◄►469 Patch Discussions◄►

[OjitroC]

Seems more trouble than it's worth. Glitches galore!

It's up to you obviously. From my personal experience of using it I would say "glitches galore" is somewhat over-egging it - there are glitches sure and they are only to be expected but not everyone gets them - and, of course, those glitches are being fixed. Once 469b is publicly released then it is probably worth at least trying it out and running it alongside another version to compare it - it certainly would be advantageous if one has a modern 'machine'.

[RocketJedi]

Seems more trouble than it's worth. Glitches galore!

It's up to you obviously. From my personal experience of using it I would say "glitches galore" is somewhat over-egging it - there are glitches sure and they are only to be expected but not everyone gets them - and, of course, those glitches are being fixed. Once 469b is publicly released then it is probably worth at least trying it out and running it alongside another version to compare it - it certainly would be advantageous if one has a modern 'machine'.

The problem is a lot of rented servers can't run the new patch because the host disallows changing core system files, so now you have players on the new patch playing on a server with 451 patch or earlier. Nearly crashes on every map change and random in game crashes. To fully implement this new patch server hosts and the developers need to coordinate the releases. Not sure if this is possible, but a pop up in game to direct players to new patch should be implemented.

[sektor2111]

The problem is a lot of rented servers can't run the new patch because the host disallows changing core system files, so now you have players on the new patch playing on a server with 451 patch or earlier. Nearly crashes on every map change and random in game crashes. To fully implement this new patch server hosts and the developers need to coordinate the releases.

I went ahead against some rules which NfoServers had with regard to stock repositories and "restore task" - because I DON'T NEED original stock in UT'99 servers which I do - if you want a stable server with Monsters and Bots, stock assets ARE NOT an answer. However, if they are taking extra-measures and doing "updates" capable to do a mess then... good luck with servers... these newer "solutions" are not what I expected and neither these habits of them in creating "install repositories" based on private links because one or two empty servers in majority of time are running for a while (before crashing or getting stuck)...
I spent too much time with sorting and writing patches in order to gain stability and not for facing new troubles.

[Que]

Perhaps epic could release ut99 for free through their app store @epicgames.com
May stir a little interest in the project.

[sektor2111]

I've done a bit of testing here regarding to "UTDM_blabla" whatever monster affinity - let's consider that can be used non-spam versions.
I can clearly see reds attacking blues but blues mainly ignoring reds even if original "TEAM" byte from these Pawns is changed accordingly. Something is screwed up in those XC assets and if they were used/imported in 469, this is heading nowhere. I just wrote an aggressor actor for such CTF stages and I can still see blues firing two/three times at red enemies and then attempting to sit down instead of fighting properly according to original tactical codes. Guys, you can LEAVE ALONE these, original UT has ZERO ISSUES here, in that SetEnemy more things are mainly screwed up than fixed... also I will think to do a test of that "VSize(a.Location-b.Location) = ...". I'm curious what Editor is saying vs Game-Engine... To mention that some properties are back if map is opened again, advanced settings showing Team = 0 but a copy of actor dropped in Notepad looks normal. Anyway SetEnemy is not helping at all here...

[sektor2111]

Certain things fixed maybe won't head anywhere - after a bit more research at UTDM craps, oops I mean stuff.
All these are creating a mutator with the same name - I'm not sure how well is this done but... we do have side effects as result of mindless copy-paste-ing habits. Let's take in account package UTDMSkaarjBerserker and mutator used (created in run-time):

Code: Select all

function bool HandlePickupQuery(Pawn Other, Inventory item, out byte bAllowPickup)
{
	// Monsters don't pick up stuff.
	//! Add more here.
	if(Other.IsA('UTDMWarlord')) //Yeah... Sure... Berserker is Warlord - after some drugs even my hen is a tank felt in love with my spoon...
	{
		//Log(class$":HandlePickuQuery : UTDM refusing a "$item);
		bAllowPickup = 0;
		return true;
	}

	return Super.HandlePickupQuery(Other, item, bAllowPickup);
}

Let me see how can you deal with this trash in a new patch if you don't provide a native solution for replacing functions as long as this is mandatory for such premature wrecks packages. No... I'm wrong... they are plain default born/written/spit wrecks and happily spread around...

