I think that once MMF has HWA a lot of people will forget about Construct .
Except, you know... Construct is free. By 1.0 most of the bugs should be ironed out, and all the poor kids who can't afford MMF2 will finally be able to make their own version of ChocoBreak that runs at 400 frames per second.
If Construct does what it says it will do by 1.0, the only advantage MMF2 will have is it's large library of object extensions (some which will have to be re-written to accomodate HWA). Even so, new objects will eventually be made for Construct, and if it ever caught up with MMF in that department then the main difference between them will be price. Current clickers will probably stick with MMF2, but new users will likely be few and far between. I mean, what are you going to do? Get the cool dev program that costs $370, or the one that does almost the exact same thing for free?
Construct's physics is very fun to play with. I can't wait to get a better machine so I can play around a bit more.
I installed it on my bro's work PC the other day, and made two kinds of brick. One had a mass of 1 and the other a mass of 1,000.
Then I made a wall out of the lighter brick, criss-crossing them like they do with real brickwork. Got a nice big wall made, then dropped one super heavy brick on top and it got totally obliterated!! Went straight through and sent little inferior red bricks flying!
So simple, yet so fun. In addition, Construct will eventually have support for 3d. Take a look at this:
Actually, it's probably way too early to say that construct will have true 3D capabilities. The 3D Box object used in that driving demo was, according to one of Construct's creators, "more or less a proof-of-concept. It's still a useful object, but it does prove that 3D and 2D can be intermingled in Construct's engine." The box is just a 3D overlay on a 2D object, so you can't do things like collisions with the box body itself (without some serious custom events, anyway). So, while it's true that you can mix 2D and 3D elements with Construct's HWA, something like real 3D support is probably a long way off.
Though I bet you could create something similar to Wonlfenstein with some clever use of the 3D Box object and sprite scaling, but it would take a lot of work.
3D in Construct is planned for after the 2D stuff runs solidly. The box object is a proof of concept in that it shows the plugin SDK has access to the full range of DX9's capabilities. There is no 3D mesh object, for instance, purely because someone hasn't made one yet.
But at the moment, yeah, it's pretty limited, because they're implementing it as an overlay. I'm assuming they'll probably feature a whole new layer type when they work on the 3D side of it.
Hmm free and opensource, music to my ears, especially seeing as clickteam want to make me pay 22.5% more for living in the uk. They even had the cheek to tell me it was to pay some tax that doesn't exist (or maybe Jeff just couldn't be bothered to correct the price to match the current conversion rates). Construct ftw, too bad I already bought mmf2 standard.
Do you feel you are being... watched?
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
Registered 04/09/2004
Points 7998
19th November, 2007 at 09:02:30 -
Originally Posted by alspal Wonder how long it will take Contruct to get to a version 1.0 will probably take years.
I don't know about the speed issue. I think Construct is faster in events, but that's only because I know the event code is new. CT have backwards compatability to worry about, whereas Scirra can optimise and tweak the events with no concerns about compatability.
The real problem with forming a comparison is that CT have, so far as I know, never released any details on how fast *events* run. And even if they did, it's doubtful whether the statistics they provide would be on a like-for-like basis with those published for Construct. So it would be hard to compare them.
I can't find the post right now, but Ashley mentioned something about the speed of events by timing how long it takes to process just event, with the display disabled (so it's just a test of the event speed).
It was some ridiculous amount of events per second, but of course it would largely depend on the number of conditions, number of actions, the per-event processing overhead, and of course the nature of the conditions and actions, as well as the number of selected objects being processed.
A reliable, comparable statistic would be hard to come by.
You're taking all this compatibility thing the wrong way.
MMF2 by definition is NOT backward compatible!
You can't open a CCA or GAM file with MMF2, but you can import it and MMF2 will convert it to the new MFA format.
Therefore "backward compatibility" does not hurt the implemention of new features to MMF2.
In construct we trust (or at least i do). I think you pessimistic guys should write down a list of things you would like to have in a game-making program and post it on constructs website and hope that they includes it instead of sitting around here being negative.
The thing i'm most concerned about is this site. Will TDC accept construct-applications? The whole community is called "the Klick community", and i guess it's based on the name Klickteam, but will construct be able to be a part of the klick community, or will constructors be rejected?
Multimedia Fusion has matured into itself, it's gone through around over a decade of updating, and even though it goes by it's roots, its because they work. Construct is new and undeveloped. It has fancy features and such, but the truth of the matter is, even after beta, it will still suffer for a while, of just issues that are small enough to be ignored, but big enough to be annoying.
Not to mention, Clickteam is actually starting to listen to what we want, Multimedia Fusion has never developed so fast in a year, as it has this year. It's amazing to see it's progress happening so rapidly.
TDC wont reject Construct applications, they might not end up in the GOTW, but you can post them. Circy and I have got in many love taps about this, and I guess you could say a "compromise" was made.
Advertisement
Post Reply
.
.
Edited by the Author.
