Would anyone like a 3d version of construct soon?

  • I obviously meant the 1st one.

    No not really but that is what you can think.

  • it is still the same case.

    How is it still the same case?

    You obviously can't easily make a 3D game from a layout. It requires 3 dimensions, not 2.

    Of course you cant at first, practice makes perfect I didn't say it would be easy.

  • it is still the same case.

    How is it still the same case?

    > You obviously can't easily make a 3D game from a layout. It requires 3 dimensions, not 2.

    Of course you cant at first, practice makes perfect I didn't say it would be easy.

    You really have no idea, don't you... It is in terms of practicality/feasibility.

    1. A Layout is 2-Dimension. Hence, 2D games.
    2. A Cubic Environment is 3-Dimension. Hence, 3D games.

    One is more suited for something than the other, introducing Layouts for 3D will result you like the Q3D plugin for Construct 2. It is a 3D plugin to introduce 3D capabilities into Construct but it has a lot of downsides. One of those are, limitation of capabilities, lacking in-editor preview, high performance problem. One of the reasons, only a handful of brave people and determined + knowledgeable use it, but that doesn't mean it is ideal.

    You are better off using Unity at that point. Even if you use Babylon.JS, what's the point, just use Unity, GoDot or Unreal.

    My point is that, even if you practice, what's the point... What are you then trying to prove... You are using trying to use an editor for something it isn't made for.

    So, your point is...

    Would anyone like a 3D version of Construct soon? Not, that I mean Construct 3 in specific, even though I mentioned the word Construct. But I am wondering if anyone is interested in a Construct 3D like version with layouts even though it is not practical/designed for 3D nor it is faster/efficient. But practice makes perfect, even if it takes us longer than usual. Limitations? We don't need those other 3D features, we can practice and build the other things ourselves with the community like Construct that have already ported 90%-100% of the C2 addons into C3Runtime. And Performance? We can practive ourselves into reaching native-like performance.

    Sorry, but that worries me. I would obviously say, No.

    I mean no disrespect to anyone but this is the truth.

  • You really have no idea, don't you... It is in terms of practicality/feasibility.

    If you would like to think that go ahead and think that. lol

    You are using trying to use an editor for something it isn't made for.

    When did I say I was gonna use an editor for something that it wasn't made for?

    My point is that, even if you practice, what's the point... What are you then trying to prove...

    Practice making games and you'll get better at it come on did you think for this one. :)

  • Eh, looks like this one has run its course.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Eh, looks like this one has run its course.

    Ya it has lol!

  • I think some people are being a bit too critical here, due to their preconceptions.

    The original post simply raised something to think about as far as making 3D games via a construct-esque program. It never suggested that construct should incorporate 3d into it.. It didn't suggest that scirra make a 3d program either.. It didn't put any limitation on how a program like that could be, yet some people are adamant that it must be a specific way or it won't work- and then saying it can't be that way because of such and such reason, and so there's no point discussing, etc. That's just being close-minded, and basically saying that you're not interested in discussing things further.

  • I think some people are being a bit too critical here, due to their preconceptions.

    The original post simply raised something to think about as far as making 3D games via a construct-esque program. It never suggested that construct should incorporate 3d into it.. It didn't suggest that scirra make a 3d program either.. It didn't put any limitation on how a program like that could be, yet some people are adamant that it must be a specific way or it won't work- and then saying it can't be that way because of such and such reason, and so there's no point discussing, etc. That's just being close-minded, and basically saying that you're not interested in discussing things further.

    Thank you!!

  • I’d be interested in a simple tool to create 3D games. There are unlimited features that could be added to a 3D engine, so I’m curious what minimal feature set could be to still be fun and enjoyable to use.

    Lately I’ve been less interested in flashy special case features, and more interested in simple core features that could be used to build those special case features.

    So what would such a program have? I’m sure we all have a varying list of things we would want.

    * object types: camera, 3D mesh

    * A level editor to place, size, orient said objects

    * a way to get keyboard input as a minimum

    * an event/simple scripting system to move stuff about.

    * we’d want functions and some kind of arrays at least.

    If we could access all the mesh data with expressions, even better.

    After that I have a cascading list of ideas. Lol. But those basics could be enjoyable. In that base state there would be lots of math to do stuff, but I don’t think it too bad. Simpler helper functions could be made to hide the math.

    Of course there would always be things to optimize and improve.

    The dream feature list would be:

    * editor built with same engine for ease of adding editor features.

    * a simple way to make shaders in the editor without using glsl.

    Ahh it’s fun to dream and design in your head. Kudos to anyone that takes such a dream and try’s to make such a thing for fun.

  • I’d be interested in a simple tool to create 3D games. There are unlimited features that could be added to a 3D engine, so I’m curious what minimal feature set could be to still be fun and enjoyable to use.

