0 Favourites

Construct 3 - many questions (native exporterts)

  • 1. Will it have native exporters to iOS/Android/Windows/Linux/OSx ?

    2. Will it have an opportunity to export game to flash format (.swf)?

    3. Will it have native physics engine?

    4. Will it have native 3D support?

    5. Will it support vector images?

  • As per the following blog post it will mainly be a remake of the editor itself, not of the engine. So the engine will not be radically different, and will still be using HTML5 (not Flash or native Windows exporting).

  • Well the good news is there's probably only one answer.....

  • Well the good news is there's probably only one answer.....

    I figured it was a bit blunt to just state ...

    1. no

    2. no

    3. no

    4. no

    But I like yours better

  • Heh

    You could call Javascript native to Windows 10, and FF os which is actually Linux, and there was a very slight mention of something 3dish on twitter.

    Obviously the last two could fall under that.

    So the only thing for sure is no flash, which is the best answer in all cases.

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

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

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Why even call it C3... Stupid move, if its just an editor remake. I don't get it

  • Why even call it C3... Stupid move, if its just an editor remake. I don't get it

    That's not so different from how a lot of software works. It would make less sense to make such a time-consuming project into just another iteration, like Construct 2 v230.

  • Uhm.. Might be true for some software, though i haven't experienced that?. But they are often much more stable and usable, C2 has so many issues, so its more realistic to fix those first.

    Why would anyone pay for a new editor, when games and apps run like crap on mobiles and are missing so many features, even on PC there are huge issues involved.

    As of right now, C2 is useless. Why spend years on optimization and waiting for bug fixes, when you can get something more stable, and even free out there

    C3 will be awesome, if they listen to their customers. But i doubt they will..

  • [quote:12rd9mxu]when you can get something more stable, and even free out there

    I honestly wonder what you are referring to, because atm nothing beats C2 in terms of productivity for 2D games, assuming the project falls into the scope of what C2 can do obviously ; and that's coming from someone who has used custom in-house engines for mobile, console and PC games, bigger tools (Unity) and similar competitive frameworks (Torque2D, etc.)

    Most of the major issues with C2 are coming from misunderstanding or misuses of the product.

    [quote:12rd9mxu]C3 will be awesome, if they listen to their customers

    The customers have conflicting requirements ; one wants 3D, the other wants native exporters, another one wants scripting, and so on. If people want more flexibility, they should use an existing framework, not a content integration toolset. But obviously the more complete and flexible, the more difficult it becomes to use. I don't think the Construct community is ready for that, given the amount of typical pitfalls hobbyist developers are reporting on these forums (performance killers, memory hogs, etc.)

    Personally I just want C2/C3 to improve in what it does best : 2D games, nothing else. There already are products for other types of applications.

  • Refeuh perhaps more stable functions for social integrations for web based games (I mean, the facebook plugin is outdated, there is a third party plugin but why keeping the one in the first place, depreciating it would be wise, or redoing it), web monetisation would also cut a lot of wrapping as some people seems to wrap their games just to monetise it.

    My 2 cents obviously, but I think improvement on the web export and its advantages would be nice to have, as it is what C2 is doing best.

  • Refeuh apart from the awesome Scirra editor, there are great free tools out there. Unity for example can also create 2D games. And you don't have to script in pure code anymore. You could just use playmaker.

    "Most of the major issues with C2 are coming from misunderstanding or misuses of the product."

    • i don't believe that. There are hundreds of experienced C2 developers that have voiced their concerns about mobile performance, third party compilers/wrappers, and issues on NW and so on.

    I know people want different stuff. And i don't think Scirra should ever go into 3D. Since it never has been.

    But it should do what it advertises, to create 2D games and publish them.

    And right now, that's not possible for most.

    To be honest, i'm just tired of it.

  • 1. Will it have native exporters to iOS/Android/Windows/Linux/OSx ?

    2. Will it have an opportunity to export game to flash format (.swf)?

    3. Will it have native physics engine?

    3. Will it have native 3D support?

    1. No

    2. No

    3. No.

    4. No

    And to answer any future questions, No.

  • Uhm.. Might be true for some software, though i haven't experienced that?. But they are often much more stable and usable, C2 has so many issues, so its more realistic to fix those first.

    Why would anyone pay for a new editor, when games and apps run like crap on mobiles and are missing so many features, even on PC there are huge issues involved.

    As of right now, C2 is useless. Why spend years on optimization and waiting for bug fixes, when you can get something more stable, and even free out there

    C3 will be awesome, if they listen to their customers. But i doubt they will..

    I'm with you bother! And that's why I'm gradually switching to GameMaker Studio.

    Also I've said what you just said about a billion times, but literally no-one listens, especially Ashley.

  • Even though 3d integration would be nice, it really have to be well implemented to be of any use I think, so keeping it 2D is probably a good idea.

    In my opinion what C3 would benefit the most from is that the core of the program needs to be designed so when bad designs pop up and users complain about them, they can be fixed without having to make C4 as the solution.

    • More care in adding useful and well designed functionality is needed rather than quantity.
    • The way code is executed needs to be fix. The issue with newly created objects not being possible to pick is a great annoys in general.
    • Far better tools for organisation of projects, some sort of function tracking.
    • General improvement to almost all tools to make them more solid and useful. For instant something simple like a text object, where you can't change the alignment during runtime makes little to no sense when you can do it in the editor. There are so many of these small things that really is needed. And in my opinion they should already be in C2 and not something to hope will be in C3-C6 or something, they are expected functionality of these object I think.
    • That so many things requires workarounds to function is at least on my very top when it comes to C3, spending close to 70-85% of the time when using C2 creating weird workarounds are really not something that makes C2 shine.
  • nimos100

    "- That so many things requires workarounds to function is at least on my very top when it comes to C3, spending close to 70-85% of the time when using C2 creating weird workarounds are really not something that makes C2 shine."

    Exemples? (not asking for a bug report, just what you had to work around so we understand the issue so someone could correct that, as workarounds are the opposite of good design)

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