>

>

> 1) What exporters are missing from C2? They all work. Some work better than others; none of them are broken.

>

>

>

would it be a stretch to say that you haven't published or tried to publish a commercial game using c2? Because seriously, if you did, you'd know exactly what we're talking about.

We've spoken up about what the issues are plenty of times. Yes, the exporters "work." But that's it. That's like saying Photoshop does export PNGs, yet the image quality is low and the image is blurry... It DID produce a PNG though...

When we are here trying to get better exporters done, it's not going against anyone else's wants or needs so I'm not sure why there's so much backlash for asking for the exporters to work properly. We want our 2d games to work. They're 2d! I don't think it's too much to ask them to run as intended.

+1

Excellent analogy.

Events can be abused way easier than code, and even the templates that come with C2 aren't designed for performance necessarily.

There's dozens of different ways to do things, and many of those are just terrible for performance.

I'm telling you there needs to be some exposition into the proper use of them.

You make a "for each object" that runs every tick, then the exporter should give a warning, etc.

Most of us that have used Construct 2 for a long time and have done the leg work already know this and optimize our games, and avoid poor event practices--so this has nothing to do with this post.

>

> > Do you want us to build native engines? I've covered that in this blog with our rationale around that, which nobody ever really directly argues against, there's just vague accusations of how HTML5 is "poorly optimised" or something, which really is not the case given the potency of modern JIT compilers and the native-equivalent performance of WebGL.

> >

>

> Actually I and others do have a problem with the arguments in that article, as well as the article on "HTML5 games faster than native"

>

> Let's see:

>

>

> > WebGL is close enough to OpenGL to be considered the same performance-wise. In other words, Construct 2 games render in practically the same manner a native engine would.

> >

> > ...

> >

> > We already cover Xbox One and Wii U - so that only leaves PS4. Currently we're blocked by Sony not providing an easy way to publish HTML5 games to the PS4. Given how well our Xbox One support worked - requiring no significant changes to our engine to work on a console - we are keen to see Sony supporting HTML5 on their console too.

> >

> >

>

> There's a few arguments against those lines of thought:

>

>

> > Listing GPU fillrate as the main cause of a games slowdown... and then stating that the WiiU is a viable export platform is quite funny. WiiU doesn't support WebGL, meaning not only regular GPU "fillrate issues", but no special FX and low performance.

> >

> > 5FPS after losing WebGL and FX is still not playable for a platformer. We didn't even make an HD title, just a retro 16bit platformer with 32x32 to 64x64 pixel sprites on average.

> >

> > As for fillrate being "the main culprit", there are many instances where CPU should be considered too (eg: most enemies and players using the platformer behavior) and, no matter the optimizations, aren't going to be able to combat the issues of JavaScript without emscripten. But, if you make a tool that exports to HTML5 through emscripten it might as well also export the actual C/Cpp (to port to the JS, best of both worlds).

> >

>

>

> > Even the mobile games developed with Unity and Unreal put C2 at the ground... How you can even compare?

> >

> > - Native games is WAY better in lower and mid hardwares, and this is AMAZING because more people will play your games.

> > ->>Scirra depending on thirdy-partys for realese our game. Remember when you guys drop support to Cocoon as exporter? That's why I droped C2.

> >

> > ...

> >

> > By the way, The Next Penelope is being ported to C ...

> >

>

>

> > To me the main issue I had with html5 games is that on low-end devices (iPad 2) they perform not really well at all. The same simple app on iOS, even with the super accelerated safari, tends to have small hickups and feels not smooth compared to the same done in a native engine (love2d in this case).

> > The situation seems a bit better on newer devices (iPhone6), but still showing those small jerks every now and then (are they GC related?).

> >

> > All of this scares me away from trying to do something serious with html5 engine.

> >

>

>

> > While it's true most devices support webgl it doesn't mean we get the same performance as native in that respect. In my experience it varies per device, and it's just not about the hardware capabilities. Case in point, for me in CC rendering is way faster than in C2. This goes against your benchmarks so that leads me to believe webgl gives native performance on only certain devices. The argument that the hardware is the limit doesn't fly when changing software and doing the same thing performs a lot better.

