Event variable improvements; Scripting/SDK improvements; New examples; Bug fixes.
No, it is not a pragmatic option. Nobody with even the slightest insight into how game development works is asking for what you're providing. Why use C3 at all if we're just slapping three.js into it? At that stage, Construct provides exactly zero benefits. Your statement around it not being easily possible is, at the most charitable reading, wildly disingenuous - because it's already been done. Repeatedly. For years. With three.js!
What has been asked for are a handful of things in SDK v2 that 3rd-party developers can use to create an INTEGRATED way to include 3D content that doesn't involve the hacks they've had to do that you're actively trying to prevent them from doing in SDK v2, making v2 come off more as the efforts of a control freak to prevent progress, not make it easier, officially supported, or remotely useful for those same 3rd-party developers v2 is ostensibly being developed to support. 1 step forward, 50 steps back.
Agree with some of the above. My experience is that devs want 3D well integrated into C3 and they have _already_ been able to make interesting games with C3 current level of 3D and 3rd party addons (full disclosure I have made one - 3DObject which is now free and open source.) Some of those types of projects could be nicely improved with some C3 SDK changes.
It is also so much more useful to be able to place 3D objects in the editor in a fully integrated solution (whether 3D Shape or 3D Object or any other C3 object.)
As a counterpoint in the three.js example, you cannot place three.js objects in the editor or create a 3D environment with the editor. C3 objects and the three.js canvas cannot interact in a meaningful way besides entire three.js canvas in front or back. Most importantly the C3 layout editor cannot be used to place three.js 3D models in the layout to create a level, environment, etc.
Example C3 3D games, already commercial or looking very promising (they use the 3D constraints as a design pillar, e.g. retro 3D or casual 3D game.)
store.steampowered.com/app/2176450/Mr_Hopps_Playhouse_3
store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/2189860
codecanyon.net/user/zupga (many 3D games)
preview.codecanyon.net/item/pocket-drift-html5-game-construct-3/full_screen_preview/42902732
play.google.com/store/apps/details
cheva360.itch.io/pookies
We don't plan to make Construct in to a full 3D engine. We're trying to offer viable ways for addon developers to go further with 3D features without needing to wait for us to turn Construct in to a full 3D engine, which will probably never happen.
I understand this. I am going to step back and review my approach to this discussion and Scirra's request for SDK V2 collaboration between Scirra and C3 devs.
I want to work to a mutually beneficial goal that can advance 3rd party FOSS addon development and take some of the C3 community requests pressure off Scirra for work that these addons could instead cover. For example with 3D, if we can handle these requests in community addons, Scirra would no longer need to consider or discuss them as much. I/the community will transition the addons to be V2 SDK, so they will be long lived and can be relied on.
We don't intend to make Construct in to a full 3D engine. This at least gives addon developers a way to do more 3D features without having to wait for us to turn Construct in to a 3D engine. If you don't like it and want us to make a full 3D engine, well, that probably won't happen. So you'll be waiting a long time! Would you prefer it if we didn't try to provide additional ways to use 3D in Construct? If such efforts only result in negativity, maybe we shouldn't even try, and we'll just stick to 2D features from now on.
I love playing with the 3D in construct. Please don't stop. No one expects a full 3d engine from you guys, everyone knows its a 2D engine. 3rd party devs just need a little bit more to be able to create some amazing stuff. It's doesn't only benefit 3d but also for 2d too! We know even adding something small can cause bugs to happen, but we would really appreciate it if you guys could at least try it. If there are truly any unfixable bugs and glitches, then we would understand.
Please don't stop and don't be discouraged. All three.js-related improvements are highly appreciated!
three.js can be an interesting way of achieving 3d. I can see how objects can be placed in the editor and those would be translated as 3d objects with three.js at runtime.