The Construct, someday will support 3D?

I don't think construct should go full 3D, but I really really think that a mesh object should be made that acts the exact same as the 3D box but displays a fully textured custom model. The 3D object is easy to use and versatile enough that a lot could be done with it, and no modifications would be needed to be made to the editor to do it. This way it retains the ease of use of construct and has more power.

For example, I'm making a gradius style shooter. With it, I could have massive starships that can move and rotate about easily - without, I have to use massive amounts of VRAM.

While I would like some basic features like basic lights, 3D 'hotspots' placement (to make it rotate at the correct location and to make objects that have multiple parts), camera controls to move about in 3D space, and maybe something like a 3D bullet behavior would be nice, but none of those are really necessary. A 3D object version of the box object alone would be awesome.

Because nobody here has a tutorial on how to do a game in 3D (Pseudo-3D) using the Construct ?

And, There is, programs for creating 3D games, and easy, As the Creator Esperient.

And on the Sprite Editor is not necessary that he have to adapt to 3D, but to some extent and could import 3D files. Obj

There is, programs for creating 3D games, and easy, As the Creator Esperient.

then go use that. We are not forcing you to use construct.

MMF2 and has the Game Maker, the 3DBox is not so powerful so as Mode7 and D3D

Mode 7 is not 3D it is 2d faked to look 3d using distortion and you could probably get the same effect with some playing around.

Construct has more than enough power to create pseudo 3d worlds, I am using 98.9, and even without 3d box or all the fancy new z depth features, I was able to create a convincing pseudo 3d world for my upcoming game. You do not need any extra plugins (even 3d box) to make pseudo 3d in Construct, but you should be comfortable with a fair bit of math. Construct gives you the power of scripting without the syntax, a fast gpu accelerated engine, and a nice ui to make everything in. The rest is up to you! It wasn't made for true 3d because as everyone is saying, 3d is exponentially more complex than 2d. I do 3d modelling and let me tell you that 3d character animation is a job in itself. Also, the code for 3d games is ridiculously complex and mathy, and it needs to be, because there's just so much to account for. Conclusion: Construct isn't for full 3d, I i'm pretty sure it will never be. If you want a complete 3d engine, you will have to use something else unfortunately. 3d games are usually made by a team anyhow, because there is just so much specialization which is required.

The best "3D" you can get is like the old doom 1991-1993 games.

There's an existing issue of 2D art being difficult for many users. How would they cope with having to make full models for everything in their game, I wonder.

I actually find 2D a lot harder to do than 3D modeling. Even if you're not good at drawing, it's still possible for you to be good at 3D modeling.

Now if you're talking about high poly models meant for next-gen games, then you're right.

But why would Construct need high poly models in the first place?

In a 2.5D game, you could easily get away with using low poly models created in a tool such as Milkshape. Which by the way, are rather easy to make (see here for an example made in only 6 steps!).

I'd love to be able to use low poly animated 3D models in my 2D games someday. It would make things a hell of a lot easier and I'd be able to do some insane G-Gradius epic boss battle type stuff.

I really really hate drawing sprites. It's just something I absolutely cannot stand. I am just not able to visualize how things would look in 2D and just draw them like that. I like being able to rotate around and fix individual little details without having to go back and erase everything. Especially for animations. If you mess up a sprite animation, you have to go back and redraw entire frames of animation. Whereas in 3D, you can just fix it on the fly.

Plus rotating objects for things like huge battleships in shoot em up games are a bitch to animate. You hardly ever see objects rotate around their x-axis (roll axis) in 2D because it's such a pain to animate correctly. In 3D, however it's easy as simply rotating the model around.

Plus rotating objects for things like huge battleships in shoot em up games are a bitch to animate. You hardly ever see objects rotate around their x-axis (roll axis) in 2D because it's such a pain to animate correctly. In 3D, however it's easy as simply rotating the model around.

well, this is a pretty specialized use. You would have a heck of a lot more trouble coding 3d models than 2d sprties. Also, you can make objects roll with animations, as i'm sure you know. Even though it uses a lot of vram it's possible, and it's super easy to do with rendered sprites. As you say, you hate drawing sprites... So go model and render some out, and it's easy to create animations of any sort.

