RuneFireThor's Forum Posts

  • Precisely why I'm asking. Feels cheap to keep features away from Construct 3 being the more expensive subscription.

    And Construct 3 being a game engine, will always be able to do animations anyway, and nothing stops someone from recording an export into a GIF, video or other format manually or with a plugin, they are just making it more annoying and less feature ready by not adding those features into Construct 3.

    Construct 3 should always have the same features as Animate and Animate should just be cheaper like it currently is with an upgrade path to Construct 3 if someone wants, since it's just a stripped down version for animations only.

    Using 2 separate editors also seems not very user-friendly. Do they expect people to use Animate to make animations and then import them into Construct 3 instead of just working in one single interface in the future? Because if Animate keeps evolving without any of those features making it to Construct 3 then that is precisely why they will end up achieving. Relying on just the export functions will not be enough for people to buy a separate subscription. Adding more features to Animate will piss off Construct 3 users who need them and are now forced to use a separate editor for more precise animation control/features.

    Not sure what the business logic behind this is. I get it, it's supposed to attract an entirely different market, but if Animate has better features for animation in the future, they are just degrading Construct 3 in terms of features.

  • I made a lot of companion apps with Construct 2 and 3 for Android.

    I used iframes for news and guides, project files or external Google tables for generating lists like achievements and item collections and I added some interactive maps.

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/dev?id=4693892187157839345

    Which one is made with Construct?

  • Thanks, all for the replies, yes I also used other game tools before, just as simple utility apps I created for my own use or for things that are actually not even game related. Great to see others are actually using it similarly.

    I completely understand this will be heavier than just plain HTML+JS, but it's quick to prototype and get things doing quickly and change it.

    Example, even making a simple AJAX button that makes a HTTP call and/or makes an animation when pushed is quite intensive doing manually, now assume you don't like it and want to change it, or wait, you want that button to be drag and drop, so you can move it on the screen as well. All this would require to refactor all your code completely, which is extremely time-consuming, with Construct it would just require a few clicks to change the behavior, test and export.

    Now, the export runs in a contained sandbox, I assume. At least this is how it worked in Construct 2. I'm just trying to get some more information because I did not check Construct in almost 10 years and Construct 3 seems a lot more evolved in terms of web support technologies.

    For example, I see it has an iframe option now to load external web content. As for the HTML option, I tried it put in the demo, and it worked, but here comes my question.

    I copied a simple bootstrap code into an HTML box. In the preview, it clearly did not work correctly because you need to actually load the bootstrap CSS and JS files. Putting heavy code like that would clearly be extremely intensive (or not?) because it's not made to handle a full website. So, my idea was the following.

    You have a regular page, let's say using bootstrap 5, you have your libraries and depend on ices in the header and footer for the JS and CSS files. And now you want to run a Construct 3 export on the page. Would it be possible to apply the external page elements to the Construct 3 export? For example, the HTML bootstrap code that is inside Construct 3 to be rendered correctly?

    Note, you can completely assume here that you have complete control over the domain, server that hosts all files including your page code, bootstrap and, of course, construct exported file. What would need to be done technically to allow this, since I assume the canvas on which everything runs in Construct 3 is an entirely different security browser sandbox.

  • Has someone thought about the idea of using Construct 3 for a web app or mobile app? Not necessarily a game?

    It does seem to support HTML, JavaScript, AJAX calls (which can be probably used for external databases)

    But how about local files or authentication? How would someone run it for authenticated users only. Would it also be possible, for example, to call a remote file on the local computer? Assuming you ship your own .exe or executable with the Construct 3 export in a installer, being able to call that file passing some data (arguments) from the created Construct 3 interface. Basically, use Construct 3 for the GUI.

    What about the other way around? I guess the web export runs on its own sandbox, but can you actually talk to things outside the exported game? For example, you run it on your own domain or page, or inside Electron, but need to talk to an element or data outside but still on the same domain/page.

    I'm playing around the idea to generating a simple drag and drop editor and a menu with a few buttons that just do some actions when clicked. Nothing seriously complex but it would be faster than hand coding this in HTML/CSS/JavaScript and having a way to quickly add events, animations seems nice. It does seem to support HTML, but this is mainly to display HTML inside a game for interfaces, in my case, I actually want to generate the specific HTML (or just any other code or text) with specific elements.

    Example, you create 5 buttons, when you drag it to a canvas, it will then store that code. Then have everything exported in someway. I know, this is for game design, but a game is basically a complex application that just mixes animations, graphics and sounds in the end. I guess the most difficult challenge with Construct is trying to talk to the native OS which most games don't because it's not required, but maybe running it inside something like Electron could do the trick and rely on those functions?

    Just curious if someone has tinkered with this idea. I always thought this was a great for web animations, and it seems someone at Scirra thought the same, and they now launched Construct Animation. If you think about it, Construct 3 could also be used, maybe with some more functions and development for a basic mobile or web app.

  • Do I still need Construct Animate if I buy Construct 3?

    The logic tells me that animate is just a light version focused on HTML animation only; hence it is also cheaper, but in a video it says you can export the animation as video only or web, which is unique to animate

    What if I want both? Do basic animations but also games? Do I need to purchase both subscriptions?

  • What exactly is your point?

    You more or less confirmed what I said or misinterpreted what I tried to explain. Between only p2p and only a server side setup, I prefer the last, between both if I need to choose, I would still go with the last, and between a combination of both, of course I would take both to benefit from both of them. It just seem it was going to be one or another, if you can combine both of them, then great.

