Construct 3 any news?

You know, i sometimes wondered, if there might be a benefit in forking the available wrappers and if a clever coder could optimize them just for use with the C2 engine. Then it could be maintained and adjusted to specific C2 needs etc. Maybe even if a third party developer would Kickstart something like this and create his own wrappers for Construct 2 and sell them on the Asset store or something. I don't know, i'm not a technical person so maybe it's a silly idea anyway

i really dont get why people bothers if something in this case "a game engine" offers more tools to play either are handy for someone either not. an isometric game a 2.5d platformer more depth, a lighting system maybe(?) (@elios you need it too) etc etc. a game engine is just a tool. if your skills made a game looking in 3d back in 1996's appearance its the dev's problem.just to tell you its a beta video we dont know for sure how many triangles or quads a model can have and any other limitation. and why we dont use unity the same old question because its difficult to learn programming (the reason why you are here too i suppose).

i dont know for you but when deadlight came out back in 2012 i said wtf maybe some day without programming i can create a game close to this.

Beta is out:

https://www.yoyogames.com/blog/397

Lol. I stopped using C2 for a while, i'm currently studying C# for Unity. I'll just come back when C3 is done.

Honestly, C2 is great but (performance + better export) is greater.

Nothing beats the simplicity of C2 in my opinion and the new DnD by GameMaker is nice but as it was said before, C2's approach to events and ESPECIALLY the Behaviours and Plugins make life a whole lot easier. I'm not a coder at and consider myself still quite a newbie but i love that when i think about a problem in C2 i most of the time already kinda know how to approach it without ever looking at a tutorial

Lol. I stopped using C2 for a while, i'm currently studying C# for Unity. I'll just come back when C3 is done.

Honestly, C2 is great but (performance + better export) is greater.

Do yourself a favor and learn Javascript instead, just for the case when you have to come back you could join the JS Plugin magicians around here.

Waltuo And now the competitors have a new GUI, native export to multiple platforms and HTML5.

Sorry, but 5 years ago HTML5 was barely usable for games (lets not even include mobile devices), it got better in recent years. It is kind of frustrating since Scirra had a good clear vision since back then on how easy visual scripting should work.

I think it really would had been better to focus on native exporter while looking out for future compatibility with HTML5, and add it when the technology was more mature.

spy84 Yes, it depends on developer's talent, but the tool can make it easier or harder.

One example is that in C2 you can't have custom/selective platform collision with solids. It may not look that important until you need it and a workaround makes things way more complicated then they should be.

Another examples would be predefined paths for platforms/enemies. It can be made in C2 but you will need to use walkarounds and calculate formules if you want curved path.

Small things like this can set you back a lot of time.

— Yup, got it even if is a very limited version (can't create executables), it will be nice to see what it can do.

tgeorgemihai when im talking about devs talent i mean only for the artistic way. for everything else you are right. the thing is that every engine finally after years of waiting reveal things so fast. the war between game engines is something that every developer should be happy cause only the developers are the winners here. game maker studio 2 uploads short videos (and more in depth videos also) about new features and god (animated tilemaps???) looks very very promising. waiting for construct 3 for an update too.

C2 was launched over 5½ years ago, and competitors are just now (maybe) approaching the usability/ease of the editor? I'm not sure Scirra should be too scared just yet, although it's always a good idea to stay up to date on what competitors are doing. We don't really know much about C3 right now, but it's been in development for around two years if not more, assuming development started around the time Ashley made the blog post about the future of Construct (which was January 2015). Scirra has a good basis in C2 to build on and I expect Construct 3 to improve in numerous areas. No need to assume competitors are the only ones that evolve even though Scirra hasn't shown their cards yet.

I've recently share a similar opinion. The most popular competitor has finally made their interface more attractive and user friendly, and finally added features that Construct 2 has had for some time, but now we're looking at Construct making another push forward in 3. I feel like the timing of their release just helps add clarity to the bar Construct 3 will need to surpass, and I'm really looking forward to that.

It seems like GameMaker is coming with a node -based system. I personally prefer Constructs eventing system.

I quite like the simplicity and readability of the event sheets. The nodes look cool, and might be fun to drag around, but as a very visual person, what makes me effective is that the information I want to see is easy to find. Along with the relationships between conditions and actions, which I think is very apparent in the event sheets.

Clickteam and YoYo Games are showing images of Fusion 3 and Gamemaker Studio 2

When images of Construct 3?

And they are finally *starting* to look as appealing as Construct 2. Personally, I'm comfortable being patient. Although, I'd be disappointed if Construct 3 wasn't again an "easy" choice to make as my preferred tool, as Construct 2 was over the nearly dozen direct competitors I'm familiar with.

Have you ever tried the Editor? It's far from as easy to use as Construct's in my opinion...

I think there's always a tendency to look for the "perfect engine". It happens on every user forum of all the mentioned software packages that i've ever been to. There are always things that could be better or optimized etc. I think there are a lot of people who never start actually making a game, because they keep looking at different game engines every other week. I know i had that problem for much too long. In the end what counts is, which tool makes you actually realize your project the quickest and most convenient to you, which is very subjective. For me PERSONALLY i really always came back to C2 because i didn't see any other program, where i could get something done so easily and still remain a great deal of flexibility. So i'll stick around for sure and i'm looking forward to see what C3 will offer

I agree. I explored a lot of 2D engines, nearly a dozen, and Construct 2 became my preferred engine. They all had pro's and con's, but Construct 2 was the most appealing to how I think about problems, design, and allowed to me to see all the info I want in a user friendly way, the relationships between conditions and actions, level and asset organization, etc, it was just the best fit for me. I hadn't been terribly concerned with "native code" to begin with, but wherever performance *might* suffer, it seems to also be far more consistent and reliable than other software.

GM:S gave me a game that worked moderately well on PC (minor collision issues not dissimilar to ones I've had in Construct 2), but was completely broken when the same project went to HTML5. I don't even know how to identify the cause or come up with a solution for a problem like that. And at the end of the day, every minute of time spent exploring how to get around those problem in one engine, is the same amount of time I could spend resolving issues in my preferred engine. At some point, you need to move from a Jack of All Engines, pick a lane, and commit to development. It was a hard lesson to learn. And sadly, one I still can't take full advantage of, since I have to teach in one program but prefer to create in another.

i think we can all agree with C2 having the best way of managing events, but the truth is that it doesnt export native and that is a problem, there is nothing that can make html5 look better than native, i see html5 as just another platform to export, not the "MAIN" platform, engines like unity and GM already export native and html5.

i think we can all agree with C2 having the best way of managing events, but the truth is that it doesnt export native and that is a problem, there is nothing that can make html5 look better than native, i see html5 as just another platform to export, not the "MAIN" platform, engines like unity and GM already export native and html5.

There is only one reason that prevents Scirra from going native on C2. Ehemmm! "MONEY".

It takes a lot of money because it takes a bigger team to make native exporters.

Top 3 features that is mostly requested for C3:

1) Native Export - Denied

2) 3D - Denied

3) Improved Plugin Support - Accepted

Atleast the 3rd one is accepted by Ashley.

too shabby because native vs javascript won't bring you much performance improvements.

also, you can go and write everything in c++ export so you could just wrap it again for ios (objective C, and Java for droid).

oh there's much more to it, but you people will keep on whining about native forever.

relatively new - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/algorith ... a-malyshev

if you check this out - JS is in the middle, only optimized c++ is faster. even java is slower.

and that's algorithmic performance, which is only needed for games.