tunepunk's Recent Forum Activity

  • I'm also using a Surface Pro 4. I highly recommend it for development, especially of you're developing for mobile/tablet and have touch in mind. It's basically a 1 stop studio all in one, since it can run full softwares like, Photoshop, Aftereffects, Maya etc, for creating assets as well. Another big plus is stylus.

    My usual position when working is on my back in the sofa with just tablet on my belly and the stylus in my hand. No mouse, no keyboard. Since you don't have to write a lot of code with C2, the on screen keyboard, along with the built in predictions and quick picks it's really easy to use without mouse/keyboard. The on screen keyboard is enough for some expressions etc when needed.

    Performance is great, and battery life is decent (If you're out and about) but most of the time when I'm home i keep power cable connected.

  • > Most other game engines support spitting out a native APK that is not bundled with a web browser

    >

    Construct 2 already supports this as well. Just target Android 5.0+, and it won't bundle Crosswalk, which is what increases the file size. It's only there for Android 4.x support, which is steadily shrinking.

    Oh that's good to know. If people just stopped making apps for that group, maybe they would finally update their outdated OS.

    https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

    Although they are still a pretty large chunk of people, but I guess it depends on which market/territory you're aiming at. I would like to think that at least for Europe and North America, the numbers would look very different. I think these published numbers are world wide. I doubt people using old phones/OS are not very much in to games... and probably not potential customers anyway.

  • > Scirra does not want to make native exporters

    >

    True, and they stated that about a thousand times. I don't get why are you surprised about this.

    I think having control over the full export process is a huge step forward. I personally like this feature very much. Android 5+ market share is growing and soon you won't have to worry about the packaged Chromium browser since you can just release your project to use WebView. I made a build like this with XDK for one of my projects using C2. I got a package with 5MB size. And the project weighted around 4MB.

    Completely agree. I do most of the testing for my projects on the built in browser. If my game doesn't run well there, It's not gonna run well bundled either. I'm pretty sure the C3 mobile exports are using WebView. Hopefully we can get some more details on this later on. That's a HUGE step in the right direction. People getting firmware and OS updates will always have the latest WebView functionality as well I suppose. You don't need to rebuild your game with new chromium version..

  • blurymind Why do you need 80mb? I guess you could just use the device built in browser and use webview to load the game?

    https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/gettingstarted

    I doubt software like Android Studio adds a copy of chrome for each project, but I could be wrong. I havn't tried it, but it wouldn't make any sense to package a full browser version with every app you make. Just the regular built in browser with hidden address bar and other functionality for example.

    Maybe Ashley could clarify a bit further how the build result would look like in terms of filesize?

    I think for Android WebView would be the way to go. The only drawback is that you can't access some hardware sensors. If your game runs well in the regular phone browser, it would probably run just as well using WebView..

    I'm sure iOS would have a similar technology to WebView so, and hopefully Windows 10 universal apps as well. For me bundling a copy of browser for every webapp just seems ridiculous.

  • polygame Most people get their obj models from the internet

    tunepunk

    * Yes

    * In the next update

    * For now, collisions are only of type Box,Cylinder,Sphere or Plane. Complex meshes collisions are not supported.

    * Models with animations are of JS format, you basically export your animated model with the Babylon exporter as a js file, import it to C2, and assign the name of the file to your OBJ/JS object. Then you add a Skeleton behavior to your object if it is a rigged model, or add the Animations behavaior if it is a time-line animation. I'll post tutorials when I'm not busy.

    Thanks. for the answers. I tried Q3D before but the lack of tutorials and documentation made it really hard to get started with so I scrapped the idea then. How is mobile performance when building for Android and iOS? Have it been tried? My game is mostly targeting mobile/tablet market so this would be good to know before i get started. So I don't create a game that cant run on those devices. >_<

    Do you have any hosted examples i can try in a Mobile browser?

  • I'm thinking about trying to recreate my isometric game project archer in real time 3D.

    Check here for reference. So you get the idea of what I'm working on.

    https://www.scirra.com/forum/archer-working-title-devlog_t150236

    One thing i need to know is how well this plugin performs on mobile, and how it handles animations.

    * Is animation blending possible?

    * Is it possible to edit the map from a top down perspecitive in C2?

    * How is collision boxes handled? how detailed can they be?

    * How do I import models and animations is there any tutorial on that? I couldn't find any.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • its exactly the same as the one we already have...

    edit: and i just noticed that the lines between an event and a subevent are gone, many people have dyslexia (i do) and

    it will be impossible to know wich subevent belongs to an event when you have a bunch of sub-sub-sub events on screen.

    https://www.scirra.com/images/c3/c3-windows-events.png

    At first I didn't notice but yes, I think it can be hard to see which one is a top level event and what's a sub event if you have lots of them.

