We need a friendly ENGINE, not a dysfunction EDITOR

We need a friendly ENGINE, not a dysfunction EDITOR
0.0 0

#264

Hi @jrosich

Yes, although the recent addition of docs like below has been an improvement.

http://cocos2d-x.org/docs/editors_and_tools/creator/index.html

Maybe more docs and examples will be implemented when the engine hits the v 1.6 milestone? Anyways, I look at the bright side, if cocos2dx disappears, or Cocos Creator disappears as well, I learned some Javascript / Component concepts which can help me if i decide to switch to Unity in the near future, or any other engine / framework…God Bless…

Sincerely,

Sunday


#265

I wouldn’t be concerned to the point that you paralyze yourself. What I mean is keep moving forward as you would and I’m pretty positive everyone will be happy with Cocos2d-x and Creator as time continues. Time fixes a lot of things.

I think that if we can write more docs, with demos and more concrete examples this is a huge step. We should modify the way we think of documentation. It isn’t just words on a screen. It is an experience that is informative, fun and immerses the reader to the point they are learning and cementing their understanding without even realizing it.


#266

There is no danger here of anything disappearing. Feel safe in using the products. What I can say is that the team is working for the better to make the engine and its’ tools the best tools they know how to make. Your feedback helps drive development. The team listens.


#267

I have been working 9 months (part time) in my 2nd Creator game. It has been painful sometimes, and it is frustrating being stuck a few days in some feature, because there is no documentation on how to do that, or how to use the Cocos objects (or a bug).

Nevertheless, I still believe Creator is an amazing tool, and Im deeply committed to finish and publish this game.


#268

Please put more resources into c++. There’s so much to improve. There are still some problems with audio on android, effects (shaders) are pretty hard to use (if I remember correctly you wanted to implement some kind of built-in “effects”), there’s a lot of unnecessary stuff for most people (need modularity), tons of unsolved issues on github, c++ support for creator is still alpha0. There are A LOT of new platforms to support. For example, AppleTV doesn’t have built-in support (I know, there’s a branch support it, but it took me few days to correctly configure and compile this to just run hello world).


#269

You should release cocos2d-x-lite as v4.0 quickly. It will stop all the worries about the standalone engine dying a slow death or not getting attention, and let all existing projects ‘fit’ in the new vision.

Once everyone has a clear path to migrate their existing code to new engine without doing a full rewrite, it will be easier for them to use the Creator editor for new pieces or migrate old screens/features one at a time. Asking for a full rewrite gives everyone the option to rewrite using any other framework.


#270

0.2 version is released: C++ and Lua support for creator 0.2 released


#272

I’m using SBX and all C++ stable and works perfectly, why do i need something else and closed source and not c++ ?


#273

I think have a new choice is better. Developers can use tools fit their need, it is freedom.


#274

I can’t see a difference btw awkward cocos studio and cocos creator. I will never use it, and I don’t think so it has any other future that same as for cocos studio was.


#275

I just wanted to add that I came to this engine only because Creator exists! Some people - like me - prefer to work with visual tools for visual stuff (placing graphics for example or setting up UI). Plus we want those tools in one place with a unified workflow. That’s why I stopped using libGDX and started using the Godot engine. It was magical. I could write code where there should be code and place anything visual in an intuitive way. Now I’m also experimenting in Defold aswell as Cocos Creator.
I think this generation of coders aswell as just consumers have alot of experience with good usability since that has become a major focus for app and web devs nowadays and we want this to transfer to game engines aswell.


#276

I think i will stick to SpriteBuilderX with cocos2d-x 3.13 till i don’t find a future save solution.
3.13 because i use XCode 7, and don’t want to update, because it works.
Would be yet alternative Godot or Polycode. Godot is slow on Iphone 4, Polycode at the moment not for mobile. :confused:


#277

Looks like Polycode is using own IDE, it’s not option at all, Xcode forever. And Godot editor looks very bad… well really no alternatives for this time…

P.s. cocos used for SpriteBuilderX updated to the latest cocos2d-x v3.15.1 with a lot of fixes


#278

It’s open source. http://polycode.org/
For 3.15 maybe i will give a try, if i have a little time.


#279

example


Cocos Creator v1.6.1.beta-2
#280

Polycode doesn’t support mobile and the development of the current project has stopped. The main developer is basically rewriting everything in his private repository so we’ll have to wait some years to get something usable again.


#281

Yes, i know.


#282

Oh, seems some developer copied contents from Chinese forum. It is because some internal testing version is not released on English forum.


#283

I’m keeping observing 2 engines : Godot & Atomic.

Both of them seem open sourced, from editor to engine.
But they all lack some AAA games to demonstrate what level their engine can do.

Basically, native language or script to authoring game logics will be ok if we had an open-sourced engine. When any bugs occurred, we can set breakpoints or print something to see what happens.


#284

Ditto on wait you said. My experience about it.
Godot has lot of examples, afaik. It’s a 2d turned 3d engine with good community support. Anyway it’s artist-inclined, less programmers, more artists.
Atomic comes from Urho3d that’s what I’m using now. I turned to it mainly because of curiosity and the need for a full 3d engine, where cocos2dx is lacking, being more on the 2.5d kind-of 3d level, which is good, but not for fps kind-of games, that’s what I’m at now.
Anyway, both these latter engines went from 3d to 2d, and they’re not absolutely on par with coco2d-x 2d features… for instance, no director… no action-spawn-jumpby…
Moreover, these two require considerable technical understanding and definitely an advanced gaming creation level… by no way turn to these if you don’t have such an experience. Atomic is a bit more forgiving, being more tutored… but urho3d is definitely for programmer-inclined guys. No being artist there. So it’s a bit the opposite of Godot.
By the way, Godot is actually rated as the best open source engine for gaming by a sheer count of git commits and likes, followed at some distance by atomic.
Ending of TL;DR:
Switching to any of these if you don’t have a daring need for 3d features it’s absolutely not worth the while, unless you have a lot of time to spare/want to know new things. For 2d, cocos2d-x it’s still way faster, despite cranky installation, lacks of ECS and whatever.
Eventually, godot could be a 2d substitute. But forget programmers flexibility of “create C++ source, dig in”. It’s all visual. At that point, you could even choose Unity. Or simply stay with creator and cocos2-x as well, given that you know the sdk already.
There’s no perfect solution. But as this ongoing rant seem related to freedom of tinkering and missing to-be feature, I won’t be that worried. Cocos2d-x is a bit old, but it’s feature-rich and stable for 2d. It’s a good shot if want to have that job fast and done.
DISCLAIMER: I’m not related to Chukong. :wink:
since 2014 with cocos2d-x, since 2016 with urho3d. Next one: Unity/Unreal/MY OWN :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: