UT99.org | Unreal Tournament Community

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:23 am**

sektor2111 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:32 pm OpenAL to me attempts to launch game, logo stays and... that's all.

OpenAL does not launch the game. It's an audio driver. You mean launching the game with OpenAL on?

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:21 am**

Gustavo6046 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:23 am OpenAL does not launch the game. It's an audio driver. You mean launching the game with OpenAL on?

Catch it. My fault, I should say "With OpenAL game attempts to load but it stays stuck at logo stage" or such extra-spam explanations because it's understandable in context.

I finally changed OpenAL drivers... but... there are a few things, not very entertaining:
- it spams log file with some tech data which I don't know how to disable;
- sounds are... lol sounds...
Until newer UT will be like UT, I'll use original UT and XCGE24.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:58 pm**

Ah. No no, sir, it just sounded confusing, that's all.

sektor2111 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:21 am - sounds are... lol sounds...

What, you wanted them to be textures?

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:27 pm**

If you have any feedback for UT469 it would be more constructive to post about it instead of textures-sounds chapter or such, just saying...

I'm using UT469 for Editor, comparing new maps builds with original builds, as with regard to the game - maybe I'll use it next year if it will be done... in this stage I don't need an update. The lack of XC functions won't make me to fallback in the past and to quit playing maps which now are working like a charm.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:55 pm**

sektor2111 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:27 pm If you have any feedback for UT469 it would be more constructive to post about it instead of textures-sounds chapter or such, just saying...

I'm using UT469 for Editor, comparing new maps builds with original builds, as with regard to the game - maybe I'll use it next year if it will be done... in this stage I don't need an update. The lack of XC functions won't make me to fallback in the past and to quit playing maps which now are working like a charm.

What about opening an account on OldU, where v469 is being developed, ask to be a betatester and post your concerns as bug reports there?

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:58 pm**

sektor2111 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:27 pm The lack of XC functions won't make me to fallback in the past and to quit playing maps which now are working like a charm.

Ah yes, our daily dose of gratuitous XC_Everything™ praise and Higor deification.

I have an XC_House with a XC_Window
"XC" is stamped on all that I wear
Drive on XC_Streets, see the XC_Trees
I have a XC_Girlfriend, and she is so 'XC'
See all the XC_People here that walk around
Like my XC_Corvette; it's in and outside
And all the XC_Words I say and what I think
Or the XC_Feelings that live inside me.

Posted: **Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:09 am**

Yes, exactly, too bad that you don't get why I won't remove it. First of all a lot of maps are now fine tuned because of this thing, Evil Sniper Server has a plus and immediately after switching one of servers to 469, every single player asked about why this is too this and that is too that. And I'm sorry if XC has no use for you.
XC is capable to do and it and has:
- Replace Functions;
- Manipulate, add reachSpecs in run-time;
- fast file sending;
- speed;
- timer improved;
- dynamic array access;
- a new GetWeapon thing - players are happy here;
- a stronger DevPath operating in maps where plain UT doesn't even blink.
- Movers fixes;
- a better garbage collector;
- and I forgot how many other benefits.
And YES, everything is XC until I'll find something better, else how many of you whiners have done some XC tools ? If XC won't get a 469 version I'm not going to waste time with an "update" because I have no plans to remove mods and maps which now I'm using. Why would I get rid of improvements ?
If you are demonstrating me that 469 has more in front of XC + UT436 UT451 I'll switch versions. First point me some advantages and then we talk more.

Posted: **Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:31 am**

XC 25 will drop with the public v469 beta, it may require the Visual Studio 2017 runtimes... still deciding on that.

EDIT: 469 has some XC in it, even if it's not apparent

Posted: **Fri Aug 07, 2020 7:47 pm**

Is apparent in Editor - if I'm not that drunk I can see arrows...

Edit: In mean-time
If an old game doesn't have compatibility in older machines (manufactured post game-release date) perhaps I'll stick on my current position = No upgrade/update.
I have other things planed with money instead of buying computers...

