It is possible, that is all I'm pointing out. I was simply making a contrary statement to something I knew to be false. I'm not suggesting anyone drop everything and start trying to make 3D games with Construct simply because I said it was possible.

Just because you can do something, does not mean it is ideal, or worth your time. In that same token, however, there is no harm in following up on the potential that is there. Construct may very well do 3D to a satisfactory degree yet, but being openly adverse to the idea, or trying to stem others from trying, simply because it is not ideal, does nothing but diminish that potential.

...ultimately there aren't enough tools in Construct for a game with 3D gameplay (although 2D gameplay with 3D graphics is possible to some extent with Z elevation and 3D meshes).

It is most definitely possible, though the math involved is not exactly a walk in the park for your average joe.

The instant you added Z buffered, texture correct, sprite transformations, you enabled the ability to create actual 3D games.

The only real argument against it would be that meshes can only have so many rows and columns before causing a crash, however, the method by which I would do it (and have previously done it, when sprite transformations were first introduced without the Z buffer and texture correction) involves multiple 1x1 meshes as a substitute for quads and, by extension, tris.

Again, entirely possible, not plausible for most.

It's probably not practically possible until 2.0.

o worries, event based it is.

ya, it's busted.

DKDoom

If you don't mind me asking, is that using Euler Angles, Axis Angle, or Quaternions for it's Rotation Matrix?

Seems we are both working on this same thing . I'll be interested to see how all this 3D tinkering pans out in the end.

And while I'm at it, setting an absolute displacement for a Sprite is either broken or I don't understand it. It does not function at all like it did prior to 0.99.

Just a quick question for the Devs.

How hard/time-consuming would it be to get Construct to support native 3D Rotation/Transformations now that we having a working Z axis and accompanying Z buffer?

I'm just asking so I can gauge whether its worth it to just use an event based Rotation Matrix or wait for a native solution. Thanks.

I love you all. Seriously. You just simultaneously solved about all the issues I had with making a 3D engine in Construct.

I'm going away for the week, but damnit, when I get back, its 3D game engine making time!

EDIT: Honestly, all it needs is a rotation matrix and a way to import meshes. Two things I've already done (or mostly done, for the meshes) in Construct anyway. As I said in the beginning of the post, I love you all.

*Perks up ears*

Enhancements to the mesh distortion eh... *Prays for built-in Z and Z buffer*. That would most definitely re-ignite my interest in my wip 3D engine.

I agree with Taitu on this one.

People seem to be worrying about the plug-in being all-inclusive, like they deserve free online lobbies for their games.

You want to set up an MMO or an online lobby? That is YOUR responsibility to get it set up. Scirra should not be in no way required to supply a public server in this regard.

I feel like we have missed half the picture in this thread somehow. For years people have been getting along fine with simple P2P and LAN functionality. A lobby makes P2P easier, sure, but a lobby for YOUR game is YOUR responsibility to set up.

And just in regards to the question of "how many people will use" the plugin without a supplied server. I, and quite a few other people here I am sure, primarily play games for the multiplayer experience. A few years ago this may not have been true, but gaming and multiplayer really do go hand-in-hand in this day and age.

Hell, If I understood C++ to any reasonable degree, I would be making a Raknet plugin right now. All of my W.I.P games depend on it.

I realise I don't post here all that much as I tend to mostly lurk, however, for me personally, a networking plugin (as in, allowing LAN or Internet games and whatnot) is the number one thing I have been waiting for in Construct.

Every worthwhile game concept I have hinges on the availability and usage of a network plugin.

You could copy/paste the old array.csx from a previous install into your plugins dir; you don't have to use the new one.

Yeah, I actually thought of that after posting.

As I said though, I'll deal with it either way. I've always been a big advocate of consistency in programs/programming so I believe it is a welcome change overall.

Would just like to point out that 99% of my caps use the Array Object. I have 267 caps in total. 99% of 267 rounds out to 264 caps.

Assuming it takes an average of about a minute per cap, I am looking at 4 hours, 24 minutes of time wasted fixing my files.

Can we at least have this as an option within the object itself rather than a permanent change? Or at the bare minimum still supply a 0 indexed array object as well as a new 1 indexed version?

Thanks.

EDIT: The above post was made due to frustration with a change that seemed unnecessary and has subsequently broken the majority of my cap files. I'll deal with it, even if no changes are made. But I'm letting it be known that I don't exactly approve.

To understand the scope of my annoyance, I use the array object for things as simple as private variables within a function, and for things as complex as the rotation matrix, vertex information, and Z buffer in my 3D engine. This is not something I can fix in a few scant minutes.