Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

General Announcements about Unreal Tournament and UT99.org
User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:12 pm

Smirftsch wrote:
Feralidragon wrote:@Smirftsch: Ok, thanks for the explanation, now I understand it. Just like papercoffee there, the only thing I can't understand now is what's going on Epic's heads to not let the UT patch coming out as they permitted 227g, as since they permit 227g is because they trust you and in your capacity, perhaps they should give a 2nd shot to UT and you to somewhat "clear up" UTPG's failure with at least the "fixing patch".
But yes, having 227g is already very good indeed.
I wouldn't bet on this. Currently I have more the feeling that they only tolerate what I'm doing because I did it before and still have the NDA. Doubt it has something to do with trust.
Normally you could think, with aging of Unreal and UT1 they would care even less. I mean they make their money with sales of the Uengine 3 mostly anyway.
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:31 pm

Sry for those who are still waiting for it. Actually the release was actually set for today but something happened which did lead to an other delay (I stopped counting).
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
papercoffee
Godlike
Posts: 9276
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Personal rank: coffee addicted !!!
Location: Cologne, the city with the big cathedral.
Contact:

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by papercoffee » Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:52 pm

NP...as long as it isn't like Duke Nukem 4 Ever... :mrgreen:

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:59 pm

papercoffee wrote:NP...as long as it isn't like Duke Nukem 4 Ever... :mrgreen:
You never know. :ironic2:
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
Feralidragon
Godlike
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:24 pm
Personal rank: Work In Progress
Location: Liandri

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Feralidragon » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:12 pm

papercoffee wrote:NP...as long as it isn't like Duke Nukem 4 Ever... :mrgreen:
It has a "forever" in its name to start with :lol: (what did you think it meant? lol), the 227g patch doesn't, so I guess we can still wait for it :mrgreen:

Skillz

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Skillz » Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:14 am

Smirftsch wrote:
Yes, thats indeed a good question and to be honest, I can't really answer that question, I can only tell you what I think.
I think that Epic was kinda disappointed with the results of the UTPG team and 4.51 was no "entire success". Why they didn't release 4.68 is still a bit unclear to me, as it would have fixed some things already. From what I know they wanted to finish the Mac port first, or something in there wasn't ready yet. Then the team became more and more inactive. I have the 4.68 sources also.
I was grouped into UTPG but was never really part of this team. When I joined UTPG formally they were pretty inactive already, but I was never really part seen technically, as I concentrated at this time only on Unreal 227.
The next "unsuccessfully project" in their eyes was probably 227 itself, although I continuously worked on it, the progress was slow. Shambler was at this time with me, but soon moved on to 2k4. Jeff Morris was the responsible person at Epic when I started and he always tried to help and was always there for questions, but he left a few years ago and nowadays now all this NDA stuff seems to be only a pain in the ass for them.
When I released 227f, Epic was already very uninterested whats going on, and nowadays I only get the answer for anything I write to them: "we don't have the bandwidth to", such as the question for making a new UT patch based on the 227g code with "We don't have the bandwidth to oversee such a project", the answer for releasing my Mac OSX port was exactly the same. You can imagine how disappointing it is- I have a fully working OS X port (well except OpenAL at the moment) and can't release it.
Basically I have anything needed to make a new UT patch, but I'm not allowed to.
At the moment it seems I can be happy that they don't deny me 227g.
All hope is that they will show some interest again in the old games if 227g becomes a success.
Well next time Epic uses the excuse "we don't have the bandwidth to" you tell them you do, then you get with me and I'll make it happen.

