Disappointed over bad communications!!!

3D is by its very nature just confusing in General and building a Realtime Engine that will satisfy People is a whole different story as well so don't just think it's that easily done. I think a new Editor with a better SDK may lead to better Exporters being developed but i'm technically not clever enough to really say this... But one things for sure: a dedicated 3D Engine like Unity with something like Playmaker might be the better Solution. I went to school for 3D Animation and i can tell you that the workload is quite a different story especially for one-man shows so i think Construct should stick to what its best at which is 2D.

If someone really is unhappy with how things develop though maybe they should look at other Options out there?

3D is not confusing. All you need to do, is to know what you want to do and how you want to do it. It's simple as that.

Okay let me rephrase: compared to 2D it adds a lot of complexity, agreed?

Yup, Now i can agree to that statement

Is geometry confusing?

A little.

Is trig confusing?

Fosz@$k yes.

To top things off, most people abuse the hell out of collision detection in construct since they have a poor understanding of the costs associated with it and the mechanisms behind it's operation. It's very easy to blindly apply collision detection throughout code for repeated conditions, but really most engines have a SINGLE collision detection run per frame because it's so expensive, when in construct you can end up with many many many collision detections per frame, which make things "tighter" at tremendous cost. Behaviors are also a big issue because of how general they are, the expense they incur quickly adds up.

.

As far as I remember, C2 compiles those in to one list on export/preview.

megatronx

No, it doesn't. That would break the logic in a lot of way if for example you move an object between checks etc.

Even the people that Ashley posted on his front page to showcase Construct 2's "capability" have said themselves they will not be using Construct 2 in the future for any more projects and that they are losing money because Construct 2 is incomplete.

(...)

I find it very ironic that on the Construct 3 page, there's one of the three developers that swore off Construct 2.

Hi, I'm the guy on the C3 website : )

Just to be clear on this subject, cause it's not that simple in my head.

- Yes, I won't use C2 anymore for future big projects. Mainly because of the lack of (real) console exporters (< many devs really need this to make money now)

• BUT I will continue to use C2 (and C3) to make PC only projects, smaller games, or prototyping. I've never been so in love with an engine from a workflow point of view.

I know how to use GM (Penelope started as a GM project for 4 months), and I'm having fun with Playmaker and UE4 blueprints from time to time.

It's great, but I miss C2 pretty quickly every time.

- No I don't feel like C2 is a scam or something. I came here 2 years ago to ask "can I make this game for PC using C2?" and now my game is out and runs great using NW 10.5.

Job done, as far as I'm concerned! Hell, the game even now has a boxed version! ( https://twitter.com/AurelRegard/status/ ... 8071988225 )

Yes, as many I had issues to fix with this, but devs using Unity for consoles sometimes waited more than a YEAR to be able to export their games in a proper way. I know there is no magic tool to export games for multiple platforms.

Making it to run on Linux and Mac is tricky, but again friends using Unity, GM or their own engine have similar issues, so I'm not complaining this much.

[Every X days - Trigger Once while true] > - At the end of the day, I know I wish for something which can't happen (a +50 people team with a shitload of money to back them for native + console exporters). So now, I take C2 for what it is: a fantastic piece of software which allows to craft complex games at the speed of light on PC and Mac. And sometimes Linux. And small games / prototypes for browsers and mobiles.

I have no regret, and I still LOVE C2.

This is why I'm happy to be on the C3 website (note: I don't have any partnership with Scirra of any kind). I'm sure the UI and the logic will be as brilliant, maybe better than today. And I'll use it for sure for (yes, only a small part of) my next projects. I also deeply respect how Ashley takes time to answer here to mostly every thread where he's targeted.

Since a few months, I have to answer 100/150 messages a day by email/twitter/steam forums. This is exhausting and life-sucking, I can't imagine how hard it is for him to do this for this long, and I understand he just can't profile every game on earth / fix all bugs with only 24 hours in a day. Aaaand, then back to [Every X days - Trigger Once while true] > cause at the same time I feel so frustrated to see such a great tool only based on html5 and only on a one man army.

Thanks for your response Aurel, couldn't agree more.

[quote:163lw5z8]This is exhausting and life-sucking, I can't imagine how hard it is for him to do this for this long, and I understand he just can't profile every game on earth / fix all bugs with only 24 hours in a day. Aaaand, then back to [Every X days - Trigger Once while true] > cause at the same time I feel so frustrated to see such a great tool only based on html5 and only on a one man army.

