The Construct, someday will support 3D?

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.

Whow, dude. I think it depends on how you render the models out - If you create a great 3d model and render it out with all the awesome lighting techinques we have today and animate the whole thing properly, you'd get good results. I think that method really helps standing the test of time, like:

If I look at a lot of PS2 games today, most of the ingame models look like garbage to me, cause they were soooo limited in terms of technology (I'm pretty sure the same thing will apply 10 years from now looking back at this current generation), but if I look at something like Heart of Darkness - that style is sorta timeless. The animation was great and still holds up - Just the resolution itself was too low back then. But today, with 1080p and pre-rendered sprites... dude, that look could be freaking sick.

If I'm going to do 2D, I might as well do 2D and try to draw some sprites rather than half ass it by making it some kind of bastardization of 3D models rendered as sprites. I've never played Heart of Darkness but everything else I've played with prerendered graphics looks really bad to me now, so excuse me if that sounds a bit crass.

Either way, I just don't like the idea. If I wanted to make a game with 3D prerenders I would have easily done it by now. But I don't think it would look anywhere near as impressive as a game with actual real time 3D involved.

And again, to the developers. Don't worry about it. You've pretty much explained it all and I think I understand how hard it is.

Maybe if actual programming wasn't so hard for me to learn (I swear I've failed every programming class I've taken, it's not something I can do) I'd try to make my own 3D (or rather 2.5D) engine and wouldn't even need something like Construct.

Rick , It's construct, not THE construct.

I disagree, it pretty much is The Construct

Well, perhaps when you guys start working on 2.0, perhaps OGRE could be intergrated into the rendering engine? If anything, it would work for future 3D rendering, and perhaps the effects that come with it could come in handy, if nothing else... Construct + OGRE would be awesome.

Still, I can imagine that the logical steps Construct could take eventually are 3D graphics with 2D gameplay, then completely 3D gameplay. The latter would take a lot longer than the former, I gather, and probably wouldn't even be touched until Construct reaches the point where there's no other direction to go in development, methinks.

perhaps someday someone Could recreate the event sheet editor language to create irrlicht or ogre commands (to continue using python you can use Pyrr with irrlicht), this would also solve the problem of using only directx. i am currently creating a game while learning irrlicht and it would be my suggestion

ask ... The Architect ...

perhaps someday someone Could recreate the event sheet editor language to create irrlicht or ogre commands (to continue using python you can use Pyrr with irrlicht), this would also solve the problem of using only directx. i am currently creating a game while learning irrlicht and it would be my suggestion

As I understand it python cant draw to the window.

Hrm...

I know it probably wouldn't be possible or feasible for any full-fledged 3D for construct, however....

There should be some form of support for loading up static, textured meshes for things such as backgrounds and such.

Even MMF had a 3D Sprite object used for loading simple 3ds files.

Umm... I rig texture and model.

I made a few games using pre-rendered graphics, but the v-ram limit really makes this a challenge.

I kept thinking " if only the sprites could be replaced with 3D models"

If construct could import a .obj file + texture for a sprite. crude animation could be done rather well with multiple . obj loading one after another (not from the disk, from memory). no lighting would be required as it could be baked into the texture.

3D modeling and animation can be simpler than animating a 2D sprite. you don't have to re-draw it each time. As somebody who can do both, crude 3D would be welcome.

if I ever get a chance, I would love to program it, but.....

interesting idea, but it would be better if you got like a 3dbox object that loads a obj file, as a container, and you could transform the object (tilt, rotate, ...) and for the rest deals with it like a 2d object, would be great

Honestly, I don't see what all the fuzz is about. If you want 3d, just use UDK. Construct is great for 2d and implementing all the shit you'd need for 3d... that's just too much to ask for. 3d adds this whole shitstorm of complexity.

Construct is the tool of choice for 2d stuff, folks, not for 3d stuff.

And using UDK or any other modern engine (CryEngine) you'll also always get some visual scripting features, like Kismet in the UE or Flowgraph in the CryEngine.

Just fix the tiling issue with meshes, don't need more than that for 2D games (ok maybe basic rotation, but still). Anything beyond that, it stops being a pretty cool and "reasonably" easy to understand 2D game making app that can make a name for itself in a niche area and used for decent 2D games, and becomes a low end basic 3D app for mediocre to poor 3D games up against the bigger boys the likes of which it has no chance against. At which point there's far better alternatives out there (Source, UDK, Cryengine, Unity, hell even Realmcrafter lol).

Yeah it would be nice to have an object loader (but dear god, use a format that's universally compatible like COLLADA, NOT something only MAX has exporters for!), but there should be some sort of limit on how far it would go, otherwise with every addition, there will be calls for something else, and the 2D side of things, including bugs, will begin to be forgotten and left behind.

Unfortunately with the whole 'console generation', unless it looks damn near photorealistic, nobody will want to play it. Go with 2D and you attract the older crowd who remember "the good old days" and others who appreciate creativity over how many millions of polygons are bouncing around on screen at once, as well as the casual gamer, who probably doesn't have cutting edge hardware, or is looking for a quick fun game to play while the boss is out of the office.

Stick to making it work perfectly as a 2D app (but with working meshes that tile properly, lol).

