Unreal Tournament 469

[Chamberly]

In game join lag. Those are annoying. Any idea about removing that? Seem to happens between ACE/Nexgen somewhere on a heavy traffic server.

[sektor2111]

The thing is, out-of-bounds indexes are not supposed to be calculated in the first place. They suggest an error in whatever algorithm originates them. Any checks for their validity should be stripped from a Release build, as they, like any other branching code, may impact performance.

EXACTLY...
It's why DescribeSpec should be REWRITTEN as follows:
- Return only ZERO BELLOW and ABOVE ARRAY and even for a null data - there is nothing critical in using a sanity check before continuing any execution;
- optional Collision and bPruned data ? Why we don't have it completed ? If name of function means "DESCRIBE Specifications" then we should have indeed a full description. If my iterator is finding ZERO and NONE it will definitely stop. I don't know how big is array and when to stop as long as there is no UScript Support, the only way is counting until the "HitWall" boundary. And then C++ code more powerful should do the right response.
As for "grammar" support, if that's a "scriptwarning" then show me a script without a warning... or return something like the one with ThingFactory vs CreatureFactory...

[Gustavo6046]

No, no, no. You got it all backwards! It is good to stop execution, because it allows a programmer to more easily find bugs and algorithm errors hidden deeper in the code, in lower layers. Maybe make it optional in a debug build, so that an index out of bounds error doesn't result in a hard crash, but rather pauses the execution and allows some debugging tool to be used in real time.

But still, would you rather have a game that never errors, but where every once in a while something far more hideous happens in the depths of the engine, that may cause everything from erratic behaviour, to undefined behaviour, to even critical security flaws?

I can't realistically see you programming competently outside of UnrealScript, sorry. Maybe if you didn't skip English class it would be easier for you to actually read and learn.

[sektor2111]

I'm Not interested in any sort of english class (US UK ect) - it's OFF-TOPIC anyway, I only need a DescribeSpec coded as it should be in XXI century working ONLY in desired range, letting me to find boundaries based on logic "None" type answers, or a code snippet which doesn't do any warning. What I've done so far was helpful for me, if you have anything much better, I listen - in any language , hint me with your builders... Giving me these stories with English/Programming which I did not studied in any school from that time and I don't even need these in my primary job after all, are only making me to not really bother to read all sentences - OFF TOPIC as well, a waste of time having nothing to do with DescribeSpec which I'm talking about.
Perhaps I need to repeat 100 times that 227 doesn't do anything and it doesn't crash at all letting me to work nice and easy...
And a memory refresh for you... You asked how to manually connect PathNodes somewhere, such things are doable in year 2020 - read again. Confirming new connections is doable by counting reachSpecs and even showing those useless ones out of network as well.
If DescribeSpec was "fixed", I'm not changing anything because I don't fix a thing which isn't broken. Did you see the code, as btw ? Lemme guess.. No, of course.
Code returns at first "None" reporting how many valid ones were found, nothing less and nothing more.

I want to see Collision parameters and bPruned value, not warnings, else allow me to revert it at original state via configuration .

Ah, never mind, I'll use 436 and 227, out of troubles. I might try to find someone else with good hacking skills to remove that thing out by byte-hacking DLL file.

[Chamberly]

Add or replace Multiplayer's shortcut button to Favorites so we don't have to keep clicking to favorite tab on the UBrowser?

[PrinceOfFunky]

61) PLEASE, make Chris's DEBUG.u package work. (Cause last time I checked, it didn't work with 469)

[Deepu]

Dubug is working for me

[PrinceOfFunky]

Dubug is working for me

Oh oki thanks, it didn't in the first versions of 469.

[OjitroC]

So what’s happening with 469? The last ‘official' announcement in this thread was back at the beginning of February but people seem to be using it - so what’s going on? Is it available?

[anth]

Yes. We've been beta testing for a while now. If you sign up at oldunreal and post in the 469 thread or send me a PM, I can give you access to the beta forum. We will probably switch to open beta for the next release and make the patch available in the OldUnreal download section.

[OjitroC]

Yes. We've been beta testing for a while now. If you sign up at oldunreal and post in the 469 thread or send me a PM, I can give you access to the beta forum. We will probably switch to open beta for the next release and make the patch available in the OldUnreal download section.

Thanks for the speedy reply - I'm reluctant to sign up to another forum so I'll probably wait for the open beta but again thanks for the response.

[TaglesMalsto]

I can't wait to try 469 when open beta is released
I am planning UT99 Ultimate Edition ... @anth

[Chamberly]

Unrealed:
I do see in the editor that it mentions merge faces... merge brushes into 1 would be a big magic...

[Feralidragon]

Adding to what @anth just said, a lot of work has been put into massively improving the editor, and we're in dire need of mappers to test out the new one.

I have been testing when I can, and reporting bugs and request some features along the way, and a few others as well, but we're now reaching a point where it needs diverse people doing diverse things with it, maybe even starting to build new maps with it or continue to work in existing ones, in order to identify issues and come up with new useful features to potentially be added in new releases.

So the 469 testing is not only on the game side, but also concerning building stuff for it with the editor, namely maps.
All maps built with the new editor are still backwards compatible with 436, so you don't have to worry about that (they have to be).

[darksonny]

Adding to what @anth just said, a lot of work has been put into massively improving the editor, and we're in dire need of mappers to test out the new one.

I have been testing when I can, and reporting bugs and request some features along the way, and a few others as well, but we're now reaching a point where it needs diverse people doing diverse things with it, maybe even starting to build new maps with it or continue to work in existing ones, in order to identify issues and come up with new useful features to potentially be added in new releases.

So the 469 testing is not only on the game side, but also concerning building stuff for it with the editor, namely maps.
All maps built with the new editor are still backwards compatible with 436, so you don't have to worry about that (they have to be).

What about those maps that uses mismatching textures? this is a deep problem, in you opinion what could be the solution in this area? BTW nice seeing you in the scene again