> >

> > The browser's hardware support is primarily about having everything work instead of having everything have good performance imo. Even things like the vsync jank is still there on some hardware. This is probably what causes the disparity between the issues users see and what is tested.

> >

> > I don't know if native support would fix this, and I realize doing so would cause a load of different issues and multiple code bases, but there seem to be core issues with how browsers do things that are not performant.

> >

>

> Now, in regards to "HTML5 faster than Native?":

>

>

> > Construct 2's WebGL renderer is faster than our previous native C++ DirectX 9 based engine - the one we developed for Construct Classic.

> >

>

> This is a completely wrong comparison, because C2 is largely an improvement and optimization on CC, you already learned from past mistakes and found new ways to optimize. It's the software form of a "straw man" argument against native.

>

> If you back-ported those optimizations back to C++ you'd find that the results suddenly return to native being the fastest and smoothest. We can tell this ourselves from simply our experience of porting to Unity in C# with our current game and seeing it run much faster and with more lighting, special effects, and enemies on-screen than our C2 prototype.

>

> Then there's also the people who didn't see the results that are promised in that article with C2 vs CC:

>

>

> > 97151 - WebGL

> > 128458 - Native

> > i3 - 3220 / GeForce GTX 550ti with small factory overclock / Win 7 64 / nvidia driver 306.97 / 8Gb RAM

> >

>

>

> > Intel E2180 2Ghz, 4GB RAM, Win7 64 bit, SP1, Geforce 210, Nvidia 306.97 driver

> >

> > Native/DX 25613

> >

> > WebGL:

> > Chrome 22: 3801

> > Chrome 23: 4482

> > Chrome 24: 3901 (dev)

> > Chrome 25: 3503 (chanary)

> > FF16: 3254

> >

>

>

> > i7 9203.6ghz, 48gb, win7 64bit , amd7970 3gb, catalyst 12.11(beta)

> >

> > Native/dx: 118040

> >

> > WebGL:

> > Firefox 16.0.2: 58712

> > Chrome 22: 103761

> >

>

>

> > WebGL Performance (Google Chrome 23): about 10400 objects

> > Native Performance: about 24000 objects

> >

> > My notebook: Processor Intel Core i5-2410M 2.3 Ghz, 8 GB Ram, Graphic card Intel HD Graphics 3000, OS Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bits

> >

>

> I'd like to point out two things from all of this:

>

> 1.) Like the data above, some of the "still-Steam-average" hardware still sees native far out-performing WebGL, and desktop is currently the best supported platform for HTML5 + WebGL. The results may be 4 years old, but the average 2D gamer (based on customer support issues on Steam) hasn't updated their PC/laptop/even just the graphics card in a long time.

>

> Even with an Intel i7 6700k and GTX 1070 which has much better WebGL support than most of my customers I get:

>

> Sprites/objects >= 60fps with no drops below

> Native/dx: 86k

> Chrome: 95k

>

> This may not be the number of sprites that will appear in a game, but it still reflects an underlying performance gap between Construct Classic (which could be argued to be almost as un-optimized as C2 is optimized) and WebGL. HTML5 is not faster than native. It can get close with WebGL + Emscripten, but it inherently is just not capable of being as fast as native, and I wish that Scirra would stop trying to compare the two this way.

>

> 2.) You can't just ignore comments/evidence/arguments against your company/public statements about your engine and then claim "nobody ever really directly argues against" them!

>

> Bonus: That multiplayer plugin would probably have been used a lot more if people were able to export their games and "publish everywhere". It's also possible the users are waiting for more helper functions/plugins/behaviours that make tracking objects much easier (Eg: a behaviour for syncing objects). I know multiplayer is generally a hard feature, but it's a great one to have even if it doesn't get used as often as other plugins.

>

> Like others are saying, yes, export matters 100% more, but I still am glad Construct got multiplayer.

