why its different? but in the html5 build works fine:
3 Likes
Can you please create an issue on GitHub? Attach the example project.
3D scene rotation appears to me to be broken in 1.13.1 beta
sha256:519962e914f25cbcf38f4d0413c8f28ba0916c160a3dee82d36b3ae31e79e0b0
324 MB 3 days ago
On Ubuntu 22.04 LTS
Works fine in the release build.
Also there is no quick way that I could find within the Defold editor, to check what the mouse commands are for 2D/3D view. No big deal I guess as I can Google it when I forget.
Also broken in 1.13.2 alpha. Maybe I am missing something, have the commands changed?
There is a new feature for 1.13.1. With the mouse bindings, certain defaults were changed since it makes sense to split between 2D/3D. In the Keymap, search for “Scene 2D Camera” or “Scene 3D Camera”. In the case of orbit and free camera, they only activate in 3D mode (perspective camera)
1 Like
I confess confusion. My questions reflect this.
I see that ‘2D mode’ means that the ‘scene 2D camera’ key bindings are active.
Why is this called '2D ’ give that it is a 3D view?
Clicking on the 2D mode icon( Align/Realign Camera 2D/3D), rotates the view to one with perspective.
‘2D mode’ is retained (in that the associated key bindings remain, as does the icon 2D).
There is not a default binding for ‘scene 2D camera orbit’ (I think there should be).
When I added this I could rotate the (3D) view. This is a perspective view in ‘2D mode’.
You call 3D mode perspective camera, but so is 2D mode.
How is 3D mode selected? By going into free camera mode (shift back tick)?
“orbit and free camera they only activate in 3D mode”?
It still says “2D” (mode) in free camera mode. I have not worked out how to get into orbit yet.
As far as I can work out “2D mode” means “3D view”, and “3D mode” means “free camera”.
Is this correct, and if so maybe a name change?
Also Align/Realign Camera 2D/3D always says 2D
All good stuff btw, thanks 
for the hard work and intrigue.
To help clarify the concepts, 2D mode in the editor is orthographic projection + aligning the camera facing the Z axis. To switch to 3D mode, you have to toggle the 2D button off then click on the perspective cube button (3D button), to the right of the 2D button. Note you can have both the 2D and 3D buttons toggled off at the same time, which leaves you in orthographic projection but without the camera alignment.
The new mouse bindings feature now has different entries for both 2D and 3D modes whereas before they had to be shared, so orbit and free camera always had to be available. Free camera is a mode that in particular does not make sense to use other than in perspective, hence there’s no binding for “Scene 2D Camera”. Orbit camera is still usable in orthographic, however, we have found that usage in 2D mode is usually a miss-click, so we decided to still provide a binding, just not have it set by default.
Thanks, that is helpful. I find 2D mode off, plus orthographic projection very useful. That this is still ‘2D mode’ is a bit confusing. It is easier to see how things line up with orthographic, and so free camera is useful in this mode as well. No worries, I guess it is just me.
3 Likes
+1 about frustration 
I’m often using rotation by ctrl+left mouse. Even for 2d scenes. And for particles.
It would be nice, if 2D and 3D orbit have same keymap by default)
3 Likes
To be honest, I’m a little frustrated too. I found it convenient to rotate the camera using Ctrl + left mouse button.
I use this quite often in both 2D and 3D scenes. In 2D, it lets me quickly check the Z-index of objects by eye—that is, their rendering order. In 3D scenes, an orthographic camera (for isometric!) is just as useful as a perspective camera.
1 Like
You can add the binding back! Go to Preferences > Keymap and search for “Scene 2D Camera Orbit”
3 Likes
It’s fine, no need to change it, after discussing with the team, we can add the default binding back in. Seems like we underestimated how much this was a part of the 2D workflow.
6 Likes
And it’s added, CI is building beta, expect the fix in 30 mins
2 Likes
In this version, the bug “`shader.output_*` option doesn't work for some shaders · Issue #11106 · defold/defold · GitHub” has only gotten worse. I’ve created a new issue with the details -
This is necessary for the ANGLE backend to work properly. Currently, it will continue to work correctly with version 1.13.1, but only in the release bundle of the games, since the debug-only font shader - which contains incorrect program variants - is not included in the build.
1 Like
I have encountered the thing where build sometimes doesn’t use the recent code changes until the next build. Seems to happen randomly, I’m using VS Code as editor only on Linux. Not sure if that happened in 1.13.0 too. This seemingly exact issue was fixed at some point in the past.
Just found out (using the example project) if you scale the parent GO of the models that cast shadows, shadows are not scaled and the model still casts small shadows
1 Like
@Pawel Update! I was wrong, the reason why they were not casting shadows properly was because when the objects get scaled up, the shadow camera was having difficulties capturing them. Changing its setting till it can see the objects solves the problem
2 Likes
Uff, thanks for the update! Btw, I’ll get back soon to creating more examples, I returned back from vacations and catching up on my backlog slowly 
2 Likes
No worries, even the shadows example is plenty to get started. I will soon share the first part of the 2.5D tutorial series using the example project as a base, it’s quite helpful 
(a small request could be made towards adding support for sprite material that can receive and cast shadows )
2 Likes
Hello!
First of all, I’m really happy to see all of the changes this engine has made. It’s been slowly but surely fixing a lot of the issues I had when trying this engine out, and makes me want to return to it in the future.
However, I have a big question: with the transition to using cmake, would that mean I can use cmake for native extensions? Right now from what I understand, native extensions force me to pre compile my c++ code and upload it as binaries to fit, and I really don’t like that. If I could just use a standard cmake flow for the native extensions instead, that would be swell.
I helped worked on this repo and made it work, but I’m really unhappy that I have to rely on GitHub actions. I should have been able to just run cmake on the build server instead.
1 Like
This is not necessarily true. You can also drop in your source code in the extension and let the extender server build it. You can use your extension manifest to set compile and link flags. But sure, anything more advanced than that its not possible. If your extension code requires an elaborate build setup then your best option is to prebuild into platform libs and only include header files in the extension.
2 Likes