UT4-UE4-UDK disappointed.

Discussions about everything else
User avatar
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:03 pm

Re: UT4-UE4 disapointed.

Post by FXANBSS » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:51 pm

The only who can create Unreal 3 is Unreal itself, so do not try to make that game guys because it's BAD.
If you guys want to create something like Unreal 3 then it needs to be called "Unreal 3 Fan Project" or something else, though i know the game would be complete crap, then just let Unreal to make his game. (With a complete different environment of course.)

Posts: 1547
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:31 am

Re: UT4-UE4 disapointed.

Post by Red_Fist » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:32 pm

Gustavo6046 wrote:It would take years to code a Unreal 3! Did you lose the notion suddenly?

I am better of sharpening my C++ and mapping skills while that.

Also holy sh!t they made the void hollow. Why Epic? It was so fun and easy to just take bites of a space, instead of making SIX FREAKING BRUSHES for a single cubic room! I hate Epic's new employees! I'd rather pay the original devs so they can work in UT4 once for all! It is good if it is free, but I don't care, because old ideals are great ideals and Cliff knows that a paid game knocks trollers that try to troll GitHub repos and other open-source projects!

PS: oh, nevermind my edits. I found a model that is a rough cylinder and the texture is a completely unrelated easter egg.
You can make one large add brush, then work the same way as ut99, just carve out the inside with subtracts.
Then have all the sky outside the add brush, all you need to do is carve a hole to see the sky.

I am going to start by using one of my maps, import a T3D file, I have a few that are all one brush, and see how it goes.
Baby steps

As for static meshes I always think they are better used for difficult brushes, deco, movers now, or other things brushes can't cope with.
Meshes don't look right or people making them use outlandish "materials" trying to make them look too good. The same reason they now have localized cube map actors, it looked stupid before, the reflections didn't match up

The ammo in UT4 is ugly, looks stupid. just because you can improve something don't make it right.

The sniper is horrid, and the reticule is overblown, just a circle with a crosshair please. Then they show that offset orange offset beam as you shoot, it's dorky, unneeded and does not improve a damn thing. This it what I said first when UT2004 or UT2003 came out, "the levels are meshed to death" it looks more artificial than UT99.

Wish they would quit trying to change it under the so-called idea that we can make it better because we can fuss around in modeling programs. I will stick with BSP but use meshes like pipes, deco or when needed.

There is a huge amount of good things, it's I would rather be motivated to make a lasting map, like MH or SP , only if we had a set of pawns to place or spawn.
Binary Space Partitioning

User avatar
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: UT4-UE4 disapointed.

Post by PrinceOfFunky » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:29 pm

SilverSound wrote:I know that some hardcore Ut99 fans are hard at work making some assets to replicate Ut99 in this new engine.
Like me :D https://forums.unrealtournament.com/sho ... 00tabulous
"Your stuff is known to be buggy and unfinished/not properly tested"

Posts: 1547
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:31 am

Re: UT4-UE4 disappointed.

Post by Red_Fist » Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:46 pm

Well I managed to get one of my maps, as a one brush map, some lighting, and had to scale the map by 1.85 larger. Not sure if that is exact, or if the ratio of dimensions stays exact, because they also change the eye height, so my only way is to see, then jump height in UT99 map, but 1.85 is close-ish.

But unfortunately all these kids want the floaty feel, when you jump it's like slow motion and you don't jump or fall fast enough. It's sort of like as you move forward and jump there is too much air control and too little gravity.
I did manage to find the gravity in the editor, but it's more a combination of gravity, ground and air friction, and game speed. It doesn't feel like you are jumping more like an arc through low gravity.

However they made UT99 for player physics I wish they would do the same thing again.
I have to get into UT99 just so examine how I really am moving, I can't really explain the difference but they ruined it. I presume it's to cater to people who have the need to jump off walls and all that BS.

I presume it's all built into the blueprint for the level or world settings or the players blueprint section.
Still wanting a SP map though or MH

And I presume they block you from using other blueprints, cuz golly gee we wouldn't want the copyright to blow up the planet like a super nova, now would we.
Last edited by Red_Fist on Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Binary Space Partitioning

User avatar
Posts: 3229
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:26 pm
Personal rank: Chaos Evangelist
Location: Kernow, UK

Re: UT4-UE4 disapointed.

Post by Dr.Flay » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:48 pm

The scale is why the physics is different. It has been explained many times.
Even when all values have been scaled to mimic UT99 it does not feel the same.
The only way to get the UT99 physics is if they make everything the same size as it was in 1998.
Do you really need to use a modern engine to render something so low quality ?
If you want an exact game of UT99 then play UT99. It still works.
UT4 will never be UT99 with new gtaphics. Any company that simply re-releases exactly the same game repeatedly would starve, or become a shareware author.

Posts: 1547
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:31 am

Re: UT4-UE4 disapointed.

Post by Red_Fist » Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:37 pm

Keep in mind I have the exact same level as UT, all BSP, but I increased the size by the same so I fit the same jump height.

It's not that, it's when you jump up you usually have a higher peak, then go down, this you move up slow and travel on a smooth arc the middle of the jump is highest. But you also land slower, the whole operation needs to be speeded up, and snappy to fall and move up.

A good example would be if you are jumping down a ramp in UT99, it feels like you are jumping down and farther. This UT4 is more like a movement, no landing or accelerating upwards.

I seriously disagree with that, in that, it's a program that is programmed, no matter what the size is it makes no difference to the computer calculations, only for the human.
Therefor you make it work in a fashion that it is programmed to do, the SAME effect no matter what game or size.

If you were to play an old airplane simulation, and changed the game engine, would that simulation NOT be the same as the actual real airplane all over again ? That argument falls flat, not buying it.
it's because people wanted it different so they can hop along and do gymnastics.

After looking at the player settings, it looks like you can alter it in many ways. I got something messed up because this is moving way to slow, like a rolling car ride, roller coaster feel while jumping and moving forward, or like riding a horse taking huge strides but slow, don't feel like it's a human on the ground at all.

Not sure what I did, but I am moving around much faster and better now. now I have to see if I can get my old textures in there somehow. I ended up at scaling the UT99 brush to 2, I have this area in UT99 that you can just fit, no play on the sides at all and wish I made it a tiny bit bigger. So now I have it where I can still jump the right height, and a little play side to side in that area. Seems I could still go a little bigger and still be able to jump out of this spot.

So I don't know but if you resize things from UT, try scaling things at 2, maybe a tad less, or a tad more, but 2 is where you could start.
IMPRESSIVE, you should see the list of file types UT4 ed can import. :!:

Well I think I am back to uninstalling the whole mess, again, just not worth all the trouble. It's not that bad once you work around on it for a while, but the whole thing evolves around programing and the blueprints and multiplayer, or else.
Binary Space Partitioning

Post Reply