>

> Although, it seems some other users had a better time using their own multiplayer solutions:

>

>

> > Using Electron instead of nw.js made my games smaller and better working, using my own networking solution with central socket.io based server destroyed weird, random connection problems that disallowed me from even testing my game. And made multiplayer a lot smoother. Being able to write my own rendering code allowed me for much more control over how stuff is shown on screen what makes performance better.

> >

>

+1 to all of this, especially the "we're just as fast/faster than native" claims which are so completely beyond the pale in terms of just outright fabrications of HTML5's current abilities, using C2 or not. This is something I knew going in to C2, and I understand the performance difference (though it is greater than it should be with C2), so when I see this claim pushed over and over despite gallons of real-world evidence otherwise - and sorry, but your internal tests with tiny little games or demos mean nothing when compared to thousands of copies of commercial games out in the real world that show the opposite, and PLEASE don't try to blame the game's developers for this as you've done in the past - it's very hard to swallow after the 100th time when all evidence points to the opposite being true.

+1

That's all we've all done. It just WAIT to see where nothing is going. Wasting more time and money.

Sorry if this sounds so blunt, but it's true. It's my fault for falling into the marketing gimmick Construct 2 was pushing: Build once, PUBLISH EVERYWHERE. I guess you could say I had faith in what Ashley was saying and future-pushing.

Not anymore. Construct 2 has become a prototyping toy now. You just can't take it serious anymore

as a professional game development tool if you want to eat.

Lamar, you're just wasting your breath here. There will always be a army of people defending and talking up Construct. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. It's just moot and a waste of breath.

Obviously, most of our request are so quickly deemed to be impossible--UNFATHOMABLE--even if we are all willing to dish out the money for it and be long time paying users.

We all have very good reasons here to voice our opinions here when false advertising/marketing has obviously been made and many people were burnt when the engine didn't do what it was saying it

could do. Construct 2 was all about convenience. That's why a good majority of people loved it. But in the end, when you realize you can't do anything serious on a commercial level with Construct 2, (referring to making a masterpiece) you become aware that Construct 2 is just a waste of time for these type of projects and your time can be better spent elsewhere (Like learning C++/Unity/Unreal/C#/ect.) and the convenience suddenly isn't there.

I wouldn't even be saying this if Construct 2 was promoted as a simple "Browser Game Maker Engine", but it obviously false promotes itself as something it is not. OBVIOUSLY.

*Yawn, I'm off to Unity, Unreal, C++, and Godot now.

R.I.P Construct. We really had high hopes for you. I'm done wasting my breath, just like the others.

NotionGames, Jayjay, tarek2....

Strongly agree as well.

I fell for it to.

"Build Once, Publish Everywhere" instead should be:

"Build A Prototype, Port to none of the platforms we have listed unless it's just the browser." You may

get lucky in the future with more support--but it is a gamble--and just know you will likely be wasting

your valuable time unless all you want to do is make browser games. Also the team has shown no real interest in solving this issue so be warned."

I also feel like the Construct developers have become married to their baby, and because of this

they are reluctant to make the huge changes we all want. HTML5 hasn't progressed like was thought, so there

is a bit of denial here.

If money/captilisism is an issue why not put together a kickstarter page to gain the funding needed to help

hire a team needed to bring us the features we want and ask for? I'm sure Construct would

get the support it needs. I'm sure current users will kick out money when they see

the features are going to be added that they've been dying for over the years. I know I would. This isn't impossible thinking. Even if it means they have to wipe the slate clean, and start building backwards from the foundation. We would all wait if we knew we were getting what we want. Construct could be the ultimate developer tool and rise to #1 used game development tool... it could be a billion times more than what it is. It could be what we all hoped for.

The solution to this problem is simple. Don't give Construct anymore of your money. That is what I am doing. If enough people turn away from this awful "Construct 3" model then maybe they will start listening to us--THE PAYING CUSTOMERS when they're aren't making any profit.

I've moved away from here to learn new engines and don't plan on coming back and wasting anymore of my time or money here since I don't feel like our needs have been taken seriously and nothing is really being done to improve upon the features we users actually want or we're looking forward to.