Besides, and this is just a personal opinion. When it comes to making a game in 3D. You're almost always going to be better off writing it all from scratch. Because unless you're making a sheep, chances are there's nothing out there right now that'll do exactly what you want, without a great deal of difficulty, time and expense.

They almost always use illogical backwards ways of using assets, which 90% of the time are not going to be compatible with what you use, they have far too many limitations on what you can do with them without access to the source code itself (and even then you're practically rewriting so much you may as well start from scratch) and NONE of them are as good as people think they are.

The only 3D engine I think much of is actually the Gamebryo one (Fallout 3, Oblivion, Morrowind), but it's a cluster headache while being hit in the face by a loud annoying fat chick to get anything custom imported into it successfully.

Oh and this annoys me no end. The first thing EVERYONE who's never made a proper game before does, when wanting to use the next fancy 3D engine, is decide they want to make a *!&$"#@ing MMORPG with huge massive landscapes that stream perfectly, lol! Honestly, can you imagine if one of those ever succeeded? How empty, dull, slow and boring it would actually be.

I totally lost the point of this thread and went off on a rant, but I don't care.

Yeah it would be nice to have an object loader (but dear god, use a format that's universally compatible like COLLADA, NOT something only MAX has exporters for!), but there should be some sort of limit on how far it would go, otherwise with every addition, there will be calls for something else, and the 2D side of things, including bugs, will begin to be forgotten and left behind

You do realize that EVERY 3d package exports to .obj right?

Unfortunately with the whole 'console generation', unless it looks damn near photorealistic, nobody will want to play it. Go with 2D and you attract the older crowd who remember "the good old days" and others who appreciate creativity over how many millions of polygons are bouncing around on screen at once, as well as the casual gamer, who probably doesn't have cutting edge hardware, or is looking for a quick fun game to play while the boss is out of the office.

WOW thats not even true people love to play games that dont look photo realistic in fact people usually find it a nice change of pace. Okami, Braid and many other games that are not realistic looking at all people love those games.

Besides, and this is just a personal opinion. When it comes to making a game in 3D. You're almost always going to be better off writing it all from scratch. Because unless you're making a sheep, chances are there's nothing out there right now that'll do exactly what you want, without a great deal of difficulty, time and expense.

No just no. Do you have ANY idea as to what goes into making a 3d game engine? The REASON they have all these different middle ware engines is because it was too time consuming and stupid to REMAKE the same thing over and over again. and if you can make an engine do what you want with recoding a bit of the source then they would always opt to do that. 500,000 lines of code to make it do what you want or 2,000,000 to build your own. not to mention the debugging time, the time it takes to learn how to interact with it all that as compared to relatively minor changes in a preexisting engine to make it do what you want.

They almost always use illogical backwards ways of using assets, which 90% of the time are not going to be compatible with what you use, they have far too many limitations on what you can do with them without access to the source code itself (and even then you're practically rewriting so much you may as well start from scratch) and NONE of them are as good as people think they are.

have you used unity or any other 3d engine most of them are pretty intuitive..... especially unity.

You do realize that EVERY 3d package exports to .obj right?

Of course I know that. I also know very few 3D engines will accept that format and instead use their own propriety format, or animation only from specific 3D packages (generally Maya or Max), I also know that not every 3D package exports to it in exactly the same way, which can result in incompatible files, plus the .obj file isn't the be all and end all that it used to be, there are better supported open source formats that provide more options and information saved, thus making them a more attractive prospect than the now very old wavefront object file. Hence my original point still stands.

[quote:2dpxu548]WOW thats not even true people love to play games that dont look photo realistic in fact people usually find it a nice change of pace. Okami, Braid and many other games that are not realistic looking at all people love those games.

Niche games and 15 minute wonders, they're good for a change but have no lasting appeal with the majority in this day and age of the "i want it now and it has to be cutting edge perfect" generation. It's a standard fact that this generation are on the whole, spoiled, and will always expected better and faster and more of it. Cult Classics of the past remain cult classics because of of the rose tinted memory effect of those who remember them, and the fact people were just easier to impress back then, plus as you get older you begin to appreciate substance over flashy visuals. It would be folly to even pretend a homebrew game done in a few weeks will ever have a chance of drawing attention away from the cutting edge games developed with millions of dollars, for more than a few minutes, from the spoiled generation. And it's a sad fact, but a fact all the same, that if you sat a typical user of the type I used as an example, and had them choose between something with very basic 3D and fantastic gameplay and something flashy and expensive looking but not so great gameplay. They're going to pick the latter, it's just how it is, just how they are. If you want lasting appeal, aim at the older generations, and those who don't make owning the best hardware the second it's released, their lives.

[quote:2dpxu548]No just no. Do you have ANY idea as to what goes into making a 3d game engine? The REASON they have all these different middle ware engines is because it was too time consuming and stupid to REMAKE the same thing over and over again. and if you can make an engine do what you want with recoding a bit of the source then they would always opt to do that. 500,000 lines of code to make it do what you want or 2,000,000 to build your own. not to mention the debugging time, the time it takes to learn how to interact with it all that as compared to relatively minor changes in a preexisting engine to make it do what you want.

Your talking about middleware, not complete solutions like I was talking about. Writing an engine from scratch does not mean not using middleware.

[quote:2dpxu548]have you used unity or any other 3d engine most of them are pretty intuitive..... especially unity.

Yes, I have. Except Unity, that's the only one I haven't used.