ZP or NEWNET: which is better ?

Discussions about Servers
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:46 am

Re: ZP or NEWNET: which is better ?

Post by rsbloom44 » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:42 am

dual monitors and just answer chat with mic? the only thing that sucks about twitch now is the 30 second delay they added


Re: ZP or NEWNET: which is better ?

Post by UT99.org » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:04 am

billybill wrote:well streaming is already handicapping your latency, dual monitor for the graphics why not. lol. I will get this working and post up a guide, just hasn't been high on my priorities. I have some time to put into it now so see what I can come up with

and the above stuff, yes it would be bad-ass to play from web and would help bring more users. I thought UE1 engine was already ported to web? They used UT as the game to port it to to linux, mac, playstation, dreamcast. There must be someone pushing for a UT version to go with what they already showed us. Or am I wrong and they only ported UE3 to web?

User avatar
Posts: 5313
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:24 pm
Personal rank: Work In Progress
Location: Liandri

Re: ZP or NEWNET: which is better ?

Post by Feralidragon » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:10 pm

UT doesn't work directly on web, only UT3 does and not exactly in the web but rather in Flash.
For the technical aspect of making UT working in a browser, strictly speaking its not impossible, but the way it would be possible it's illegal.
The only way for it to not be illegal is for it to work through a browser plugin which launched the installed game into the browser, that way it would be legal but people would still have to install the game locally themselves through their CD, Steam or other source.
That's why a "UT Live" of sort to speak is impossible right now, in one hand either you have to install it anyway defeating the purpose of the "Live" concept anyway, or for it to not be directly needed it would make Epic send you a "nice" C&D letter instead.

Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:18 am

Re: ZP or NEWNET: which is better ?

Post by Tim-_- » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:08 pm

It's all about how you present the product. Long story short, Epic has always supported and encouraged the creation and distribution of free mods. If the mod is advertised as anything more (i.e., a full game) or if you force people to pay for the mod, then you'll run into some legal issues. And of course certain scenarios will make things more complicated, since it's not all black and white, but Epic is good people and I have a strong feeling they would enjoy seeing some kind of nostalgic UT99 extension rather than see it as a threat to their business. I currently live an hour away from their headquarters, so I might even pay them a visit should they inquire about my work.
Feralidragon wrote:UT doesn't work directly on web, only UT3 does and not exactly in the web but rather in Flash.
If you're talking about the Epic Citadel Demo, it actually isn't flash. It's all javascript, asm.js to be specific, which is a subset of javascript that allows for near native performance (on asm.js compatible browsers) and gives C/C++/etc. developers a chance to port their code to the browser with no need for Flash or other plugins. However, this is cool and all and it opens up a lot of possibilities, but until we make more strides in the whole WebGL department, the browser isn't at all an ideal target for first person shooters. Other types of games could be awesome though.

I'm surprised everyone hear doesn't already know all about it, so here are some more links for the Epic Citadel (and in-browser UT3) stuff:

https://blog.mozilla.org/mbest/2013/06/ ... f-firefox/
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases ... ed-asm-js/
http://www.unrealengine.com/showcase/mo ... c_citadel/

User avatar
Posts: 5313
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:24 pm
Personal rank: Work In Progress
Location: Liandri

Re: ZP or NEWNET: which is better ?

Post by Feralidragon » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:22 pm

Nah, I didn't mean the Citadel one (I tried that one when it first came out, I wouldn't call it "UE3 running on web", but mostly a "UE3 *may* run on web in the future", as it performed very poorly and nothing can really be done with it yet, as expected from the early implementation).
I meant one where they ran UT3 itself in Flash.

For the illegality of things: a plugin to run it in the browser using the game installed in your machine locally, is obviously ok. However, something like Quake Live, where the server uploads the game to your browser (pretty much), it's illegal since you can't simply have a client connect to your server and have him download the UT essential files (binaries, retail packages and whatnot) from your server in order to play it, he has to install it in his own machine (and by install it, I mean have it physically somewhere already in his machine or pen drive or so). That was pretty much my point.
If Epic liberated the latter from the legal point of view, then even I would be already implementing something like that myself, and it wouldn't take that much time to do so (probably).

User avatar
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:59 am
Personal rank: ...

Re: ZP or NEWNET: which is better ?

Post by Wises » Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:20 pm

Embedding the UT client into a browser window is different to loading from a server. So in the method iam describing it is basically installed client-side. Checks and links can be provided via the WebPortal..

If bIsInstalled=True;

Load DB etc
Load and embed UT99
Import Settings (from client) into WebPortal.
Game on.

Else {
Download UT99 > Payment Processor > Download > Install > Run > Configure via WebPortal > Export to client .ini's

Download UT99 Demo > Download > Install > Run > Configure via WebPortal > Export to client.ini's.
// functions related to client settings are clientside dependant only
// No need to exchange data with Server (Client-Side Settings)
// Clients can still manually adjust .ini's and files...

WebPortal Queries the MS-List(s) and imports to DB Server ..
Individual servers are queried on timer and are monitored.
Also the MSList(s) is queried and updated frequently although instead of using clients MSQueries
The server hosting the Portal returns the Server list based on MasterServers().

^alot more can be done with this info once referenced via DB imo.
And having this info visible via WebPortal with integrated UT99 interface would
Provide a quick and easy access point to information.

In fact.. totally replacing the in-game browser (in window mode) with a WebPortal alternative.
Would give more flexibility and control over the data returned by individual servers.

From here is easy to create search functions , black/white lists.. arrangement of gametypes , player/server stats.. etc.

Also being in the gui.. allows clients to immediately see certain details pertaining to current games and rankings etc.
Could pull also the chat interface from the game to the WP.. and have more control over that as well.. (like webadmin)
Except being able to utilise html/php/css/js/whatever instead of basic htm.

Idk.. something like this.. i guess.


Re: ZP or NEWNET: which is better ?

Post by UT99.org » Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:25 am

billybill wrote:If I've heard correctly on windows 8 you can use the store from the 'start' menu's app menu to buy halo and be playing wtihin moments. 2 clicks. No doubt they will do this with gears as well. I still think MS would mess up UT if given the rights. The binaries were sold to many many other games, but no they cannot with UT? hmm. Well hopefully they will post these one day even if it tabes a collab effort for rights. And the good people and OldUnreal will know what to do :D

The fixes to the timing issue speedstep is a major. And hell , I could do a writeup on a huge list of the uscripted bugs

Regarding the streamining button'go live' 'stop broadcast' the programs themselves can do this with hotkeys. The demo recording in UT is awesome as well, and at the time games like starcaft didn't have it (they add it in later patch). Well done for UT paving the way in things like this that are used DAILY for tournament recaps and seeing finer detail that watching a movie alone wouldn't provide