[OjitroC]

All these are creating a mutator with the same name - I'm not sure how well is this done but... we do have side effects as result of mindless copy-paste-ing habits. Let's take in account package UTDMSkaarjBerserker and mutator used (created in run-time):

Not entirely relevant to this thread ... but does it actually matter if the UTDMSB picks up stuff during the game? Can be a seen as a bonus for the player that kills it as it drops the stuff for the player to pick up

I wonder if a patch for the game as whole should be expected to address problems with individual custom mods and mutators or, more to the point, whether it can - after all there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of custom mods and mutators and they can't all be checked for flaws. If something doesn't work properly then those who consider this important can adopt the simple solution of not using it - after all, the UTDM variants are hardly a significant part of the game as a whole and those who want to use them can do so and continue to ignore or put up with the flaws, depending on how they actually impact a game. I don't use the UTDM variants much - the log spam they create is somewhat annoying - but I can't say I've seen any significant in-game effects.

Overall, though, I would agree with you that the UTDM variants provide a salutory lesson - don't take stuff out of context (the UTDMT was originally made for a specific purpose in a specific map) and modify it without any thought about the effect of those modifications.

[sektor2111]

Not entirely relevant to this thread ... but does it actually matter if the UTDMSB picks up stuff during the game?

I'm not interested about how many errors are spread in "games" which others are playing if they don't care about anything. Relevant ? ... YES, and you can read again what I posted - exactly, I was talking about FUNCTIONS REPLACEMENT if you can understand what is about . To not forget that some SetEnemy fixes are making these worst than they are right now due to the trash embedded in these packages bugging the patch. Replacing functions will allow admins to patch a lot garbage floating around ( deleting sh!t logs included ) and making it to work as it should - of course, messed up classes based on their bad names causing a soup of objects with the same names but from different packages might be hard to solve... but... these are more like notes for whoever want to know, I have already two packages with those UTDM things and I think I won't use any longer what is coming with those maps, my packages seem to work properly , right now I'm doing fine tuning and testing.

For a new 469 patch - perhaps an add-on actor boosted by a C++ native would be welcomed for doing replacements - THEY ARE NEEDED...

Code: Select all

ScriptWarning: VoiceFemaleOne CTF-UTDM-Falls-Valley_rS1480_h1.VoiceFemaleOne0 (Function Botpack.ChallengeVoicePack.PlayerSpeech:010B) Accessed None 'PlayerReplicationInfo'
ScriptWarning: VoiceFemaleOne CTF-UTDM-Falls-Valley_rS1480_h1.VoiceFemaleOne0 (Function Botpack.ChallengeVoicePack.PlayerSpeech:010B) Accessed None 'PlayerReplicationInfo'
ScriptWarning: VoiceFemaleOne CTF-UTDM-Falls-Valley_rS1480_h1.VoiceFemaleOne0 (Function Botpack.ChallengeVoicePack.PlayerSpeech:010B) Accessed None 'PlayerReplicationInfo'

Even newer 469 stock needs to be REPLACED.

More shorter: I gave a sample demonstrating that a functions replacement feature might be needed more than expected and then we can have all kind of solutions for messed up packages.

[OjitroC]

Perhaps you ought to post a request over on GitHub and report the issue with PRI with Botpack.ChallengeVoicePack.PlayerSpeech? (I don't think you're putting these in the right places as I'm sure you're entirely serious in what you've written).

[Feralidragon]

Perhaps you ought to post a request over on GitHub and report the issue with PRI with Botpack.ChallengeVoicePack.PlayerSpeech? (I don't think you're putting these in the right places as I'm sure you're entirely serious in what you've written).

He's been told that dozens of times already, he only wants to rant about stuff, and not really actually make any meaningful contribution like actually reporting stuff there like he should.

[OjitroC]

He's been told that dozens of times already, he only wants to rant about stuff, and not really actually make any meaningful contribution like actually reporting stuff there like he should.

Yeah, I realise that - hence the .

I agree that there isn't much point in posting stuff here about issues with 469 - the only way they are going to get solved in by using the required reporting mechanism.

