STARTECHSTUDIOS's Forum Posts

  • Otherwise we will continue having the same difficulties with Construct 2 that we have had from the beginning......

    I believe they can do it. I believe they ought to do it.

    Imagine for a moment..

    A larger developer sees that an easy to use engine like Construct 2 can export natively to all devices. They go ahead and give it a try, especially since the cost/time of production is significantly reduced, which it will be.

    A few larger developers make some really big games that get a lot of attention and success..

    Other developers see their success..

    A bunch more developers jump onto the C2 bandwagon and it skyrockets in popularity and users.

    How can this happen if developers are initially scared to come near C2 because it cannot produce a reliable product because it depends on 3rd party wrappers exclusively?

    I would rather have native exporters than any other feature, all the way.

  • I would wager the single biggest reason people are leaving/have left C2 is for this reason alone; Poor exportation which causes poor performance....

    If I am trying to ensure the success of C2, I would rectify this problem posthaste

  • rexrainbow

    I hear you loud and clear, but the cost of not putting native export into this engine is already greater than the cost or risk of putting it in, imo.

  • To clarify a bit further....

    The biggest bottleneck of C2 is most assuredly non-native exporters. It is the biggest worry, the biggest pain, the biggest provider of uncertainty, and the hardest hurdle to overcome of C2. It's not just me, everyone has been saying this for a long time.

    I think it is worth every effort to bring native exporters to this engine; I would rather have that than all of the new features that could be dreamed up combined!!!

    It is not our "code". It is not our misuse of the events system. It is the reliance on 3rd party exporters that destroys more projects than anything else by far.

    I speak not from personal experience alone, but from the many experiences of countless other C2 users all throughout these forums.

    Native exporters would make C2 a world class game engine, otherwise it will sadly never be a consistent/reliable professional tool.

  • paradine

    • for earning extra money
    • for good performance
    • for comfortable "one click" export
    • for independence from third-party plugins

    I Agree.

    These are all excellent points....

  • paradine - I agree.

    I have to agree with you here..

    There is a lot of competition emerging in the 'game-maker engine' space

    Scirra will have to adapt to the market's demand or its customer's will undoubtedly move on.

    The way I see it Construct 2 has one really, really big flaw and it needs to be fixed..

    Just scroll down to look at biggest "CONS" with Construct 2 to see what people are talking about:

    http://www.slant.co/topics/341/viewpoin ... onstruct-2

    I like the engine, but it needs an overhaul... C3 maybe????

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • There is a simple way to solve this debate:

    Just use the Scirra created demos to test with on mobile devices.

    If they work well and run smoothly at 60fps then it is our code that is at fault.

    If not, then it is Scirra's engine/wrappers that are at fault.

    There it is. Simple, SOLVED.

  • I did understand, perfectly I think, and he is doing a good job.

    I just wanted to compare apples with apples, if it's not in the app store yet, it's hard to test whether it is running smoothly or not as an app...

    Previewing your game in your browser on a phone is not the same as an exported app being downloaded from the app store onto your phone.

  • tunepunk

    Be sure to post your results (fps) with your APP so we can see it here.. Good luck.

    I wonder if that Space Invader game Scirra made is in the app store. That would be a good benchmark to test with.. hmm......

  • Haha, that is a very simple game but quite fun.

  • tunepunk - You mean it isn't an app yet?

    I thought you meant you had an app running smoothly. If it's not an app that isn't exactly a fair test..

  • tunepunk - Why don't you post your great app so we can give it a try as well...???

  • I do not want the powered by Ludei logo, thanks

  • Thanks .

  • Right, I say Google "is" a company, because "Google" (Google is a singular company) is a singular noun, but some say Google "are" great, which doesn't really make sense to me.

    I was trying to help them with the understanding of why it should be 'is' instead of 'are'.

    Sorry if the post was a little confusing. )