    I was not trying to argue with you.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I did not realized I was still running build 139, sorry.

  • Was this feature removed from Construct2?

    scirra.com/manual/169/debugger

    I cannot find it anywhere, not even when loading it manually in the url bar.

  • Where did the debbuger tool went?

  • I cannot post anywhere now. Not even reply to any other post.

  • This forum system is absolutely AWFUL.

    I had this error before as well and loading multiple times the url worked. Now I cannot create any new topic anymore. I get permission errors or the nasty message that my session expired while its not true.

    I tried Explorer, Opera, Chrome, Firefox, all of them have the same error. I tried from different connections, no luck.

    This forum software is clearly broken.

  • Colour cycling isn't as cheap as it used to be. Back in the day when colour cycling came around; it was created around a colour and memory limination. The games in question usually had about 256 colours and used a pallatte array rather the current system of RGBA.

    So with an array the colour cycling is by changing the colour value in the array and thus change the colour of all pixel with that array colour index. Nice, simple and cheap.

    But today that's not really case. We don't use the pallette array; we use the RGBA in memory. So to colour cycling requires some for of pixel xy manipulation. So colour needs to change each RGBA pixel, offloading this on the GPU however at least takes a large load off of the valuable CPU.

    So the best way is to use a WebGL shader. In C2 you can do this. It's an effect you can similar to a behaviour; except in teh effects list. So no new plugin is required.

    That makes sense. Actually those demos are pretty intensive as I can imagine that changing each pixel is way more inefficient today.

  • Look this

    http://www.nidium.com/

    It's a new technology that be converted from Javascript to native in browser.

    It looks more like that you will download their browser or software to run things, this is no different than someone installing the Java or Flash plugins in their browser to run games.

    The nice thing about HTML5 is that it can run anywhere there is a standard unmodified browser.

  • The size of Construct 2's runtime might actually work to its advantage here. Hacking small, custom-written games is often easy - there might just be global variables with your score or position or whatever in them, and once you've found them, game over. However C2 has tens of thousands of lines of JS, all making up a fairly large framework that tends to store things buried fairly deep in lists and tree structures. Even pretty printing the code and running it through dev tools is a pretty daunting task. It's also possible to "protect" variables by keeping multiple copies of them in different places, but modified in some way (e.g. converted to a string and reversed). Then you can check for modifications if the variable doesn't match up with the copies. Combine that with a large and complicated obfuscated engine and it would probably be tricky enough to keep out casual scripters. And then, only the host can mess around with things - and if you're playing with a cheating host, I guess you can just find someone else to play with.

    If you are sending files to the user, something like ioncube will protect at least something.

    But for open code like HTML5 games usually are, a server side is the only way to protect the game, just like no one would allow users to view your asp or php code that runs on the website. The server side option is the only realistic option that can potentially avoid some of this cheating problems.

  • Fimbul, I beg to differ. I�m not a game developer, I work with servers and datacenters for a living so I actually know when I tell you that most people want servers for their games and p2p has all type of troubles for data connections unless your requirement is just for 2 persons and packets are low on bandwidth.

    Not only I see people asking this all day but like I explained before, even Microsoft switched Skype off from p2p. Most people using Voip which is going to be similar to game requirements, also use a middle server, usually a voip provider, and do not usually call from machine to machine.

    On the Google presentation they even explain for WebRTC, you will need a server to handle multiple connections because its just the nature of it once its scales.

    This may work wonderful for someone playing chess with another party, but not if you want to connect 100 players together playing the same game at the same time. The network will start to drag the slowest link of all.

    Its not correct than p2p is the shortest path either because that is not how networks are deployed worldwide.

    Example, a player in Chile connecting to someone playing in Brazil will not connect via the mainland continent, their connection will travel to the US and then back creating an increase of 2 times the latency as opposed to just finishing the connection in the US. One nice example is that almost all South America is connected via Miami as a central hub, and usually for most countries there their connection will travel to the US and then back to the destination country.

    In this small example case if your target is Latin America or have players there you would have a server in the US and it will be faster for everyone vs players connecting with each other.

    This is also the reason why Dallas in the US is so huge in terms of datacenters, because companies like to host their servers on a middle ground in terms of distance. Same latency to LA or New York.

    If your market is locally then p2p will work great, but not if your players are connecting from all over the world.

    Even if they are local players (same city, state, etc) you will not achieve high bandwidth outputs with p2p, it will work for a couple of players tops because each user needs to stream their connection up to the network, and even in countries with high Internet speeds this is usually very low. Example, last time I was in Germany on a residential ISP connection download speeds for a 25 MBPS connection, only had tops 1 Mbps upload, now try connecting all your players via 1 Mbps. For a small game that only sends positions this will work fine, but it will cause problems as players increase. Now most games only send a few details, like position, score, etc, but still if latency sucks in one user it will drag the whole game down, this means all players.

    On real live games this means suffering connection drops, slow games, etc.

    Is that all worth?

    In particular because setting up a server is so cheap and you will need to host scores, registrations, and probably a website anyway for your game.

    I�m not against P2P but if P2P worked for most things we would not have datacenters and servers today. P2P like its name says is peer to peer, and is usually designed for person to person. I imagine someone developing a game will need more than just a couple of players, that is the idea of multi-player. If you are creating a big multiple player game there is no way P2P will ever work.

    If you only need to test it with a coupe of people or are playing with friends, then this will work just fine.