Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Discussions about everything else
User avatar
ExpEM
Adept
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:48 am

Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by ExpEM »

The guys over at OldUnreal.com have done a fantastic job with the UT469 patches but aren't able to bring in new features like they have been doing with the Unreal227 patches.
This is because of legal stuff with Epic (aka permission to add to Unreal but not UT).
As it stands, the Unreal227 patches are a FAR more advanced version of the engine we know and love, and combining that with Dot's Botpack.u for 227 why are we still using UT at all?
For years now many of us have been building maps in Unreal227 then porting them over to UT. Why not stream line the process and just stick within 227?

I'm interested in what you all think, maybe we could add a new board here specifically for UT on 227?
Signature goes here.
Teflon
Novice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 3:02 am

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by Teflon »

The reason why 469 isn't as advanced as 227 is because one of the projects goals is to maintain compatibility with the myriad of mods made for UT99 over the years. If every UT99 player and server suddenly jumped ship to 227 with Botpack without any problems, then people would bitch about X mod or Y mutator they really liked not working. This is the correct call with a game that has a huge catalogue of custom content.
User avatar
ExpEM
Adept
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:48 am

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by ExpEM »

Teflon wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:22 am The reason why 469 isn't as advanced as 227 is because one of the projects goals is to maintain compatibility with the myriad of mods made for UT99 over the years. If every UT99 player and server suddenly jumped ship to 227 with Botpack without any problems, then people would bitch about X mod or Y mutator they really liked not working. This is the correct call with a game that has a huge catalogue of custom content.
You are correct with this in a way, I'm not suggesting the 469 patch becomes 227 and breaks all the old mods, 227 was designed in such a way to prevent breaking Unreals mods.
I'm suggesting we stop using UT99 altogether and use Unreal227 + Dot's Botpack.u
Signature goes here.
User avatar
OjitroC
Godlike
Posts: 3613
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:46 pm

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by OjitroC »

ExpEM wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:49 am I'm suggesting we stop using UT99 altogether and use Unreal227 + Dot's Botpack.u
Does Unreal227 + Dot's Botpack.u = UT99? Does that combination enable all the content made for UT to run in Unreal 227j/k?

If not, then that's one reason not to do so.
User avatar
anth
Adept
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by anth »

Unreal+Botpack227 is compatible with UT in the same way that UT+Oldskool is compatible with Unreal: the games can load each other's stock content and (mostly) reproduce the gameplay in offline games. In online games, these compatibility packages only work if the server and all clients use the same setup.
User avatar
OjitroC
Godlike
Posts: 3613
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:46 pm

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by OjitroC »

anth wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:49 pm Unreal+Botpack227 is compatible with UT in the same way that UT+Oldskool is compatible with Unreal:
So that means that the compatibility is limited and, for the ordinary user, can only be determined by trial and error? Stuff using Unreal-only assets won't run in UT with or without Oldskool so presumably the opposite is true?
anth wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:49 pm .. the games can load each other's stock content and (mostly) reproduce the gameplay in offline games.
The issue is not so much with stock content but with the vast range of custom content for UT out there. If that won't run in Unreal 227j/k then there is little point in switching to Unreal?

As an aside, I have the Botpack for Unreal 227 but much of the UT 'stuff' like the gametypes and models don't show up in the relevant Unreal Menus - oddly (or perhaps not) the mutators do.
Masterkent
Novice
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2022 3:19 pm

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by Masterkent »

anth wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:49 pmIn online games, these compatibility packages only work if the server and all clients use the same setup.
That is true only partly. An Unreal 227 client may ignore packages found in Paths and in the cache in case if their versions are not compatible with the ones that are used on a server. Hence, strict package conformance is not required in most cases.

A 227 client cannot ignore mismatches only in case if some conflicting net-required packages are already loaded in the memory. In this situation, a user still has a good chance to successfully join the online game by executing "Disconnect" which usually unloads all conflicting packages from the memory (however, most users don't know about this very simple method and tend to just give up when getting mismatch errors).   
Auto merged new post submitted 2 minutes later
OjitroC wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:45 pmAs an aside, I have the Botpack for Unreal 227 but much of the UT 'stuff' like the gametypes and models don't show up in the relevant Unreal Menus - oddly (or perhaps not) the mutators do.
At this moment, there is at least one working implementation that offers selection of Botpack game types and player models via menus:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/botpack227/d ... botpack227

Here's the list of ported files that should be installed to make the basic functionality available in offline mode:

1) Botpack.u + Botpack227_Base.u + UTMenu.u + Botpack.int;
2) UTGameMenu227.u + UTGameMenu227.int (this mod should be manually enabled via the Mod submenu or by editing Unreal.ini);
3) UMapMod.u + UMapModClient.u + B227_MapFix.u + B227_MapFix.ini;
4) multimesh.u + multimesh.int - if you want to use UT bonus pack player/bot models;
5) Botpack227_Extras.u - if you want to play with Unreal 1 player models.

