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

Sorry, my post was surlier than I intended. I believe Unity3D and UDK both have some sort of event system - like you said. However, Kodu is probably the absolute easiest way to work with 3D which is inspired by Alice which also aims to make 3D easy.

I agree with Arima. If Craftstudio can do visual scripting for 3D, then why not.

Oh yeah, i herd of Kodu. Hmm, might try it out.

Ashley, I think you're overestimating the complexity of 3D and underestimating the capabilities of events!

3D maths, generally speaking (and I'm oly talking about programming logic), are simply extensions of 2D algorythms into 3D (ex. Bresenham's line, A*). Most of the truly complex stuff has to do with rendering (with a few exceptions such as gimbal locking), and that would be handled by [a theoretical 3d version of] construct.

Besides, what's keeping the event system from being as powerful (and faster) than coding by hand? I can't think of anything that can be implemented in code and can't be implemented via events - what's stopping events anyways? Most OO stuff can be directly adopted, such as custom variable types, object variables, pointers/direct referencing, inheritance (even if prototypical inheritance like js)!

As for modeling, it's not REALLY that hard to get into. I personally find sculpting with zBrush much easier than working pixel art with the tools available, and 2D art is only marginally better (thanks to spriter). And the results often look better, too.

I'm not saying Scirra should jump into a new product or try to cram 3D into construct 2 - First of all, scirra is too small to run two huge projects at once. Second of all, such a product would have to be designed from scratch.

There is demand for it, though, and I definitely think it's something worth considering for a future project.

I'm not saying Scirra should jump into a new product or try to cram 3D into construct 2 - First of all, scirra is too small to run two huge projects at once. Second of all, such a product would have to be designed from scratch.

Not necessarily - 3d could be theoretically incorporated like box2d was, by using an open source 3d js library, like one of the ones linked to above. I don't know the technical details (apparently three.js is incompatible with the way c2 does things), but one of them might be implementable with far more ease than making an entire separate product. After all, basic 3d was added to CC and it didn't require a rewrite or separate product.

Still, I don't want a tacked-on 3D solution, an in-house thing would be better (and perhaps the only viable alternative).

Keep in mind construct 2 was developed with a clear intention of integrating one (or maybe more?) physics engines later, so that's why it succeeded, and yet if you read Ashley's comments, it's clear he believes Box2D generates way too much garbage. I don't know if he cleaned up the code manually or left it as is, but it probably took a ton of work - and, again, this is something he was planning when C2 development started.

I don't think adding a 3D engine as an afterthought would be viable. I could be mistaken.

What I'd actually like, however, is some better eventing capabilities so we could fake 3D more easily.

Implementing isometric, for instance, is very hard, due to being unable to add methods/functions to objects (even though we can add variables), not having access to z-ordering (must do an ordered loop), etc.

Still, I don't want a tacked-on 3D solution, an in-house thing would be better (and perhaps the only viable alternative).

I'm not convinced. I really dislike the idea of having two products ? what if I want to use both 2-D and 3-D together? It also depends just how much 3-D capability would be incorporated ? if it's just simple displaying of a model and maybe some basic lighting, There's no reason to redo anything from scratch when it can be made as a plugin instead. Making two products would be far, far more work for Ashley for no reason.

I'm also not sure how it would be better. The only thing I can think of that there might be a potential issue with is panning around a 3-D world in the layout editor. I can imagine that could be worked around elegantly by having a 3-D camera that's separate from the normal 2-D one that the user can switch between.

Keep in mind construct 2 was developed with a clear intention of integrating one (or maybe more?) physics engines later, so that's why it succeeded,

Even if Ashley didn't intend to incorporate 3-D from the start, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be difficult to implement. It might be, but you seem to have decided that it will be difficult and wouldn't succeed without knowing the underlying architecture like Ashley does.

and yet if you read Ashley's comments, it's clear he believes Box2D generates way too much garbage.

That doesn't mean a 3-D engine would generate too much garbage as well. They're not the same thing.

I don't know if he cleaned up the code manually or left it as is, but it probably took a ton of work - and, again, this is something he was planning when C2 development started.

If it took a ton of work, it didn't slow him down that much. There were seven releases in the month that physics was introduced.

Anyway, it's irrelevant because Ashley has said that there are no short-term plans to add 3-D, so even if it does get added eventually, it'll be quite a while until then. Unless some third-party plug-in developer makes it first.

If I want 3D game development, I use Unity 3D.

I'm not convinced. I really dislike the idea of having two products ? what if I want to use both 2-D and 3-D together? It also depends just how much 3-D capability would be incorporated ? if it's just simple displaying of a model and maybe some basic lighting, There's no reason to redo anything from scratch when it can be made as a plugin instead. Making two products would be far, far more work for Ashley for no reason.

