If you have a license, is there any reason why you are not exporting using the Cordova export?

Just asking, because if you using the free version then aren't you essentially just looking for a way to bypass the free version restrictions?

It's not about free or paid usage of C2, my concern is about what is the correct way. Cordova uses the default Webview in Android which is very bad in terms of performance on Androids versions older than 5. Webview in androids before versions 5 lacks the WebGL feature.

Even if I use Cordova export and the Apache Cordova to create the project, I still have to combine it with Crosswalk browser somehow to get a good performance in Android 4.x versions ...

I use android studio and export to HTML5 and paste code to the folder /android/assets HTML5, tested already XDK & Cordova bad work

>         mWebview .loadUrl("file:///android_asset/index.html");
[/code:1b0f1bsp]

This is what I'm doing but I used Crosswalk. I haven't published anything yet with this method because I'm not aware of possible consequences that it can have.

import org.xwalk.core.XWalkPreferences;
import org.xwalk.core.XWalkView;[/code:1b0f1bsp]

[code:1b0f1bsp]XWalkView xWalkWebView = (XWalkView) findViewById(R.id.xwalkWebView);
xWalkWebView.load("file:///android_asset/www/index.html", null);[/code:1b0f1bsp]

So have you used this method in published apps? Are there any problems reported by users?

Hi, I'm new to Construct 2 (About 1 week) and am trying to get a very simple project which has touch events, physics and sounds working on Android.

After a few days of research, hours of trying and testing and lots of headaches on what is the best way to get Construct 2 outputs on Android, I arrived at the point that Crosswalk has the best compatibility and performance advantage over other methods, but of course it uses more resources both RAM and storage space on APK file and when installed.

Any methods using native Android browser seem to have compatibility and performance issues on Android versions lower than 5, like very low FPS or no sound problems and their only advantage is having a small file size.

I used Intel XDK to create my Android Crosswalk outputs. Sadly there are things which are making me unhappy while using Intel XDK like:

• Lack of the ability to use native Android APIs ...
• Lack of full control over all aspects of the final output APK file.
• Separated output architecture files (Separated x86, ARM)
• It's cloud based and is in need of an internet connection for most of the actions, specially the build part (compiling)

So I decided to use this method instead: "Embedding Crosswalk in Android Studio"

Note: Since I can't post URLs, if you Google it, the first result is what I'm talking about.

This method simply embeds Crosswalk inside Android Studio and I can do anything I normally do inside Android Studio and still have my HTML5 project loaded in Crosswalk view object.

I used the normal "HTML5 website" export of Construct 2 and also manually removed the JavaScript that alerts about "file:///" protocol and then added the whole output inside Android Studio assets and loaded it in the Crosswalk browser inside a normal Android Activity. So far everything seems fine, no performance problem, no low FPS (Even on Android Emulators). The only disadvantage is the 40MB APK file size and 90MB size after install which is because it has both x86 and ARM Crosswalk cores included.

Now here my question:

Is there anything wrong with what I did?

Comparing what I'm using as HTML5 inside Crosswalk and what Intel XDK uses, there are lots of differences. Intel XDK output has many Cordova js files and plugins included.

Are there any reasons that I should use Cordova export?

Already thanks for your time and help ...