Posted: **Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:38 pm**

You fool! v469 *is* the new XC! >:)

Jokes aside, It has a lot of goodies, but UE1 would have many of them too if it weren't a weird, flawed, kinda crappy prototype. If you want something decent (in terms of optimization and goodies), check Unreal Engine 2. It's actually surprisingly similar to UE1.

Also, on performance. I have a laptop from 2012. By today's standards, it's old, kinda crappy, and just decent enough to run a modern system. Yet, UT runs smoothly in it. I don't know about you, but unless you are stupid and happen to lug around an ancient Pentium II that boasts about something as basic as MMX, you should be fine even with a very modern community update.

Also, please don't use Pentium II in 2020. Even a relatively lightweight desktop-oriented Linux environment can struggle with that. People have moved on, it's called capitalism. Sell that computer for scraps and you have half a dinner. It's not that people are doing lots of superfluous things with their favorite processors nowadays, it's just that the tasks computers are required to do nowadays are very different from when they were still being adopted into the common household. Or, in your language, good luck running Quake on a 386 (without coprocessors).

Posted: **Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:54 am**

Can we please stop to derail this thread any more!!

anth wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:04 pm so if there is anything you would like to ask or suggest, then feel free to do it here. I will try my best to answer as much as I can.

anth want you to help him to make this patch better, but when so much off-topic stuff is discussed, he can't see shit!

So, keep this thread on topic please and keep your personal opinions about who might be a fool out of it ... maybe put it into another thread.

Posted: **Sun Aug 09, 2020 7:12 am**

Gustavo6046 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:38 pm You fool! v469 *is* the new XC! >:)

Where is XC in 469 ? Can you provide a Paths Manipulation code ? Let me guess: NO; and explain why NfoServer got stuck with XC mods and XCGE, yeah "genius", and then, that machine is not a PII. You have entered here for your stories not for UT469. As recommended by Papercoffee, these are important topics having ONE subject not your dreams at PII systems and the rest of irrelevant XC poems. I don't even need to read all sentences because here I only see Zero Help but a lot of blabbering. 469 IS NOT XC_EditorAdds:
DevPath in 469 still uses that "PreviousPath" - I don't need it.
DevPath in 469 still creates PrunedPaths[x] - useless INVISIBLE charge;
DevPath in 469 is not XC_EditorAdds and PathsBuilder from there doing almost 3x times more reachSpecs - sure 469 is XC,

These would be better to have an OPTION in INI for being disabled and letting user to create a CLEAN network - IF HE/SHE WANTS. The only things which I see here are these:
469

Code: Select all

DevPath: Remove 728 old reachspecs

And UT+ XC + manual washing is having:

Code: Select all

DevPath: Remove 210 old reachspecs

Do you know the trivia ? These are the same on any machine. Several operations which I can do in UGold for an UT'99 MAP, don't look doable anywhere so far at map-editing Level.

And the previous feedback happily shadowed by useless blabbering, Audio stuff in 469 is NOT what I want to hear (like UGOLD after all) and neither crashes properly operated by newer Galaxy driver. All UT things to me at this moment are good as they are.
And I still don't need any warning as long as I know what I do:

Code: Select all

ScriptWarning: MapGarbage Transient.MapGarbage2 (Function MapGarbage.MapGarbage.ListNumberOfSpecs:015C) describeSpec: invalid ReachSpec index: 210/210
MaxNumFound: I found 210 reachspecs, from 0 to 209.
WarnDist: 4 reachSpecs have nodes claimed too close.

You can beautify the code with a LOG as AttachDecal does, else I can do this check after last fine tuning right in UGold Editor (good at editing):

Code: Select all

MaxNumFound: I found 210 reachspecs, from 0 to 209.
WarnDist: 4 reachSpecs have nodes claimed too close.

No warning, no explosion, no animal has been hurt and no car accident happened during reachSpecs hunting process.
If you give me flexibility and options for compiling what I want and how I want I'll upgrade my installs. Bool values added at server-level I don't think are hurting since already 469 has new functions in ScriptedPawn...

