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.

I would pay for it, but having 2 separate products would be a mistake IMO. 3d could be incorpated into c2, or into the 'next version' of c2 - instead of calling it c3 it could be called c3D or something, but there would still only be one product like photoshop going from cs2 to cs3.

With 3d incorporated into it rather than two separate products, that way you get the best of both, can blend 2d and 3d together in the games made with it, and it would likely be much easier for Ashley to develop. It could possibly be integrated using one of the open source 3d js libraries like box2d was.

It's all speculative though, since 3d hasn't been confirmed anyway.

Good point, moved to open topic.

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.

Can you post a capx? I'm getting 60fps on both my iPhone 4S and ipad 3.

It appears you still have a lot of overdraw going on - completely transparent pixels around the planets and such still take gpu time to draw. Also, is your border a full screen image as well? That would be 2x the pixels again. There appears to be tons of objects offscreen right that are unnessecary.

Can you post a .capx? That would make it easier to see what you're doing.

Also, of note there was a significant jump from the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 4S, which CPU is 2x faster and gpu is 7x faster.

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.

As I mentioned in the other thread, no worries. Thanks for acknowledging it.

Now back to SUPER HAPPY FUN TIMES AT SCIRRA!

Whiteclaws - No worries, no serious harm done. Just something to keep in mind. Thanks for acknowledging it.

You should back up your project before doing so, though, and probably only do so for testing purposes.

Yup , And Stop asking those question , Ashley said it , and re-said it , The list is private and too big to accept any more suggestion ... Chances that yours are in the list too ....

Live with it ... Or make a plugin and perhaps help the community :D !

Whiteclaws - you're talking to one person like they're all the people on the forum, which they're not. We're getting lots of new users here who haven't been reading every thread on the forum, and so don't know the question or suggestion has been asked/made before. I asked you before to please refrain from using an exasperated tone in this manner, and I ask you again please refrain from doing it further, as it bothers the other forum members. We want to maintain the friendly atmosphere!

Not able to check the capx at the moment, but previewing is slower than export because the preview code has a lot of checks for errors.

The authentication errors are a forum bug, go to another page, come back and retry and it generally works after a try or two.

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.