Well I do agree with you that C2 in general is a very cool program so wouldn't disagree with you on that. But look at the bright side, even though it might be frustrating to answer and listen to all the "Complain/Feedback". I think (well at least for me) its not to have a go at Scirra or Ashley, they are very involved in the forum and as you say respond to people, which is really good customer service compared to a lot of other websites, where they don't react to anything.

But to be honest I think a majority of people just want C2 to be as good as possible, but out of frustration the message is not always delivered in the most civilized way . But on the other hand it shows that people actually care I think and in the end it also helps Scirra to improve the program, imagine if no one gave any feedback but just instead left in silence, then it would be even harder for Scirra to know what people wanted.

And also remember a forum like this will automatically be the number 1 place for people to go complain about it, there are not really anywhere else where it makes sense to do it. So of course it can appear overwhelming, but honestly I don't think its any different than any other forum out there, from my experience at least. Its just part of the game I guess

If we go by what the market is showing us with regards to other game-making tools, as soon as you start writing native exporters, your product is frozen. Feature development slows to a glacial pace and all efforts are shifted to attempts to bring feature parity and bug fixes.

C2 has all the features it needs now.

Don't add more: fix the export problems, then make all the current features solid, then make an new Editor, and after that start adding more features if you want.

As it stands C3 will just be C2 with a nice editor (which would be great) but still nothing more than a prototype/education tool - great if you are just a novice, but not so great if you want to let the world play your game.

Why there are no programmers yet, that would write exporters and put them up in the store, I wander?

megatronx I remember someone was working on an XNA exporter a long long time ago, but I think along with the change from multi-export to HTML5 pure the options for third party exporters also went out the window (I was under the impression that at one point the plan was to have some sort of SDK/engine parts exposed to allow third party native exporters that were not HTML5/Javascript based).

Could be wrong about that though...

Edit: XNA runtime from 2011

megatronx I remember someone was working on an XNA exporter a long long time ago, but I think along with the change from multi-export to HTML5 pure the options for third party exporters also went out the window (I was under the impression that at one point the plan was to have some sort of SDK/engine parts exposed to allow third party native exporters that were not HTML5/Javascript based).

Ashley Would that still be possible?

Every 2-3 months or so, another thread starts and the conclusion is that c2 is a great piece of software has many possibilities but is hard to reach them. the no1 excuse is that behind c2 is a very small team/studio that cant do as fast as any other aaa game engine developers. and thats true.

I bought c2 in 2012 i think with my priority for android. i knew nothing about what a wrapper is when ashley said before buying that cocoonjs could make the game like/close to a native one. 3 years after we discuss the same things. about mobile gaming.

In these 3 years i expressed my thoughts and wills why c2 can not have the possibility of 3d objects (if not playable at least in the backround) to give some depth in the game. the answer of ashley and the most of c2 users was that it will mess the engine the plans is to stick with 2d and we dont want 3d or the third dimension is very difficult to achieve blah blah blah. Then q3d came. and behind q3d is a student who SPENDS his free time cause he studies and maybe works too to achieve his revolutionary plugin. and then the difficulties gone and then 3d is possible and what a great job youve done. and i still feel that the man behind q3d never get the credits that should take. his job is fantastic (the lack of tutorials is depressing me ok) he should be immediately join scirra.

then came the break up with cjs. it dissapears from the export options (its hidden from the options) and the only way to export "officialy supported" is intel xdk. it build my games and ive got about 25-40% lower frame rate in very small projects, got music problems and a grey screen in the start sometimes. i thought maybe its my smartphone so i bought a quad core mtk, mali 400mp2 gpu smartphone but the frames still are much lower than cjs. if someone told us back in 2013 that the day we will miss cocoonjs will come who will believe?

what im trying to say is that c2 is most for amateurs no coders who have a dream to make a great game including me with tons of assets and sounds beautifull and complicated and then we realise that we have to make some or many steps back cause mobile gaming is hard to support all of these assets. the problem is that games with not too much assets cant make it to mobile very well too. i export spaceblaster once with cocoonjs and crosswalk(?) to android and it runs with 10 frames or so.. we always are saying that users dont know how to make a mobile game but i think that is not the whole true and maybe c2 is messy and buggy for mobile gaming too.

for me Scirra youve done a great job, classic was good c2 is good also you take a lot of publicity, youve got many fans/users/buyers. its time imo to hire some programmers to start a kickstarter or something like that (maybe why not..), and rebuild the engine from the start. dont spend time to polish a program which dont delivered to users what it said it will.

for the developer of next penelope your game is awesome you ve done magic man i wonder if you can port it to android or ios or blackberry is it possible?could an ipad handle your game and if not why? i saw games with tons of graphics and effects 3d or 2d that ran flawessly.