Will there ever be a 3D alternate to Construct 2?

Construct 2's code editor is unmatched across all game development software that I've found. Sure there's a lot of gimmicky and inefficient "visual" things for Unity but it's not even close to Construct 2's. Will it ever be? I'd love to be able to move into the cutting edge of video games (3D), without having to learn obscure code languages.

I totally want construct to have 3D as well. It would be great if it at some point something like three.js could be incorporated.

Ashley, I know you've said you want to keep it 2D, but I hope eventually once you get through most of that to-do list you'll consider it. Even basic 3D like cc had, or maybe a little better with some basic lighting could be used to great effect for things that aren't realistic with sprites, like large spaceships or planets rotating in the background.

CraftStudio looks like its going to be in that area, but its only for blocky models and animations you do inside the app.

If enough users gets Unity attention on a event system like C2, they might try it rather then the kismet approach? We would need to organize a group of C2 users to go flood their forum with the suggestion. 8P

I second though the ability to import models and animation into C2.

Has anyone tried playmaker for unity yet. I bought it and it looks quite promising for creating 2d games within unity.It's a lot easier to use playmaker than unity's scripting language.

Yeah Playmaker for Unity is the only real alternative I can think of. Kismet for UDK is messy.

I highly recommend playmaker for Unity, One of the best investments ever. It allows you to hookup complex code without ever having to type anything. You take building blocks similar to construct behaviors and combine them together to make complex logic. Its quite amazing how quickly you can make something.

I would actually disagree with the incorporation of 3D into C2. perhaps it would be OK to use 3D models in a 2D scene but once everything gets 3D life gets complicated. I'd much rather a full-featured 2D editor.

While I understand the need of some for a 3D game engine with the ease of use and quick turnaround of Construct2, I personally hope Scirra sticks to the current path for a while.. making a 3D product requires a whole lot more of resources.

I'd prefer they just added sprite distortion (ability to play with the quad vertices).

This has been discussed a lot before, but adding 3D adds a great deal more complexity. Most people can draw a sprite, but how many can do 3D modelling? The maths gets a lot harder too, with things like quaternions instead of a simple angle. IMO combining this complexity with a "simple" event system doesn't make sense, because it's still complicated.

Popup 3D like Classic had in a very limited way is possible, but I'm not sure how useful it really is, plus it would depend on WebGL support in C2 which is not really ubiquitously supported yet.

In my opinion it does make sense for a few reasons:

Most people can draw a sprite, but how many can do 3D modelling?

A recent press release from unity claims to have 17 of apple's top iOS games of the year developed in unity and 1.5 million registered developers, and while some of those developers are using it for 2d, I've heard it's not all that well suited for it, so it seems like most of those users are using for 3d - and that's just unity, so I'd say a lot! There are also many options for getting content bundled with programs and from digital shops as well.

The maths gets a lot harder too, with things like quaternions instead of a simple angle.

Couldn't that be simplified by allowing the user to choose between using quaternions, 3 axes, or simply aim towards a object/point in 3d space? Like an action: object: point at object 2, or object: point at object2.x, object2.y, object2.z, or set roll to x, etc.

IMO combining this complexity with a "simple" event system doesn't make sense, because it's still complicated.

I think it makes sense - if a person wants to develop something that requires complex portions, they would still appreciate having the other parts that don't have to be complex be simpler. I was able to do a surprising amount just with the functionality cc had. A lot of game logic doesn't even have anything to do with the number of dimensions, and the event system would help with that tremendously.

The fact that playmaker and kismet exist for unity and UDK shows there's a demand for a way to make 3d game development simpler with a nice visual interface. I think c2's event editor is vastly superior to either of those and would work brilliantly for 3d as well as 2d. Besides, some of us WANT to make complex stuff. It would certainly be better if power users didn't have to leave if they wanted to do such things.

Popup 3D like Classic had in a very limited way is possible, but I'm not sure how useful it really is, plus it would depend on WebGL support in C2 which is not really ubiquitously supported yet.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by pop-up 3D, but regardless of you're talking about the 3d object, sprite distortion or simple z depth with sprites I could definitely make use of all of those even if they are webGL only. After all, we can detect if webgl is not enabled and replace the effect with something else if that's the case, and if we're targeting desktop exe it's not an issue.

3D would also open up construct to a whole new segment of users, increasing your user base and target audience, meaning more sales and c2 dominating the industry, crushing all others beneath its - I mean, uh, more sales. Yeah.

Will there ever be a 3D alternate to Construct 2? I sure hope not.

Anyone who wants this does not understand the extra complexity of 3D. There is a beauty to the simplicity of 2D and I hope C2 never crosses that line.

Remember the audience of C2: non-programmers. I would bet that implies non-mathematicians. Put simply, if you cannot program your game, you cannot to do 3D mathematics.

This post reminds me of the "I want network programing to be super easy" posts. It isn't and never will be.

lol wat

Anyway, I'll look into that Playmaker thing for Unity despite looking inefficient compared to C2's editor.

Ashley Construct Classic had 3D object plugin, so why everyone loves 3D object which is rotating like a planet.

It doesn't mean 3D is better than 2D, just are part of graphics, i personally believe 3d object would be potential for C2. I'm not talking full 3D with cameras, just 2.5D

http://www.kevs3d.co.uk/dev/html5logo/

Isn't beautiful?

I don't know why you wouldn't add 3D object, so what if you can beat game maker?

Find 3D js libraries what it suits your needs, you judge them, some libraries support WebGL or Canvas

http://jster.net/tag/3d

If is not possible, then we will understand the reasons.

Trevor10 - I understand how complex 3d can be, which is exactly why I want construct to have it so it would be simplified enough to a point I can actually use. Having 3d in construct doesn't mean people suddenly have to start flinging calculus around - far from it.

Besides, I'm not asking for the euphoria character physics engine or anything, basic 3d like CC has isn't actually very hard to work with at all. It has an extra axis of rotation but that's pretty much it. Everything I tried to do with it hasn't even involved any math past very basic algebra, the same level I generally use working in 2d, and even at that level, while I was still very new to construct I managed the beginnings of a very basic starfox clone no problem and added some nifty effects to some prototypes - like what I mentioned before, a planet rotating or large spaceships in a shmup are good simple examples, very effective in 3d while being unrealistic with sprites.

Why not have it there for those who want it and are capable? There's really no downside. Even if c2 adds 3d, it's not like you would have to use it if you didn't want to.

Joannesalfa - whoa - awesome link there. I wonder if one of those 3d js libraries would be easier to implement than three.js.