CC/C2 discussion

Actually, a simple converter was made a long time ago. Not sure if it still works, but I'm sure it could be vastly improved now: scirra.com/forum/experimental-cap-to-c2-converter_topic42194.html

Even a layout/graphics/animations only importer would be hugely helpful.

Its awesome to hear GOOD audio support is on the way. once again, per pixel collision ISN'T needed for most things almost everyone would make, but I do use it, gamejolt.com/games/adventure/spectrum-wing/1058 wouldn't be possible without it. That canvas plugin is very nice, i hadn't seen it, but without per pixel collision you simply can't do some of the really impressive things using canvases that you can in CC.

I use CC and I want to use C2 more, I really am not saying C2 is worse than CC in anyway. CC can do a few little things C2 can't very well and very easily, and that's why we keep using it for the moment, even with all its glaring flaws.

C2 is in general the better program for most coming to these forums, but in the process i think a few of us from the past era feel a bit alienated by the more mobile-web-dev related tangent its moving along, and the fact that's the target audience, rather than the "hey wouldn't it be great if there were a way better gamemaker/clickteam tool" audience of CC.

I'm using both but I constantly hit walls due to missing features in C2. I find C2 is getting faster but some of the simple feature of CC are greatly needed.

Little things like Array Paste and the ability to stop a sprite from rotating when changing an angle. I'm learning to live without the full z plane but it's causing so much extra work...sigh.

What it took me 2 hours to do in CC has taken me the better part of 5 nights after work now. And it's still not even close to what I had in CC because I'm trying to make up for missing functions (totally fake z plane).

I like them both, but each have their flaws. But for now, despite constant crashes - I prefer CC over C2 for functionality alone. And because my game isn't going to work for crap on an iphone or ipad or whatever because I have to use webgl for the effects I used in my CC version.

3 seconds per frame is 0.33 fps, Vs 3 fps. That's not 100% faster; it's 10x as fast; 900% faster

Did you make sure to set collisions to bounding box as well in both c2 and cc?

Lol whoops, no. I really screwed up that one in multiple ways. :P Let me try that again.

To get the math right and a more accurate percentage I ran a second test, being more careful this time: 730 instances of both sprite and sprite 2, no rotation, just collision checks, none overlapping, using bounding boxes (the test would be incomparable using full collision, because it would wary wildly depending on sprite size and number of collision polys):

CC 55fps, 0.0181s per frame

C2 17 fps, 0.0588s per frame

I think that results in C2 being about 31% the speed of CC there.

4fps VS 9fps is over twice the speed, over 100% faster.

Technically that was wavering into 5 fps, so I just made it to about 100% - I should have been more accurate, it was 4 a bit more often than 5.

More accurate version:

CC 53 fps, 0.0188 per frame

C2 21 fps, 00476 per frame

C2 being about 40% the speed of CC.

The first test creating instances, 1.2s/1.8s results in c2 being two thirds the speed.

So it seems the result is higher - CC seems to be about 1.5-3.2x faster.

Unless I screwed up again. :P

Also, more work CANNOT be done per frame at low fps, assuming rendering always finishes first; It just can't spit the logic out fast enough. Rendering finishes in a fraction of the time, and the cpu is just chugging, trying to finish calculating the event sheet.

Of course it can - that's the entire result reason why it's a low FPS in the first place. I'm asking it to do more work than It can manage in a 60th of a second. If a processor could manage 60 calculations per second, at 60 fps it could manage 1 per frame, at 1 fps it could manage 60 per frame. Therefore, more work is done per frame at 1 fps. Regardless if it is the CPU or GPU that cannot keep up, either one has to wait for the other (though the CPU works one step ahead since the gpu renders the previous frame concurrently). In these tests, the GPU was waiting on the CPU.

Interestingly, even seeing the result is back where I estimated originally before these tests, I don't feel like I care. I guess it's because c2's speed is sufficient for what I want to do, and device speed and browser optimizations are only going to improve.

While I wouldn't mind that extra speed, I guess the reason I feel this way is because I'm not sure I would use it. I can understand why others would want it though.

This topic seems to be rolling out the Construct Classic big guns in it's defence!....about time this forum had some fire...

Being relatively new to both programs ,(only a few months under my belt)...<shakes rattle>, I can certainly understand both sides,and in my opinion Construct Classic , as a game creation tool is unmatched...period. And deals Construct 2 a mighty punch in the web socket ,with C2 feeling watery and dumbed down by comparison.

However if you actually want your mega creation to leave the confines of your hard drive ,Construct 2 counters with a HTML5 flurry (after checking it's hair and donning a puffy shirt of course).

