Mesh Distortion in Editor

We're planning to look in to developing an editor feature for this.

Ashley

I love the new 3d features. However, I'm kind of disappointing seeing that a tool made for making 2d games is still not supporting this vital feature.

Game running on 2016 devices still have lags running 2d games (Mostly Android), I can't imagine making a 3d game.

As a hobbyist, making levels with the method I explained above saves time, however, it's hardware-consuming and the level design might get confusing. The game runs smoothly on the iPhone 6 which is good, but I feel this workaround makes the leved design over complicated.

Is there any plan to introduce this feature, especially now that we have the mesh distortion in an editor? This feature would literally change the level design on any platform 2d.

Thank you

I'd love to do it, but we're a small team with limited resources, and we receive far, far more feature requests than we could possibly do. Please be patient!

I'd love to do it, but we're a small team with limited resources, and we receive far, far more feature requests than we could possibly do. Please be patient!

Hi Ashley I appreciate your reply, but I don't understand why focusing on 3d features when this tool was made to make mainly software 2d.

Is there anyone who is developing 3d games using construct3? I mean, there is plenty of software out there that allows us to make 3d games with much more additional features since they were made to make 3d games with a 3d editor, and now they don't even require coding skills since some of these tools implement visual scripting which is similar to Construct3.

I don't understand these people craving for 3d when phones can barely run 2d games if not developed well (Android phones, which have 72% of the market share). Also, the 3d feature can't even really be implemented on a realistic development side. It's cool for experimenting stuff. I tried one of the 3d demos on the phone and it can't run even smoother. Using a 2d tool with a 2d view for making 3d games doesn't make any sense in my opinion and it overcomplicates a tool that should be kept simple.

The feature I am requesting focuses mainly on 2d development, which should boost up Construct 3 a lot. We still need to design our level using tilemaps (which are mostly for pixelated games) or rely on our system to make a decent level design approach. I guarantee you that if you can develop a similar feature as shown in the Unity Sprite Shape, all the users developing 2d games will benefit from it.

Also, I'm talking as a Graphic Designer (and I'm also a software developer), which I would prefer to have 2d tools that would allow me to design a level in a better artistic approach. Most people using Construct3 are those who don't have the skills or don't have time to use more sophisticated software.

I will be willing to donate or pay money to see this feature done.

These are my 2 cents.

The community response to the new 3D features has been one of the most excited and overwhelmingly positive responses to anything we've ever done.

Lots of users want different things from Construct, and in some cases different customers want contradictory things. We have to balance what thousands of people want. Unfortunately it's just impossible to make absolutely everyone happy, but we do our best as a small team with limited resources to aim for what will make the biggest impact for the most people.

That's not to say anyone's ideas aren't good ideas - this sounds good and it would be great to have it. But we have to balance that with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of other ideas, and in particular large and complex projects like the one you suggested appears to be are particularly tough. We tend to focus on the things we see lots of customers constantly requesting.

Ashley Yes, I understand that is hard to make everyone happy. I'm not expecting that the Scirra Team can implement every feature that every user requests, good or bad.

Most excited doesn't always mean most beneficial for Construct3. Today, I can't still see how the 3d feature can be a benefit for a user who wants to publish and make money from a game. As I stated above, there is plenty of 3d software. If someone wants to build up a 3d game, they need to change the engine if they want to make something real that can be published and run smoothly. If they want to experiment and have fun, then it's another story. My goal using Construct3 is to make professional good looking 2d games that can be published and make money from them, which is still possible with a lot of hard work and a lot of limitations.

I wanted to rise a problem that Construct3 has: it is pretty limited when designing a 2d platform since we are limited on tilemaps and sprites/tiled background, which means that is frustrating as I talk as a graphic designer who wants to design level as I would paint. If you want to make a nice-looking level, you need to use hundreds or thousands of objects which is not convenient and takes up a lot of resources.

Construct3 still doesn't allow a nice workflow when it's time to design a level. This means that I am spending more time using other software to make what Construct3 could do much faster if a sprite shape was there.

So, it's hard for me to believe that right now the Scirra team is focusing on the 3d features when this tool was made exclusively for 2d games, which I choose for this reason. I'm curious to know how many devs are going to integrate the 3d feature in a 2d game. If making the sprite shape is too hard, then it's another story.

I will keep supporting Construct3 even if I won't see this feature realized. I just suggest focusing on the 2d features that would allow us to make our life easier when designing a game/level.

Just saying, sprite shape on Construct 3 would be an app killer. You will attract hundreds if not thousands of new client if show a workflow demo on how easy is to design a good looking level.

I do empathise with both Scirra and Ribis. On one hand, 3D is cool and always been a repeated request!

But a few things I've been thinking lately :

Scirra always said they're aiming to make the best 2D game creator, is their goal also to do 3D now, or just "simple" 3D is the limit?

I thought this would be simple 3D at the start, for like background effects and such, but then the 3D camera object appeared, seems like its been focused on quite a bit!

If this 3D stuff attracts new customers, what happens if their voices are louder than the people that use C3 for 2D? Will we just see updates mainly for 3D and occasional side things for 2D just because that's what people are loud about?

If being loud and having many people ask for something is a way to get something implemented, then why isn't "native" ever considered, or console exports similar to chowdren being developed in house by Scirra? If its because Scirra is a small team, then why did Scirra take on 3D suddenly? (Note: I don't mind about native or game consoles currently, but it's a very common request from everyone else).

