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?

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.