Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

General Announcements about Unreal Tournament and UT99.org
User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:38 pm

I better do not comment that..

Only: Most of the ways you might imagine have been tried already. Epic seems to be faithless. Like I said: The release of 227g MIGHT change something.
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
Shadow
Masterful
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:00 am
Personal rank: Mad Carpenter
Location: Germany

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Shadow » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:17 pm

Why should that release change something? Except for the Unreal Community, which is good, but it doesn't change related to UT.
Image

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:25 pm

Shadow wrote:Why should that release change something? Except for the Unreal Community, which is good, but it doesn't change related to UT.
lol, you act as if Unreal 1 would be based on a ID Tech and UT only on UEngine...

You can not be sure about that. At the end Epic could earn more money. Some people might be interested for the old ut if only the engine would not be THAT old. Epic would benefit from that. It seems the problem is the following: Me was told Epic saw only "227a" at the very beginning of the development which was bullshit, even the oldunreal developer team thinks so. Epic thaught.. ok.. they can not do a shit.. forget those guys. Any other attempt so far to ask them what they think about the development failed, maybe just of a first failed attempt with "227a" at the start. However, the actual dev of 227g is worlds ahead in quality, fixes and additions. I think a release of that patch (227g) might awake the interest of Epic (btw: the previous patches from the team were mostly only released in a "limited" community). Maybe, maybe not. But they CANT IGNORE THAT then.

And if "we" release / promote the patch directly on epics forum...
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
Lee_Stricklin
Adept
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:49 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Lee_Stricklin » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:31 pm

Creavion wrote:And if "we" release / promote the patch directly on epics forum...
That would pretty much steal the attention that Unreal Tournament 3 (which was flat lined last I checked) is getting, not to mention get the attention of former players that just happen to be playing Gears or UT2k4 taking away interest from said games which are more profitable for them.

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:51 pm

Lee_Stricklin wrote:
Creavion wrote:And if "we" release / promote the patch directly on epics forum...
That would pretty much steal the attention that Unreal Tournament 3 (which was flat lined last I checked) is getting, not to mention get the attention of former players that just happen to be playing Gears or UT2k4 taking away interest from said games which are more profitable for them.
Maybe ... but UT3 is dead anyway (or not really more alive than the other UT games) and its not like that this patch would upgrade UT to an UEngine 2. In some less terms maybe, but not overall. I dont know what will happen, before the patch is not finished and released, I won`t throw in the towel.
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
Lee_Stricklin
Adept
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:49 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Lee_Stricklin » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:55 pm

So if the Unreal patch proves to be as good as it looks like it's going to be, then there's a small possibility that Epic may actually grant permission to patch UT99 as well. The first part is EXTREMELY likely, but the second part, well we all know about UTPG.

EDIT:
According to gametracker, there are less than 290 total servers running UT3. The ones that are populated most likely have bots in them and there aren't a whole lot of them.
Last edited by Lee_Stricklin on Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:57 pm

Lee_Stricklin wrote:So if the Unreal patch proves to be as good as it looks like it's going to be, then there's a small possibility that Epic may actually grant permission to patch UT99 as well. The first part is EXTREMELY likely, but the second part, well we all know about UTPG.
From what I heared / know (if it is true) Epic was rather disappointed about UTPGs failure. Some guys there would love the idea of an UT engine upgrade since they would hope this time it would work better. ($$$ €€€ ...) But I have no proof about the correctness of this in any way. Or in other words: "no responsibility is taken for the correctness of this information"
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
Lee_Stricklin
Adept
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:49 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Lee_Stricklin » Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:00 pm

We'll just have to see what happens after the Unreal patch then.

Wolfos
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:17 pm

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Wolfos » Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:32 pm

Why can't I view the original thread?
It says "You are not authorised to read this forum.".

iloveut99
Skilled
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by iloveut99 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:50 pm

I don't know if it was already mentioned, but maybe the limit of download directly from a server (is it 20kb/s?) should be changed?

Skillz

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Skillz » Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:14 am

iloveut99 wrote:I don't know if it was already mentioned, but maybe the limit of download directly from a server (is it 20kb/s?) should be changed?
The download limit can be changed already, it's based on the netspeed. Although raising it isn't the solution. That's what redirect servers are for.

User avatar
Feralidragon
Godlike
Posts: 5456
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:24 pm
Personal rank: Work In Progress
Location: Liandri

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Feralidragon » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:27 am

Skillz wrote:
iloveut99 wrote:I don't know if it was already mentioned, but maybe the limit of download directly from a server (is it 20kb/s?) should be changed?
The download limit can be changed already, it's based on the netspeed. Although raising it isn't the solution. That's what redirect servers are for.
Exactly. Not only redirect servers are better for better download speed, as from redirect you download zipped files and not the "raw" files of sort to speak, meaning that you only have to download a fraction of the filesize of the actual file, and then the game will unzip it for you automatically. :mrgreen:

For instance, that's why although some of my files are a bit big (12Mb), I will ask admins to use redirect whenever possible (+ download speed, plus the 12Mb file is compressed to 3Mb, meaning that the client will only have to download those 3Mb and not 12Mb).
The thing is, UT has a little bug regarding showing the real filesize you're downloading, so although you will only download 3Mb, people will still see "12Mb being downloaded", so basically 25% is actually 100% there... :\

User avatar
Metalfist
Masterful
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:54 pm
Personal rank: ^,..,^ rawr

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Metalfist » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:43 am

Feralidragon wrote:The thing is, UT has a little bug regarding showing the real filesize you're downloading, so although you will only download 3Mb, people will still see "12Mb being downloaded", so basically 25% is actually 100% there... :\
I believe that was fixed with the 451 patch, but 436 still displays the original file.
Image

User avatar
Feralidragon
Godlike
Posts: 5456
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:24 pm
Personal rank: Work In Progress
Location: Liandri

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Feralidragon » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:10 pm

Metalfist wrote:
Feralidragon wrote:The thing is, UT has a little bug regarding showing the real filesize you're downloading, so although you will only download 3Mb, people will still see "12Mb being downloaded", so basically 25% is actually 100% there... :\
I believe that was fixed with the 451 patch, but 436 still displays the original file.
Really? Didn't know that one (I never use 451 to play online, only used as local play to see which issues I would get by actually using it). Nice to know that fix has been made after all.

But even so, 451 causes a really annoying visual bug in my pack (NW2 and NW3) and the RTNP weapon pack as well, so... (a masking bug, aparently 451 masks every RGB(0,0,0) [pure black] pixels from textures, which is annoying in mods where "black" should be really "black" and not masked).

Marco88
Novice
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:48 pm
Personal rank: Private
Location: Outside

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Marco88 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:14 pm

SmoothingGroup: Smirftsch told me that dots included this option to make it possible to have certain static mesh materials with "bsp like lighting". So far I could not get this working or at least I am not able to see any difference.
In case you still haven't figured this out: http://learngamedesign.com/gdt_A2.html (even though this is for MilkShape 3D it explains it well)

As for bSimpleLineCollision/bSimpleBoxCollision, it is something similar to what UE2 offers: you can apply a BSP mover alike simple collision shape for the static mesh to make it give better performance and prevents you from getting stuck on some detailed models: http://udn.epicgames.com/Two/CollisionT ... n%20Models