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:29 am

Skillz wrote:
Smirftsch wrote:
Yes, thats indeed a good question and to be honest, I can't really answer that question, I can only tell you what I think.
I think that Epic was kinda disappointed with the results of the UTPG team and 4.51 was no "entire success". Why they didn't release 4.68 is still a bit unclear to me, as it would have fixed some things already. From what I know they wanted to finish the Mac port first, or something in there wasn't ready yet. Then the team became more and more inactive. I have the 4.68 sources also.
I was grouped into UTPG but was never really part of this team. When I joined UTPG formally they were pretty inactive already, but I was never really part seen technically, as I concentrated at this time only on Unreal 227.
The next "unsuccessfully project" in their eyes was probably 227 itself, although I continuously worked on it, the progress was slow. Shambler was at this time with me, but soon moved on to 2k4. Jeff Morris was the responsible person at Epic when I started and he always tried to help and was always there for questions, but he left a few years ago and nowadays now all this NDA stuff seems to be only a pain in the ass for them.
When I released 227f, Epic was already very uninterested whats going on, and nowadays I only get the answer for anything I write to them: "we don't have the bandwidth to", such as the question for making a new UT patch based on the 227g code with "We don't have the bandwidth to oversee such a project", the answer for releasing my Mac OSX port was exactly the same. You can imagine how disappointing it is- I have a fully working OS X port (well except OpenAL at the moment) and can't release it.
Basically I have anything needed to make a new UT patch, but I'm not allowed to.
At the moment it seems I can be happy that they don't deny me 227g.
All hope is that they will show some interest again in the old games if 227g becomes a success.
Well next time Epic uses the excuse "we don't have the bandwidth to" you tell them you do, then you get with me and I'll make it happen.
I had to read your sentence at least 3 times to understand.. maybe!
Do you want to tell us, you could do there ANYTHING with ut and the permission?
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
anth
Skilled
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by anth » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:22 pm

Not having the bandwidth to oversee a project has nothing to do with internet bandwidth. What they're saying is that they have noone to follow your progress so if you happen to screw up really bad, they won't know about it until it's way too late. Imagine if you released a patch with spyware or 3rd party middleware (which epic doesn't have the license for) in it. Ultimately everything you release is still Epic's responsibility. So long story short, the problem here is that they'd have to _hire_ someone who actually cares about these old games.

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:58 pm

Uhhh Skillz, plz dont tell me you really thought of INTERNET bandwidth ... :ironic2:

Damn, I should have wondered about your sudden possible "connections".
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
>@tack!<
Adept
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:51 pm
Personal rank: lol?

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by >@tack!< » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:02 pm

business jargon yay

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:06 pm

In the meantime I know the reason for the delay.
well it was delayed because some people started complaining about UPak bugs now again
grenade launcher grenades going off sync
rocket launcher alt fire not working at all properly
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
--=PsyXandeR=--
Inhuman
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:25 pm
Personal rank: BANANAS
Location: Unknown?

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by --=PsyXandeR=-- » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:40 pm

... wait you got fully working OsX port? Does editor work there as well?

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:53 pm

--=PsyXandeR=-- wrote:... wait you got fully working OsX port? Does editor work there as well?
Osx Port. Yearh, of course he haz it. But... saldy no permission.

Image


End!
You dont have to dream or ask any further about that, Alex. An OSX version of 227g is EVEN MORE unlikely than a UT Port of the patch at all, because epic said already NO.
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

User avatar
anth
Skilled
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by anth » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:08 pm

Epic already said no to a new UT patch as well.

User avatar
Creavion
Godlike
Posts: 4497
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:23 pm
Personal rank: About to be non-act.
Location: Germany, Lower Saxony

Re: Why UT COULD get a "small" engine upgrade Comment Thread

Post by Creavion » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:10 pm

anth wrote:Epic already said no to a new UT patch as well.
So? Show me. Without any valid sources - which I doubt you have - this statement is meaningless. The osx port e.g is forbidden because epic itself would need a licence or something like that.
About to be non-active
My very last UT map project: CTF-FacePalm (tropical CTF-Face remake)
Why do I leave? click here
What I want to do next: Joining an UDK team (uncertain however) and improve 3D modelling and texture editing skills
Thanks to those who visibly supported me until/at the end!
My reactivated account on indiedb.com.

Post Reply