% faster; it's 10x as fast; 900% faster

    4fps VS 9fps is over twice the speed, over 100% faster.

    it's not 30-100%, it's more like 100-1000%

    That's a huge difference.

    Did you make sure to set collisions to bounding box as well in both c2 and cc?

    Also, more work CANNOT be done per frame at low fps, assuming rendering always finishes first; It just can't spit the logic out fast enough. Rendering finishes in a fraction of the time, and the cpu is just chugging, trying to finish calculating the event sheet.

  • While the spread information is interesting, I don't think it will be a determinating factor for many users - I guess it is simply a choice between making Windows only games and multi-platform ones. For me, as a new user, this is the main question.

    I am considering CC only because, as an oldschool gamer, I feel more at home with .exe files and saving to a file instead to cache.

    Saying that, I think that Scirra is correct in pursuing html5 for their engine, as the web is going heading into html5 era. They are exploring new grounds and I salute them for it... almost as much, as for releasing CC to the public free of charge.

    I am wondering, how easy would it be to port a simple game between CC and C2? Has anyone attempted it? I am curious of the results.

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