Disappointed over bad communications!!!

Very true, however, said limitations seems pretty blurry at the moment, which does not help as two systems can react differently while having the same type of hardware, and sometimes a better hardware will not support correctly something, hard to define the limits and so, to work with them.

I agree, the limitations could and should be a lot clearer and more predictable.

"Build once, publish anywhere" is too bold of a statement at this time.

for me a a single sprite with bullet behavior is jerking on PC and S4 using CHROME!

if chrome has some / lot bugs as mentioned, i wonder WHY the perfered exporting way is to use Intel XDK and Crosswalk, which is also based on Chrome!?

capx:

http://www.floerl.cc/jerk_bullet_on_Chrome.capx

[quote:tqhjnv27] wonder WHY the perfered exporting way is to use Intel XDK and Crosswalk, which is also based on Chrome!?

Chrome being bad is.. new. It's something that happened over the last 2 months. Before there were sporadic problems, but they really came down hard.

Also there's still no better alternative.

I think it all went wrong with chrome 37 in Aug 2014 and it hasn't fully recovered yet. Begs a lot of questions about how Google's hundreds of engineers actually test what they've done, but here we are.

I love C2, and really feel scirra have created an awesome product.

But sadly as it stands it seems that C2 is a prototype/learning tool - at this stage there are no export options that produce satisfactory results for serious game development - or at least that how many of us feel.

Chrome is now a bug - don't use it!

To address the constant barrage of performance complaints I really feel that scirra needs to build a real world game with their own product.

This will provide at leaste three benefits:

A showcase game that demononstrates the power of C2. An example/model of how to use this tool effectively/correctly. An opportunity for scirra to see what issues are faced in a project with more than one layout and a few events.

If anyone can make a game that works with satisfactory results with current exporters, scirra can!

If scirra can pull it off - then it will be proof that the product is fine, the exporters are acceptable, and all the complainers just have to buckle down and learn to use C2 properly. However I suspect that the end result would be as frustrating for scirra as they are for the developers of the shiny examples on the scirra home page.

I'm kind of sorry to read so many bad experiences but also of the kind of aggressive tone that is struck when it comes to addressing the Scirra People themselves.

Me, i haven't even finished a proper Game yet, so i'm still learning and exporting to Mobile doesn't interest me too much (PC foreva!!) so of course, it's easy for me to say.

Nevertheless, i kinda had a thought, which probably is too much to tackle for the Guys and i rather have them doing what they do best: making Construct a better Tool but here it is:

How about doing a Crowdfunding campaign to pay a Coder to do C2 optimized Wrappers for all the major Platforms and then make those Open Source so it will be maintained by the Community? This way, no Time is getting taken away from developing C2 and no overhead is created of maintaining it...

Just a thought, i really love C2 and what it does for me and if it just stays a Hobby, so be it. It was still worth every Cent I know it is probably frustrating for someone longer around than me to never being able to publish his stuff properly on the Platform of Choice but i would never not recommend C2 to anyone because even if you won't make your Blockbuster Game in it it is still a great Way to learn about Game Making and i'm pretty certain as HTML 5 matures more, so will C2.

[quote:1v7s14gv]

Also there's still no better alternative.

Thats all? Other game makers does not have such performance issues.

For now, CS2 and Crosswalk10 is complete useless. Dont know if its just the combination.

Try to export my sample above (just 2 sprites and one with the bullet behavior) using Cs2 200 and crosswalk10 and see that the bullet sprite is jerking.

for now CS2 is not able to export a game to android which is running smooth - 2 sprites.

From CS2 side its not very helpfull to point every time on Intel, Crosswalk, bad hardware...

[quote:2gjcebyr]Thats all? Other game makers does not have such performance issues.

There are not many event/gui-based HTML5 game engines I know of, but those that I know of suffer from the exact same problem for the same reason.

The interesting question is: Why do so many people buy a HTML5 engine if they don't want one? The "we can export with wrappers!!!"-thing came as a bonus over time and is still just a bunch of hacks.

For sure we want a html5 game maker but there must be a reason why 2 sprites are junking when i export a game with the prefered android export procedure intel xdk and crosswalk.

Ive read nearly all performace issues in the scirra forum and every time scirra is pointing on others instead of helping the people and thats frustrating and thats also why this post was opened

Heres the problem I'm having.

I wrote a game in C2 on a layout that was 1024 by 768. Everything seemed fine on my desktop. When I put it on my iphone though it was REALLY SMALL.

Ashley, can I send you my capx and can you explain why it is so small on my IPhone?

yours

Winkr7

Heres the problem I'm having.

I wrote a game in C2 on a layout that was 1024 by 768. Everything seemed fine on my desktop. When I put it on my iphone though it was REALLY SMALL.

Ashley, can I send you my capx and can you explain why it is so small on my IPhone?

yours

Winkr7

I think this is nothing for ashley or this post... post this as a new thread

For sure we want a html5 game maker but there must be a reason why 2 sprites are junking when i export a game with the prefered android export procedure intel xdk and crosswalk....

I would like to know why this is happening if anybody has answers?

The interesting question is: Why do so many people buy a HTML5 engine if they don't want one? The "we can export with wrappers!!!"-thing came as a bonus over time and is still just a bunch of hacks.

I have always wanted the sequel to Construct Classic to be something with native desktop export (even if just Windows), and that was one of the things that we were told would be "definitely" part of Construct 2 in the early stages of its development. In fact, C2 was supposed to support multiple exporters during its early plannings, rather than just HTML5, which is why all the plugins go inside "Construct 2/exporters/html5/plugins" rather than just "Construct 2/plugins".

There were many people who voiced this concern in the early days and we were basically told it was "a given" that proper desktop export was included.

After Scirra decided to focus on just the one exporter, were told that HTML5 would be better for portability and run better than Construct Classic ( https://www.scirra.com/blog/102/html5-g ... han-native ) , and it's true, I can now have a badly running game on a whole bunch of platforms, but the performance just isn't smooth, and eventually we are told that it's due to third parties.

Well, if we aren't using a native engine because it depends on "too many third parties" I don't see how this makes sense:

A funny comparison would be to how (and why) Apple ditched Flash: https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

If you replace Flash with Construct 2/HTML5 in our case (because for them, HTML5 is something they directly code the native browser for) the words become

[quote:ivecik6v]We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Construct 2 is a cross platform development tool. It is not Scirra’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Scirra has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms.

Jayjay yup, all true. Probably most of early adopters bought it because it was the next evolution of CC (all the features + more + working better). Ultimately html5 is not that awesome as everyone is seeing it. But hey, WebGL 2 is coming! it's all gonna be fine in next couple of years. All we need to do is just wait (no quotation mark needed)

^^ That's why I'm starting my first Unity class tonight. I love the philosophy behind the design of the c2 editor and I hope the export options improve, because if they do I'll be back full time in a flash.

But with talk of improving the editor to "c3" it feels like the priority is a design journey rather than getting to an export-your-game destination. A journey that may well end in a couple of years in being able to quickly make awesome things that still play well nowhere.