I used to believe strongly in Construct... but with Construct 3, I've lost all hope. It's not worth the money they are asking for (when you can't do nothing at a professional level to make a professional game.)--I'm speaking of getting your game to consoles and mobile without headaches and issues that make no one--AND I MEAN NO ONE--want to play or pay for your game. I'm speaking of trying to make a masterpiece only to find out it runs like a turd on a few devices and doesn't run at all on the rest. I agree completely with everything NotionGames has said.

Does anyone else felt like they've been bent over and $&*$#?? I know I do.

It's up to all of us--as a community--to help Construct become what it needs to become. Don't pay anything until our needs as professional designers as well as paying customers are being met. We need to go on strike here. We as paying customers deserve better.

I agree with all the complaints here and on Ashley's twitter page.

One of the many reasons I came to Construct 2 was because of its affordability and the "buy once" option.

Charging a annual subscription is not worth it to me, as it's not to many others. Yes, I want to be able to easily port to mobile, but I'm not willing to pay that much for it when there are other tools out there that can get the job done better have way more options (such as Xbox One and PS4 Porting as well as mobile)

I'm willing to pay a one time fee for exporting to mobile (I'm willing to pay the $300 for Gamemakers export to android option)

I'm willing to remove myself now completely from this company I once loved and move over to Unity. ( 'cuz it's free and as a personal user you don't have to pay anything unless you basically win the lotto with your game. )

I'd rather spend another six months to a year learning other software then being forced to pay annually for a tool that isn't native and relies on hacked scripts that are often too broken to run on mobile devices (and not to mention HTML5's speed issues) None of this would be relevant though if it was a one time fee for life pay-for model like Construct 2... especially for us smaller "one man team" guys and hobbyist who can't afford a annual fee when they are starting out or have mouths to feed.

With the announce of Construct 3 I became excited.... but that vanished when I seen how they set up their annual payment model. I will be forced to move GameMaker and/or Unity only -- as I feel I will get a lot more value for my money, since Construct 3 feels like it is focusing more on capitalizing their pockets now...

I will miss Construct, don't get me wrong. But this new payment model is just not worth it.

I had the same problem when trying to run Construct 2 on my other computer that has Windows XP SP3 installed on it. I tried everything suggested on the Construct forums and nothing worked. The only fix that I found was to uninstall the newer Construct version and install a slightly older version of Construct 2. The version is r201. You can grab it here: https://www.scirra.com/construct2/releases

Ashley had mentioned in one of his post that there was indeed a change to the preview on version r202, I believe. As far as I know, any version above r201 won't work on Windows Xp SP3 that I have tried(at least on my machine). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be a bug since Windows XP is becoming so outdated. The newer versions of Construct 2 (r202 and higher) ran excellent on my Windows 7 Professional PC (though I never test on my other PC with Windows Home version)

So for anybody having this same issue, and if all else fails -- I recommend uninstalling the current Construct 2 version you have (if it is r202 or above) and install version r201 instead (1st Apr, 2015). It is the only work around on this issue I have found for my XP machine.

It kinda sucks downgrading, but if you don't have a Windows 7 Pro O.S. then you can fall back on this until you get the O.S. or a new PC with Windows 7 Pro (or higher) on it.

Peace.

Thank you for the useful link and info, blackhornet. I will check it out.

People shouldn't assume or make the assumption that I haven't searched for the answer to my question (as others shouldn't) just because I didn't put it in my post. I put in loads of effort -- couldn't find the answer -- so eventually posted here. Assumption is arrogance.

I never post on forums hardly and I am always trying to find the answer myself through Google.

I have been searching for the answer to my question for the past month and couldn't come up with a real answer to the question. I begin a new project because of it, and put my other on hold until I could solve the answer to my problem.

It took me over a week to decide to post here and ask for help as I am not the most sociable person in the world, and usually like to figure things out for myself (even if it gives me a aneurysm by doing so).

I have spent many hours and days trying to find out the answer to my question.

I will check the link you posted.

Thank you a bunch for that, jeffige.

Anybody???