Posted: **Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:52 pm**

I will be honest: this thread has been derailed so much and so often that no one is really looking into it anymore.
Soon either I, Anth or Higor will post here a link towards a public central place to properly submit bug reports, feature requests, and the like, in github, likely once the patch is publicly released.

Having that said, allow me to close the conversation on the XC stuff: there's currently no XC for 469 yet, however there will be one in the same way as the one for 436, except that a lot of functionality from the original XC has been transferred over to 469, which will translate to a smaller XC package with a lot of the features removed from there as they are already present in 469.

So, in essence, if anyone's reason to not use 469 is the lack of XC, then rest assured that there will be one the same as before, it's just that things have been moved around between XC and 469.
That's it, there's really nothing more to say or discuss about the XC subject in 469 at the moment.

Posted: **Wed Aug 12, 2020 6:32 am**

For the rest which are interested in some differences between UT and other assets NOT implemented yet in 469 (are they going to be implemented ?) with regard to RX games aka SLV aka whatever.
Usually these flight mods have nothing too much with Bots except last RX HOF with a basic Bot support version working in maps with aerial paths (very few so far) using a recent idea - that's another discussion about code strategy for finding aerial paths...
Aerial paths for friends and cousins are like these:

Code: Select all

Specs: ___________________________________________
Specs: AirNode1 - UpstreamPaths[0]=588 ->AirLock0 --->AirNode1 RFlags=Fly =2 Dist=701
Connected: AirLock0 to AirNode1.
Specs: ___________________________________________
Specs: AirNode1 - Paths[0]=586 ->AirNode1 --->AirLock0 RFlags=Fly =2 Dist=701
Connected: AirNode1 to AirLock0.
Specs: ___________________________________________
Specs: AirNode1 - UpstreamPaths[1]=584 ->AirNode2 --->AirNode1 RFlags=Fly =2 Dist=616
Connected: AirNode2 to AirNode1.
Specs: ___________________________________________
Specs: AirNode1 - Paths[1]=587 ->AirNode1 --->AirNode2 RFlags=Fly =2 Dist=616
Connected: AirNode1 to AirNode2.

But we can see these paths in UT469 and they work in run-time - IF RX MOD has Bot Support.

I don't think I'll ask if UT469 will map R_FLY routes, this is just a part of a potential development area which not everyone cares about it, but is doable as long as codes can be fine tuned or changed.

Posted: **Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:36 pm**

sektor2111 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 6:32 am For the rest which are interested in some differences between UT and other assets NOT implemented yet in 469 (are they going to be implemented ?) with regard to RX games aka SLV aka whatever.
Usually these flight mods have nothing too much with Bots except last RX HOF with a basic Bot support version working in maps with aerial paths (very few so far) using a recent idea - that's another discussion about code strategy for finding aerial paths...
Aerial paths for friends and cousins are like these:
Code: Select all
Specs: ___________________________________________
Specs: AirNode1 - UpstreamPaths[0]=588 ->AirLock0 --->AirNode1 RFlags=Fly =2 Dist=701
Connected: AirLock0 to AirNode1.
Specs: ___________________________________________
Specs: AirNode1 - Paths[0]=586 ->AirNode1 --->AirLock0 RFlags=Fly =2 Dist=701
Connected: AirNode1 to AirLock0.
Specs: ___________________________________________
Specs: AirNode1 - UpstreamPaths[1]=584 ->AirNode2 --->AirNode1 RFlags=Fly =2 Dist=616
Connected: AirNode2 to AirNode1.
Specs: ___________________________________________
Specs: AirNode1 - Paths[1]=587 ->AirNode1 --->AirNode2 RFlags=Fly =2 Dist=616
Connected: AirNode1 to AirNode2.
But we can see these paths in UT469 and they work in run-time - IF RX MOD has Bot Support.
Not_ImplementedYet.PNG
I don't think I'll ask if UT469 will map R_FLY routes, this is just a part of a potential development area which not everyone cares about it, but is doable as long as codes can be fine tuned or changed.

The VM Rocket-x 8 jet as well.

UT99.org | Unreal Tournament Community

Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469

Re: Unreal Tournament 469