The Construct, someday will support 3D?

3D collision detection is probably more than necessary, and 2D collisions can already be done via pasting a 3D box to a canvas and using the canvas for collisions. Then you could do a simple compare of the z position of the object and a collision check with the canvas.

While it would be lacking stuff like 3D collision detection, Construct IS primarily 2D. If people want stuff like that, as has been said, there's other engines made for it.

I'm not trying to be stubborn either, just trying to understand why the 3D box couldn't be modified to basically load a model with no other modifications.

Edit: clarifiying - the reasons that you've said for it being difficult (aside from new features) already seem to have been done in the 3D box object, which is why it's confusing.

I'm not saying the devs should make a plugin, but I do agree with Arima... If a a 3D model plugin were ever to be made, it wouldn't need to have collision capabilities. Construct already does collisions just fine with other objects.

A model could be used in lieu of a sprite to make games like Tomba or the new Bionic Commando, where the gameplay is purely 2D. The current method that people use to check collisions - with collision detector sprites - could be used in exactly the same way, but instead of an animated sprite, you set a model on top of your detector. You wouldn't need to have collision capabilities for the model at all.

The only things that would really be needed would be the ability to rotate, scale, and translate the model (like you can with the 3D Box), and to change animations. The rest of it, collisions and whatnot, can be done in Construct in whatever way the designer chooses.

Anyway, it would be a nice perk... perhaps some clever plugin maker will make a clever plugin for it someday. That's what open source is about

You're missing my point a bit - it's not just about collisions, that was an example of one of many areas that 3D in Construct would become a headache.

As I said before, 3D-graphics-with-2D-gameplay is easy enough, and would be a good direction to move in. Construct as a full 3D game creator is what I'm arguing against. That means you need to start thinking about 3D angles, 3D trigonometry, 3D layout editors, 3D behaviors etc. etc. which IMO would be hard work to pull off.

Hey, using the topic, the media will have to Construct Multiplayer Online Games?

You're missing my point a bit - it's not just about collisions, that was an example of one of many areas that 3D in Construct would become a headache.

As I said before, 3D-graphics-with-2D-gameplay is easy enough, and would be a good direction to move in. Construct as a full 3D game creator is what I'm arguing against. That means you need to start thinking about 3D angles, 3D trigonometry, 3D layout editors, 3D behaviors etc. etc. which IMO would be hard work to pull off.

I'm not missing the point, I fully agree with you

I'm arguing for 3D-graphics-with-2D-gameplay and against 3D-gameplay/editing. 3D behaviors aren't necessary for 2D gameplay.

For the layout editor, placing models could be done similar to placing the 3D box. That would suffice, I think. No need for rotating the layout around or anything like that.

But yes, I can see how it would be a big undertaking, it wasn't my intention to make light of that fact.

Tomba-style 3D graphics would be awesome. 2D collision checking.

Animations can me made in a temporany way.

Loading frame by frame just like sprite animation, so we basically need to split the mesh animation into single frames.

And rendering the right model for the current frame count. I repeat, just like sprite animation.

p.s.: I make 3D models and do rigging and animation in Milkshape 3D. I'm a one-man software house

Loading frame by frame just like sprite animation, so we basically need to split the mesh animation into single frames.

Don't game model files generally have their animation stored in them already? Why would you need to import frames?

Anyway, just to clarify, I didn't mean that there should be a modeling/animation window like the Image Editor for sprites. Importing completed models would be all that's necessary, there are plenty of 3D packages out there for modeling and animation.

Again, if someone were to ever make a plugin

The animation aspect of 3d models is rather complex, and suited more for a 3d package. It would probably suffice just to have single mesh importing, like the 3d box. All that's needed is xyz rotation and scaling. The mesh could be positioned just like the 3d box. As for textures, i'm not sure how much work it would be to implement simple uvw support. Since (most) models already have uvw information, all the user would have to do is specify the texture (from a sprite maybe? or just the same as 3d box) , and it would map it according to the meshes internal uvw co-ords.

Aeal I would not say I am good at 2D animation, but I really like it and it is good to practice.

I would be lying if I said that I can do 3D at the moment, but I definitely know what it entails. I am going to college to get a degree in animation though so I am anticipating learning at least the basics of 3D animation. I am more of a 2D guy but I gotta make money somehow

I am not saying "GRRRR I NEED 3D NOW!!! CONSTRUCT IS TERRIBLE AND IS MADE BY LAZY PEOPLE!!!" because that is just not true! It is also pretty unrealistic. I am just thinking it would be a nice thing to have down the line

3D graphics with 2D gameplay would definitely be the next logical step. I assume this would be for 2.0 and beyond, though.

I think we're on the same page, Ashley - I also don't think construct as a full 3D game creator is the right way to go. I was also arguing for construct to stay the same as it is with a mesh object that behaves the same as the 3D box. No 3D rotations of the layout, etc, or even 3D behaviors. Just a 3D box that loads a mesh.

I also did not intend to make light of the difficulty of making construct full 3D. I merely thought that it would be much, much easier to make a mesh object instead, since it seems like most of the work had already been done.

I would be happy even if it didn't have animation capabilities!

Although I'm just as tired of reading the "can we have 3D" posts as everyone else, I have to agree with those that are calling for 3D meshes to be loaded and displayed the same way as the 3D box is.

I think that would allow for some great "3D in a 2D world" type games, without the need to render the models and import them as sprites.

I think that some sort of simple animation would be required though.

Sponge.

Animation is pretty much "dump the image and load/display next image". With some coding you could reproduce that with events, though no doubt it would be slower than sprite animations.

Importing 3D models are sprites is fine if you're into that kind of thing. Personally though, I find prerendered sprites rather ugly.

I mean, they were the bees knees in 1994 with Donkey Kong Country but let's be honest here, it's not 1994 anymore. If you look at them now they look dated compared to 3D models that are actually rendered in real time.

And I apologize for not understanding the huge undertaking that 3D in general has been, even the 3D box which I had no idea was so complicated. If I knew how to code and could help out with this I really would. I guess it never occurs to me that even a simple idea can be very complex when it comes to actually coding it.

2D rendering is simple - you plot each point of the array of pixels (2D array) from one point of view.

3D rendering however adds 3rd dimension of the array, that is much more mathy, not to mention it requires more time and effort than 2D. Then add the variable point of view...

Not to mention raycasting.