And I think that sums it up ,the market is no longer reliant on brute force to shift ten thousand pixels into an alien mothership....five sprites and a bit of photoshop can sell!

So as a forward looking commercial product Construct 2 takes the flag,while construct classic bites it's knuckles behind an MMX badged desktop....

Just to add I really think Classics reliability issues are overplayed...come runtime ,it's rock solid.

But saying that editing in C2 is a joy and I don't miss the feeling of impending crash that Classic can give sometimes.

The crashing in classic can be enough to send me packing for the day. If I work on my game for 6 hours I've probably had around 20 crashes. I'm set to auto save every 5 or 15 minutes... I can't remember.

Then there's an issue where it can't overwrite itself and things start going to hell quickly... menu items stop working...

CC has issues with animating sprites while doing pseudo 3d, it kills the speed hard. Since I've had no animated sprite speed issues 2d wise in C2 like I have in CC I think C2 may pull ahead here. The webgl filters seem to be the killer in C2.

My pseudo 3d code is running at full speed on my ipad2 (minus the mode7 plugin ground and sky). My i7 laptop with a gf 550t chugs when the CC version gets too much on screen and slows to half if I animate the coins.

So I've very curious to see what's going to happen once I'm finished...

I think C2 may come out on top here.

For me its a mater of ...well...now what do i do?

Over the years I've systematically broke down all the large hurtles using CC for my mega game project. and am now ready for the difficult process of putting them all together.

But CC is so unstable on large projects, and is doomed to obscurity as far as the devs are concerned.

Its just a bad idea for me to attempt my mega project with it.

and C2, and HTML5, just seem a LONG ways from being were I need it to be.

so it's out of the picture.

...so I guess I need to start looking else were.

but I think i'm done with gamemakers, I've spent the last 5 years using one, waiting on the day it would be version 1.0, I still have a list of things that have "wait for V 1.0" on them. that day never came, and never will.

so fool me once and all that..

That's not a jab at the construct dev team. they were making it for free.

an they still managed to make the best darn game-maker I've ever seen.

but putting my faith in others systems just seems like a bad idea.

I think I'll just start strait coding my projects, its going to be hard to start all over again. but at least code never really goes obsolete.

But first I got some projects I'd like to let people see. and they need a bit more work. so I'm here till that's done.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

To all the newer people on CC:

CC can do amazing things, and can teach you a lot.

But never forget. Your on a sinking ship.

Bartosh

and C2, and HTML5, just seem a LONG ways from being were I need it to be.

Out of curiosity, what is it about C2 and HTML5 that isn't where you want it to be? You said something about the speed and client side resources, what is it you want to do?

but I think i'm done with gamemakers

I think I'll just start strait coding my projects, its going to be hard to start all over again. but at least code never really goes obsolete.

I'm not sure of your experience level, but in case you're unaware, as I hear it conventional wisdom is most who try that route don't end up making games, they spend so long on the engine they don't even get to making the game itself (make first version of the engine, lots of it needs reworking, rework it, technology has improved and the engine needs to be updated again to look modern, rework again - years of work).

Even if working in C2 isn't quite the workflow you want, it would almost undoubtedly be easier to work with than rolling your own engine.

Master game idea is:

Escape Velocity/ NAEV stile Meta world game

but set on "floating islands" with plains, and airships

witch you fly with a z. axes along with an x. and y.

inside each ship is crewed by an 16 bit pixle art crew, moving around custom made rooms, living and working, like the Sims crossed with FTL.

on the island you can land,and walk around, or build a base of operations. witch this crew could move between,pathfind in both the ships array, and the worlds array. then you can dive down into the under city to scavange for artifacts.

and its all done with just the mouse.

i made a post over on the general forum Pic thread with some of my concept art about it.

I know that sounds lofty, it is. but I have a lot of experience making and failing to make games. so i have a good understanding of what is/ is not possible.

and i seriously think i can make this.

it just requires an absurd amount of planing and effort.

I've had it in the back of my mind for a long time, and almost all my games have worked one way or another towards this idea.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Experience wise 10 years (5 with MMF, 5 with CC) I'm 25.

I've always considered myself an artist, not a programmer. but if i wanted to see my game ideas become reality, i needed to make them myself.

But because of that fear of not being able to program. i always used game making programs. however, over the course of using construct I've gained a lot of confidence in my ability's. and I'm not afraid anymore, I know whatever difficulty I encounter, I'll overcome it.

my plan is to go with javascript. the idea being if its just not what I want, I can come back to C2 or something, but with an ability to code the back-end with plugins or whatever to fits what I need.