Also, it's hard to retroactively use 3D stuff in current projects, I could use it for backgrounds or effects, but I see people making FPS demos and stuff, it's like a whole new genre that Scirra kinda has to support.

Usually something so big would be left for third party plugins, and there are a few 3D third party plugins for C2 and C3 (granted that Scirra supporting 3D gives third party devs more functionality to implement their 3D third party plugin). On top of this, I hope we don't get told "you must use 3rd party plugins to be able to import 3D objects" or something, because if the dev moves on from their plugin, Scirra won't be able to help out with any game-breaking issues that might appear in future C3 updates.

I'm not sure how useful it is for me to keep repeating this, but I would love to do all these features. But we have limited resources and we have to prioritise. No matter what priorities we choose, some people will be disappointed.

Many people are passionately arguing that we should do even more 3D features. I'm not sure we will; Construct remains a primarily 2D tool and we're not aiming to make it anywhere near as capable as 3D tools like Unity. So we will probably go back to focusing on 2D and other features for the time being.

If you use 3D features, naturally you want more 3D features. If you use 2D features, naturally you want more 2D features. If you use data storage plugins naturally you want more data storage features. And so on. One more time: I'd love to do it all, but sadly we are bound by the laws of physics, and have to make choices one way or another.

Where Ribis says they would like more focus on the layout editor, that's something that many people would agree or disagree. I'd disagree myself, I'd focus on more additions to event sheet view. But yes, loud and clear, you cannot please everyone, totally fair enough really.

It's nice that 3D won't be the focus imo, but it's also sort of confusing. What if people subscribe for the 3D features and find that they remain primitive and will not be expanded on? I mean I guess they can unsubscribe , but I guess I'm missing the point.

The ability to import and apply the object json save state data in the editor would work well at least as a third party type of solution.

People could make their own editor, probably in C3, and solve their specific needs.

This might also work to get a better understanding of what tools, and manipulation methods would work best, and therefor reduce a lot of experimentation for Scirra.

Im sure anybody who would make their own would be interested in sharing what they can as it it would be in their own best interest to see the editor improved.

I'm not sure how useful it is for me to keep repeating this, but I would love to do all these features. But we have limited resources and we have to prioritise. No matter what priorities we choose, some people will be disappointed.

Many people are passionately arguing that we should do even more 3D features. I'm not sure we will; Construct remains a primarily 2D tool and we're not aiming to make it anywhere near as capable as 3D tools like Unity. So we will probably go back to focusing on 2D and other features for the time being.

If you use 3D features, naturally you want more 3D features. If you use 2D features, naturally you want more 2D features. If you use data storage plugins naturally you want more data storage features. And so on. One more time: I'd love to do it all, but sadly we are bound by the laws of physics, and have to make choices one way or another.

Ashley

Yes, but as you stated Construct 3 is a primary 2d tool to make games/software in 2d. I have been here since 2012 I believe, and I have invested my time here because I believe that soon this tool will allow us to publish games quickly that would work amazingly on any platform (web apps are the future and they are already here). It is already possible and I have 2 apps in beta, that are working fine, but my time and frustration regarding the creation of the level are getting more and more frustrating. Then, when I check the updates I'm seeing 3d features which are not nearby helpful as allowing us to design our platform on the layout (still, Construct3 is a 2d tool, if it becomes a 3d one I will just move to Unity). I choose Construct3 because I need to develop only 2d games.

My concern on seeing these 3d features is that these will take time to the real important features that Scirra could focus on working on. Make a better dev experience when making games in 2d. Devs who want to use 3d need to use another engine if they want to make a game in 3d. There is no way that a 3d game will run smoothly on the mobile in the web view. I have done a ton of experiments to make my games run smoothly. Still, I don't see how someone can make a 3d game using a 2d layout.

Jase00

Yes, that is one of my main concerns. There are several engines that have visual scripting that make only 3d games and export for android/ios. They cost more money, I have no idea why someone would want 3d features in an amazing tool that works perfectly fine as it is now. 3d Addition just add more complicate stuff in a software that should be kept simple as it is.

Also, I don't say to focus on the layout editor, in fact, I think is one of the best I have ever used. I used the first game editor in the 98 with klick & Play. And so far, Construct 3 is the best one. What I am asking is a simple feature that uses mesh editor to generate the terrain much easier, so when we develop 2d games, we can use few textures the generate the whole level, instead of being forced to use hundreds if not thousands of objects or stick with the tilemap grid. This would allow us to design the level in the editor, and I bet it will be less resource-heavy for the mobile phone when it's rendered.

I think the effort and love put into the 3D stuff is amazing and I think it's turning out to be a really great feature - the tutorials and math explanations and everything is extremely interesting and I can't wait to set aside some time to experiment with it all - I did originally think similar to Ribis with the whole "seeing updates and it's more 3D" but now that it's clarified that Construct 3 will still primarily be a 2D engine, I'm glad!

Oh yeah, like the mesh stuff, layout editor stuff, 3D, none of that is high priority to me personally, sure - but it doesn't matter that I think that way, or if anyone else thinks "3D is top priority" or whatever - it indeed is what the suggestions platform is for. I should get voting!

Mesh, and 3d are inescapably tied, you can't change one without the other.

It is however buggy, and clumsy in its current form.

To the point of being frustrating.

As suggested by Ashley, I have added it as a suggestion here: https://construct3-21h2.ideas.aha.io/ideas/C321H2-I-142

Upvote this feature if you think this will be a game-changer. I think anyone who makes a 2d game will use this feature on a regular basis to add new design elements to the game.

Thanks