Is there any reason not to use oldunreal's patches?

[Blaster9078]

Hello, newbie here,
I got ut99 in the last gog sale and instantly checked pcgamingwiki which pointed me here.
The title sums up perfectly the question I have here.
Would there be any downsides to using the community patches? Like losing compatibility with some servers or mods?
Or are all servers pretty much already conditioned to the community patches?
I'm looking forward to enjoying this game and meeting people around it.
Thank you for your time

[Shrimp]

From an ordinary player point of view, no, there's really no downside. The patches are also mandated to be network compatible with the previous/final official patch release, so you should be able to join servers regardless of version.

I believe there are some edge cases where some specific or esoteric mods may have issues, but for ordinary players who just want to play some DM or CTF, and almost all other mods, on- and offline, there's really no downside.

(there will likely be a slew of posts following this detailing all sorts of technical stuff, posting code snippets, etc; but for you as a regular player with a PC likely built in the last 10 years, it should have little bearing on you and you should have no issues)

[Barbie]

I heard that Windows XP is not supported any more.
But AFAIK all changes in UT should keep the compatibility with the 436 version regardless of server or client. See compatibility notes for details.

[Feralidragon]

A reason to not use them is if they break anything on your end that you deem essential to work.
Although you can always report these problems for them to get fixed.

However, generally they fix a LOT more stuff than what they break, so realistically is just like any other game update: there's no good reason to keep using the old version.

For those fearing that it might break something beyond repair (which doesn't really happen as far as I know), you can copy your install elsewhere, and patch the copy to try it out.
I have myself about 4 installs, each with a different version.

I heard that Windows XP is not supported any more.

Only from 469c and onwards.
Those still using Windows XP will always be able to install 469b, which is already a major upgrade in terms of speed and stability (pretty much a must have in my opinion).

[Blaster9078]

From an ordinary player point of view, no, there's really no downside. The patches are also mandated to be network compatible with the previous/final official patch release, so you should be able to join servers regardless of version.

A reason to not use them is if they break anything on your end that you deem essential to work.
Although you can always report these problems for them to get fixed.

However, generally they fix a LOT more stuff than what they break, so realistically is just like any other game update: there's no good reason to keep using the old version.

This is pretty much all the things I was worried about. Thank you for your quick responses. I'll install the patch for the next time I play.

See compatibility notes for details.

Oh damn I should have checked that before going on here, thank you.

[sektor2111]

469b and WindowsXP
After spending some hours in the past for making some dynamic coronas whatever dynamic lights, I figured that renders from 469b work harder against my lights (placed inside some meshes) while prior versions are not having any sort of issue. I don't have plans to not play maps which I did especially for myself in a realistic format... The rest of things with networking and packages I did not check, I think I'm not curious at all. However, renders to me look faster.

Editor 469b
Impressive geometry building in some Redux edit - 436 and 451b were a piece of S...!t in some convex tunnel doing their best for adding an invisible obstruction... In 469b that spot is normally OKAY.

Textures subject.
I could use this Editor for solving bugs added by 227 whatever "fixes".

Scripted Checks and Paths tweaking.
7++ times slower than 436 (451 is utter trash). I don't have patience for waiting these executions.
Certain "Lists" concerning actors recommended or hinted through builders might crash Editor based on whatever mouse-click, or certain combinations of ViewPorts settings and "switch view" operations - 436 never crashed here - this is probably due to what was "fixed" at Galaxy Driver.

Misc:
Deleted nodes "recovered" won't show ObjectFlags. Deleting a Node in 469b is "removing" ReachSpecs offenders but... are not deleted even if in C++ this could be done under 10 ms.
A new ViewPort created by user might go in HOMs and so becoming useless.
A map which is purged from debris - the same map purged from 436 has a smaller size. What exactly is being held in 469b and why do we need "bytes" attached ?

Version 469c - Conclusions only as long as I cannot run it.
DevPath was changed/powered up but... still leaving useless data in Level and not very logic flight routes - I see what "paths" were done there... Actually we can generate a huge navigation network completely useless for 436 to 451 games. In other hand 436 + XCv24 is a top combination - I won't go off-topic here with capabilities.