    Lately I’ve been less interested in flashy special case features, and more interested in simple core features that could be used to build those special case features.

    So what would such a program have? I’m sure we all have a varying list of things we would want.

    * object types: camera, 3D mesh

    * A level editor to place, size, orient said objects

    * a way to get keyboard input as a minimum

    * an event/simple scripting system to move stuff about.

    * we’d want functions and some kind of arrays at least.

    If we could access all the mesh data with expressions, even better.

    After that I have a cascading list of ideas. Lol. But those basics could be enjoyable. In that base state there would be lots of math to do stuff, but I don’t think it too bad. Simpler helper functions could be made to hide the math.

    Of course there would always be things to optimize and improve.

    The dream feature list would be:

    * editor built with same engine for ease of adding editor features.

    * a simple way to make shaders in the editor without using glsl.

    Ahh it’s fun to dream and design in your head. Kudos to anyone that takes such a dream and try’s to make such a thing for fun.

    Dang what a great response dude. Thanks for sharing

  • I’d be interested in a simple tool to create 3D games. There are unlimited features that could be added to a 3D engine, so I’m curious what minimal feature set could be to still be fun and enjoyable to use.

    Lately I’ve been less interested in flashy special case features, and more interested in simple core features that could be used to build those special case features.

    So what would such a program have? I’m sure we all have a varying list of things we would want.

    * object types: camera, 3D mesh

    * A level editor to place, size, orient said objects

    * a way to get keyboard input as a minimum

    * an event/simple scripting system to move stuff about.

    * we’d want functions and some kind of arrays at least.

    If we could access all the mesh data with expressions, even better.

    After that I have a cascading list of ideas. Lol. But those basics could be enjoyable. In that base state there would be lots of math to do stuff, but I don’t think it too bad. Simpler helper functions could be made to hide the math.

    Of course there would always be things to optimize and improve.

    The dream feature list would be:

    * editor built with same engine for ease of adding editor features.

    * a simple way to make shaders in the editor without using glsl.

    Ahh it’s fun to dream and design in your head. Kudos to anyone that takes such a dream and try’s to make such a thing for fun.

    If I had the time and was more confident in my programming, I'd probably make an attempt at building some kind of game tool. I built my own 3d editor using the three.js library in the past: http://www.crocotile3d.com

    I made that because I wanted something simpler than all the generic 3d editors out there that are bloated with features. It's difficult to visually focus in programs that throw everything at the user, it becomes overwhelming. So that was my attempt at a simpler concept of building 3d models using 2d tiles. I like the pixel-art aesthetic too.

    As for a basic 3d game tool-

    What I would want is at least the ability to load .obj models and texture them. With ability to control/edit UV values so that you can have animated billboarded sprites- and also ability to change textures.

    Also ability to move, rotate the models, and scale.. x,y,z axis separate from each other.

    Also would need to be able to set the "Alpha Test" values, along with transparency, so that objects behind sprites can be seen through the transparent parts.

    Also ability to set opacity, hide/show objects. Maybe also the ability to Tint the objects.

    Some other helpful things would be stuff like setting the Up vector of objects, and having helper functions to make objects look towards a position. Maybe some simple collision/intersection checks, and raytracing.

    I like to remove some of the complexity when developing 3d games by using billboarded sprites instead of animated 3d models. I also like to remove lighting and other effects and go for a more clean pixel-art style.

    A 3d game can be simpler than developing a 2d game that uses a lot of complex animation and effects.

  • I love all of your great response thank you for sharing it with me and everyone else. (Just remember that scirra is most likely not going to make a 3d engine sadly.)

  • Prominent Something like that. But, base on my observations on forums, it usually ends up like a topic gathering, not for the Game Engine which the forum is hosted. Then, once people are gathered and directed to a single goal, they come after the nearest game engine.

    If I did offend in a way , sorry about that. I didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to get the point across.

    Though, if you are interested on a Buildbox Type + Construct Type + 3D + 2D + General Game Engine. The closest I've found is Sparks Game Engine. But again, it shut downed.

  • If I did offend in a way , sorry about that. I didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to get the point across.

    Oh no your fine man. One thing I did see spark engine a few times but never really looked into it, do you know why it shut down?

  • > If I did offend in a way , sorry about that. I didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to get the point across.

    Oh no your fine man. One thing I did see spark engine a few times but never really looked into it, do you know why it shut down?

    I was just informed by skymen. So, I'm not sure how accurate my information is. But according to what I've recalled, it was because they were losing money and time to get all the features into the engine. Especially when they were also game developers, so they were busy making games while they had no more time to work on their game engine. If I'm not wrong, it seems they didn't even get the chance to make the 3D feature.

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