    > you should have given us the bad news up front like you did, AND give some features that people can get excited about. Even one major feature.

    >

    We did! It runs in the browser. That's a huge feature. Maybe some people are sceptical, but it works beautifully. You can't get the feel of it from screenshots, you'll just have to wait for the public beta.

    I love it. I can work on my project at work when no-one sees. *sinister laugh* If it can do pretty much what C2 does at the moment I'm sold. The only thing i'm hoping for is for it to run well on edge, as I'm not a big fan of chrome, but no biggie for now.

  • I'm not going to keep making the same points about native engines, I wrote a whole blog about it already.

    You should probably come up with a different name to talk about exporters - I equate "native exporters" with "native engines". I think you mean built-in exporters or something like that?

    Yes, sorry for the terminology. As a Designer I speak a different language Built in exporter Is probably more in line what people mean when they talk about native export here.... Completely agree with the case against native, as I've read the blog post several time trying to wrap my hand around it. I could care less what codebase is used if performance is similar.

    So let me rephrase that.... How big of an hassle is it to have a "built in exporter" for mobile development? As a designer I'm jost looking for workflow improvements, less hiccups, and hassle.

    Optimal workflow... Create game. Hit export, upload to Store...

    Current workflow... Create game, hit export, import to 3rd party wrapper, build, get plugins working, .... it's not working... try again.... contact support... if you're lucky. Upload to store.

    I'm only looking for workflow improvements. How you guys solves it it's up to you. I trust you completely... native or non native, i could care less, as long as my game is downloadable from app store without having to use XDK and such.

  • We've been clear on this for a long time - we're not doing native exporters. I wrote about this in detail here: https://www.scirra.com/blog/ashley/28/the-case-against-native-engines

    In many cases, doing a native engine won't actually get people what they're asking for - e.g. it won't improve GPU-bottlenecked games. We've also been clear that 3D amounts to a different product so we're sticking to 2D. There's nothing new about any of this.

    I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Is it possible to have C3 any time in the future do the actual HTML5 wrapping and skip the middle man? Intel XDK, Visual Studio, CocoonJS etc etc.

    When you export a HTML5 project you get a ready to go application you can upload directly to app stores? I don't get why this is such a big issue. Could anyone care to explain why it's difficult. It's basically a browser window without the address bar loading the HTML5 game from a local source?

    When you export your HTML5 game, you can play it in practically any mobile browser. When you hit export... include the browser? This is a mystery to me... What makes CocconJS, Intel XDK, etc a necessary step, when developing for mobile?

  • Maybe something inbetween?

    Free version - Limited features for tryout, learning, experimentation.

    Pay once or reduced monthly payment for the core features. (for hobbyists) You will get updates and bug fixes, but still locked out from some features. A one time fee is quite hefty for some people so monthly is still a good option.

    Monthly payment for extended support package. (Email, phone support, Remote assistance?)

    Monthly/Yearly Packages for other advanced features like. (Native exporter, Team tools, Monetization, cloud storage etc etc, based on your needs, .)

    Business Package - All inclusive monthly/yearly payment with a discount for multiple seats/licences?

    Maybe something like that would work well?

    At least that would cater for both hobbyists and business oriented crowd.

    We feel it's more respectful to be up-front about pricing from day 1. If we announced the pricing further down the line I think we'd get a lot more criticism. We don't want to hide/bury anything that might be considered controversial.

    I'm curious specifically why do you think that's disrespectful?

    After seeing what C3 is, or will be, i think it would be easier for people to make an educated decision if the price update to C3 is right for them or not. Now there's still a lot of speculation, and people haven't seen anything yet, so I can understand the fear. While it's good to be honest about pricing and such people generally want to know what they will be paying for first.

    Coming from an advertising/media background it wouldn't hurt to build up some more hype first, and then a lot of people would probably be more like..

tunepunk's avatar

tunepunk

Member since 2 Mar, 2014

None one is following tunepunk yet!

Connect with tunepunk

Trophy Case

  • 10-Year Club
  • Forum Contributor Made 100 posts in the forums
  • Forum Patron Made 500 posts in the forums
  • Forum Hero Made 1,000 posts in the forums
  • Coach One of your tutorials has over 1,000 readers
  • RTFM Read the fabulous manual
  • Email Verified

Progress

16/44
How to earn trophies