Edit: 469b -> Native Actor function PlayerCanSeeMe() was fixed . ( because it was crashing games with Bots - actually ALL GAMES even without any Bot ) Said function did not only not have a sanity check, but it was a completely lousy thing - not because of short range used but because you could see actor placed behind you - someone from Epic has an eye on his back and no, it's not a tattoo. Do you think now it works normally (469b) ? It's a joke...

DM-PCanSee.7z

Edit2: Look how does it work in 227i - almost 180 degrees when you get closer - You don't see anything but... it's visible...

And now if some monsters did not work as expected (whatever UTDMT), I was wondering about other natives concerning these visual stuff... Such as SeePlayer HearNoise LineOfSight CanSee etc the rest of them...

[Dennis]

My reason to not run it is the same as ACE namely network traffic not accounted for. I get network traffic with ACE and v469x that is not mentioned anywhere at least nowhere I can find. I asked about this earlier in ACE thread and author clearly saw but did not answer so I go figure info about it is unknown or not for me to know. So that is my personal reason not to use new versions.

[anth]

I asked about this earlier in ACE thread and author clearly saw but did not answer so I go figure info about it is unknown or not for me to know.

I had not, in fact, seen that message.

I get network traffic with ACE and v469x that is not mentioned anywhere at least nowhere I can find.

You will have to be more specific about the traffic you're seeing in v469x. Network traffic in general is quite common in online games.

[Eternity]

Windows OS itself (especially 10) on home PCs generates a lot of traffic that is either unknown or not for us to know...

What for v469a/b/c - we have been inspecting its client and server network activity within a long time, nothing unknown or unexpected found so far. Also, in over than 1000 github issues i don't see anything related. This means, with very high probability, no such problem exists.

[Dennis]

[You will have to be more specific about the traffic you're seeing in v469x. Network traffic in general is quite common in online games.

I can not be more specific but to say that my network monitor flagged v469x for trafficing without running this has not happened with any of the stock patches.

[Buggie]

my network monitor

It is exact name of software?

[Eternity]

If application produces traffic being not running, then it is definitely not alright... Because application that is not running can not produce any traffic.
Except some unsolicited incoming traffic that in some cases may still come from another network peers for a while after exit, which is normal in online games.

[anth]

[You will have to be more specific about the traffic you're seeing in v469x. Network traffic in general is quite common in online games.

I can not be more specific but to say that my network monitor flagged v469x for trafficing without running this has not happened with any of the stock patches.

That is simply impossible. No application will generate network traffic without running. Here are just a couple of the things that could be happening here:
1. It's possible that your network monitor simply warns you because the 469a and 469b patches contain libcurl. Libcurl is an immensely popular networking library. We use it to download MD5 file list updates, but only if you explicitly enable the feature. The MD5 checking and auto-update features are disabled by default and we only use libcurl on servers. However, since barely anyone uses these features and because malware scanners often flag libcurl as a suspicious file, we've removed libcurl from the 469c patch. There's some more info here, here and here.
2. Your network monitor might be showing you a misleading or false positive warning.
3. Your network monitor might be warning you because the server connects to a few "master servers" that the 436-451 versions did not use. Game servers connect to these master servers to advertise themselves in the server browser. Similarly, clients connect to the master servers to fetch the list of active game servers. Two of the three original master servers were taken offline quite a while ago, so the 469 patches added a few new master servers to replace them. You can remove the entries for these servers in the game ini if necessary, but we recommend keeping them.

[Que]

Be cool if 469 would update itself when new versions released.

[Buggie]

Strictly speaking in UT Browser already implement some notification for that.
When you open server browser (F4) - first tab with news is html page which is depends from your game client. And there can be some info.
Even in v436 there can be suggest update to v469c, for example.

But this stuff placed on epic servers. And there not stub for latest UT.

Not sure if this possible/allowed alter.