Ashley If I had the time to put 1.5 years into a game made just to demonstrate areas of slowness in C2 so you can be able to check it out then I'd really love to, but right now I don't, and I can't recreate the issues on smaller scale. In the end, if a customer with way better hardware specifications and latest drivers has issues (that I don't with a 5 year old PC) then I think the issue is not in reaching the limits of the system.

The Next Penelope does appear to run pretty good, and I'm starting to wonder if that's because there is no platform behaviour. In our game almost all the enemies and player objects have platform behaviour, and based on discussions on the forums that is where others find slowness too. It seems like TNP is heavier on GPU usage than CPU usage as well, so that's probably another reason why it runs better than most big C2 games. Racing games in general seem to perform and look better than other games though too.

Would it be possible for you to add an export mode in C2 that embeds debug controls and data capturing? This way people who can't replicate issues in a small capx, and who can't give their source code away freely, are able to produce information you can use.

Anytime! glad to help

Don't think that is a good idea. The way the C2 license work now is that if your applications/games make more than 5000$ you have to upgrade to a business license. Which I think is a nice way to do it. Because the better applications users make the more will upgrade.

I agree for personal use, but as a business license owner I am already fairly invested into C2 and would rather see it capable of making games rather than needing to move on now, and I don't feel like I'm the only one who thinks that. I am also one of those who experienced poor performance, but in the desktop as I've not tested mobile much, and in the end opted to just set the required specs for running the on Steam game higher/close to our test environment (some still manage to have issues though of course, even if they have better specs!).

I think by adopting a model where people pay to keep Scirra going monthly and acknowledging that, even right now, the Construct tools are still a form of "late stage beta", then only the fans who want to see it continue will subscribe.

Sure, if someone makes more than $5000USD they should still purchase a business licence/subscription depending on what Scirra does, but the mistake right now was assuming that "business licence" meant I could go make and sell large commercial titles, rather than just be able to make more money from smaller projects.

It will definitely be interesting to see how the migration to C3 is handled...

Hmm, I tried to create a test of this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/471 ... omTest.cap

And it looks okay here, it should definitely "move" on the screen when the zoom scroll rate is greater than 0, in the same way that objects will still scroll slightly if scroll rate is greater than 0.

What is the effect you want to happen when you zoom?

— that'd be sweet, and since Construct 3 isn't out yet I would really, extremely, very much like it to take advantage of something like that and replace the runtime instead of just waiting until C4 comes.

I love your enthusiasm as usual Naji, but as such I have a challenge you can try if you want to brush up on Java and C2 plugin Javascript:

1.) Make a Java program that when given a CurrentAngle and TargetAngle will tell you whether Clockwise or Counter Clockwise is the shortest direction to turn to get there (if the same then just go Clockwise). Try do this is in as few lines of code as you can!

2.) Convert that Java code to a C2 plugin where you supply the parameters directly as an expression (eg: not as an action or event).

Good luck

Not sure what you mean by "scroll x rate that is not 100" does that mean 0, or just a number lower or higher than 100?

Also, is the object moving in terms of its X position in memory, or just on-screen?

szymek What you're saying makes sense for the moment, there's still time for the third parties to catch up though and it looks like Scirra is going for the long game. Sure, that means many professional games will not be completed for now, but I'm hopeful for the future.

rexrainbow Agreed, and something like that would be nice especially if they can do it with the money from purchases of C3, or by switching the commercial licence of C3 into a monthly subscription to cover expansion of Scirra

szymek

I wouldn't say that Ashley doesn't care, I think he is working very hard to combat the issues of HTML5/WebGL that are within his reach, but I also feel like he is treating his customers like beta testers in general. This feeling grows even stronger with the prospect of Construct 3 now, and it doesn't sit well.

It is great that we get updates and new features, but even on the latest stable there are still issues at runtime that are out of my control and, especially when these issues are third party, we are sent on a personal quest to try and find the cause or contact the third party directly.

Scirra should be my "demarcation point", where I report an issue I'm having and they follow it up with the respective devs. Unless there is a feature I'm adding to C2 myself (eg: addon plugins from community members or that I've created), the troubleshooting for things that come with Construct 2 should begin with me (eg: after customers have contacted me) and end with Scirra (eg: debugging of node webkit, mobile exporters, etc).

Still, Ashley and Tom have done something really amazing already especially given the size of their team, and I really do hope the technologies they're using to supplement the amazing editing tool will shape up in the near future.

szymek Yes it's still a gamble if HTML5 + WebGL + all the third party stuff will ever catch up or run decently, but it seems Scirra is going to keep trying a bit longer, and if it works out then everyone will (eventually) be happy.

Otherwise, there's definitely proof of demand for this kind of tool, and seems to be some nice open source alternatives arising. (Funny, as Construct Classic started as pretty much an open source alternative to the Clickteam products )

Toddler it sounds like you are comparing both platforms on the aspect of time to develop as well as harnessing power, and it's true, Flash will be incredibly more difficult to make a game let alone to get full power out of. However, that's not really the point they they're making.

Everyone agrees that C2 is the best tool ever seen for 2D game development, but the runtime should match that power rather than being an HTML5 game in a third party wrapper based on another third party product, etc. If we didn't feel it was possible for C2/C3/CX to get any better then we would just move on silently or perhaps leave farewell posts instead of trying to be heard.

newt Yeah, if I had more time I'd love to create a variety of free medium-or-above-sized games in C2 so that I can share the capx with Scirra and they can do performance testing. I'd even love to pay a (small) monthly subscription to Scirra if they hired someone just to do that.