I have an older brother that i work with on web design who has a masters in computer science who just gives me hell for wasting my time with Gamemakers.

I always have argued against him, saying I can get to were I want too go with these programs. I still kinda believe that.

I know the traditional rout can be hard. and in the end maybe too time consuming to effectively make games from scratch.

but I need to see for myself.

If you're planning on using JavaScript for the game, I don't understand at all why you wouldn't want to use c2. You won't get any speed benefits because c2's runtime uses JavaScript as well, you'd have the same limitations c2 has, and you'd have to spend a lot of time learning the intricacies of working with JavaScript and its quirks, which c2 already does for you, and Ashley has put in a lot of effort to optimize it so it runs smoothly. It would be reinventing the wheel.

If you want to use JavaScript for something, just use the SDK and make a plugin.

You should also read scirra's blog about the advantages using c2 over coding your own game is straight js: https://www.scirra.com/blog/52/construct-2-vs-javascript

CC is far from a sinking ship, you CAN still develop your own plugins/modify the source, so it works out that its a modular engine that does 99% of the things you want it to do much faster than you could yourself. I've never ran into the instabilities everyone seems to face, i really don't know how you guys are designing things. you should learn coding through plugin development if anything. you can offload everything that causes you lots of trouble into the plugins themselves, while retaining the ease of use of construct.

"or whatever to fits what I need." I guess is the catch.

I'm doing so much now in 3d its stupid, im creating normal maps using distorted sprites to make lighting maps and 3d physics. at some point, i should probably just use unity3d. witch uses javascript among other languages.

but I've been told several times, code language is simple, its every thing else that's hard.

and right now I'm doing almost everything using arrays, loops, and convoluted functions.

my collisions,objects,variables, path-finding, height maps, are all in arrays.

and that's awesome that i can do that with CC. and something i just dont think C2 will be able to handle for quite some time.

But It's terribly inefficient, and a lot harder than it needs to be.

I'm basically building an engine inside an engine... and that's kinda dumb...

..or not.. I really don't know, kinda what i'm hoping to find out on my programming pilgrimage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

actually, ill just send you a PM with one of my current projects to give you an idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

QuaziGNRLnose

Ashley : "The way things are going, eventually these forums will fall silent and we'll probably see fit to discontinue Classic completely. We're not doing that now, because it's virtually zero work to leave these forums running and people still use them. But I think it's inevitable."

maybe the boats not sinking, but the captain jumped ship a long time ago.

Bartosh - well, I want to say - whatever floats your boat ;)

Personaly, I don't see anything wrong with using a "sinking ship, without it's captain". There are great games created using older, or even obscure technologies. There is a lot, we can learn from those technologies..

...and it seems you did. I am not here to tell you that you continue using CC. To be honest, as a propmaker, I know that the right tools make the job. With your game idea, I would go with something along the ways of Unity - making your own engine, without a team, from a scratch is a lost cause, in my opinion.

VonBednar

I think CC is a wonderful tool for most things,and can teach you a lot, trust me,before construct, i didn't even know what an array was.

My point of the "sinking ship, without it's captain" warning, is that nobody is doing any work on the project. and it desperately needs some.

so if your using it, be aware that there may be some holes you cant fix, and nobody's coming along to help.

If your fine with that, that's great. but go into it with both eyes open.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually kinda got a team with my brother, he always said he would help me make games if i ever stopped using game-makers.

And I imagine most indie developers build an engine using scattered pieces of other engines. its just a process with more control on the foundation, witch is what i need to achieve what i want.

(for my specific case, its how it handles checking all sprites, even if they do nothing, this is a huge problem for rendering tile maps, and is such a key part to how construct works, i doubt its a simple plugin to fix.)

Hell, maybe i'll learn python, come back, and patch up the holes in construct that are crippling my games.or jump on the resurrection project.

like i said, i love the thing. so who knows.

Arima - could you send me the perf tests you used for C2? It's always useful to have projects to optimise for. I've got on my todo list algorithmic optimisations for collision detection. At the moment both CC and C2 always collision check against all objects in the layout (discarding far away ones with a quick bounding box test). While that's not very smart, C2 suffers more with the slower execution speed. A future version of C2 should only even iterate nearby objects for collision testing, which should bring it closer (and possibly even surpass in some cases) to CC's performance.

I wouldn't performance test creating or destroying objects - neither are well optimised, and I don't think any real projects bottleneck on it. But nice to see how well C2 still held up to CC!

(And as you figured out, it's only fair to measure delta-time when comparing performance, since FPS is nonlinear)