Perhaps have those Russian developers here post themselves with their findings, that would support their cause a lot better I suppose.

The most part of russian developers does not know english language, that is why I was chosen to speak from our community.

But if you want, I can create the same topic on http://c2community.ru/ and you will be able to read that topic.

If you don't know russian, you may use google translate.

first of all - i don't know how "good" those developers are, but obviously not "the most professional" if they can't make a game that runs on mobile. also the most professionals go for C++. and third of all - CPU bottlenecked? WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?

I am talking about creator of http://c2community.ru/ and developers, which created the most popular games.

Sorry, but I guess you are a troll or just a developer-beginner.

Otherwise there is no reason to fight against native exporters.

Your arguments againsts native exporters are as nonsense as arguments that horses are better than cars.

> Why do we need native exporters:

>

> 1. CPU bottlenecked games will run much faster.

> P.S. 80% games are CPU bottlenecked and only 20% are GPU bottlenecked.

>

>

Where do these figures come from?

Please quote source.

The source is experience of developers from russian community.

I am speaking from community, not from myself.

The most professional russian developers decided that I should speak from the whole russian community.

Why do we need native exporters:

1. CPU bottlenecked games will run much faster.

P.S. 80% games are CPU bottlenecked and only 20% are GPU bottlenecked.

P.S.S. I have already showed you many cases of such games and proved my opinion.

2. We will not depend on third party exporters

P.S. I understand that we will still depend on other third party tecknoligies, but It is not the same.

3. Export will be one-click.

P.S. It is not the main reason, but it will be cool to spend less time for boring things.

I desided that I need native exporters.

But also I decided that I don't want to use other editors.

That's why I want Scirra to create native exporters for C3.

I am ready to pay extra money for native export.

What am I doing wrong?

Ashlay

I found a very easy way to understand what C3 features people really need.

Create voting on the main page of like this:

"What feature is the most important for you? You can shoose only one feature:

1. Native exporters

2. Windows, Mac and Linux Support

3. Multi-Language Support

4. Editor Plugin SDK

5. Construct 2 Compatibility"

Does anyone have a solid example of Unity performance being better?

How many times should I repeat?

I have ALREADY posted the same "game" via Crosswalk (different versions) and native APK in this topic.

Native APK runs better than even HMTL5 version and of course it runs better than Crosswalk APK.

I don't mean just listing complex or successful indie games (because, spoiler alert, complex games are made by talented developers - not tools!) - I mean a side by side, equal quality performance comparison.

And why do you think talented developers create their PC games on Unity?

Why don't they use C2 to create PC games?

The answer is clear for everyone - they need native export.

that logic is flawed paradine.

you didn't include the feeling of driving which some people love. also you didn't include the time needed to develop teleportation - probably won't be around next 100 years maybe more. then all the initial risks and probably deaths by teleportation.

also you didn't include that in 100 years you will be dead when teleportation becomes reality. to achieve progress you go progressively. you know that first car was working on steam? now we're soon entering the era of electric cars, and teleportation probably comes after that.

also if you prefer no cars - then i guess you can travel 500miles on your bycicle or by foot since teleportation doesn't exist.

i'm pretty sure you can't be so strong to run around the world. you're not goku. and you should stop talking nonsense and OFFTOPIC.

My post about the cars was a metaphor, I used it to show you, that arguments against native exporters are as nonsense as arguments against cars.

Why would people use cars?

You can just train your body and you will be enough strong to run to different places by yourself.

Also in the future people will create teleports that is why creating cars is a bad idea.

There is no need to create cars.

Ashley

I guess, you don't understand one very-very important thing.

If not-native exporter will be even perfect they could only give us just HTML5 performance...

But desktop games should have much better performance than HTML5 tecknology.

And, I guess, non-native exporters will not ever be perfect that's why the only thing we will have is 20%-80% of HTML5 performance.

You say that 1000 2D-images is too much. But how about games with 5000 3D-objects? How do they work if it is impossible?

I have already posted native and not-native "game" in this topic. It proves that difference in performance is great.

May be you can create voting on the main page of Scirra.com like

"Will you pay for native exporters in C3?

1. I don't need native exporters

2. I want native exporters but would not pay any cent for them

3. I would pay 50-100 $ for each exporter

4. I would pay 50-100 $ for all the exporters

5. Native exporters? Just take my money!"

Multi platform means that you can run html5 on different devices. windows, android, ios etc.

So if you make a html5 game and post it on some web page you are able to run it from desktop browser, mobile browser... everything that is compatible with html5 technology - and this is not even close to what you think "native exporters" are.

No, you are not right - you are wrong.

The phrase is "...to all these platforms" and then there are icons of platforms. Among them there is HTML5 icon. That proves that the phrase is not about devices that support HTML5, but it is about different types of export.

Visit the main page and find this phrase and read it again.

I don't understand people who say "Construct 2 is only HTML5 tool".

The main page on http://www.scirra.com contains this phrase "True multiplatform support. Build your game in Construct 2 and publish it to all these platforms."

Also I don't understand people who say "Construct 2 is only for simple games".

The main page on http://www.scirra.com contains "Construct 2 lets YOU make advanced games!"

Sorry, but the only way to have "True multiplatform support" is to create native exporters.

I understand that very simple games can run fast also if they are made via XDK or NW, but "advanced games" can't run well.

And, please, don't tell me that I don't understand anything in game optimisation - in this topic I had already posted the same game via native export and via different versions of XDK - the difference is great.

Construct 2 is the greatest game editor ever. Event-action system is perfect.

I think, In a few years there will appear game engine with perfect event-action system like C2 has and one-click native export like Unity has at the same time.

This future engine will make it's developers VERY RICH.

If Ashley will try his best, this engine will be Construct 3 and Ashley will be very rich.

Otherwise, this engine will be Unity 3 and Ashley will not be very rich.

P.S. Unity is taken just for example. Any other team who will understand that "perfect editor+perfect engine=rich developers" will succeed.

Ashley

Here is an edited version of your post that is pretty much exactly what people were saying in 2011:

> C3 must have Flash exporters.

>

.

It's 2015 now and I still want to have Flash exporter, because it's much easier to sell flash games than HTML5 games.