An online deathmatch game can be tested, for example, on the NEWBIESPLAYGROUND.NET Tournament DeathMatch server (the current address is unreal://176.9.50.118:11155).

Note that you may join an online game on this server without installing anything on your Unreal 227 client (however, then you won't be able to choose UT player model via menus).
User avatar
OjitroC
Godlike
Posts: 3613
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:46 pm

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by OjitroC »

Masterkent wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 5:57 pm At this moment, there is at least one working implementation that offers selection of Botpack game types and player models via menus:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/botpack227/d ... botpack227
Thanks for that link. Shortly after I made my previous post in this thread I went looking online and came across that - I downloaded it and had a look ... but eventually decided not to install it as there seemed to be little point in playing UT99 in Unreal when I can play UT99 in UT99.
Masterkent
Novice
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2022 3:19 pm

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by Masterkent »

OjitroC wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 6:36 pmthere seemed to be little point in playing UT99 in Unreal when I can play UT99 in UT99.
That is true. I implemented my port of Botpack because I wanted to play campaigns like Operation Na Pali, Project Xenome, and Seven Bullets in cooperative mode with Unreal players (most of which don't use UT clients). If not this, I wouldn't even bother to do such a work.

There are only minor reasons to play UT SP under Unreal 227:
- widescreen fix for HUD and first-person view for weapons;
- some bug-fixes in Botpack that are not included in UT 469 yet + bug-fixes for SP campaings;
- optional centered position of PulseGun (for those who prefer centered view for all weapons).

In case of Coop game, 227 seems to be much more preferrable than UT now, since I spent years fixing various issues in UT campaings for U1 and I've never seen any decent coop-fixes for native UT.
User avatar
_21
Average
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:51 am

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by _21 »

There is a difference between the audience of people.
I'll give you a list of some things that online UT players care about:

framerates, netcode, stability, compatibility

Graphics, audio, and other fancy engine features can all be sacrificed for the above.

If the map/mod/renderer causes framedrops, crashes or unpredictable behavior then it won't be played online no matter how good it looks or what features it has.
And all it takes is to place one decoration in the wrong place for it to break the gameplay flow.

I myself I'm still mainly on 436 due to compatibility problems I stumbled upon in 469 I prefer the stability over the bleeding edge.

Now I'm not saying that its impossible to change this, but you better have a good quality assurance and a smooth release otherwise whatever re-platforming you propose it will be rejected by online players.
Masterkent
Novice
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2022 3:19 pm

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by Masterkent »

_21 wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:29 pmI'll give you a list of some things that online UT players care about:

framerates, netcode, stability, compatibility
Speaking of netcode, UT436 client has an annoying bug that leads to nasty desyncs when using side-dodges and rotating your camera. It becomes noticeable while playing with high ping (100+ ms). This issue was fixed in both UT469c and U227j (independently from each other).




227j also lets you use dodging right after landing client-side, while UT469c waits for landing on the server side and only then allows you to perform the next dodge move (obviously, this delay increases the disadvantage of playing with high ping, because players with low ping can dodge more often).

Netcode of Botpack projectiles was heavily changed in B227. In this port, they're much less prone to desyncs in online game than in native UT, and it's unlikely that UT will ever support such a high degree of synchronization due to compatibility concerns.

Stability of 227j (as client and server) is good enough for me. 227i is prone to crashing. I can't speak of UT, since I rarely play it.

I don't claim that 227j + B227 can be a replacement for UT (it can't for obvious reasons), but nevertheless this platform definitely has its own strong sides.
User avatar
ExpEM
Adept
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:48 am

Re: Is it time we all moved to Unreal 227?

Post by ExpEM »

Thank you all for the feedback!
In the future I will most likely develop some U227 based UT maps as an experiment to see how the community reacts.
Signature goes here.