Vilehead's Forum Posts

  • The license change to a subscription model (Raaaa SERIOUSLY !!!!) + the lack of real think news about C3 (yes ok the editor is new and portable but engine is the same) and the most important part for me the lack of NATIVE EXPORT WITHOUT THIRD PARTY PROGRAM is my main frustation.

    I keep on your position since many years Ashley and yes since the years and years past HTML5 wrapper and mobile support is really better and better.

    But i don't want to wait 5 years to build a simple game with 40 mo of packing garbage cause of export.

    The only think i agree 400% with you is for 3D, Construct 2 is a 2D product and is doing those thinks very very well and very very simply.

    You could make very nice and great game with some knowless about GPU and Shader (the best thing you've added in).

    I prefer paid a price for something i've better than a subscription.

    For me, for now (maybe this could change) i'm sad to say but i won't be a Construct3 User. :'(

    i've buy GameMaker Studio 2 and it's really perfect, fun and easy : https://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio2

    and have all the point i need.

    I've never go with the first version because of the editor and the workflow.

    The new version is really good.

    Holy cow, look at those game's numbers and quality! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_surprised.gif" alt=":o" title="Surprised">

    https://www.yoyogames.com/showcase

    And then you go back to Construct2's games showcase, 4 years in making...

    https://www.scirra.com/

    Makes you think eh?

    > Well the man himself just did:

    >

    Indeed. Well, I guess I have to click 1 more on my computer to open up Chrome to use C3 in it's early days. Of course it would be more comfortable to be able to use it in the browsers users are accustomed to, but I don't think it's a deal-breaker. I think the C2 Community is well aware that Chrome is the leader in browser technologies.

    Oh wow. No. I have no idea where do you get your intel from, but you are totaly wrong and unaware of dangers and long-term effects of using a 3rd party framework as main (and only?) workspace of your core business software. No offence, but if you don't see the dangers and do not understand the gravity of this current situation then there is no point in explaining.

    But by all means - prove us wrong. Met me here again, in 3 years, and tell me how many games you've made and published using C2 or C3. But with facts and actions, not "hippy-talk" and back-patting.

    The latter two are exactly what pushed Scirra into this current mess.

    There is a reason why people are so pissed and concerned. But as I said - by all means - prove us wrong.

    Everade Well said.

    > They could have a basic, but fully functional standalone version of C3, and a subscription based C3 with free assets every month, free plugins, free templates, etc. Just think of something. Like a season pass of a game with dlcs.

    >

    I'm sorry, but that's one of the worst ideas I read on the forums in the past days.

    While I think this topic is useless, here's my opinion: subscribe. Subscribe and let the developers of your favourite software eat.

    You don't eat...?

  • tunepunk

    Well said!!

    Tom

    If a built-in compiler/wrapper happens, then I'm all aboard!

    $99 or $299 a year, i don't care. I just don't wanna deal with 3rd party compilers anymore.

    ^THIS

    Get those 3rd party garbage off my face and I'm paying.

    I am sick and tired of Node WebKit, IntelXDK and alikes...

  • > 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?

    Don't look at me. I am Scirra's products user for past 6-7 years and even I have no idea why they refuse to follow the route that practically EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET are following and what is the most request feature on this forums.

    > - Why is this Chrome only? To start, ok.. I'd expect it to also at least hit Firefox.

    >

    No one said it will be Chrome only. We only know that the beta in April will be aimed for Chrome. I don't think the final product would be restricted to only one browser.

    Well the man himself just did:

    Currently is Chrome only, other browsers need a few feature catch-ups before it will run on them. We remain optimistic that they will be able to run Construct 3 in the future, hard to pin down when exactly which is why we're letting everyone know it's Chrome only for now.

  • C3 is C2 online..

    Not true. But if it would...

    C2 = $98.79 one time payment

    C2+WebBased = C3 = $99 per year + your stuff stops working if you stop paying.

    ~Oh boy! What a deal! <3

  • And there you have it

    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.

  • Construct Classic = CC

    Construct 2 = C2

    Construct Cloud Service = CCS

    Cheap buy + extra fee for platform specific exporters

  • >

    > >

    > > Will Construct 2 licenses still be for sale after the release of Construct 3?

    > >

    > >

    >

    > The ultimate question. I just hope C2 will be supported forever.

    >

    Imagine that they say something like this:

    Tom

    "C2 will become open source and will be maintained by users".

    Ever heard of Construct Classic?

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Since the time of posting this original topic, I had this example made that uses the same scaling trick for pseudo 3d depth (hold the mouse button to shoot and move the plane).

    However, I think this is a very troublesome approach, the setup doesn't reflect on the editor and it uses a ton of sprites... It's nice but it's a taxing (both CPU and workload wise) workaround...

    There is always LayerToCanvasX("layer",x,y) and CanvasToLayer.

    The idea is to translate the X/Y cords from a layer to screen and then back to another layer. This way I could nail the exact same "visiual" coords for many objects on different paralaxes.

    The thing is - its a pain in the ass to write in and control. Anyway, my point stands. Missing feature. Something that just doesn't have any reason NOT to be in the editor. It could and it should. But it isn't.

  • another still missing and never added feature.

  • Try it with a few examples from Shadertoy and you will soon realize it's limitations. You still need to have a good understanding of shaders.

    Gigatron has already mentioned previously that he has spent a long time understanding how shaders work in order to get to his current level. As always, the only secret to things like this is hard work.

    Having a natural propensity for such things probably helps as well

    Ahh bummer

    I mean, at the converter limitations, not working hard heh.

  • >

    > .......Out of pure curiosity - would it be possible to create a GLSL->C2 code converter/translator?

    >

    Irbis

    Gigatron has already created his own converter HERE but it still needs work, and sometimes quite a bit!

    Oh wow! How come I never heard about this one?!?!

    What do you mean by "still needs work, and sometimes quite a bit!"? Aka how reliable the converter is right now?

    I mean, after all those years - I feels kind a guilty and unfair asking Giga every single time for a new shader. If this converter would be more polished and well known - it would benefit both the community and Giga. You know, to not bother him with simple shaders. No one's paying him for all those years of hard work so we could at least lift some weight off his shoulders.