> Plus rotating objects for things like huge battleships in shoot em up games are a bitch to animate. You hardly ever see objects rotate around their x-axis (roll axis) in 2D because it's such a pain to animate correctly. In 3D, however it's easy as simply rotating the model around.

>

well, this is a pretty specialized use. You would have a heck of a lot more trouble coding 3d models than 2d sprties.

I don't think this is a good reason. The 3D box is very easy to work with, and a mesh object would theoretically have the same commands.

Also, you can make objects roll with animations, as i'm sure you know. Even though it uses a lot of vram it's possible, and it's super easy to do with rendered sprites.

I disagree, it's not really a specialized use at all - it's quite common. There's a lot that can be done easily with 3D models that is unrealistic with sprites - like rolling an object that takes up the whole screen, or an environment that's a 3D model with 2D sprites moving in it. Even if you limit it to 512s, that's a LOT of texture memory. Not to mention if you want to roll at any other angles.

I don't understand why everyone seems so against 3D here when people are at the same time talking about how awesome the attempts are to bend the sprite distortion into 3D models.

It's not about making crysis in construct - all that's really needed is a 3D box object that loads models to make up for what sprites aren't good at. A 3D box is already in construct, why is everyone so against a 3D mesh object?

I'm for 3D and 3D mesh plugin.. Construct is too nice to be just a 2D game making app.

See this:

http://www.zgameeditor.org/index.php/Main/HomePage?userlang=en

Something like this but much simplified would be all Construct and us need.

Advanced 2D, simple 3D.

And what is a simple 3D mesh support?

Nothing but loading a list of points and polygons and rendering them.

Construct has 3D box. Well, if you just extend it to load polygons instead of having some polygons to make a cube you can make it.

And Construct is a DirectX engine right?

So you can easily support ".x" meshes with textures.

We need just them, ".x" meshes are enough.

And I also think that with the time you can extend the support to make animated meshes, bone animation support and other things like this.

Please, consider all this.

So you can easily support ".x" meshes with textures.

It's never that simple. It has to integrate with the collisions system, the effects renderer, the bounding box and viewport system, etc etc etc. (and people will report it as bugs for anywhere it doesn't integrate properly, and rightly so). It's not a matter of dumping in a mesh. It's got to work nicely with all the other features in Construct for it to be worthwhile and not a useless gimmick. And that can be hard work.

I have to agree with Ashley here, I can't see a use of just dumping models into a layout if they can't do anything meaningful.

If you do wish to explore the area of 3D or make modifications to make it possible, you could find programmers willing to help: http://construct.cvs.sourceforge.net/construct/

Collisions can be made by hands. Distance-based collisions.

Collisions can be made by hands. Distance-based collisions.

yes, but that's pretty dodgy and unreliable. A mesh object would be useful, but it's probably a lot more work for the devs than it's worth.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in regular collision detection, the computer must loop through all x, and y coords, then if it finds something it reports it. However with 3d its like adding umpteenth loops to all that. So now its like going over x,y, of first z, then, x, y of second etc etc. Its like adding hundreds or thousands of iterations.

Well, there may be ways to hack parts of it in, but it's not elegant. Distance-based collisions simply treat the object like a circle, regardless of its actual shape. And what about per-pixel collisions? Supporting that would be extremely difficult and probably prohibitively slow with 3D meshes. So again even a seemingly simple solution is riddled with difficulties and incomplete support. Basically, without looking at the codebase, you can't imagine the immense complexity that goes in to something as simple as checking if two objects overlap with per-pixel accuracy. Then there's the rest of the engine, other areas which are even more complex and present even greater conundrums.

We're not trying to be stubborn here. People are throwing out what they think are simple ideas, but are actual massive technical challenges because they don't know the codebase. The fact remains that even seeminly simple 3D support is extremely time consuming and complicated to develop. Just look at the number of bugs and problems associated with the 3D box plugin, and I can tell you, that alone has taken many, many hours of development time too. It's not just a 3D box. It's a 3D participant in the Construct engine, which is much, much more complicated than simply just being a 3D box.