[sektor2111]

And if you are good great guys, why you don't do these reports yourselves and waiting others to do that instead ? I think I told this for times, I'm not going to subscribe anywhere called GitHub - I'll go there only when I'll be capable to write some C++ lines as long as once arrived there I would like to show some "How To" not only mooing about bugs but writing a few lines correctly, for lousy UScript stupid junks I won't subscribe there...
Note: If is about C++ knowledge - if I would know that language, when it comes to UT you can imagine that I would update my servers without talking anything anywhere - I got tired off those lousy stock codes for years ago and rules which were keeping bad things alive instead of fixing them.
And what I'm saying are more like personal opinions - if are taken in account it's Okay, if not I'm not going to update anything as long as in XXI century after 20 years perhaps I was expecting more than bells and pink butterflies as feed-back for anything.

@Admins: Don't you think it's time to lock this thread as long as posting other extra-opinions it's not recommended/welcomed ?

[OjitroC]

And if you are good great guys, why you don't do these reports yourselves and waiting others to do that instead ? I think I told this for times, I'm not going to subscribe anywhere called GitHub

I do report issues/bugs that I come across with 469b - I can't report other people's issues as I don't have a full understanding of them nor can I describe the 'circumstances' in which they happen.

I too had doubts about opening an account on GitHub, for a variety of reasons, but eventually decided that that was the only way in which to make a useful contribution to ironing out issues. After all one can hardly complain about the developers not fixing bugs/issues (nor undertaking enhancement/improvements that fall within the scope of their agreement with Epic) if one does not bring them to their attention in the manner that suits them best - personally I can't see a problem with that but obviously that's a personal decision. There are occasions when mooing is useful

[Feralidragon]

And if you are good great guys, why you don't do these reports yourselves and waiting others to do that instead ?
[...]

Are you seriously asking why we don't report your problems for you?
I don't think that even deserves a reply.

@Admins: Don't you think it's time to lock this thread as long as posting other extra-opinions it's not recommended/welcomed ?

Don't you think it's time for you to finally start wearing the big boy pants and stop overdramatizing everything people say to you like a small child?
That's seriously getting old by now.

This entire topic exists as a way to announce the patch release, and is open so people can discuss it.
Those discussions may of course be about problems, new features, whatever is on your mind concerning the patch, no one is saying otherwise, nor preventing you to do it.

However, it's very simple: if you want the problems looked at and fixed, you use the means the developers doing the actual work ask you to use.
If not, then they won't get resolved.

If you're fine with that and you genuinely just want to rant about them here, that's fine too, which you just admitted here:

And what I'm saying are more like personal opinions - if are taken in account it's Okay, if not I'm not going to update anything as long as in XXI century after 20 years perhaps I was expecting more than bells and pink butterflies as feed-back for anything.

thus confirming what I said before.

I just wanted people to know what your true intent is with these posts, and the fact they are not meant to be necessarily productive for the discussion of the patch itself, so they don't waste their precious time in discussing something out with you when it will clearly not result on anything of actual substance in the end, that's all.

[sektor2111]

The fact said before it's actually more simple, if you don't get what is about you can keep talking about anything else OUT of 469 subject bringing discussions about people not about the UT patch - I'm not sure if I need to read anything else which is not UT related not even for 227 if it's useless for UT..

If anyone will request over there adding "functions replacement" then nobody from developers will not need to fix anything from X bugged functions, but user will do that or turning packages after needs. Anyone using similar broken tools will have the same results. By Not using these packages this doesn't mean that they don't have bugs - which CAN BE SOLVED this way or I can think at whatever Remapping Packages feature, a class from a Level pointed to another package, perhaps configurable, using ScriptedPawn from UnrealShareII not UnrealShare or such. But if these are not interesting to be posted here, okay I won't talk about anything for 469 or whatever, me one I can live with my adjusted stock and XC 24 so I think I'm not going to bother you with ideas - as I can see, this is not a good thing, and I'll move things in private for fixing these "assets" until some powerful patch will be shared some day. In other hand I can use my default strategy, if I don't like what is being said in a topic, I'm not reading it - I think this one is easier, and then I won't need to share any ideas which I'm thinking about.
Cya another time !