I'm also not sure how it would be better. The only thing I can think of that there might be a potential issue with is panning around a 3-D world in the layout editor. I can imagine that could be worked around elegantly by having a 3-D camera that's separate from the normal 2-D one that the user can switch between.

I don't want a separate product either, but I'm convinced that adding 3D support onto construct2 would be a nightmare that would delay other (much more important) features.

Like you said, even something simple such as panning around in the editor would require coding a separate camera and rendering engine - if you have a product that has two modes, it's basically the same as having another product.

I get that you want to be able to use 3D stuff in normal projects, and I agree - I've wanted to do that many many times - here's an example:

On a space game I'm working on, which is practically all 2D, one of the features is being able to choose a site on a planet to land on. Creating a 3D sphere with animated textures spinning around (simulating a planet) was a huge pain. Also, mapping mouse coordinates onto planet surface coordinates had to be done by hand using math. This would have been relatively simple to implement if C2 supported even basic 3D capabilities.

Still, I think it would be better to have a mainly 3D product that is 2D capable than the other way around.

Even if Ashley didn't intend to incorporate 3-D from the start, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be difficult to implement. It might be, but you seem to have decided that it will be difficult and wouldn't succeed without knowing the underlying architecture like Ashley does.

Yes, it does not necessarily follow that it will be hard to implement - but trust me, it will. Though only Ashley can confirm this.

That doesn't mean a 3-D engine would generate too much garbage as well. They're not the same thing.

I said that to illustrate how, even with a well planned feature, problems happen. A 3D engine isn't likely to generate a lot of garbage, due to such engines usually being extremely optimized, so yes I'll agree there.

Here is a better example: most (if not all) 3D engines are meant to be used as a foundation for the rest of your engine, unlike box2d which is designed as an add-on. This means that, even if Ashley wanted to add 3D, it would need to be made in-house.

Anyway, it's irrelevant because Ashley has said that there are no short-term plans to add 3-D, so even if it does get added eventually, it'll be quite a while until then. Unless some third-party plug-in developer makes it first.

I don't think the chances of something good coming out of third-party plugin developers are in our favor. Look at MMF2: all those years third-party devs have been attempting to add 3D via extensions, with limited success (and poor quality overall - their best results are stuff like mode7).

Maybe the shader guys have more luck.

I found a program that's probably as close as a 3D program is going to get to C2 called CraftStudio, it's still in alpha but its still pretty capable it seems:

http://craftstud.io/

It's pretty easy to learn and use, and also has an emphasis on online collaboration if you want to work with others. It's fairly streamlined, you can do everything within the program: scripting, make models, draw textures, sprites, animate, make levels etc.

<img src="http://polyprograms.free.fr/elisee/CraftStudio/CraftStudioRedesignMockup.png" border="0">

(screenshot of an upcoming UI redesign.)

Personaly I don't have that big need of importing 3D models but what would be really cool is being able to move the sprite in perspective world so things in far bg do get smaller while things nearby get larger. Kinda like that "Don't starve" game

I'm all for 3D on C2. But I appreciate the simplicity of C2 first and foremost. It's hard enough for some of us novices just to get use to how to set things up without worrying about an extra dimension. For instance, I'm working on learning the Physics behaviors, and all these properties and fields that affect how the physics are applied is still a lot to absorb.

I'm with Ashley on this one, for now. Let's stick to 2D...if only at least until the Scirra Bros get "all" the kinks worked out and all they have on their to-do list added. That may take some time, obviously. The reason I think this would be good is because it's no good going into three dimensions when all conceivable and necessary aspects aren't rock-solid yet. What would it take to arrive at that point? Heck if I know, but that foundation is needed.

I am, however, eager to see some implementation of scaling and 2D image warping features (image warping could help me to create a faux-3D box I was trying to make...too complicated for my own head to explain).

— That's awesome software, thanks for linking it! (already bought and playing around with it) <img src="smileys/smiley4.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

To my mind, the best way to combine our dreams about making 3D games with C2 and to keep the simplicity of C2 is creating one more Construct. For example there could be two Constructs: C2 for 2D games and C3 for 3D games. If Scirra makes C3 I will also buy it what ever the prise.

paradine, check out the Q3D plugin for Construct 2

Ashley that is where the magic is,If you and your team could make a program that actually made it easy to create 3D Games it would open up a whole other dimension for Scirra and Construct 2.

Just as many people love 3D.I wouldnt say add it to C2 but to create it as its own Program. Imagine C2 and C3D i would have them both. Business Version!

Construct 3D would be epic,The name alone sounds pretty promising,Just knowing that it would be set up in an intuitive way such as construct 2 when it comes to how the event system is structured.

I would buy an alpha version! I support everything Scirra stands for and IMHO i think alot of companies better lookout because Scirra is on the rise.